Fascinating article in FT on our infrastructure problems compared to other countries. Suspect it's not just the nimbys... but bit worrying there weren't more ideas to stop nimbyism.
Sadly the article contains the garbage claims being discussed yesterday about the % of British cities with mass transit systems - managing to get both the overall number of cities and the number of systeems completely wrong. I suspect most of their other claims are equally poorly researched.
You are not '... the last person on this planet who should be giving people advice on how to stop looking like a brash, arrogant, out of touch elitist.' There are numerous people who are ahead of you in this respect, including many on this Site, myself included.
Step aside, young man.
Pissing down with rain here in Gloucestershire. Summer over then?
Blue sky and sunshine in Ayrshire, nice for football later.
Bit patchy on the IoW. Lovely sunshine punctuated with torrential showers.
Inflation quite noticeable when eating out here. Food nice enough.
Fascinating article in FT on our infrastructure problems compared to other countries. Suspect it's not just the nimbys... but bit worrying there weren't more ideas to stop nimbyism.
It’s a reaction to a reaction to a…
The planners went mad in post war Britain. Some of the schemes that were planned were utterly insane - such as to turn London into a grid of motorways.
We all know and love the award winning architecture that got built.
Naturally, resistance to the inhuman type of planning and building arose.
Equally naturally, the planners, developers and architects didn’t modify their behaviour that much. They had a fight on their hands and pushed back.
So the other side gathered more resources and pushed back… round and round it went
Both sides became ever more rigid. Both sides got the politicians to create laws on their behalf.
The resulting legal and procedural conflicts then spawned a third party. The planning enquiry industry. Which is worth billions.
The counter example is interesting. Offshore wind farms. Since fish don’t vote, and the requirement for quick, affordable Green power, the politicians granted an end run round the enquiry industry. There are planing issues and process, but it is streamlined to a considerable extent.
I think offshore wind goes down the NSIP route. So it is the same thing really.
You are correct about the planning Inquiry industry. There was a case recently where there was a 2 day Inquiry in the north of england where the Council had conceded before the event. So everyone sat there for 2 days and there was nothing really to discuss, except to hear the objectors. The Inspector then concluded that the Council had been unreasonable in not granting planning permission and awarded costs against it. The costs claimed by applicant cover just the appeal proceedings (presumably comprising the hiring of a barrister and consultant team to go along to the 2 day non event) were just short of half a million pounds, paid by Council tax payers.
(By contrast, the Inspector who actually sits in these NSIP or planning Inquiries and listens to the KC's argue out every point in tedious detail, and then makes the decision is paid about £60k per year. )
Barristers make a great play of the situation being described above being the result of political incompetence in Councils and have even suggested that Councillors should be personally liable to pay for the costs in the situation described above. In response I made the suggestion that perhaps the government should cap legal costs claimed back after planning Inquiries at something like legal aid rates; however that was obviously met with silence.
An even better way forward would be to make the award of costs truly exceptional rather than increasingly routine. Much less chance of expensive barristers turning up if those instructing them are bearing the costs.
It is quite unusual actually in my experience, but what is frustrating about it, is the award of costs is actually pretty random. It just seems to go on the attitude of the Inspector. In the case above the Inspector initiated the award of costs. Rightly in my view but the problem is the amount claimed. It will have been agreed with the Council so little real scope for public scrutiny of it.
I think Barristers are drawn to this work because of the commercial rewards through rising land values where development is granted planning permission. Increasingly some of them delude themselves in to thinking they are on the side of the angels in working for property developers. It makes for great entertainment if you read their linkedin posts.
"To cheer yourself up, buy yourself a beer". "But I have no means to pay for a beer". " Don't be a pessimist, buy yourself a beer, it will cheer you up".
As for Dishi, he's a good manager but not it seems a politician. Not that it matters much. Tories are cattle trucked whoever they have in charge, and whatever they do now.
All they can do is wait, and hope they suffer a drubbing rather than an extinction event.
November 2024...can't see it happening sooner, or later.
Can we get back to May elections? Please?
If Wishi Washi thinks that going to a miserable British population as we descend into a miserable British winter in the particularly miserable month of November is going to benefit them, then bring it on….
They're going to cling on hoping that something changes. Perhaps the economy finally gives people a bit of relief. Perhaps Labour shat themselves. Perhaps a lovely war breaks out where can be told to wave our little flags.
Whatever. If you are going to get battered by calling an election, don't call an election.
Rubiales playing the victim and getting a standing ovation from the Spanish football association. WTF? Also, pass the sick bucket.
Why don't he just apologise and say he was overcome with excitement? It was a kiss, ffs, not aggravated rape.
This is a headline issue? Jeepers.
You understand the importance of symbols, surely ? And the point is he did the exact opposite of apologising.
It’s not as though football itself belongs on the front pages, but it’s there all the time.
He did apologise, just insincerely and kind of aggressively before starting to blame her......
If he was sixty plus one might consider it generational, but he is 46, how on earth is he expecting this approach to pan out well for him?
They need to get a life , one small spontaneous kiss when they had won world cup. Good on him for telling them where to go.
Twenty years ago it would have passed without comment. Nowadays its going to be an issue. Regardless of which of those societal norms is better, his insincere apology followed by going after her with a legal case is both doomed to failure and pretty stupid.
As for Dishi, he's a good manager but not it seems a politician. Not that it matters much. Tories are cattle trucked whoever they have in charge, and whatever they do now.
All they can do is wait, and hope they suffer a drubbing rather than an extinction event.
November 2024...can't see it happening sooner, or later.
Can we get back to May elections? Please?
If Wishi Washi thinks that going to a miserable British population as we descend into a miserable British winter in the particularly miserable month of November is going to benefit them, then bring it on….
They're going to cling on hoping that something changes. Perhaps the economy finally gives people a bit of relief. Perhaps Labour shat themselves. Perhaps a lovely war breaks out where can be told to wave our little flags.
Whatever. If you are going to get battered by calling an election, don't call an election.
Never fight a battle that you are certain to lose. The GE will be as late as possible.
Rubiales playing the victim and getting a standing ovation from the Spanish football association. WTF? Also, pass the sick bucket.
Why don't he just apologise and say he was overcome with excitement? It was a kiss, ffs, not aggravated rape.
This is a headline issue? Jeepers.
You understand the importance of symbols, surely ? And the point is he did the exact opposite of apologising.
It’s not as though football itself belongs on the front pages, but it’s there all the time.
I heard him apologising , absolutely pathetic stushie about nothing, far bigger things in the world that should be headlines rather than over some pathetic overpaid arses who kick a small ball about.
Fascinating article in FT on our infrastructure problems compared to other countries. Suspect it's not just the nimbys... but bit worrying there weren't more ideas to stop nimbyism.
Sadly the article contains the garbage claims being discussed yesterday about the % of British cities with mass transit systems - managing to get both the overall number of cities and the number of systeems completely wrong. I suspect most of their other claims are equally poorly researched.
Wasn't trying to make any kind of point about Climate Change. Merely to note that the severe winters of 1978-9 and 2009-10 finished off already less than popular governments. And that we are well past due another.
Also: 1963/4 was the coldest winter for 200 years according to the Met Office - followed by a change of govt in 1964 after 13 years of Tory rule.
Rubbish, it was 1962/3. And I should have remembered that.
To be fair, there was a change of government in 1963. And if there had been an election in 1963 the Labour party would have won not a narrow victory but a stonking one.
Rubiales playing the victim and getting a standing ovation from the Spanish football association. WTF? Also, pass the sick bucket.
Why don't he just apologise and say he was overcome with excitement? It was a kiss, ffs, not aggravated rape.
This is a headline issue? Jeepers.
You understand the importance of symbols, surely ? And the point is he did the exact opposite of apologising.
It’s not as though football itself belongs on the front pages, but it’s there all the time.
I heard him apologising , absolutely pathetic stushie about nothing, far bigger things in the world that should be headlines rather than over some pathetic overpaid arses who kick a small ball about.
Far bigger things, like systemic misogyny perhaps?
Rubiales playing the victim and getting a standing ovation from the Spanish football association. WTF? Also, pass the sick bucket.
Why don't he just apologise and say he was overcome with excitement? It was a kiss, ffs, not aggravated rape.
This is a headline issue? Jeepers.
You understand the importance of symbols, surely ? And the point is he did the exact opposite of apologising.
It’s not as though football itself belongs on the front pages, but it’s there all the time.
He did apologise, just insincerely and kind of aggressively before starting to blame her......
If he was sixty plus one might consider it generational, but he is 46, how on earth is he expecting this approach to pan out well for him?
They need to get a life , one small spontaneous kiss when they had won world cup. Good on him for telling them where to go.
Twenty years ago it would have passed without comment. Nowadays its going to be an issue. Regardless of which of those societal norms is better, his insincere apology followed by going after her with a legal case is both doomed to failure and pretty stupid.
I think Malc's being sarcastic, it being rather unlikely that someone who has just won the world cup needs to "get a life"!
Fascinating article in FT on our infrastructure problems compared to other countries. Suspect it's not just the nimbys... but bit worrying there weren't more ideas to stop nimbyism.
Sadly the article contains the garbage claims being discussed yesterday about the % of British cities with mass transit systems - managing to get both the overall number of cities and the number of systeems completely wrong. I suspect most of their other claims are equally poorly researched.
We did learn that heavy rail and buses aren’t public transport, though.
That’s another reason not to build HS2, of course. If it’s not public transport, it must be private transport. Which is bad.
Fascinating article in FT on our infrastructure problems compared to other countries. Suspect it's not just the nimbys... but bit worrying there weren't more ideas to stop nimbyism.
Sadly the article contains the garbage claims being discussed yesterday about the % of British cities with mass transit systems - managing to get both the overall number of cities and the number of systeems completely wrong. I suspect most of their other claims are equally poorly researched.
We did learn that heavy rail and buses aren’t public transport, though.
That’s another reason not to build HS2, of course. If it’s not public transport, it must be private transport. Which is bad.
Number of cockups the DfT have made over it, it's more pubic transport.
As for Dishi, he's a good manager but not it seems a politician. Not that it matters much. Tories are cattle trucked whoever they have in charge, and whatever they do now.
All they can do is wait, and hope they suffer a drubbing rather than an extinction event.
November 2024...can't see it happening sooner, or later.
Can we get back to May elections? Please?
If Wishi Washi thinks that going to a miserable British population as we descend into a miserable British winter in the particularly miserable month of November is going to benefit them, then bring it on….
They're going to cling on hoping that something changes. Perhaps the economy finally gives people a bit of relief. Perhaps Labour shat themselves. Perhaps a lovely war breaks out where can be told to wave our little flags.
Whatever. If you are going to get battered by calling an election, don't call an election.
One advantage of a late autumn election for Rishi is that when Labour win they’ll be taking over in cold miserable weather and darkness.
So no a new dawn has broken has it not. No things can only get better. Labour will be starting their new government under a heavy grey cloud.
Sunak is clearly relieved that, for now, average wage rises are running ahead of inflation, but that absolutely doesn't mean people feel better off.
Most things are much more expensive than two years ago, their taxes higher and their mortgages much higher. So crowing about it is a silly thing to do. No-one feels better off.
Instead, he should put the focus on Labour's plan - I still haven't heard a peep from Starmer on inflation.
Oh. I thought inflation was still ahead of pay rises? I'm that case Sunak really does need to have home a message along the lines of, "It's been tough, but the worst is past now, and it will only get better from here unless Labour ruin it."
The clown has no chance, reality is many things are double the price they were just a few years ago , they don't have 750 million in banks/cayman islands to ensure they don't notice.
Fascinating article in FT on our infrastructure problems compared to other countries. Suspect it's not just the nimbys... but bit worrying there weren't more ideas to stop nimbyism.
It’s a reaction to a reaction to a…
The planners went mad in post war Britain. Some of the schemes that were planned were utterly insane - such as to turn London into a grid of motorways.
We all know and love the award winning architecture that got built.
Naturally, resistance to the inhuman type of planning and building arose.
Equally naturally, the planners, developers and architects didn’t modify their behaviour that much. They had a fight on their hands and pushed back.
So the other side gathered more resources and pushed back… round and round it went
Both sides became ever more rigid. Both sides got the politicians to create laws on their behalf.
The resulting legal and procedural conflicts then spawned a third party. The planning enquiry industry. Which is worth billions.
The counter example is interesting. Offshore wind farms. Since fish don’t vote, and the requirement for quick, affordable Green power, the politicians granted an end run round the enquiry industry. There are planing issues and process, but it is streamlined to a considerable extent.
I think offshore wind goes down the NSIP route. So it is the same thing really.
You are correct about the planning Inquiry industry. There was a case recently where there was a 2 day Inquiry in the north of england where the Council had conceded before the event. So everyone sat there for 2 days and there was nothing really to discuss, except to hear the objectors. The Inspector then concluded that the Council had been unreasonable in not granting planning permission and awarded costs against it. The costs claimed by applicant cover just the appeal proceedings (presumably comprising the hiring of a barrister and consultant team to go along to the 2 day non event) were just short of half a million pounds, paid by Council tax payers.
(By contrast, the Inspector who actually sits in these NSIP or planning Inquiries and listens to the KC's argue out every point in tedious detail, and then makes the decision is paid about £60k per year. )
Barristers make a great play of the situation being described above being the result of political incompetence in Councils and have even suggested that Councillors should be personally liable to pay for the costs in the situation described above. In response I made the suggestion that perhaps the government should cap legal costs claimed back after planning Inquiries at something like legal aid rates; however that was obviously met with silence.
An even better way forward would be to make the award of costs truly exceptional rather than increasingly routine. Much less chance of expensive barristers turning up if those instructing them are bearing the costs.
It is quite unusual actually in my experience, but what is frustrating about it, is the award of costs is actually pretty random. It just seems to go on the attitude of the Inspector. In the case above the Inspector initiated the award of costs. Rightly in my view but the problem is the amount claimed. It will have been agreed with the Council so little real scope for public scrutiny of it.
I think Barristers are drawn to this work because of the commercial rewards through rising land values where development is granted planning permission. Increasingly some of them delude themselves in to thinking they are on the side of the angels in working for property developers. It makes for great entertainment if you read their linkedin posts.
As I understand it, the government managed to streamline various parts of the process for offshore wind farms. IIRC it was to do with if the proposers had proved that x wasn’t a problem (fishing, marine archeology etc) then x could be removed from the process, or some such?
Fascinating article in FT on our infrastructure problems compared to other countries. Suspect it's not just the nimbys... but bit worrying there weren't more ideas to stop nimbyism.
Sadly the article contains the garbage claims being discussed yesterday about the % of British cities with mass transit systems - managing to get both the overall number of cities and the number of systeems completely wrong. I suspect most of their other claims are equally poorly researched.
We did learn that heavy rail and buses aren’t public transport, though.
That’s another reason not to build HS2, of course. If it’s not public transport, it must be private transport. Which is bad.
Number of cockups the DfT have made over it, it's more pubic transport.
Fascinating article in FT on our infrastructure problems compared to other countries. Suspect it's not just the nimbys... but bit worrying there weren't more ideas to stop nimbyism.
Sadly the article contains the garbage claims being discussed yesterday about the % of British cities with mass transit systems - managing to get both the overall number of cities and the number of systeems completely wrong. I suspect most of their other claims are equally poorly researched.
No, you’re simply wrong. Or rather you didn’t prove the alternative.
The only decent criticism of that chart is it excluded the forms of public transport which the UK seems to have specialised in (buses and heavy rail).
Excluding buses might be allowable given the issues with bus systems (congestion, reliability), and indeed the deregulated system imposed outside London by Thatcher and only recently reversed (Manchester ubbeil its new public bus fleet yesterday). I’m not convinced by the exclusion of heavy rail.
As far as can tell there was no issues with the chart data unto itself.
Rubiales playing the victim and getting a standing ovation from the Spanish football association. WTF? Also, pass the sick bucket.
Why don't he just apologise and say he was overcome with excitement? It was a kiss, ffs, not aggravated rape.
This is a headline issue? Jeepers.
You understand the importance of symbols, surely ? And the point is he did the exact opposite of apologising.
It’s not as though football itself belongs on the front pages, but it’s there all the time.
He did apologise, just insincerely and kind of aggressively before starting to blame her......
If he was sixty plus one might consider it generational, but he is 46, how on earth is he expecting this approach to pan out well for him?
They need to get a life , one small spontaneous kiss when they had won world cup. Good on him for telling them where to go.
Twenty years ago it would have passed without comment. Nowadays its going to be an issue. Regardless of which of those societal norms is better, his insincere apology followed by going after her with a legal case is both doomed to failure and pretty stupid.
I think Malc's being sarcastic, it being rather unlikely that someone who has just won the world cup needs to "get a life"!
Mostly on here sarcasm and jesting go right over their heads
Fascinating article in FT on our infrastructure problems compared to other countries. Suspect it's not just the nimbys... but bit worrying there weren't more ideas to stop nimbyism.
Sadly the article contains the garbage claims being discussed yesterday about the % of British cities with mass transit systems - managing to get both the overall number of cities and the number of systeems completely wrong. I suspect most of their other claims are equally poorly researched.
We did learn that heavy rail and buses aren’t public transport, though.
That’s another reason not to build HS2, of course. If it’s not public transport, it must be private transport. Which is bad.
Number of cockups the DfT have made over it, it's more pubic transport.
You sound tumescent with rage over the matter.
Could have been worse he could have been pubescent.
Fascinating article in FT on our infrastructure problems compared to other countries. Suspect it's not just the nimbys... but bit worrying there weren't more ideas to stop nimbyism.
Sadly the article contains the garbage claims being discussed yesterday about the % of British cities with mass transit systems - managing to get both the overall number of cities and the number of systeems completely wrong. I suspect most of their other claims are equally poorly researched.
The issue deserves investigation, though. Our single largest infrastructure investment is notoriously ill managed and over budget, still with no certain completion date. Much of that appears to be the fault of government, but understanding exactly why, and how to improve that is of great economic importance.
Fascinating article in FT on our infrastructure problems compared to other countries. Suspect it's not just the nimbys... but bit worrying there weren't more ideas to stop nimbyism.
It’s a reaction to a reaction to a…
The planners went mad in post war Britain. Some of the schemes that were planned were utterly insane - such as to turn London into a grid of motorways.
We all know and love the award winning architecture that got built.
Naturally, resistance to the inhuman type of planning and building arose.
Equally naturally, the planners, developers and architects didn’t modify their behaviour that much. They had a fight on their hands and pushed back.
So the other side gathered more resources and pushed back… round and round it went
Both sides became ever more rigid. Both sides got the politicians to create laws on their behalf.
The resulting legal and procedural conflicts then spawned a third party. The planning enquiry industry. Which is worth billions.
The counter example is interesting. Offshore wind farms. Since fish don’t vote, and the requirement for quick, affordable Green power, the politicians granted an end run round the enquiry industry. There are planing issues and process, but it is streamlined to a considerable extent.
I think offshore wind goes down the NSIP route. So it is the same thing really.
You are correct about the planning Inquiry industry. There was a case recently where there was a 2 day Inquiry in the north of england where the Council had conceded before the event. So everyone sat there for 2 days and there was nothing really to discuss, except to hear the objectors. The Inspector then concluded that the Council had been unreasonable in not granting planning permission and awarded costs against it. The costs claimed by applicant cover just the appeal proceedings (presumably comprising the hiring of a barrister and consultant team to go along to the 2 day non event) were just short of half a million pounds, paid by Council tax payers.
(By contrast, the Inspector who actually sits in these NSIP or planning Inquiries and listens to the KC's argue out every point in tedious detail, and then makes the decision is paid about £60k per year. )
Barristers make a great play of the situation being described above being the result of political incompetence in Councils and have even suggested that Councillors should be personally liable to pay for the costs in the situation described above. In response I made the suggestion that perhaps the government should cap legal costs claimed back after planning Inquiries at something like legal aid rates; however that was obviously met with silence.
An even better way forward would be to make the award of costs truly exceptional rather than increasingly routine. Much less chance of expensive barristers turning up if those instructing them are bearing the costs.
One of the highlights of Clarkson’s farm show, was the way in which it dealt with planning issues. The local council even agreed to let cameras into the hearing, so it was clear to all that the councillors simply didn’t like the guy, and were rejecting his application (to turn a barn into a restaurant serving local produce from farms in the area) simply because they could. The costs of appealing that decision would have been well into the six figures, and couldn’t be justified in the context of the restaurant business.
"To cheer yourself up, buy yourself a beer". "But I have no means to pay for a beer". " Don't be a pessimist, buy yourself a beer, it will cheer you up".
Fascinating article in FT on our infrastructure problems compared to other countries. Suspect it's not just the nimbys... but bit worrying there weren't more ideas to stop nimbyism.
Sadly the article contains the garbage claims being discussed yesterday about the % of British cities with mass transit systems - managing to get both the overall number of cities and the number of systeems completely wrong. I suspect most of their other claims are equally poorly researched.
The issue deserves investigation, though. Our single largest infrastructure investment is notoriously ill managed and over budget, still with no certain completion date. Much of that appears to be the fault of government, but understanding exactly why, and how to improve that is of great economic importance.
Oh I agree. But these sorts of articles, riddled with errors and clearly with a bias towards one cause do nothing to help.
Yesterday I was posting about just one bit of the HS2 project - Euston Station - and the factthat the plans had been changed so many times it had doubled the cost from £2.2 billion to £4.4 billion. None of that was really due to NIMBYism nor due to contractors not doing the job properly. It was due to the fact that successive Governments had changed the design specs and requirements so much over the years.
Government's are very much to blame for much of this. Not least because they are now notorious for changing their minds whilst at the same time tryingto put all the risk onto the conractors. Developers know this and so they front load costs to make sure they are covered when the inevitable changes ocur.
Rubiales playing the victim and getting a standing ovation from the Spanish football association. WTF? Also, pass the sick bucket.
Why don't he just apologise and say he was overcome with excitement? It was a kiss, ffs, not aggravated rape.
This is a headline issue? Jeepers.
You understand the importance of symbols, surely ? And the point is he did the exact opposite of apologising.
It’s not as though football itself belongs on the front pages, but it’s there all the time.
He did apologise, just insincerely and kind of aggressively before starting to blame her......
If he was sixty plus one might consider it generational, but he is 46, how on earth is he expecting this approach to pan out well for him?
They need to get a life , one small spontaneous kiss when they had won world cup. Good on him for telling them where to go.
Twenty years ago it would have passed without comment. Nowadays its going to be an issue. Regardless of which of those societal norms is better, his insincere apology followed by going after her with a legal case is both doomed to failure and pretty stupid.
And came up with a ludicrous story along the lines of she 'lifted me up, so passionate was her embrace' so I said 'fancy a snog?' and she replied 'ooo yes, you irresistible man'.
Fascinating article in FT on our infrastructure problems compared to other countries. Suspect it's not just the nimbys... but bit worrying there weren't more ideas to stop nimbyism.
Sadly the article contains the garbage claims being discussed yesterday about the % of British cities with mass transit systems - managing to get both the overall number of cities and the number of systeems completely wrong. I suspect most of their other claims are equally poorly researched.
No, you’re simply wrong. Or rather you didn’t prove the alternative.
The only decent criticism of that chart is it excluded the forms of public transport which the UK seems to have specialised in (buses and heavy rail).
Excluding buses might be allowable given the issues with bus systems (congestion, reliability), and indeed the deregulated system imposed outside London by Thatcher and only recently reversed (Manchester ubbeil its new public bus fleet yesterday). I’m not convinced by the exclusion of heavy rail.
As far as can tell there was no issues with the chart data unto itself.
Oh dear. Still trying to shine a turd. I pointed out very clearly why you were stupid to rely on a set of data even though by your own admission you hadn't bothered to check what that data referred to or how it had been collated. But you were just too arrogant or stupid to admit you were wrong. And you are still defending the indefensible again today. Clearly you have an element of Trumpism about you. Unable to admnit when you got something wrong even though the mistake was understandable.
Fascinating article in FT on our infrastructure problems compared to other countries. Suspect it's not just the nimbys... but bit worrying there weren't more ideas to stop nimbyism.
It’s a reaction to a reaction to a…
The planners went mad in post war Britain. Some of the schemes that were planned were utterly insane - such as to turn London into a grid of motorways.
We all know and love the award winning architecture that got built.
Naturally, resistance to the inhuman type of planning and building arose.
Equally naturally, the planners, developers and architects didn’t modify their behaviour that much. They had a fight on their hands and pushed back.
So the other side gathered more resources and pushed back… round and round it went
Both sides became ever more rigid. Both sides got the politicians to create laws on their behalf.
The resulting legal and procedural conflicts then spawned a third party. The planning enquiry industry. Which is worth billions.
The counter example is interesting. Offshore wind farms. Since fish don’t vote, and the requirement for quick, affordable Green power, the politicians granted an end run round the enquiry industry. There are planing issues and process, but it is streamlined to a considerable extent.
I think offshore wind goes down the NSIP route. So it is the same thing really.
You are correct about the planning Inquiry industry. There was a case recently where there was a 2 day Inquiry in the north of england where the Council had conceded before the event. So everyone sat there for 2 days and there was nothing really to discuss, except to hear the objectors. The Inspector then concluded that the Council had been unreasonable in not granting planning permission and awarded costs against it. The costs claimed by applicant cover just the appeal proceedings (presumably comprising the hiring of a barrister and consultant team to go along to the 2 day non event) were just short of half a million pounds, paid by Council tax payers.
(By contrast, the Inspector who actually sits in these NSIP or planning Inquiries and listens to the KC's argue out every point in tedious detail, and then makes the decision is paid about £60k per year. )
Barristers make a great play of the situation being described above being the result of political incompetence in Councils and have even suggested that Councillors should be personally liable to pay for the costs in the situation described above. In response I made the suggestion that perhaps the government should cap legal costs claimed back after planning Inquiries at something like legal aid rates; however that was obviously met with silence.
An even better way forward would be to make the award of costs truly exceptional rather than increasingly routine. Much less chance of expensive barristers turning up if those instructing them are bearing the costs.
One of the highlights of Clarkson’s farm show, was the way in which it dealt with planning issues. The local council even agreed to let cameras into the hearing, so it was clear to all that the councillors simply didn’t like the guy, and were rejecting his application (to turn a barn into a restaurant serving local produce from farms in the area) simply because they could. The costs of appealing that decision would have been well into the six figures, and couldn’t be justified in the context of the restaurant business.
Good on the councillors. They've been democratically elected. They reflect the will of the local population. If they don't want a development, it means that the people don't want a development. That should be the end of the matter.
"To cheer yourself up, buy yourself a beer". "But I have no means to pay for a beer". " Don't be a pessimist, buy yourself a beer, it will cheer you up".
Fascinating article in FT on our infrastructure problems compared to other countries. Suspect it's not just the nimbys... but bit worrying there weren't more ideas to stop nimbyism.
It’s a reaction to a reaction to a…
The planners went mad in post war Britain. Some of the schemes that were planned were utterly insane - such as to turn London into a grid of motorways.
We all know and love the award winning architecture that got built.
Naturally, resistance to the inhuman type of planning and building arose.
Equally naturally, the planners, developers and architects didn’t modify their behaviour that much. They had a fight on their hands and pushed back.
So the other side gathered more resources and pushed back… round and round it went
Both sides became ever more rigid. Both sides got the politicians to create laws on their behalf.
The resulting legal and procedural conflicts then spawned a third party. The planning enquiry industry. Which is worth billions.
The counter example is interesting. Offshore wind farms. Since fish don’t vote, and the requirement for quick, affordable Green power, the politicians granted an end run round the enquiry industry. There are planing issues and process, but it is streamlined to a considerable extent.
I think offshore wind goes down the NSIP route. So it is the same thing really.
You are correct about the planning Inquiry industry. There was a case recently where there was a 2 day Inquiry in the north of england where the Council had conceded before the event. So everyone sat there for 2 days and there was nothing really to discuss, except to hear the objectors. The Inspector then concluded that the Council had been unreasonable in not granting planning permission and awarded costs against it. The costs claimed by applicant cover just the appeal proceedings (presumably comprising the hiring of a barrister and consultant team to go along to the 2 day non event) were just short of half a million pounds, paid by Council tax payers.
(By contrast, the Inspector who actually sits in these NSIP or planning Inquiries and listens to the KC's argue out every point in tedious detail, and then makes the decision is paid about £60k per year. )
Barristers make a great play of the situation being described above being the result of political incompetence in Councils and have even suggested that Councillors should be personally liable to pay for the costs in the situation described above. In response I made the suggestion that perhaps the government should cap legal costs claimed back after planning Inquiries at something like legal aid rates; however that was obviously met with silence.
An even better way forward would be to make the award of costs truly exceptional rather than increasingly routine. Much less chance of expensive barristers turning up if those instructing them are bearing the costs.
One of the highlights of Clarkson’s farm show, was the way in which it dealt with planning issues. The local council even agreed to let cameras into the hearing, so it was clear to all that the councillors simply didn’t like the guy, and were rejecting his application (to turn a barn into a restaurant serving local produce from farms in the area) simply because they could. The costs of appealing that decision would have been well into the six figures, and couldn’t be justified in the context of the restaurant business.
Good on the councillors. They've been democratically elected. They reflect the will of the local population. If they don't want a development, it means that the people don't want a development. That should be the end of the matter.
And if the councillors been fans and approved the application, that should have been the end of the matter?
Fascinating article in FT on our infrastructure problems compared to other countries. Suspect it's not just the nimbys... but bit worrying there weren't more ideas to stop nimbyism.
It’s a reaction to a reaction to a…
The planners went mad in post war Britain. Some of the schemes that were planned were utterly insane - such as to turn London into a grid of motorways.
We all know and love the award winning architecture that got built.
Naturally, resistance to the inhuman type of planning and building arose.
Equally naturally, the planners, developers and architects didn’t modify their behaviour that much. They had a fight on their hands and pushed back.
So the other side gathered more resources and pushed back… round and round it went
Both sides became ever more rigid. Both sides got the politicians to create laws on their behalf.
The resulting legal and procedural conflicts then spawned a third party. The planning enquiry industry. Which is worth billions.
The counter example is interesting. Offshore wind farms. Since fish don’t vote, and the requirement for quick, affordable Green power, the politicians granted an end run round the enquiry industry. There are planing issues and process, but it is streamlined to a considerable extent.
I think offshore wind goes down the NSIP route. So it is the same thing really.
You are correct about the planning Inquiry industry. There was a case recently where there was a 2 day Inquiry in the north of england where the Council had conceded before the event. So everyone sat there for 2 days and there was nothing really to discuss, except to hear the objectors. The Inspector then concluded that the Council had been unreasonable in not granting planning permission and awarded costs against it. The costs claimed by applicant cover just the appeal proceedings (presumably comprising the hiring of a barrister and consultant team to go along to the 2 day non event) were just short of half a million pounds, paid by Council tax payers.
(By contrast, the Inspector who actually sits in these NSIP or planning Inquiries and listens to the KC's argue out every point in tedious detail, and then makes the decision is paid about £60k per year. )
Barristers make a great play of the situation being described above being the result of political incompetence in Councils and have even suggested that Councillors should be personally liable to pay for the costs in the situation described above. In response I made the suggestion that perhaps the government should cap legal costs claimed back after planning Inquiries at something like legal aid rates; however that was obviously met with silence.
An even better way forward would be to make the award of costs truly exceptional rather than increasingly routine. Much less chance of expensive barristers turning up if those instructing them are bearing the costs.
It is quite unusual actually in my experience, but what is frustrating about it, is the award of costs is actually pretty random. It just seems to go on the attitude of the Inspector. In the case above the Inspector initiated the award of costs. Rightly in my view but the problem is the amount claimed. It will have been agreed with the Council so little real scope for public scrutiny of it.
I think Barristers are drawn to this work because of the commercial rewards through rising land values where development is granted planning permission. Increasingly some of them delude themselves in to thinking they are on the side of the angels in working for property developers. It makes for great entertainment if you read their linkedin posts.
As I understand it, the government managed to streamline various parts of the process for offshore wind farms. IIRC it was to do with if the proposers had proved that x wasn’t a problem (fishing, marine archeology etc) then x could be removed from the process, or some such?
Possibly but the consent process is i think still the same, even if the paperwork is reduced.
I think the trouble now is that the government have no incentive to improve housing delivery as it appears to have a political strategy of essentially blocking housebuilding, so they let environmental issues fester (like the nitrates issue) without any resolution. I also wonder if forcing a slowdown in the development industry is perhaps a way of dealing with inflation.
Fascinating article in FT on our infrastructure problems compared to other countries. Suspect it's not just the nimbys... but bit worrying there weren't more ideas to stop nimbyism.
Sadly the article contains the garbage claims being discussed yesterday about the % of British cities with mass transit systems - managing to get both the overall number of cities and the number of systeems completely wrong. I suspect most of their other claims are equally poorly researched.
No, you’re simply wrong. Or rather you didn’t prove the alternative.
The only decent criticism of that chart is it excluded the forms of public transport which the UK seems to have specialised in (buses and heavy rail).
Excluding buses might be allowable given the issues with bus systems (congestion, reliability), and indeed the deregulated system imposed outside London by Thatcher and only recently reversed (Manchester ubbeil its new public bus fleet yesterday). I’m not convinced by the exclusion of heavy rail.
As far as can tell there was no issues with the chart data unto itself.
Oh dear. Still trying to shine a turd. I pointed out very clearly why you were stupid to rely on a set of data even though by your own admission you hadn't bothered to check what that data referred to or how it had been collated. But you were just too arrogant or stupid to admit you were wrong. And you are still defending the indefensible again today. Clearly you have an element of Trumpism about you. Unable to admnit when you got something wrong even though the mistake was understandable.
I patiently pointed out the existence of functional urban areas, per the OECD definition, and why they were the appropriate measure to use when comparing commuter systems.
"To cheer yourself up, buy yourself a beer". "But I have no means to pay for a beer". " Don't be a pessimist, buy yourself a beer, it will cheer you up".
An optimistic would suggest a glass half full...
An engineer says the glass is oversized.
An optimist sees half a pint of milk. He says 'It is half full'. A pessimist sees half a pint of milk. He says "It is half empty". I see half a pint of milk, I say 'It is sour'.
Rubiales playing the victim and getting a standing ovation from the Spanish football association. WTF? Also, pass the sick bucket.
Why don't he just apologise and say he was overcome with excitement? It was a kiss, ffs, not aggravated rape.
This is a headline issue? Jeepers.
You understand the importance of symbols, surely ? And the point is he did the exact opposite of apologising.
It’s not as though football itself belongs on the front pages, but it’s there all the time.
I heard him apologising , absolutely pathetic stushie about nothing, far bigger things in the world that should be headlines rather than over some pathetic overpaid arses who kick a small ball about.
you think women footballers are overpaid? they are on peanuts
Fascinating article in FT on our infrastructure problems compared to other countries. Suspect it's not just the nimbys... but bit worrying there weren't more ideas to stop nimbyism.
Sadly the article contains the garbage claims being discussed yesterday about the % of British cities with mass transit systems - managing to get both the overall number of cities and the number of systeems completely wrong. I suspect most of their other claims are equally poorly researched.
Not sure what was discussed yesterday... but the central point is UK and US infrastructure costs way more to deliver than in Europe.
Is that untrue? It feels true given the little I know.
Fascinating article in FT on our infrastructure problems compared to other countries. Suspect it's not just the nimbys... but bit worrying there weren't more ideas to stop nimbyism.
It’s a reaction to a reaction to a…
The planners went mad in post war Britain. Some of the schemes that were planned were utterly insane - such as to turn London into a grid of motorways.
We all know and love the award winning architecture that got built.
Naturally, resistance to the inhuman type of planning and building arose.
Equally naturally, the planners, developers and architects didn’t modify their behaviour that much. They had a fight on their hands and pushed back.
So the other side gathered more resources and pushed back… round and round it went
Both sides became ever more rigid. Both sides got the politicians to create laws on their behalf.
The resulting legal and procedural conflicts then spawned a third party. The planning enquiry industry. Which is worth billions.
The counter example is interesting. Offshore wind farms. Since fish don’t vote, and the requirement for quick, affordable Green power, the politicians granted an end run round the enquiry industry. There are planing issues and process, but it is streamlined to a considerable extent.
I think offshore wind goes down the NSIP route. So it is the same thing really.
You are correct about the planning Inquiry industry. There was a case recently where there was a 2 day Inquiry in the north of england where the Council had conceded before the event. So everyone sat there for 2 days and there was nothing really to discuss, except to hear the objectors. The Inspector then concluded that the Council had been unreasonable in not granting planning permission and awarded costs against it. The costs claimed by applicant cover just the appeal proceedings (presumably comprising the hiring of a barrister and consultant team to go along to the 2 day non event) were just short of half a million pounds, paid by Council tax payers.
(By contrast, the Inspector who actually sits in these NSIP or planning Inquiries and listens to the KC's argue out every point in tedious detail, and then makes the decision is paid about £60k per year. )
Barristers make a great play of the situation being described above being the result of political incompetence in Councils and have even suggested that Councillors should be personally liable to pay for the costs in the situation described above. In response I made the suggestion that perhaps the government should cap legal costs claimed back after planning Inquiries at something like legal aid rates; however that was obviously met with silence.
An even better way forward would be to make the award of costs truly exceptional rather than increasingly routine. Much less chance of expensive barristers turning up if those instructing them are bearing the costs.
One of the highlights of Clarkson’s farm show, was the way in which it dealt with planning issues. The local council even agreed to let cameras into the hearing, so it was clear to all that the councillors simply didn’t like the guy, and were rejecting his application (to turn a barn into a restaurant serving local produce from farms in the area) simply because they could. The costs of appealing that decision would have been well into the six figures, and couldn’t be justified in the context of the restaurant business.
Good on the councillors. They've been democratically elected. They reflect the will of the local population. If they don't want a development, it means that the people don't want a development. That should be the end of the matter.
And if the councillors been fans and approved the application, that should have been the end of the matter?
It would have been. Approvals can't be appealed.
As for the cost of his appealing being prohibitive, I don't believe it. You don't require 5* barristers to appeal a planning decision.
Fascinating article in FT on our infrastructure problems compared to other countries. Suspect it's not just the nimbys... but bit worrying there weren't more ideas to stop nimbyism.
Sadly the article contains the garbage claims being discussed yesterday about the % of British cities with mass transit systems - managing to get both the overall number of cities and the number of systeems completely wrong. I suspect most of their other claims are equally poorly researched.
Not sure what was discussed yesterday... but the central point is UK and US infrastructure costs way more to deliver than in Europe.
Is that untrue? It feels true given the little I know.
Today’s twitter discussion is to note similar issues in all of the English speaking countries and to question whether it is legacy of our common legal tradition.
One of the clear issues preventing infra reform is the weird denialism that afflicts minds like Richard Tyndall.
As was noted, this propensity to “bristle” when an issue is identified manifests as a refusal to admit any problem at all.
But as everyone knows, the only way to solve a problem is to admit you have one.
Too many voters refuse to admit there is an issue. These voters tend to be older and make up the voting bloc for the current administration.
I would love the UK to have amazing futuristic infrastructure, but is this really the massive issue that so many of us on PB seem to be making it? We live on a small island. Time spent getting from place to place is relatively small - we're a far more efficiently working place than the USA in terms of that. I don't think infrastructure is the Holy Grail we're looking for. 20 minutes off the journey time to Birmingham - OK, but what desperate issues do these sorts of moderate improvements resolve, and what economic krakens do they release?
Rubiales playing the victim and getting a standing ovation from the Spanish football association. WTF? Also, pass the sick bucket.
Why don't he just apologise and say he was overcome with excitement? It was a kiss, ffs, not aggravated rape.
This is a headline issue? Jeepers.
You understand the importance of symbols, surely ? And the point is he did the exact opposite of apologising.
It’s not as though football itself belongs on the front pages, but it’s there all the time.
I heard him apologising , absolutely pathetic stushie about nothing, far bigger things in the world that should be headlines rather than over some pathetic overpaid arses who kick a small ball about.
you think women footballers are overpaid? they are on peanuts
I’ve been to see Durham Women a few times, there is always only ever a few hundred there. I’ll probably go again this season.
The salaries reflect the level of interest and income the game draws. The salaries they draw are probably fair in that respect and those at the top will be doing pretty well. Not as well as top men players. But still doing pretty well.
Mind you a soccer player going on loan to Gillingham was on Twitter talking about his 21K a week salary.
One of the clear issues preventing infra reform is the weird denialism that afflicts minds like Richard Tyndall.
As was noted, this propensity to “bristle” when an issue is identified manifests as a refusal to admit any problem at all.
But as everyone knows, the only way to solve a problem is to admit you have one.
Too many voters refuse to admit there is an issue. These voters tend to be older and make up the voting bloc for the current administration.
I would love the UK to have amazing futuristic infrastructure, but is this really the massive issue that so many of us on PB seem to be making it? We live on a small island. Time spent getting from place to place is relatively small - we're a far more efficiently working place than the USA in terms of that. I don't think infrastructure is the Holy Grail we're looking for. 20 minutes off the journey time to Birmingham - OK, but what desperate issues do these sorts of moderate improvements resolve, and what economic krakens do they release?
I think there are three distinct connectivity issues holding the UK back.
One is the lack of capacity on our main lines, for which HS2 is supposed to be a solution.
A second is the fact that “the North”*, which is one of the most densely populated regions in Europe, grossly underperforms, and it is thought that intercity connectivity is one issue - in that cannot compete as a joined up region.
A third is that our cities - save London - missed out on “agglomerative” productivity because our lack of mass transit limits the number of commuters (the labour pool) who are able to get into city centres where the largest number of productive jobs are located. Thus, British cities underperform both European and US peers significantly.
*The great swathe of population running from Liverpool through Leeds and Sheffield.
There are are other more micro issues, like Welsh connectivity etc but maybe these are the main ones.
One of the clear issues preventing infra reform is the weird denialism that afflicts minds like Richard Tyndall.
As was noted, this propensity to “bristle” when an issue is identified manifests as a refusal to admit any problem at all.
But as everyone knows, the only way to solve a problem is to admit you have one.
Too many voters refuse to admit there is an issue. These voters tend to be older and make up the voting bloc for the current administration.
Wrong yet again on just about every point. I don't refuse to admit there are problems - indeed I have been pointing out probllems all the way through whilst at the same time pointing out the specific idiocy of your misinterpretation of data sets. Pointing out your failings does not in any way undermine the arguments that there is an issue with the way we do large infrastructure developments. But your failings make the situation worse by misleading people about the causes.
And of course I have not voted for this current administration in any of its forms at any time. The last time I voted foreither the governing party or its main opposition was over 20 years ago.
One of the clear issues preventing infra reform is the weird denialism that afflicts minds like Richard Tyndall.
As was noted, this propensity to “bristle” when an issue is identified manifests as a refusal to admit any problem at all.
But as everyone knows, the only way to solve a problem is to admit you have one.
Too many voters refuse to admit there is an issue. These voters tend to be older and make up the voting bloc for the current administration.
I would love the UK to have amazing futuristic infrastructure, but is this really the massive issue that so many of us on PB seem to be making it? We live on a small island. Time spent getting from place to place is relatively small - we're a far more efficiently working place than the USA in terms of that. I don't think infrastructure is the Holy Grail we're looking for. 20 minutes off the journey time to Birmingham - OK, but what desperate issues do these sorts of moderate improvements resolve, and what economic krakens do they release?
For the infra we're talking about (light rail/tram/metro in cities) more people can reliably reach more jobs, which is consistent with the UK's mediocre performance for Birmingham sized cities.
But it means spending money upfront and having inconvenience while things are built. Especially with our model.of planning and construction.
One of the clear issues preventing infra reform is the weird denialism that afflicts minds like Richard Tyndall.
As was noted, this propensity to “bristle” when an issue is identified manifests as a refusal to admit any problem at all.
But as everyone knows, the only way to solve a problem is to admit you have one.
Too many voters refuse to admit there is an issue. These voters tend to be older and make up the voting bloc for the current administration.
Wrong yet again on just about every point. I don't refuse to admit there are problems - indeed I have been pointing out probllems all the way through whilst at the same time pointing out the specific idiocy of your misinterpretation of data sets. Pointing out your failings does not in any way undermine the arguments that there is an issue with the way we do large infrastructure developments. But your failings make the situation worse by misleading people about the causes.
And of course I have not voted for this current administration in any of its forms at any time. The last time I voted foreither the governing party or its main opposition was over 20 years ago.
You keep calling me an idiot, but your main issue is that you disagree with the OECD on what an urban area is.
I’m afraid your general fury is clouding your ability to calmly read and interpret others’ posts.
You’re position as a self-appointed prophet in the wilderness doesn’t really excuse from the central allegation of being a “bristler”.
One of the clear issues preventing infra reform is the weird denialism that afflicts minds like Richard Tyndall.
As was noted, this propensity to “bristle” when an issue is identified manifests as a refusal to admit any problem at all.
But as everyone knows, the only way to solve a problem is to admit you have one.
Too many voters refuse to admit there is an issue. These voters tend to be older and make up the voting bloc for the current administration.
The problem isn’t that we less public transport than the US. That’s just fatuous.
The problem is that infrastructure costs are high and the inflation in that sector is out of control.
So we have buses, lots of buses by some countries standards. And that’s what we are going to be getting lots more of. Because, as we saw about barn conversions in Yorkshire, the development is awesome. Until it changes your locality.
EDIT: the power storage debate is a part of this. Many schemes are cheaper, better etc. But because you don’t require planning permission to park up a couple of ISO containers of batteries and hook them up to the grid, that’s the system that will win in this country.
One of the clear issues preventing infra reform is the weird denialism that afflicts minds like Richard Tyndall.
As was noted, this propensity to “bristle” when an issue is identified manifests as a refusal to admit any problem at all.
But as everyone knows, the only way to solve a problem is to admit you have one.
Too many voters refuse to admit there is an issue. These voters tend to be older and make up the voting bloc for the current administration.
Wrong yet again on just about every point. I don't refuse to admit there are problems - indeed I have been pointing out probllems all the way through whilst at the same time pointing out the specific idiocy of your misinterpretation of data sets. Pointing out your failings does not in any way undermine the arguments that there is an issue with the way we do large infrastructure developments. But your failings make the situation worse by misleading people about the causes.
And of course I have not voted for this current administration in any of its forms at any time. The last time I voted foreither the governing party or its main opposition was over 20 years ago.
You keep calling me an idiot, but your main issue is that you disagree with the OECD on what an urban area is.
I’m afraid your general fury is clouding your ability to calmly read and interpret others’ posts.
You’re position as a self-appointed prophet in the wilderness doesn’t really excuse from the central allegation of being a “bristler”.
It only took thirteen years but Labour finally has developed some lines and attacks on the economy that actually works. It feels like a millennium since the Tories were saying Labour crashed the car, don’t give them back the keys.
Rubiales playing the victim and getting a standing ovation from the Spanish football association. WTF? Also, pass the sick bucket.
Why don't he just apologise and say he was overcome with excitement? It was a kiss, ffs, not aggravated rape.
This is a headline issue? Jeepers.
You understand the importance of symbols, surely ? And the point is he did the exact opposite of apologising.
It’s not as though football itself belongs on the front pages, but it’s there all the time.
I heard him apologising , absolutely pathetic stushie about nothing, far bigger things in the world that should be headlines rather than over some pathetic overpaid arses who kick a small ball about.
you think women footballers are overpaid? they are on peanuts
Fascinating article in FT on our infrastructure problems compared to other countries. Suspect it's not just the nimbys... but bit worrying there weren't more ideas to stop nimbyism.
Sadly the article contains the garbage claims being discussed yesterday about the % of British cities with mass transit systems - managing to get both the overall number of cities and the number of systeems completely wrong. I suspect most of their other claims are equally poorly researched.
Not sure what was discussed yesterday... but the central point is UK and US infrastructure costs way more to deliver than in Europe.
Is that untrue? It feels true given the little I know.
It is true. At least in my opinion. The argument yesterday was not about that basic fact but about the misuse - or misunderstanding - of data. It doesn't affect the overall debate although in the context of mass transit systems it does paint a somewhat different picture of the current state of UK systems.
Basically the FT article has relied on some OECD data without actually looking at how it was collected or what it referred to. It gives the impression there are many more cities with over 250,000 population in the UK that actually exist because it includes a lot of the rural catchment areas. (So for example the New Forest is included in Southhampron Urban area). This is useful in the context of what the data was originally intended for but has no relevance when discussing urban mass transit systems. Unless of course you want to portray the UK sutuation as being worse than it actually is - though it is bad enough anyway.
GW messed up. By his own admission he didn't check how the data was collected or what it referred to. He simply used it sight unseen. He is now a bit tetchy because he has painted himself into a corner over it.
I think Truss was and is a nutter. But she was right about one thing: Britain needs growth.
It is precisely because we don’t have growth, and an ageing demographic, that our taxes are rising - via bracket creep - from the low 30s % of GDP where Britain has traditionally been - to the high 30s - ie “German levels”.
Albeit without the commensurate quality of public services.
People say, wrongly, that Truss’s position on growth is just a truism. Well no, not quite. There’s actually very little consensus behind “growth” in modern day Britain.
Voters - and most commentators - are more motivated by small boats, nimbyism, the NHS, and the cost of living. Fair enough, but they fail to realise that without growth, most of these problems get worse.
What kind of growth? Labour supply or productivity?
Both?
We need GDP growth per capita. We need to stop talking about GDP without the denominator.
Labour supply going up so long as construction matches, with sufficient proportionate new roads, new houses, new schools, hospitals etc to match population growth is absolutely fine, but we've not had that.
Labour supply going up, but GDP per capita going down, and no investment, is not a success even if it records GDP going up.
The only way GDP capita can fall when the labour supply is increasing is if the number of dependents increases by a larger percentage.
So, in almost all cases, boosting the labour supply will see GDP per capita increase.
Of course it can fall even with out dependents. Its simple maths. If gdp per capita is say 50k, add 5 million people only generating 25k gdp. GDP goes up.
see worked example below
50 million people gdp = 2,500,000,000 gdp per capita = 50k
add 5 million people each generating 25k gdp extra gdp rises by 125,000,000 to a total of 2,625,000,000 but gdp per capita is now 47.72k
Fascinating article in FT on our infrastructure problems compared to other countries. Suspect it's not just the nimbys... but bit worrying there weren't more ideas to stop nimbyism.
It’s a reaction to a reaction to a…
The planners went mad in post war Britain. Some of the schemes that were planned were utterly insane - such as to turn London into a grid of motorways.
We all know and love the award winning architecture that got built.
Naturally, resistance to the inhuman type of planning and building arose.
Equally naturally, the planners, developers and architects didn’t modify their behaviour that much. They had a fight on their hands and pushed back.
So the other side gathered more resources and pushed back… round and round it went
Both sides became ever more rigid. Both sides got the politicians to create laws on their behalf.
The resulting legal and procedural conflicts then spawned a third party. The planning enquiry industry. Which is worth billions.
The counter example is interesting. Offshore wind farms. Since fish don’t vote, and the requirement for quick, affordable Green power, the politicians granted an end run round the enquiry industry. There are planing issues and process, but it is streamlined to a considerable extent.
I think offshore wind goes down the NSIP route. So it is the same thing really.
You are correct about the planning Inquiry industry. There was a case recently where there was a 2 day Inquiry in the north of england where the Council had conceded before the event. So everyone sat there for 2 days and there was nothing really to discuss, except to hear the objectors. The Inspector then concluded that the Council had been unreasonable in not granting planning permission and awarded costs against it. The costs claimed by applicant cover just the appeal proceedings (presumably comprising the hiring of a barrister and consultant team to go along to the 2 day non event) were just short of half a million pounds, paid by Council tax payers.
(By contrast, the Inspector who actually sits in these NSIP or planning Inquiries and listens to the KC's argue out every point in tedious detail, and then makes the decision is paid about £60k per year. )
Barristers make a great play of the situation being described above being the result of political incompetence in Councils and have even suggested that Councillors should be personally liable to pay for the costs in the situation described above. In response I made the suggestion that perhaps the government should cap legal costs claimed back after planning Inquiries at something like legal aid rates; however that was obviously met with silence.
An even better way forward would be to make the award of costs truly exceptional rather than increasingly routine. Much less chance of expensive barristers turning up if those instructing them are bearing the costs.
One of the highlights of Clarkson’s farm show, was the way in which it dealt with planning issues. The local council even agreed to let cameras into the hearing, so it was clear to all that the councillors simply didn’t like the guy, and were rejecting his application (to turn a barn into a restaurant serving local produce from farms in the area) simply because they could. The costs of appealing that decision would have been well into the six figures, and couldn’t be justified in the context of the restaurant business.
Good on the councillors. They've been democratically elected. They reflect the will of the local population. If they don't want a development, it means that the people don't want a development. That should be the end of the matter.
I would seriously question whether councillors automatically reflect the will of the local population on specific issues any more than the Government reflects the will of the people.
This time next year we will have had a silly season speculating about the date of the election. And as the summer draws to a close ministers will be sent out to calmly state that there is no need for an early election, that the government remains focused on the people's priorities, and that Labour only want a snap election because they are anti-British.
Lets assume the poll deficit remains 20 points or even *only* 15 points this time next year. Why would the Tories call an election? Ride it out and hope something comes up. They will smash out the message that it would be an "early" election, and some of their fellow travellers on here will start parroting the line.
If you are going to lose badly, you need a wildcard. If one doesn't present itself, do the election in January. Have a "New Year" theme where whatever chinks of light you can see would be brutally extinguished if a woke elite Labour government was elected.
One of the clear issues preventing infra reform is the weird denialism that afflicts minds like Richard Tyndall.
As was noted, this propensity to “bristle” when an issue is identified manifests as a refusal to admit any problem at all.
But as everyone knows, the only way to solve a problem is to admit you have one.
Too many voters refuse to admit there is an issue. These voters tend to be older and make up the voting bloc for the current administration.
I would love the UK to have amazing futuristic infrastructure, but is this really the massive issue that so many of us on PB seem to be making it? We live on a small island. Time spent getting from place to place is relatively small - we're a far more efficiently working place than the USA in terms of that. I don't think infrastructure is the Holy Grail we're looking for. 20 minutes off the journey time to Birmingham - OK, but what desperate issues do these sorts of moderate improvements resolve, and what economic krakens do they release?
My issue with infrastructure is not so much that I think we're missing out on massive economic gains by being bad at it (though I would not be surprised if we were), but more that I think being bad at it is a problem in itself. I feel like cumulatively our lives are worse because we're missing out on a lot of moderate improvements, because we're apparently incapable of identifying positive-value investments and executing on them in a reasonable timeframe without pissing money and time up the wall on proposals, endless rounds of consultation and mid-project changes, scaling-backs, and picking the cheap-but-bad option.
(That last bit for me is what I took from that graph about metro spending -- our local PT is all buses because that's the cheap option and we're so useless at doing more, not because we sat down and said "buses are the best way to address our long term PT requirements".)
It only took thirteen years but Labour finally has developed some lines and attacks on the economy that actually works. It feels like a millennium since the Tories were saying Labour crashed the car, don’t give them back the keys.
Labour might have crashed the car, but the Tories pushed it into the crusher.
One of the clear issues preventing infra reform is the weird denialism that afflicts minds like Richard Tyndall.
As was noted, this propensity to “bristle” when an issue is identified manifests as a refusal to admit any problem at all.
But as everyone knows, the only way to solve a problem is to admit you have one.
Too many voters refuse to admit there is an issue. These voters tend to be older and make up the voting bloc for the current administration.
Wrong yet again on just about every point. I don't refuse to admit there are problems - indeed I have been pointing out probllems all the way through whilst at the same time pointing out the specific idiocy of your misinterpretation of data sets. Pointing out your failings does not in any way undermine the arguments that there is an issue with the way we do large infrastructure developments. But your failings make the situation worse by misleading people about the causes.
And of course I have not voted for this current administration in any of its forms at any time. The last time I voted foreither the governing party or its main opposition was over 20 years ago.
You keep calling me an idiot, but your main issue is that you disagree with the OECD on what an urban area is.
I’m afraid your general fury is clouding your ability to calmly read and interpret others’ posts.
You’re position as a self-appointed prophet in the wilderness doesn’t really excuse from the central allegation of being a “bristler”.
Nope. I disagree with your interpretation of that data as valid in the context of the discussion.
It is hardly surprising. After all, you yourself admitted you just used it without actually checking it. And then tried to defend it after the problems with your interpretation were pointed out. Something only an idiot would do when posting on here.
Twitter seems to have permanently broken their site.
Every Tweet now seems to have replies that have literally nothing to do with what was posted. I can only assume they removed whatever algorithm either sifted through this nonsense or they're just putting random Tweets in the replies to make the site look busier.
I find it increasingly difficult for there to be a justification for rejecting critical infrastructure like telephone masts, FTTP infrastructure, housing etc when it is so bleedingly obvious we need it. I really feel that visual looks of things are something that shouldn't really be taken into account, "keeping with the local area" etc. Have these people ever seen an electricity pylon? They don't look pretty but they serve a vital purpose.
One of the clear issues preventing infra reform is the weird denialism that afflicts minds like Richard Tyndall.
As was noted, this propensity to “bristle” when an issue is identified manifests as a refusal to admit any problem at all.
But as everyone knows, the only way to solve a problem is to admit you have one.
Too many voters refuse to admit there is an issue. These voters tend to be older and make up the voting bloc for the current administration.
Wrong yet again on just about every point. I don't refuse to admit there are problems - indeed I have been pointing out probllems all the way through whilst at the same time pointing out the specific idiocy of your misinterpretation of data sets. Pointing out your failings does not in any way undermine the arguments that there is an issue with the way we do large infrastructure developments. But your failings make the situation worse by misleading people about the causes.
And of course I have not voted for this current administration in any of its forms at any time. The last time I voted foreither the governing party or its main opposition was over 20 years ago.
You keep calling me an idiot, but your main issue is that you disagree with the OECD on what an urban area is.
I’m afraid your general fury is clouding your ability to calmly read and interpret others’ posts.
You’re position as a self-appointed prophet in the wilderness doesn’t really excuse from the central allegation of being a “bristler”.
Nope. I disagree with your interpretation of that data as valid in the context of the discussion.
It is hardly surprising. After all, you yourself admitted you just used it without actually checking it. And then tried to defend it after the problems with your interpretation were pointed out. Something only an idiot would do when posting on here.
You keep repeating the claim, you just did again, that we shouldn’t consider wider commuter areas when considering commuter systems.
Parts of the New Forest ARE in the Southampton commuter zone, in the same way that Amersham (and even further) are in London’s.
I’d simply advise you read up on travel to work areas and how commuter systems work. Until then, you’re just wasting everyone’s time.
One of the clear issues preventing infra reform is the weird denialism that afflicts minds like Richard Tyndall.
As was noted, this propensity to “bristle” when an issue is identified manifests as a refusal to admit any problem at all.
But as everyone knows, the only way to solve a problem is to admit you have one.
Too many voters refuse to admit there is an issue. These voters tend to be older and make up the voting bloc for the current administration.
Wrong yet again on just about every point. I don't refuse to admit there are problems - indeed I have been pointing out probllems all the way through whilst at the same time pointing out the specific idiocy of your misinterpretation of data sets. Pointing out your failings does not in any way undermine the arguments that there is an issue with the way we do large infrastructure developments. But your failings make the situation worse by misleading people about the causes.
And of course I have not voted for this current administration in any of its forms at any time. The last time I voted foreither the governing party or its main opposition was over 20 years ago.
You keep calling me an idiot, but your main issue is that you disagree with the OECD on what an urban area is.
I’m afraid your general fury is clouding your ability to calmly read and interpret others’ posts.
You’re position as a self-appointed prophet in the wilderness doesn’t really excuse from the central allegation of being a “bristler”.
One of the clear issues preventing infra reform is the weird denialism that afflicts minds like Richard Tyndall.
As was noted, this propensity to “bristle” when an issue is identified manifests as a refusal to admit any problem at all.
But as everyone knows, the only way to solve a problem is to admit you have one.
Too many voters refuse to admit there is an issue. These voters tend to be older and make up the voting bloc for the current administration.
I would love the UK to have amazing futuristic infrastructure, but is this really the massive issue that so many of us on PB seem to be making it? We live on a small island. Time spent getting from place to place is relatively small - we're a far more efficiently working place than the USA in terms of that. I don't think infrastructure is the Holy Grail we're looking for. 20 minutes off the journey time to Birmingham - OK, but what desperate issues do these sorts of moderate improvements resolve, and what economic krakens do they release?
I think people would be more forgiving about our lack of futuristic infrastructure if the services we do have were significantly more reliable. But that's not the case. Journey times, by all modes of transport except walking or cycling, are highly unpredictable, and delays and cancellations are rife, particularly on trains, but also buses and planes. There must be an economic cost (as well as a human, irritation cost) to the delays on motorways, trains and buses etc. If new infrastructure helps to resolve that, then we need it. Meanwhile, we could at least make a better fist of the transport we do have.
Fascinating article in FT on our infrastructure problems compared to other countries. Suspect it's not just the nimbys... but bit worrying there weren't more ideas to stop nimbyism.
Sadly the article contains the garbage claims being discussed yesterday about the % of British cities with mass transit systems - managing to get both the overall number of cities and the number of systeems completely wrong. I suspect most of their other claims are equally poorly researched.
Nevertheless,the whole argument raises the interesting question whether our assumptions are the correct ones, not least because buses don't really count - there is no dedicated infrastructure to speak of. Perhaps we *should* be thinking of places such as Cadnam and as part of the Southampton mass transit system. Should, for instance, trams such as the Edinburgh ones run on light rail tracks through the outer suburbs and green belts for 10-15miles into the commuter hinterland, with street running where necessary? The Edinburgh trams are already poking out west into the green belt, at the airport, for instance, and I can see that being able to run on the roads for limited stretches would both attract custom and make it much easier to adapt old railway lines etc.
I find it increasingly difficult for there to be a justification for rejecting critical infrastructure like telephone masts, FTTP infrastructure, housing etc when it is so bleedingly obvious we need it. I really feel that visual looks of things are something that shouldn't really be taken into account, "keeping with the local area" etc. Have these people ever seen an electricity pylon? They don't look pretty but they serve a vital purpose.
No more or less pretty than the Forth Bridge [rail one, always by default in the name]. Though the original pylons were heavily criticised - they had to get an independent organization to vet the standard CEGB design in the 1930s, as I recall reading. Council for the Preservation of Rural England, or the Royal Fine Arts Commission? I don't know if the same has been done for mobile masts.
I think Truss was and is a nutter. But she was right about one thing: Britain needs growth.
It is precisely because we don’t have growth, and an ageing demographic, that our taxes are rising - via bracket creep - from the low 30s % of GDP where Britain has traditionally been - to the high 30s - ie “German levels”.
Albeit without the commensurate quality of public services.
People say, wrongly, that Truss’s position on growth is just a truism. Well no, not quite. There’s actually very little consensus behind “growth” in modern day Britain.
Voters - and most commentators - are more motivated by small boats, nimbyism, the NHS, and the cost of living. Fair enough, but they fail to realise that without growth, most of these problems get worse.
What kind of growth? Labour supply or productivity?
Both?
We need GDP growth per capita. We need to stop talking about GDP without the denominator.
Labour supply going up so long as construction matches, with sufficient proportionate new roads, new houses, new schools, hospitals etc to match population growth is absolutely fine, but we've not had that.
Labour supply going up, but GDP per capita going down, and no investment, is not a success even if it records GDP going up.
The only way GDP capita can fall when the labour supply is increasing is if the number of dependents increases by a larger percentage.
So, in almost all cases, boosting the labour supply will see GDP per capita increase.
Of course it can fall even with out dependents. Its simple maths. If gdp per capita is say 50k, add 5 million people only generating 25k gdp. GDP goes up.
see worked example below
50 million people gdp = 2,500,000,000 gdp per capita = 50k
add 5 million people each generating 25k gdp extra gdp rises by 125,000,000 to a total of 2,625,000,000 but gdp per capita is now 47.72k
Ah, I was going with the standard Labour Supply =working-age population*participation rate*unemployment*average hours worked.
Wages would fall under productivity, which is distinct from the labour supply. GDP = Labour supply * productivity.
Sunak is clearly relieved that, for now, average wage rises are running ahead of inflation, but that absolutely doesn't mean people feel better off.
Most things are much more expensive than two years ago, their taxes higher and their mortgages much higher. So crowing about it is a silly thing to do. No-one feels better off.
Instead, he should put the focus on Labour's plan - I still haven't heard a peep from Starmer on inflation.
And due to fiscal drag, average wages going up helps the Exchequer, not people who are working for a living.
If prices go up 7% and wages go up 8%, but the Exchequer takes most of that 8% from you, then you're worse off not better off.
Fascinating article in FT on our infrastructure problems compared to other countries. Suspect it's not just the nimbys... but bit worrying there weren't more ideas to stop nimbyism.
Sadly the article contains the garbage claims being discussed yesterday about the % of British cities with mass transit systems - managing to get both the overall number of cities and the number of systeems completely wrong. I suspect most of their other claims are equally poorly researched.
Nevertheless,the whole argument raises the interesting question whether our assumptions are the correct ones, not least because buses don't really count - there is no dedicated infrastructure to speak of. Perhaps we *should* be thinking of places such as Cadnam and as part of the Southampton mass transit system. Should, for instance, trams such as the Edinburgh ones run on light rail tracks through the outer suburbs and green belts for 10-15miles into the commuter hinterland, with street running where necessary? The Edinburgh trams are already poking out west into the green belt, at the airport, for instance, and I can see that being able to run on the roads for limited stretches would both attract custom and make it much easier to adapt old railway lines etc.
IIRC in Calgary, the tram system extended way out of the city into open countryside.
Fascinating article in FT on our infrastructure problems compared to other countries. Suspect it's not just the nimbys... but bit worrying there weren't more ideas to stop nimbyism.
It’s a reaction to a reaction to a…
The planners went mad in post war Britain. Some of the schemes that were planned were utterly insane - such as to turn London into a grid of motorways.
We all know and love the award winning architecture that got built.
Naturally, resistance to the inhuman type of planning and building arose.
Equally naturally, the planners, developers and architects didn’t modify their behaviour that much. They had a fight on their hands and pushed back.
So the other side gathered more resources and pushed back… round and round it went
Both sides became ever more rigid. Both sides got the politicians to create laws on their behalf.
The resulting legal and procedural conflicts then spawned a third party. The planning enquiry industry. Which is worth billions.
The counter example is interesting. Offshore wind farms. Since fish don’t vote, and the requirement for quick, affordable Green power, the politicians granted an end run round the enquiry industry. There are planing issues and process, but it is streamlined to a considerable extent.
I think offshore wind goes down the NSIP route. So it is the same thing really.
You are correct about the planning Inquiry industry. There was a case recently where there was a 2 day Inquiry in the north of england where the Council had conceded before the event. So everyone sat there for 2 days and there was nothing really to discuss, except to hear the objectors. The Inspector then concluded that the Council had been unreasonable in not granting planning permission and awarded costs against it. The costs claimed by applicant cover just the appeal proceedings (presumably comprising the hiring of a barrister and consultant team to go along to the 2 day non event) were just short of half a million pounds, paid by Council tax payers.
(By contrast, the Inspector who actually sits in these NSIP or planning Inquiries and listens to the KC's argue out every point in tedious detail, and then makes the decision is paid about £60k per year. )
Barristers make a great play of the situation being described above being the result of political incompetence in Councils and have even suggested that Councillors should be personally liable to pay for the costs in the situation described above. In response I made the suggestion that perhaps the government should cap legal costs claimed back after planning Inquiries at something like legal aid rates; however that was obviously met with silence.
An even better way forward would be to make the award of costs truly exceptional rather than increasingly routine. Much less chance of expensive barristers turning up if those instructing them are bearing the costs.
One of the highlights of Clarkson’s farm show, was the way in which it dealt with planning issues. The local council even agreed to let cameras into the hearing, so it was clear to all that the councillors simply didn’t like the guy, and were rejecting his application (to turn a barn into a restaurant serving local produce from farms in the area) simply because they could. The costs of appealing that decision would have been well into the six figures, and couldn’t be justified in the context of the restaurant business.
Good on the councillors. They've been democratically elected. They reflect the will of the local population. If they don't want a development, it means that the people don't want a development. That should be the end of the matter.
I would seriously question whether councillors automatically reflect the will of the local population on specific issues any more than the Government reflects the will of the people.
It usually means that the Councillors think it will preserve their political arses.
The most effective part of our planning system is the Planning Inspectorate.
A hospital manager accused of failing to act on doctors’ warnings about Lucy Letby has said that she was duped by the “calculating” child killer for years...Rees said she had refused to believe in Letby’s guilt because she had had regular meetings with her after her suspension from the neonatal unit in June 2016, and had “witnessed her in complete distress, crying and swearing her innocence”.
One of the consultants concerned is not impressed:
Improbable defence here. She had #lucyletby round for dinner, triumphantly read her letter to the consultants at the meeting where we were threatened with “consequences for crossing the line” She chose to be “duped” as it fitted with her own bias
Sunak is clearly relieved that, for now, average wage rises are running ahead of inflation, but that absolutely doesn't mean people feel better off.
Most things are much more expensive than two years ago, their taxes higher and their mortgages much higher. So crowing about it is a silly thing to do. No-one feels better off.
Instead, he should put the focus on Labour's plan - I still haven't heard a peep from Starmer on inflation.
And due to fiscal drag, average wages going up helps the Exchequer, not people who are working for a living.
If prices go up 7% and wages go up 8%, but the Exchequer takes most of that 8% from you, then you're worse off not better off.
A good point. If your gross pay goes up 8% (as if!), then your net pay certainly doesn't.
One of the clear issues preventing infra reform is the weird denialism that afflicts minds like Richard Tyndall.
As was noted, this propensity to “bristle” when an issue is identified manifests as a refusal to admit any problem at all.
But as everyone knows, the only way to solve a problem is to admit you have one.
Too many voters refuse to admit there is an issue. These voters tend to be older and make up the voting bloc for the current administration.
Wrong yet again on just about every point. I don't refuse to admit there are problems - indeed I have been pointing out probllems all the way through whilst at the same time pointing out the specific idiocy of your misinterpretation of data sets. Pointing out your failings does not in any way undermine the arguments that there is an issue with the way we do large infrastructure developments. But your failings make the situation worse by misleading people about the causes.
And of course I have not voted for this current administration in any of its forms at any time. The last time I voted foreither the governing party or its main opposition was over 20 years ago.
You keep calling me an idiot, but your main issue is that you disagree with the OECD on what an urban area is.
I’m afraid your general fury is clouding your ability to calmly read and interpret others’ posts.
You’re position as a self-appointed prophet in the wilderness doesn’t really excuse from the central allegation of being a “bristler”.
Could someone post the link again?
I will try to dig it out.
If it's around urban/rural split, that tends to be quite an interesting debate. For example, Scotland is remarkably urban, so the low-covid rates we had at the start of the pandemic were genuinely good work.
Talking of COVID: I have the "Edinburgh strain" and soaked through my sheets last night. Very grim.
Sunak has so far failed comprehensively to communicate that hitting his inflation target still means prices will be higher.
When polled something like half the public thought his pledge would mean prices would go down.
When that comes back to bite we'll see how low his approval falls.
Absolutely. Prices went up 10%. He said that he'd halve that. Prices being 15% higher than they were in the first place is not a great measure of success.
The first thing to read is this twitter thread/report which suggests that transport infrastructure in the UK is incredibly expensive compared to peer economies.
The next thing is these two charts, the first of which I posted last night. The usual suspects couldn’t wait to criticise, it was variously dismissed as Remainer propaganda, erroneous (by those who didn’t bother to check the underlying data), while others managed to find themselves arguing that commuter systems should not extend to actual commuting catchment areas (Tyndall).
Rubiales playing the victim and getting a standing ovation from the Spanish football association. WTF? Also, pass the sick bucket.
Why don't he just apologise and say he was overcome with excitement? It was a kiss, ffs, not aggravated rape.
This is a headline issue? Jeepers.
You understand the importance of symbols, surely ? And the point is he did the exact opposite of apologising.
It’s not as though football itself belongs on the front pages, but it’s there all the time.
I heard him apologising , absolutely pathetic stushie about nothing, far bigger things in the world that should be headlines rather than over some pathetic overpaid arses who kick a small ball about.
you think women footballers are overpaid? they are on peanuts
Male players are overpaid.
In terms of fairness of course, by at least 100x. In terms of free market, they are probably underpaid, as evidenced by the continuous very high pay inflation over the last 30 years, and which is likely to continue as their efforts continue to produce one of the main streams of global entertainment.
The first thing to read is this twitter thread/report which suggests that transport infrastructure in the UK is incredibly expensive compared to peer economies.
The next thing is these two charts, the first of which I posted last night. The usual suspects couldn’t wait to criticise, it was variously dismissed as Remainer propaganda, erroneous (by those who didn’t bother to check the underlying data), while others managed to find themselves arguing that commuter systems should not extend to actual commuting catchment areas (Tyndall).
I think Truss was and is a nutter. But she was right about one thing: Britain needs growth.
It is precisely because we don’t have growth, and an ageing demographic, that our taxes are rising - via bracket creep - from the low 30s % of GDP where Britain has traditionally been - to the high 30s - ie “German levels”.
Albeit without the commensurate quality of public services.
People say, wrongly, that Truss’s position on growth is just a truism. Well no, not quite. There’s actually very little consensus behind “growth” in modern day Britain.
Voters - and most commentators - are more motivated by small boats, nimbyism, the NHS, and the cost of living. Fair enough, but they fail to realise that without growth, most of these problems get worse.
What kind of growth? Labour supply or productivity?
Both?
We need GDP growth per capita. We need to stop talking about GDP without the denominator.
Labour supply going up so long as construction matches, with sufficient proportionate new roads, new houses, new schools, hospitals etc to match population growth is absolutely fine, but we've not had that.
Labour supply going up, but GDP per capita going down, and no investment, is not a success even if it records GDP going up.
The only way GDP capita can fall when the labour supply is increasing is if the number of dependents increases by a larger percentage.
So, in almost all cases, boosting the labour supply will see GDP per capita increase.
Of course it can fall even with out dependents. Its simple maths. If gdp per capita is say 50k, add 5 million people only generating 25k gdp. GDP goes up.
see worked example below
50 million people gdp = 2,500,000,000 gdp per capita = 50k
add 5 million people each generating 25k gdp extra gdp rises by 125,000,000 to a total of 2,625,000,000 but gdp per capita is now 47.72k
Ah, I was going with the standard Labour Supply =working-age population*participation rate*unemployment*average hours worked.
Wages would fall under productivity, which is distinct from the labour supply. GDP = Labour supply * productivity.
Which has nothing to do with it whatsoever the calculation is a simple one GDP/population = gdp per capita. You add people to the population that are generating less to gdp than the current gdp per capita then gdp per capita falls even if all the new people are working full time. If all the new ones generate more gdp than the current gdp per capita goes up. It is not rocket science. So no idea why you are wittering on about labour supply it is a red herring
Sunak has so far failed comprehensively to communicate that hitting his inflation target still means prices will be higher.
When polled something like half the public thought his pledge would mean prices would go down.
When that comes back to bite we'll see how low his approval falls.
Absolutely. Prices went up 10%. He said that he'd halve that. Prices being 15% higher than they were in the first place is not a great measure of success.
Sure it can be. Prices are sticky downwards.
Prices going up 15% over two years isn't that big of a problem if wages and take home pay keep up.
The problem isn't inflation, it's how he's handled it.
He personally chose to freeze tax thresholds. Fiscal drag isn't normal, it's a choice he made.
Similarly insisting on below inflation pay rises (while triple locking others earnings) is a choice.
Fiscal drag on a below inflation pay rise is adding insult to injury.
"To cheer yourself up, buy yourself a beer". "But I have no means to pay for a beer". " Don't be a pessimist, buy yourself a beer, it will cheer you up".
An optimistic would suggest a glass half full...
An engineer says the glass is oversized.
A domain expert asks - “Whose round is it?”
A statistician asks "What is the definition of "a glass", and of "a beer"? How do we measure the characteristic of "fullness" and what is the threshold at which "half-full" is reached? What is the population we are drawing on, is there a sample frame imposed on it, how do we..." [carries on for another 1000 words, submits grant application]
You can clearly see in the last chart the distinction between sprawling, car-dependent cities (US) and the denser, public transport reliant cities of Europe.
The UK (ex London) is stuck in the middle, not able to commute terribly far by car due to congestion and poor road infra (Barty’s argument), but also not able to rely as much as Europeans or Londoners on public transport.
The UK has I think quite a unique development pattern which likely calls for a unique strategy. But the core issue is, not enough people are able to get to high productivity jobs in cities outside London.
And if we want to address that, we need infra, which we’ve conspired to make prohibitively expensive.
The first thing to read is this twitter thread/report which suggests that transport infrastructure in the UK is incredibly expensive compared to peer economies.
The next thing is these two charts, the first of which I posted last night. The usual suspects couldn’t wait to criticise, it was variously dismissed as Remainer propaganda, erroneous (by those who didn’t bother to check the underlying data), while others managed to find themselves arguing that commuter systems should not extend to actual commuting catchment areas (Tyndall).
Fascinating article in FT on our infrastructure problems compared to other countries. Suspect it's not just the nimbys... but bit worrying there weren't more ideas to stop nimbyism.
Sadly the article contains the garbage claims being discussed yesterday about the % of British cities with mass transit systems - managing to get both the overall number of cities and the number of systeems completely wrong. I suspect most of their other claims are equally poorly researched.
Nevertheless,the whole argument raises the interesting question whether our assumptions are the correct ones, not least because buses don't really count - there is no dedicated infrastructure to speak of. Perhaps we *should* be thinking of places such as Cadnam and as part of the Southampton mass transit system. Should, for instance, trams such as the Edinburgh ones run on light rail tracks through the outer suburbs and green belts for 10-15miles into the commuter hinterland, with street running where necessary? The Edinburgh trams are already poking out west into the green belt, at the airport, for instance, and I can see that being able to run on the roads for limited stretches would both attract custom and make it much easier to adapt old railway lines etc.
IIRC in Calgary, the tram system extended way out of the city into open countryside.
Makes a lot of sense. The Canadians built a tram system that has succeeded?
The Nottingham ones run for a distance outside the city to "effective suburbs", but then it's a small city. The distances are more like 7 miles than 15 miles. Per pop the ridership is about the same as Calgary, having gone down a little during Covid.
The first thing to read is this twitter thread/report which suggests that transport infrastructure in the UK is incredibly expensive compared to peer economies.
The next thing is these two charts, the first of which I posted last night. The usual suspects couldn’t wait to criticise, it was variously dismissed as Remainer propaganda, erroneous (by those who didn’t bother to check the underlying data), while others managed to find themselves arguing that commuter systems should not extend to actual commuting catchment areas (Tyndall).
I think the criticism that the first chart does not contain rail and bus is fair. But including them won't make the UK look much better compared with European countries, given only 2% of us use the train and 4% the bus to commute to work.
The ONS think 17.5 million people in England and Wales, or 35%, live in "major built up areas" - population over 200,000.
Fascinating article in FT on our infrastructure problems compared to other countries. Suspect it's not just the nimbys... but bit worrying there weren't more ideas to stop nimbyism.
Sadly the article contains the garbage claims being discussed yesterday about the % of British cities with mass transit systems - managing to get both the overall number of cities and the number of systeems completely wrong. I suspect most of their other claims are equally poorly researched.
Nevertheless,the whole argument raises the interesting question whether our assumptions are the correct ones, not least because buses don't really count - there is no dedicated infrastructure to speak of. Perhaps we *should* be thinking of places such as Cadnam and as part of the Southampton mass transit system. Should, for instance, trams such as the Edinburgh ones run on light rail tracks through the outer suburbs and green belts for 10-15miles into the commuter hinterland, with street running where necessary? The Edinburgh trams are already poking out west into the green belt, at the airport, for instance, and I can see that being able to run on the roads for limited stretches would both attract custom and make it much easier to adapt old railway lines etc.
IIRC in Calgary, the tram system extended way out of the city into open countryside.
Makes a lot of sense. The Canadians built a tram system that has succeeded?
The Nottingham ones run for a distance outside the city to "effective suburbs", but then it's a small city. The distances are more like 7 miles than 15 miles. Per pop the ridership is about the same as Calgary, having gone down a little during Covid.
It’s about 7 miles as the crow flies from Lyndhurst in the New Forest to central Soton, though admittedly more like 12 miles if you can’t cross Southampton Water.
It would be totally logical to have a commuter network reach Lyndhurst.
The first thing to read is this twitter thread/report which suggests that transport infrastructure in the UK is incredibly expensive compared to peer economies.
The next thing is these two charts, the first of which I posted last night. The usual suspects couldn’t wait to criticise, it was variously dismissed as Remainer propaganda, erroneous (by those who didn’t bother to check the underlying data), while others managed to find themselves arguing that commuter systems should not extend to actual commuting catchment areas (Tyndall).
I think the criticism that the first chart does not contain rail and bus is fair. But including them won't make the UK look much better compared with European countries, given only 2% of us use the train and 4% the bus to commute to work.
The ONS think 17.5 million people in England and Wales, or 35%, live in "major built up areas" - population over 200,000.
The second chart is fascinating. I think our characteristics, particulary NW, NE and SE England are more similar to Europe than the US, which calls for much better public transport. Glasgow in particular is just pathetic.
It only took thirteen years but Labour finally has developed some lines and attacks on the economy that actually works. It feels like a millennium since the Tories were saying Labour crashed the car, don’t give them back the keys.
Labour might have crashed the car, but the Tories pushed it into the crusher.
If Labour did crash the car, it was because they didn't anticipate in time that someone was driving at full pelt in the wrong direction of the motorway, but neither did pretty well every other country driving on that motorway in 2007/8.
Labour had also just about got the car back on the road, as judged by a recovery back to GDP growth in Q2 and Q3 2010, before the effect of Osborne and his successors taking the keys out of the ignition kicked in.
It only took thirteen years but Labour finally has developed some lines and attacks on the economy that actually works. It feels like a millennium since the Tories were saying Labour crashed the car, don’t give them back the keys.
Labour might have crashed the car, but the Tories pushed it into the crusher.
If Labour did crash the car, it was because they didn't anticipate in time that someone was driving at full pelt in the wrong direction of the motorway, but neither did pretty well every other country driving on that motorway in 2007/8.
Labour had also just about got the car back on the road, as judged by a recovery back to GDP growth in Q2 and Q3 2010, before the effect of Osborne and his successors taking the keys out of the ignition kicked in.
If we had continued Brown's plans I expect we'd be an awful lot better off by now.
He should have remained the chancellor and we should have had a different PM like Alan Johnson. His time as PM was up but his plans and ideas have just shown how much worse off we've been since.
I like to think with SKS we will have something of a hybrid between Blair and Brown. And I am encouraged that Labour's last two PMs are advising SKS.
The first thing to read is this twitter thread/report which suggests that transport infrastructure in the UK is incredibly expensive compared to peer economies.
The next thing is these two charts, the first of which I posted last night. The usual suspects couldn’t wait to criticise, it was variously dismissed as Remainer propaganda, erroneous (by those who didn’t bother to check the underlying data), while others managed to find themselves arguing that commuter systems should not extend to actual commuting catchment areas (Tyndall).
I think the criticism that the first chart does not contain rail and bus is fair. But including them won't make the UK look much better compared with European countries, given only 2% of us use the train and 4% the bus to commute to work.
The ONS think 17.5 million people in England and Wales, or 35%, live in "major built up areas" - population over 200,000.
The second chart is fascinating. I think our characteristics, particulary NW, NE and SE England are more similar to Europe than the US, which calls for much better public transport. Glasgow in particular is just pathetic.
Glasgow does have heavy rail, including the recent Paisley Canal and Bathgate, lines, which is excluded IIRC. And the clockwork orange (which is actually fairly pathetic as it has no feeder lines to the central loop, of course).
This piece by Naomi Klein on Naomi Wolf is long but extremely interesting and touches on a lot of the things we talk about here. It's a window on the kind of alternative realities and conspiracies that are being constructed and increasingly believed.
The first thing to read is this twitter thread/report which suggests that transport infrastructure in the UK is incredibly expensive compared to peer economies.
The next thing is these two charts, the first of which I posted last night. The usual suspects couldn’t wait to criticise, it was variously dismissed as Remainer propaganda, erroneous (by those who didn’t bother to check the underlying data), while others managed to find themselves arguing that commuter systems should not extend to actual commuting catchment areas (Tyndall).
I think the criticism that the first chart does not contain rail and bus is fair. But including them won't make the UK look much better compared with European countries, given only 2% of us use the train and 4% the bus to commute to work.
The ONS think 17.5 million people in England and Wales, or 35%, live in "major built up areas" - population over 200,000.
The first thing to read is this twitter thread/report which suggests that transport infrastructure in the UK is incredibly expensive compared to peer economies.
The next thing is these two charts, the first of which I posted last night. The usual suspects couldn’t wait to criticise, it was variously dismissed as Remainer propaganda, erroneous (by those who didn’t bother to check the underlying data), while others managed to find themselves arguing that commuter systems should not extend to actual commuting catchment areas (Tyndall).
The second graph just shows that British motorists are just too pig-headed to leave their car at home and use public transport.
Public transport is too poor and too unreliable to allow people too commute without causing problems at work. This is largely because public transport operators are allowed to be profit based rather than service based. As an example, the express bus to a town near me, which doesn’t have a railway station, has been cut so that the last bus from Glasgow now leaves at 17.15. The only other way home by public transport is by train to a station 3 miles away, then hope a bus turns up to take you the rest of the way home, or hope you can get a space in the station car park. I’m sure that there are many other examples. If we want better public transport, we need to start with proper integration. Not everyone is able to walk or cycle everywhere.
As I’ve noted before, following the 80:20 rule, the UK would get max bang for buck by delivering proper mass transit for Glasgow, Liverpool-Manchester-Leeds-Sheffield, and Greater Birmingham.
But it requires real leadership, since there are astonishing forces arrayed against doing so, from all sides of the political spectrum.
The first thing to read is this twitter thread/report which suggests that transport infrastructure in the UK is incredibly expensive compared to peer economies.
The next thing is these two charts, the first of which I posted last night. The usual suspects couldn’t wait to criticise, it was variously dismissed as Remainer propaganda, erroneous (by those who didn’t bother to check the underlying data), while others managed to find themselves arguing that commuter systems should not extend to actual commuting catchment areas (Tyndall).
I think the criticism that the first chart does not contain rail and bus is fair. But including them won't make the UK look much better compared with European countries, given only 2% of us use the train and 4% the bus to commute to work.
The ONS think 17.5 million people in England and Wales, or 35%, live in "major built up areas" - population over 200,000.
Comments
Inflation quite noticeable when eating out here. Food nice enough.
I think Barristers are drawn to this work because of the commercial rewards through rising land values where development is granted planning permission. Increasingly some of them delude themselves in to thinking they are on the side of the angels in working for property developers. It makes for great entertainment if you read their linkedin posts.
Whatever. If you are going to get battered by calling an election, don't call an election.
Not sure if the weather was a factor though...
That’s another reason not to build HS2, of course. If it’s not public transport, it must be private transport. Which is bad.
Age-standardised mortality rates for deaths involving coronavirus (COVID-19) by vaccination status, broken down by age group.
https://www.ons.gov.uk/releases/deathsinvolvingcovid19byvaccinationstatusenglanddeathsoccurringbetween1april2021and31may2023
Good luck typing that url with long covid.
Just not for him.
It's confirming the lady in question had every reason not to want such a nasty person anywhere near her!
So no a new dawn has broken has it not. No things can only get better. Labour will be starting their new government under a heavy grey cloud.
Or rather you didn’t prove the alternative.
The only decent criticism of that chart is it excluded the forms of public transport which the UK seems to have specialised in (buses and heavy rail).
Excluding buses might be allowable given the issues with bus systems (congestion, reliability), and indeed the deregulated system imposed outside London by Thatcher and only recently reversed (Manchester ubbeil its new public bus fleet yesterday). I’m not convinced by the exclusion of heavy rail.
As far as can tell there was no issues with the chart data unto itself.
Our single largest infrastructure investment is notoriously ill managed and over budget, still with no certain completion date. Much of that appears to be the fault of government, but understanding exactly why, and how to improve that is of great economic importance.
Yesterday I was posting about just one bit of the HS2 project - Euston Station - and the factthat the plans had been changed so many times it had doubled the cost from £2.2 billion to £4.4 billion. None of that was really due to NIMBYism nor due to contractors not doing the job properly. It was due to the fact that successive Governments had changed the design specs and requirements so much over the years.
Government's are very much to blame for much of this. Not least because they are now notorious for changing their minds whilst at the same time tryingto put all the risk onto the conractors. Developers know this and so they front load costs to make sure they are covered when the inevitable changes ocur.
I think the trouble now is that the government have no incentive to improve housing delivery as it appears to have a political strategy of essentially blocking housebuilding, so they let environmental issues fester (like the nitrates issue) without any resolution. I also wonder if forcing a slowdown in the development industry is perhaps a way of dealing with inflation.
I’m sorry you still don’t understand.
Is that untrue? It feels true given the little I know.
As for the cost of his appealing being prohibitive, I don't believe it. You don't require 5* barristers to appeal a planning decision.
As was noted, this propensity to “bristle” when an issue is identified manifests as a refusal to admit any problem at all.
But as everyone knows, the only way to solve a problem is to admit you have one.
Too many voters refuse to admit there is an issue.
These voters tend to be older and make up the voting bloc for the current administration.
The salaries reflect the level of interest and income the game draws. The salaries they draw are probably fair in that respect and those at the top will be doing pretty well. Not as well as top men players. But still doing pretty well.
Mind you a soccer player going on loan to Gillingham was on Twitter talking about his 21K a week salary.
One is the lack of capacity on our main lines, for which HS2 is supposed to be a solution.
A second is the fact that “the North”*, which is one of the most densely populated regions in Europe, grossly underperforms, and it is thought that intercity connectivity is one issue - in that cannot compete as a joined up region.
A third is that our cities - save London - missed out on “agglomerative” productivity because our lack of mass transit limits the number of commuters (the labour pool) who are able to get into city centres where the largest number of productive jobs are located. Thus, British cities underperform both European and US peers significantly.
*The great swathe of population running from Liverpool through Leeds and Sheffield.
There are are other more micro issues, like Welsh connectivity etc but maybe these are the main ones.
And of course I have not voted for this current administration in any of its forms at any time. The last time I voted foreither the governing party or its main opposition was over 20 years ago.
But it means spending money upfront and having inconvenience while things are built. Especially with our model.of planning and construction.
I’m afraid your general fury is clouding your ability to calmly read and interpret others’ posts.
You’re position as a self-appointed prophet in the wilderness doesn’t really excuse from the central allegation of being a “bristler”.
The problem is that infrastructure costs are high and the inflation in that sector is out of control.
So we have buses, lots of buses by some countries standards. And that’s what we are going to be getting lots more of. Because, as we saw about barn conversions in Yorkshire, the development is awesome. Until it changes your locality.
EDIT: the power storage debate is a part of this. Many schemes are cheaper, better etc. But because you don’t require planning permission to park up a couple of ISO containers of batteries and hook them up to the grid, that’s the system that will win in this country.
Basically the FT article has relied on some OECD data without actually looking at how it was collected or what it referred to. It gives the impression there are many more cities with over 250,000 population in the UK that actually exist because it includes a lot of the rural catchment areas. (So for example the New Forest is included in Southhampron Urban area). This is useful in the context of what the data was originally intended for but has no relevance when discussing urban mass transit systems. Unless of course you want to portray the UK sutuation as being worse than it actually is - though it is bad enough anyway.
GW messed up. By his own admission he didn't check how the data was collected or what it referred to. He simply used it sight unseen. He is now a bit tetchy because he has painted himself into a corner over it.
see worked example below
50 million people gdp = 2,500,000,000 gdp per capita = 50k
add 5 million people each generating 25k gdp extra gdp rises by 125,000,000 to a total of 2,625,000,000 but gdp per capita is now 47.72k
Lets assume the poll deficit remains 20 points or even *only* 15 points this time next year. Why would the Tories call an election? Ride it out and hope something comes up. They will smash out the message that it would be an "early" election, and some of their fellow travellers on here will start parroting the line.
If you are going to lose badly, you need a wildcard. If one doesn't present itself, do the election in January. Have a "New Year" theme where whatever chinks of light you can see would be brutally extinguished if a woke elite Labour government was elected.
(That last bit for me is what I took from that graph about metro spending -- our local PT is all buses because that's the cheap option and we're so useless at doing more, not because we sat down and said "buses are the best way to address our long term PT requirements".)
It is hardly surprising. After all, you yourself admitted you just used it without actually checking it. And then tried to defend it after the problems with your interpretation were pointed out. Something only an idiot would do when posting on here.
Every Tweet now seems to have replies that have literally nothing to do with what was posted. I can only assume they removed whatever algorithm either sifted through this nonsense or they're just putting random Tweets in the replies to make the site look busier.
Parts of the New Forest ARE in the Southampton commuter zone, in the same way that Amersham (and even further) are in London’s.
I’d simply advise you read up on travel to work areas and how commuter systems work. Until then, you’re just wasting everyone’s time.
There must be an economic cost (as well as a human, irritation cost) to the delays on motorways, trains and buses etc. If new infrastructure helps to resolve that, then we need it. Meanwhile, we could at least make a better fist of the transport we do have.
Wages would fall under productivity, which is distinct from the labour supply. GDP = Labour supply * productivity.
If prices go up 7% and wages go up 8%, but the Exchequer takes most of that 8% from you, then you're worse off not better off.
When polled something like half the public thought his pledge would mean prices would go down.
When that comes back to bite we'll see how low his approval falls.
In December, Trans-Pennine Express, at the behest of government, will halve the number of services that they operate on the route.
Joined-up thinking.
The most effective part of our planning system is the Planning Inspectorate.
A hospital manager accused of failing to act on doctors’ warnings about Lucy Letby has said that she was duped by the “calculating” child killer for years...Rees said she had refused to believe in Letby’s guilt because she had had regular meetings with her after her suspension from the neonatal unit in June 2016, and had “witnessed her in complete distress, crying and swearing her innocence”.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/lucy-letby-nursing-boss-karen-rees-countess-chester-hospital-uk-pnndhb988
One of the consultants concerned is not impressed:
Improbable defence here. She had #lucyletby round for dinner, triumphantly read her letter to the consultants at the meeting where we were threatened with “consequences for crossing the line” She chose to be “duped” as it fitted with her own bias
https://twitter.com/DrRaviJ/status/1695152767881372143
Talking of COVID: I have the "Edinburgh strain" and soaked through my sheets last night. Very grim.
The first thing to read is this twitter thread/report which suggests that transport infrastructure in the UK is incredibly expensive compared to peer economies.
https://www.samdumitriu.com/p/britains-infrastructure-is-too-expensive?utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web
The next thing is these two charts, the first of which I posted last night. The usual suspects couldn’t wait to criticise, it was variously dismissed as Remainer propaganda, erroneous (by those who didn’t bother to check the underlying data), while others managed to find themselves arguing that commuter systems should not extend to actual commuting catchment areas (Tyndall).
https://x.com/jburnmurdoch/status/1695034745871032609?s=46&t=L9g_woCIqbo1MTuBFCK0xg
https://x.com/jburnmurdoch/status/1695083709831999553?s=46&t=L9g_woCIqbo1MTuBFCK0xg
Edit: the LA figure is rather hard to believe.
Prices going up 15% over two years isn't that big of a problem if wages and take home pay keep up.
The problem isn't inflation, it's how he's handled it.
He personally chose to freeze tax thresholds. Fiscal drag isn't normal, it's a choice he made.
Similarly insisting on below inflation pay rises (while triple locking others earnings) is a choice.
Fiscal drag on a below inflation pay rise is adding insult to injury.
The UK (ex London) is stuck in the middle, not able to commute terribly far by car due to congestion and poor road infra (Barty’s argument), but also not able to rely as much as Europeans or Londoners on public transport.
The UK has I think quite a unique development pattern which likely calls for a unique strategy. But the core issue is, not enough people are able to get to high productivity jobs in cities outside London.
And if we want to address that, we need infra, which we’ve conspired to make prohibitively expensive.
The Nottingham ones run for a distance outside the city to "effective suburbs", but then it's a small city. The distances are more like 7 miles than 15 miles. Per pop the ridership is about the same as Calgary, having gone down a little during Covid.
The ONS think 17.5 million people in England and Wales, or 35%, live in "major built up areas" - population over 200,000.
It would be totally logical to have a commuter network reach Lyndhurst.
Labour had also just about got the car back on the road, as judged by a recovery back to GDP growth in Q2 and Q3 2010, before the effect of Osborne and his successors taking the keys out of the ignition kicked in.
He should have remained the chancellor and we should have had a different PM like Alan Johnson. His time as PM was up but his plans and ideas have just shown how much worse off we've been since.
I like to think with SKS we will have something of a hybrid between Blair and Brown. And I am encouraged that Labour's last two PMs are advising SKS.
Luis Rubiales: Spanish football federation will take legal action over Jennifer Hermoso 'lies'
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/66626410
This piece by Naomi Klein on Naomi Wolf is long but extremely interesting and touches on a lot of the things we talk about here. It's a window on the kind of alternative realities and conspiracies that are being constructed and increasingly believed.
https://www.oecd.org/regional/regional-statistics/GBR.pdf
Not doing the maths, but I suspect many more than 35% live in what the OECD defines as a “functional urban area” over 250,000.
These areas are very similar to travel-to-work areas.
The government publishes these after every census and we are due another update soon.
These areas are likely the best unit when thinking about an urban economy. Ideally, our political units would map much more closely to these.
Indeed that’s broadly the idea behind “West Yorkshire”, “South Yorkshire” etc.
But it requires real leadership, since there are astonishing forces arrayed against doing so, from all sides of the political spectrum.