Sunak will be hoping that the news coverage stays firmly on Israel . Anything that takes attention away from domestic issues could help in the two by-elections coming up .
Starmers big speech tomorrow does look going by the leaks to include some large scale plans in terms of new towns. It does though look to get drowned out by the Israeli coverage .
Fantastic news if Starmer is planning on some large scale new towns.
Especially if he's planning on the appropriate infrastructure of new motorways to link those new towns to the rest of the country.
I won't be holding my breath though.
One of the weekend briefings said that the new towns will be centred around railway stations, and cited East-West Rail as an example.
As someone who lives in a compact town centred around a railway station (I suspect we have among the highest rail journeys:population ratios anywhere in the country) I think this is a pretty good idea.
Means Starmer is going to have to pay off the inflated demands of the rail unions first. Otherwise, no point in having a rail hub without running trains.
Given the RMT strikes are avowedly political they may well settle with Starmer far more easily than with the Tories, and the same goes for the BMA who have already said in England they won't settle for what they have in the devolved regions because, the Tories, innit
ASLEF will be a tougher nut to crack.
Just more expensive.
They unashamedly just want the money.
I yield to no one in how irritating I find the train strikes, but my god I’m jealous of those unions’ members. They do a brilliant job for them.
Sunak has no understanding of normal people and no ability to communicate with them.
Hopeless.
Especially given he's up against the true master of empathy, Sir Keir Starmer. A man who oozes charm from every pore. A man who lights up every room he walks in to.
Sunak was beaten by a candidate who in turn was beaten by a lettuce
Any sentient being is an improvement on him
Now, hang on. He's better than Michael Fabricant, Jacob Rees-Mogg, Richard Burgon, Laura Pid...oh, hold on, you did say 'sentient.' As you were.
As we are doing jokes, a reminder of Angela Rayner's quip that the Prime Minister has failed to provide his Whatsapp messages to the Covid inquiry, and Jacob Rees-Mogg has yet to hand over his carrier pigeon.
So preferring to making a joke, when she could have actually made a good political point about the PM and his record-keeping?
She comes across as a comedian, rather than a serious politician. Even if the joke got a bunch of laughs from the hall, she isn’t convincing swing voters that she’s wanting to be a senior member of the next government. If they wanted a comic, there’s plenty of Labour-supporting professionals they could have hired to make the same joke.
People complain about professional politicians, then complain about unprofessional ones. People complain about politicians who have not had careers outside politics, and the lack of real working class representation, they say too many go to university, them complain that someone is uneducated and politically inexperienced.
Rayner is a star. She has convictions, authenticity and style, she is intelligent, canny and organised. No wonder she is popular.
Time enough to attack them when they demonstrate incompetence in government.
I wonder if Starmer will have Attlee's ruthlessness with colleagues who are 'not up to it' - or indeed whether he will be up to it himself ?
Starmers reshuffles have demonstrated so already. Meanwhile Sunaks reshuffles just demonstrate that he is scraping the bottom of the barrel and in hock to faction fights in his party.
Grey field sounds similar to brown field. Not entirely sure of the difference. Old style pre-internet shopping complexes. Are there really a tonne of those. Great if so.
It's a smart use of language to reframe the debate. And presumably there's enough such sites in the right places to help, at least for a bit.
Not enough. As a country we have 8 million fewer properties than France, with a similar population. And our population is growing, fast.
Sunak has no understanding of normal people and no ability to communicate with them.
Hopeless.
Especially given he's up against the true master of empathy, Sir Keir Starmer. A man who oozes charm from every pore. A man who lights up every room he walks in to.
Sunak was beaten by a candidate who in turn was beaten by a lettuce
Any sentient being is an improvement on him
Now, hang on. He's better than Michael Fabricant, Jacob Rees-Mogg, Richard Burgon, Laura Pid...oh, hold on, you did say 'sentient.' As you were.
As we are doing jokes, a reminder of Angela Rayner's quip that the Prime Minister has failed to provide his Whatsapp messages to the Covid inquiry, and Jacob Rees-Mogg has yet to hand over his carrier pigeon.
So preferring to making a joke, when she could have actually made a good political point about the PM and his record-keeping?
She comes across as a comedian, rather than a serious politician. Even if the joke got a bunch of laughs from the hall, she isn’t convincing swing voters that she’s wanting to be a senior member of the next government. If they wanted a comic, there’s plenty of Labour-supporting professionals they could have hired to make the same joke.
Rayner did make the point and it is normal for speeches to be leavened by humour, especially on the opening day.
She’s also deputy; she’s supposed to rouse the troops a bit.
The more Ange the better imo. She really seems to hit something atavistic and uncomfortable in the retired colonel types.
Sunak has no understanding of normal people and no ability to communicate with them.
Hopeless.
Especially given he's up against the true master of empathy, Sir Keir Starmer. A man who oozes charm from every pore. A man who lights up every room he walks in to.
Sunak was beaten by a candidate who in turn was beaten by a lettuce
Any sentient being is an improvement on him
Now, hang on. He's better than Michael Fabricant, Jacob Rees-Mogg, Richard Burgon, Laura Pid...oh, hold on, you did say 'sentient.' As you were.
As we are doing jokes, a reminder of Angela Rayner's quip that the Prime Minister has failed to provide his Whatsapp messages to the Covid inquiry, and Jacob Rees-Mogg has yet to hand over his carrier pigeon.
So preferring to making a joke, when she could have actually made a good political point about the PM and his record-keeping?
She comes across as a comedian, rather than a serious politician. Even if the joke got a bunch of laughs from the hall, she isn’t convincing swing voters that she’s wanting to be a senior member of the next government. If they wanted a comic, there’s plenty of Labour-supporting professionals they could have hired to make the same joke.
Rayner did make the point and it is normal for speeches to be leavened by humour, especially on the opening day.
She’s also deputy; she’s supposed to rouse the troops a bit.
The more Ange the better imo. She really seems to hit something atavistic and uncomfortable in the retired colonel types.
Perhaps the 'retired colonel types' are onto something...
149/1 after 25ovs, finally looking like England could post a decent score today.
They have been really squeezed for the last 4 overs. No boundaries. No wickets either mind.
There’s Root with a big six! 10 from that over, and still above six an over average.
It's all about getting the win today. Getting us off the mark, re-establishing confidence and putting us in the winning frame of mind for the harder games ahead. Assuming we win today we will probably need to win 5 of the 7 remaining group games to get through.
Grey field sounds similar to brown field. Not entirely sure of the difference. Old style pre-internet shopping complexes. Are there really a tonne of those. Great if so.
In London, there are quite a few, surprisingly central, warehouse/factory sites.
There’s quite a lot of “business parks” as well. Quite a few people have commented that Chiswick Business Park is a rather nice environment - they put in a lot of work to make it so.
Compare it to the new flats being jammed between motorways and rail tracks.
As I've mentioned before, there is vast building potential on brownfield sites, former warehouses, retail sites, light factories etc, all the way up the Old Kent Road. All ready to go. All blocked until the money is found to extend the Bakerloo Line.
Sunak has no understanding of normal people and no ability to communicate with them.
Hopeless.
Especially given he's up against the true master of empathy, Sir Keir Starmer. A man who oozes charm from every pore. A man who lights up every room he walks in to.
Sunak was beaten by a candidate who in turn was beaten by a lettuce
Any sentient being is an improvement on him
Now, hang on. He's better than Michael Fabricant, Jacob Rees-Mogg, Richard Burgon, Laura Pid...oh, hold on, you did say 'sentient.' As you were.
As we are doing jokes, a reminder of Angela Rayner's quip that the Prime Minister has failed to provide his Whatsapp messages to the Covid inquiry, and Jacob Rees-Mogg has yet to hand over his carrier pigeon.
So preferring to making a joke, when she could have actually made a good political point about the PM and his record-keeping?
She comes across as a comedian, rather than a serious politician. Even if the joke got a bunch of laughs from the hall, she isn’t convincing swing voters that she’s wanting to be a senior member of the next government. If they wanted a comic, there’s plenty of Labour-supporting professionals they could have hired to make the same joke.
People complain about professional politicians, then complain about unprofessional ones. People complain about politicians who have not had careers outside politics, and the lack of real working class representation, they say too many go to university, them complain that someone is uneducated and politically inexperienced.
Rayner is a star. She has convictions, authenticity and style, she is intelligent, canny and organised. No wonder she is popular.
Time enough to attack them when they demonstrate incompetence in government.
I wonder if Starmer will have Attlee's ruthlessness with colleagues who are 'not up to it' - or indeed whether he will be up to it himself ?
Starmers reshuffles have demonstrated so already. Meanwhile Sunaks reshuffles just demonstrate that he is scraping the bottom of the barrel and in hock to faction fights in his party.
The problem Starmer will have (thanks to Corbyn) is that if he does win he’ll have more than 100 new MPs who will all want a ministerial role by the end of the first term, as well as a solid core of old lags who think it’s their turn. Though I presume the 100 will have been vetted to be pure New Labour.
149/1 after 25ovs, finally looking like England could post a decent score today.
They have been really squeezed for the last 4 overs. No boundaries. No wickets either mind.
There’s Root with a big six! 10 from that over, and still above six an over average.
It's all about getting the win today. Getting us off the mark, re-establishing confidence and putting us in the winning frame of mind for the harder games ahead. Assuming we win today we will probably need to win 5 of the 7 remaining group games to get through.
England won’t wake up until they have to win five from five.
As an example, when they built my 'village' (actually a town now), there was no public transport aside from a bus. The developers built a short section of dual carriageway onto the A428, which HA later grudgigly extended to meet the existing dual carriageway near Cambridge.
For public transport, we still rely on busses, and are at the whim of Stagecoach (who have withdrawn many of the services, and cut the routes through the village), and Whippet, who are good but small. We have no railway, no tram,; not even a good cycle route to Cambridge.
Any new town should have excellent transport links. Nearby, the new Northstowe should have the misguided bus link into Cambridge (along an old railway line, natch). Waterbeach New Town is going to be served by moving the existing station a short distance north. All these are paid for by the council, not developers.
We cannot - and must not - so new towns on the cheap.
Absolutely any new towns should have excellent transport links, I said there should be new motorways.
But that should not be the "developers" responsibility.
If you want community infrastructure, then it is the responsibility of the entire community, the entire country, to pay for that - not just pile the burden on those who get a new house all alone while those who live in secure housing that was built years ago abscond from any responsibilities.
That's sorta my point. It should be paid for by the councils involved, and it should be there when it is needed.
As an example of where S106 can go wrong, see this story (yes, DM...). The first houses in Nortstowe (a development northwest of Cambridge) have been occupied for six years now, and it has no shops, pubs, cafes, public toilets, or even a GP practice.
I know Northstowe fairly well (I've run around all of it as of a few months ago, but the ****ards keep on opening new roads...), and although I'm not a fan of the architecture, the layout seems fairly well designed. But it's terrible that a place that is housing thousands does not have the basic amenities.
It's fine for the council to say: a 'community centre building will be provided before the 900th home was occupied, or a sports pavilion before the 500th - when there are 1,200 homes occupied and they have not been built.
The council should be able to make the developer stop all building works on houses - and sales of completed houses - until it meets its obligations.
S106 simply doesn't work very well, even on large developments.
The housing developer should have nothing to do with "obligations" on other things. The housing developer should be dealing with housing and housing alone.
It should be no more the housing developers responsibility to meet the Councils obligations than it is the Schools obligation to meet the GPs obligations.
Suggesting stopping housing until other things are resolved is like suggesting shutting schools until other things are resolved.
Grey field sounds similar to brown field. Not entirely sure of the difference. Old style pre-internet shopping complexes. Are there really a tonne of those. Great if so.
In London, there are quite a few, surprisingly central, warehouse/factory sites.
There’s quite a lot of “business parks” as well. Quite a few people have commented that Chiswick Business Park is a rather nice environment - they put in a lot of work to make it so.
Compare it to the new flats being jammed between motorways and rail tracks.
Not sure if (yet) more new "affordable" (ie still super expensive) residential developments in Chiswick is what the Labour rank and file are expecting from the policy.
The difference between the Soviet-era tanks and the Western models that the Ukranians now have, is that the Soviet tanks get blown to bits by a single hit on them, often with loss of life, thanks to the way they’re constructed with the ammunition under the barrel; whereas the Western tanks are designed to be, and often are, repairable after being hit by artillery fire, and the crew can usually escape.
There is a crazy machismo in the Russian military, that as soon as they lose a village/strong point/tree line, they must recapture it, whatever the cost. So Ukraine makes gains and waits for the inevitable Russian push - usually from an entirely predictable vector. With their use of drones and HIMARS and other artillery able to blast the head off a pin, the Russians inevitably become another bunch of battlefield statistics.
Yes, that’s been the suggestion as to what’s been going on in the area around Tokmak. That the Russians are pushing troops forward to maintain every inch of ground, rather than slowly walking back and taking time to re-compose themselves.
With the end result that one day there’s simply no-one left behind th front line, and it all happens rather quickly after that.
That the Russians are reported to be heavily laying mines around Tokmak in recent days, suggests that we’re now close to that point where the lines move significantly in a short amount of time. They’re still a month or more away from winter in the Southern regions as well, whereas further North around Kharkiv, it’s now starting to get muddy.
Sunak has no understanding of normal people and no ability to communicate with them.
Hopeless.
Especially given he's up against the true master of empathy, Sir Keir Starmer. A man who oozes charm from every pore. A man who lights up every room he walks in to.
Sunak was beaten by a candidate who in turn was beaten by a lettuce
Any sentient being is an improvement on him
Now, hang on. He's better than Michael Fabricant, Jacob Rees-Mogg, Richard Burgon, Laura Pid...oh, hold on, you did say 'sentient.' As you were.
As we are doing jokes, a reminder of Angela Rayner's quip that the Prime Minister has failed to provide his Whatsapp messages to the Covid inquiry, and Jacob Rees-Mogg has yet to hand over his carrier pigeon.
So preferring to making a joke, when she could have actually made a good political point about the PM and his record-keeping?
She comes across as a comedian, rather than a serious politician. Even if the joke got a bunch of laughs from the hall, she isn’t convincing swing voters that she’s wanting to be a senior member of the next government. If they wanted a comic, there’s plenty of Labour-supporting professionals they could have hired to make the same joke.
Rayner did make the point and it is normal for speeches to be leavened by humour, especially on the opening day.
She’s also deputy; she’s supposed to rouse the troops a bit.
The more Ange the better imo. She really seems to hit something atavistic and uncomfortable in the retired colonel types.
Perhaps she should hit someone throwing an egg at her?
Re the by-elections, my view is the Tories will hold onto Tamworth. I don't know enough about Mid-Beds but, from what has been said on here, that has to be a strong possibility.
The rationale for the Tory hold is this. I mentioned on Saturday that one of the by-products of the Hamas attacks was likely to be a strengthening in support for right-wing parties because it would bring back into focus concerns over immigration and / or whether immigrant populations who may be seen as a source of trouble. Hard to see how that plays out yet but, given the AfD had very good results in both Bavaria and Hesse and (reading between the lines) exceeded expectations, it may already be starting to come through.
I think Tamworth is the sort of constituency that could / will be prone to similar sentiments - heavily leave, mainly WWC and lower middle class demographic.
Then add in the publicity the likes of Corbyn and the pro-Palestinian fringe have been getting plus the 'equivalence' shown by many on the left towards the attacks (as shown on here). That is also likely to put off some voters who may feel that, whatever Starmer says, his base has a disproportionate number of such members.
Sunak has no understanding of normal people and no ability to communicate with them.
Hopeless.
Especially given he's up against the true master of empathy, Sir Keir Starmer. A man who oozes charm from every pore. A man who lights up every room he walks in to.
Sunak was beaten by a candidate who in turn was beaten by a lettuce
Any sentient being is an improvement on him
Now, hang on. He's better than Michael Fabricant, Jacob Rees-Mogg, Richard Burgon, Laura Pid...oh, hold on, you did say 'sentient.' As you were.
As we are doing jokes, a reminder of Angela Rayner's quip that the Prime Minister has failed to provide his Whatsapp messages to the Covid inquiry, and Jacob Rees-Mogg has yet to hand over his carrier pigeon.
Actually, that’s rather good. Reminds one of how out of touch JRM often seems.
And good morning to all! Sunny here with a mostly clear blue sky. Just a little high cloud.
As an example, when they built my 'village' (actually a town now), there was no public transport aside from a bus. The developers built a short section of dual carriageway onto the A428, which HA later grudgigly extended to meet the existing dual carriageway near Cambridge.
For public transport, we still rely on busses, and are at the whim of Stagecoach (who have withdrawn many of the services, and cut the routes through the village), and Whippet, who are good but small. We have no railway, no tram,; not even a good cycle route to Cambridge.
Any new town should have excellent transport links. Nearby, the new Northstowe should have the misguided bus link into Cambridge (along an old railway line, natch). Waterbeach New Town is going to be served by moving the existing station a short distance north. All these are paid for by the council, not developers.
We cannot - and must not - so new towns on the cheap.
Absolutely any new towns should have excellent transport links, I said there should be new motorways.
But that should not be the "developers" responsibility.
If you want community infrastructure, then it is the responsibility of the entire community, the entire country, to pay for that - not just pile the burden on those who get a new house all alone while those who live in secure housing that was built years ago abscond from any responsibilities.
That's sorta my point. It should be paid for by the councils involved, and it should be there when it is needed.
As an example of where S106 can go wrong, see this story (yes, DM...). The first houses in Nortstowe (a development northwest of Cambridge) have been occupied for six years now, and it has no shops, pubs, cafes, public toilets, or even a GP practice.
I know Northstowe fairly well (I've run around all of it as of a few months ago, but the ****ards keep on opening new roads...), and although I'm not a fan of the architecture, the layout seems fairly well designed. But it's terrible that a place that is housing thousands does not have the basic amenities.
It's fine for the council to say: a 'community centre building will be provided before the 900th home was occupied, or a sports pavilion before the 500th - when there are 1,200 homes occupied and they have not been built.
The council should be able to make the developer stop all building works on houses - and sales of completed houses - until it meets its obligations.
S106 simply doesn't work very well, even on large developments.
The housing developer should have nothing to do with "obligations" on other things. The housing developer should be dealing with housing and housing alone.
It should be no more the housing developers responsibility to meet the Councils obligations than it is the Schools obligation to meet the GPs obligations.
Suggesting stopping housing until other things is resolved is like suggesting shutting schools until other things are resolved.
S106 should not exist.
I mean, it’s a view. Just an odd one. The theory of s106 is great. Make the entity already building lots of stuff, and due to make lots of cash from it, build in the infrastructure as it goes, in lieu of tax.
The issue is making the buggers actually do it, and the problem is too much power in the hands of local politicians, who are partial to a brown envelope, or even just a nice lunch and the feel of being important.
Sunak has no understanding of normal people and no ability to communicate with them.
Hopeless.
Especially given he's up against the true master of empathy, Sir Keir Starmer. A man who oozes charm from every pore. A man who lights up every room he walks in to.
Sunak was beaten by a candidate who in turn was beaten by a lettuce
Any sentient being is an improvement on him
Now, hang on. He's better than Michael Fabricant, Jacob Rees-Mogg, Richard Burgon, Laura Pid...oh, hold on, you did say 'sentient.' As you were.
As we are doing jokes, a reminder of Angela Rayner's quip that the Prime Minister has failed to provide his Whatsapp messages to the Covid inquiry, and Jacob Rees-Mogg has yet to hand over his carrier pigeon.
So preferring to making a joke, when she could have actually made a good political point about the PM and his record-keeping?
She comes across as a comedian, rather than a serious politician. Even if the joke got a bunch of laughs from the hall, she isn’t convincing swing voters that she’s wanting to be a senior member of the next government. If they wanted a comic, there’s plenty of Labour-supporting professionals they could have hired to make the same joke.
People complain about professional politicians, then complain about unprofessional ones. People complain about politicians who have not had careers outside politics, and the lack of real working class representation, they say too many go to university, them complain that someone is uneducated and politically inexperienced.
Rayner is a star. She has convictions, authenticity and style, she is intelligent, canny and organised. No wonder she is popular.
Time enough to attack them when they demonstrate incompetence in government.
I wonder if Starmer will have Attlee's ruthlessness with colleagues who are 'not up to it' - or indeed whether he will be up to it himself ?
Starmers reshuffles have demonstrated so already. Meanwhile Sunaks reshuffles just demonstrate that he is scraping the bottom of the barrel and in hock to faction fights in his party.
The problem Starmer will have (thanks to Corbyn) is that if he does win he’ll have more than 100 new MPs who will all want a ministerial role by the end of the first term, as well as a solid core of old lags who think it’s their turn. Though I presume the 100 will have been vetted to be pure New Labour.
If the forecasts are anywhere near accurate, there are likely to be a lot of unexpected victors sitting for seats in what were thought to be safe Tory seats. I don't think massive majorities make good governments.
As an example, when they built my 'village' (actually a town now), there was no public transport aside from a bus. The developers built a short section of dual carriageway onto the A428, which HA later grudgigly extended to meet the existing dual carriageway near Cambridge.
For public transport, we still rely on busses, and are at the whim of Stagecoach (who have withdrawn many of the services, and cut the routes through the village), and Whippet, who are good but small. We have no railway, no tram,; not even a good cycle route to Cambridge.
Any new town should have excellent transport links. Nearby, the new Northstowe should have the misguided bus link into Cambridge (along an old railway line, natch). Waterbeach New Town is going to be served by moving the existing station a short distance north. All these are paid for by the council, not developers.
We cannot - and must not - so new towns on the cheap.
Absolutely any new towns should have excellent transport links, I said there should be new motorways.
But that should not be the "developers" responsibility.
If you want community infrastructure, then it is the responsibility of the entire community, the entire country, to pay for that - not just pile the burden on those who get a new house all alone while those who live in secure housing that was built years ago abscond from any responsibilities.
That's sorta my point. It should be paid for by the councils involved, and it should be there when it is needed.
As an example of where S106 can go wrong, see this story (yes, DM...). The first houses in Nortstowe (a development northwest of Cambridge) have been occupied for six years now, and it has no shops, pubs, cafes, public toilets, or even a GP practice.
I know Northstowe fairly well (I've run around all of it as of a few months ago, but the ****ards keep on opening new roads...), and although I'm not a fan of the architecture, the layout seems fairly well designed. But it's terrible that a place that is housing thousands does not have the basic amenities.
It's fine for the council to say: a 'community centre building will be provided before the 900th home was occupied, or a sports pavilion before the 500th - when there are 1,200 homes occupied and they have not been built.
The council should be able to make the developer stop all building works on houses - and sales of completed houses - until it meets its obligations.
S106 simply doesn't work very well, even on large developments.
The housing developer should have nothing to do with "obligations" on other things. The housing developer should be dealing with housing and housing alone.
It should be no more the housing developers responsibility to meet the Councils obligations than it is the Schools obligation to meet the GPs obligations.
Suggesting stopping housing until other things are resolved is like suggesting shutting schools until other things are resolved.
S106 should not exist.
And how does the council pay for that additional infrastructure, which needs to be in place as the houses are completed?
You would see Council Tax rising in those areas building more houses - that's going to quash Nimbyism, oh yes.
Grey field sounds similar to brown field. Not entirely sure of the difference. Old style pre-internet shopping complexes. Are there really a tonne of those. Great if so.
In London, there are quite a few, surprisingly central, warehouse/factory sites.
There’s quite a lot of “business parks” as well. Quite a few people have commented that Chiswick Business Park is a rather nice environment - they put in a lot of work to make it so.
Compare it to the new flats being jammed between motorways and rail tracks.
There's a football ground in that triangle of railway lines too.
Sunak has no understanding of normal people and no ability to communicate with them.
Hopeless.
Especially given he's up against the true master of empathy, Sir Keir Starmer. A man who oozes charm from every pore. A man who lights up every room he walks in to.
If that's the worst people have to say about him, he should be fine. He might completely lack any charisma genes, but he doesn't appear utterly out of touch.
And his communication skills, in terms of messaging coherence, are much superior to Sunak's.
Sunak has no understanding of normal people and no ability to communicate with them.
Hopeless.
Especially given he's up against the true master of empathy, Sir Keir Starmer. A man who oozes charm from every pore. A man who lights up every room he walks in to.
Sunak was beaten by a candidate who in turn was beaten by a lettuce
Any sentient being is an improvement on him
Now, hang on. He's better than Michael Fabricant, Jacob Rees-Mogg, Richard Burgon, Laura Pid...oh, hold on, you did say 'sentient.' As you were.
As we are doing jokes, a reminder of Angela Rayner's quip that the Prime Minister has failed to provide his Whatsapp messages to the Covid inquiry, and Jacob Rees-Mogg has yet to hand over his carrier pigeon.
So preferring to making a joke, when she could have actually made a good political point about the PM and his record-keeping?
She comes across as a comedian, rather than a serious politician. Even if the joke got a bunch of laughs from the hall, she isn’t convincing swing voters that she’s wanting to be a senior member of the next government. If they wanted a comic, there’s plenty of Labour-supporting professionals they could have hired to make the same joke.
Rayner did make the point and it is normal for speeches to be leavened by humour, especially on the opening day.
She’s also deputy; she’s supposed to rouse the troops a bit.
The more Ange the better imo. She really seems to hit something atavistic and uncomfortable in the retired colonel types.
Perhaps the 'retired colonel types' are onto something...
Yeah, maybe - in that she cuts through and seems like a normal person. She's a working class h-dropping (formerly) single mum who understands what it's like to manage in pretty dire circumstances, but through hard work, grit and brains she has got to the brink of serious power. TBH it's the sort of story the Conservatives should love in theory, but in practice it triggers their worst instincts around jumped-up women and proles.
Sunak has no understanding of normal people and no ability to communicate with them.
Hopeless.
Especially given he's up against the true master of empathy, Sir Keir Starmer. A man who oozes charm from every pore. A man who lights up every room he walks in to.
Sunak was beaten by a candidate who in turn was beaten by a lettuce
Any sentient being is an improvement on him
Now, hang on. He's better than Michael Fabricant, Jacob Rees-Mogg, Richard Burgon, Laura Pid...oh, hold on, you did say 'sentient.' As you were.
As we are doing jokes, a reminder of Angela Rayner's quip that the Prime Minister has failed to provide his Whatsapp messages to the Covid inquiry, and Jacob Rees-Mogg has yet to hand over his carrier pigeon.
So preferring to making a joke, when she could have actually made a good political point about the PM and his record-keeping?
She comes across as a comedian, rather than a serious politician. Even if the joke got a bunch of laughs from the hall, she isn’t convincing swing voters that she’s wanting to be a senior member of the next government. If they wanted a comic, there’s plenty of Labour-supporting professionals they could have hired to make the same joke.
People complain about professional politicians, then complain about unprofessional ones. People complain about politicians who have not had careers outside politics, and the lack of real working class representation, they say too many go to university, them complain that someone is uneducated and politically inexperienced.
Rayner is a star. She has convictions, authenticity and style, she is intelligent, canny and organised. No wonder she is popular.
Time enough to attack them when they demonstrate incompetence in government.
I wonder if Starmer will have Attlee's ruthlessness with colleagues who are 'not up to it' - or indeed whether he will be up to it himself ?
Starmers reshuffles have demonstrated so already. Meanwhile Sunaks reshuffles just demonstrate that he is scraping the bottom of the barrel and in hock to faction fights in his party.
The problem Starmer will have (thanks to Corbyn) is that if he does win he’ll have more than 100 new MPs who will all want a ministerial role by the end of the first term, as well as a solid core of old lags who think it’s their turn. Though I presume the 100 will have been vetted to be pure New Labour.
If the forecasts are anywhere near accurate, there are likely to be a lot of unexpected victors sitting for seats in what were thought to be safe Tory seats. I don't think massive majorities make good governments.
I am really hoping Labour learned from the Sheffield Hallam idiot, and given the polling are vetting properly up to about seat 400.
As an example, when they built my 'village' (actually a town now), there was no public transport aside from a bus. The developers built a short section of dual carriageway onto the A428, which HA later grudgigly extended to meet the existing dual carriageway near Cambridge.
For public transport, we still rely on busses, and are at the whim of Stagecoach (who have withdrawn many of the services, and cut the routes through the village), and Whippet, who are good but small. We have no railway, no tram,; not even a good cycle route to Cambridge.
Any new town should have excellent transport links. Nearby, the new Northstowe should have the misguided bus link into Cambridge (along an old railway line, natch). Waterbeach New Town is going to be served by moving the existing station a short distance north. All these are paid for by the council, not developers.
We cannot - and must not - so new towns on the cheap.
Absolutely any new towns should have excellent transport links, I said there should be new motorways.
But that should not be the "developers" responsibility.
If you want community infrastructure, then it is the responsibility of the entire community, the entire country, to pay for that - not just pile the burden on those who get a new house all alone while those who live in secure housing that was built years ago abscond from any responsibilities.
That's sorta my point. It should be paid for by the councils involved, and it should be there when it is needed.
As an example of where S106 can go wrong, see this story (yes, DM...). The first houses in Nortstowe (a development northwest of Cambridge) have been occupied for six years now, and it has no shops, pubs, cafes, public toilets, or even a GP practice.
I know Northstowe fairly well (I've run around all of it as of a few months ago, but the ****ards keep on opening new roads...), and although I'm not a fan of the architecture, the layout seems fairly well designed. But it's terrible that a place that is housing thousands does not have the basic amenities.
It's fine for the council to say: a 'community centre building will be provided before the 900th home was occupied, or a sports pavilion before the 500th - when there are 1,200 homes occupied and they have not been built.
The council should be able to make the developer stop all building works on houses - and sales of completed houses - until it meets its obligations.
S106 simply doesn't work very well, even on large developments.
The housing developer should have nothing to do with "obligations" on other things. The housing developer should be dealing with housing and housing alone.
It should be no more the housing developers responsibility to meet the Councils obligations than it is the Schools obligation to meet the GPs obligations.
Suggesting stopping housing until other things is resolved is like suggesting shutting schools until other things are resolved.
S106 should not exist.
I mean, it’s a view. Just an odd one. The theory of s106 is great. Make the entity already building lots of stuff, and due to make lots of cash from it, build in the infrastructure as it goes, in lieu of tax.
The issue is making the buggers actually do it, and the problem is too much power in the hands of local politicians, who are partial to a brown envelope, or even just a nice lunch and the feel of being important.
You either need an enforceable contract, with regard to the timeline of facilities and services around a development, agreed at the time permission is given, or else you need to have the developer pay a bond directly to the council, who then assume themselves the responsibility for contracting the building of such things.
The current system comes across as the worst of both worlds, with small towns being built with not even a small shop or a bus stop for years - but the councillors themselves having had some very nice dinners.
Sunak has no understanding of normal people and no ability to communicate with them.
Hopeless.
Especially given he's up against the true master of empathy, Sir Keir Starmer. A man who oozes charm from every pore. A man who lights up every room he walks in to.
Sunak was beaten by a candidate who in turn was beaten by a lettuce
Any sentient being is an improvement on him
Now, hang on. He's better than Michael Fabricant, Jacob Rees-Mogg, Richard Burgon, Laura Pid...oh, hold on, you did say 'sentient.' As you were.
As we are doing jokes, a reminder of Angela Rayner's quip that the Prime Minister has failed to provide his Whatsapp messages to the Covid inquiry, and Jacob Rees-Mogg has yet to hand over his carrier pigeon.
So preferring to making a joke, when she could have actually made a good political point about the PM and his record-keeping?
She comes across as a comedian, rather than a serious politician. Even if the joke got a bunch of laughs from the hall, she isn’t convincing swing voters that she’s wanting to be a senior member of the next government. If they wanted a comic, there’s plenty of Labour-supporting professionals they could have hired to make the same joke.
People complain about professional politicians, then complain about unprofessional ones. People complain about politicians who have not had careers outside politics, and the lack of real working class representation, they say too many go to university, them complain that someone is uneducated and politically inexperienced.
Rayner is a star. She has convictions, authenticity and style, she is intelligent, canny and organised. No wonder she is popular.
To this potentially floating voter, she comes across as superficial and not serious. I can’t imagine her as a DPM, or occupying one of the Great Offices.
A nodding donkey would be an improvement on the absolute tossers currently in post.
As an example, when they built my 'village' (actually a town now), there was no public transport aside from a bus. The developers built a short section of dual carriageway onto the A428, which HA later grudgigly extended to meet the existing dual carriageway near Cambridge.
For public transport, we still rely on busses, and are at the whim of Stagecoach (who have withdrawn many of the services, and cut the routes through the village), and Whippet, who are good but small. We have no railway, no tram,; not even a good cycle route to Cambridge.
Any new town should have excellent transport links. Nearby, the new Northstowe should have the misguided bus link into Cambridge (along an old railway line, natch). Waterbeach New Town is going to be served by moving the existing station a short distance north. All these are paid for by the council, not developers.
We cannot - and must not - so new towns on the cheap.
Absolutely any new towns should have excellent transport links, I said there should be new motorways.
But that should not be the "developers" responsibility.
If you want community infrastructure, then it is the responsibility of the entire community, the entire country, to pay for that - not just pile the burden on those who get a new house all alone while those who live in secure housing that was built years ago abscond from any responsibilities.
That's sorta my point. It should be paid for by the councils involved, and it should be there when it is needed.
As an example of where S106 can go wrong, see this story (yes, DM...). The first houses in Nortstowe (a development northwest of Cambridge) have been occupied for six years now, and it has no shops, pubs, cafes, public toilets, or even a GP practice.
I know Northstowe fairly well (I've run around all of it as of a few months ago, but the ****ards keep on opening new roads...), and although I'm not a fan of the architecture, the layout seems fairly well designed. But it's terrible that a place that is housing thousands does not have the basic amenities.
It's fine for the council to say: a 'community centre building will be provided before the 900th home was occupied, or a sports pavilion before the 500th - when there are 1,200 homes occupied and they have not been built.
The council should be able to make the developer stop all building works on houses - and sales of completed houses - until it meets its obligations.
S106 simply doesn't work very well, even on large developments.
The housing developer should have nothing to do with "obligations" on other things. The housing developer should be dealing with housing and housing alone.
It should be no more the housing developers responsibility to meet the Councils obligations than it is the Schools obligation to meet the GPs obligations.
Suggesting stopping housing until other things are resolved is like suggesting shutting schools until other things are resolved.
S106 should not exist.
I think that's the point I've been making. It isn't fit for purpose.
But there's an important question for you: when you say: "The housing developer should be dealing with housing and housing alone. ", then what do you define as 'housing'? Should they be building the local roads in a cul-de-sac? The drainage? How about putting in water or gas mains?/ Where does 'housing' end and public infrastructure begin?
All these things are needed, and someone needs to build them. If not the developer, then the council. And that requires funding, and hence more taxation of some form.
"Suggesting stopping housing until other things are resolved is like suggesting shutting schools until other things are resolved. "
Rubbish. Developers come to an agreement with a council. In return, they get to build houses. If they break that agreement, they should not build any more houses until they do as agreed.
Sunak will be hoping that the news coverage stays firmly on Israel . Anything that takes attention away from domestic issues could help in the two by-elections coming up .
Starmers big speech tomorrow does look going by the leaks to include some large scale plans in terms of new towns. It does though look to get drowned out by the Israeli coverage .
Fantastic news if Starmer is planning on some large scale new towns.
Especially if he's planning on the appropriate infrastructure of new motorways to link those new towns to the rest of the country.
I won't be holding my breath though.
One of the weekend briefings said that the new towns will be centred around railway stations, and cited East-West Rail as an example.
As someone who lives in a compact town centred around a railway station (I suspect we have among the highest rail journeys:population ratios anywhere in the country) I think this is a pretty good idea.
Means Starmer is going to have to pay off the inflated demands of the rail unions first. Otherwise, no point in having a rail hub without running trains.
Given the RMT strikes are avowedly political they may well settle with Starmer far more easily than with the Tories, and the same goes for the BMA who have already said in England they won't settle for what they have in the devolved regions because, the Tories, innit
ASLEF will be a tougher nut to crack.
Just more expensive.
They unashamedly just want the money.
I yield to no one in how irritating I find the train strikes, but my god I’m jealous of those unions’ members. They do a brilliant job for them.
Will take them 10 years to make up the lost wages, stupid sheeple.
Grey field sounds similar to brown field. Not entirely sure of the difference. Old style pre-internet shopping complexes. Are there really a tonne of those. Great if so.
In London, there are quite a few, surprisingly central, warehouse/factory sites.
There’s quite a lot of “business parks” as well. Quite a few people have commented that Chiswick Business Park is a rather nice environment - they put in a lot of work to make it so.
Compare it to the new flats being jammed between motorways and rail tracks.
As I've mentioned before, there is vast building potential on brownfield sites, former warehouses, retail sites, light factories etc, all the way up the Old Kent Road. All ready to go. All blocked until the money is found to extend the Bakerloo Line.
They should definitely use the money from the cancellation of HS2 to extend the Bakerloo line and build Crossrail 2. The business cases are much better in just about every way. Also the West London Orbital Rail needs funding (though I haven't seen a business case for that yet). Expanding mass transit makes much more sense than a high speed rail line in a small, crowded country.
Sunak has no understanding of normal people and no ability to communicate with them.
Hopeless.
Especially given he's up against the true master of empathy, Sir Keir Starmer. A man who oozes charm from every pore. A man who lights up every room he walks in to.
Sunak was beaten by a candidate who in turn was beaten by a lettuce
Any sentient being is an improvement on him
Now, hang on. He's better than Michael Fabricant, Jacob Rees-Mogg, Richard Burgon, Laura Pid...oh, hold on, you did say 'sentient.' As you were.
As we are doing jokes, a reminder of Angela Rayner's quip that the Prime Minister has failed to provide his Whatsapp messages to the Covid inquiry, and Jacob Rees-Mogg has yet to hand over his carrier pigeon.
So preferring to making a joke, when she could have actually made a good political point about the PM and his record-keeping?
She comes across as a comedian, rather than a serious politician. Even if the joke got a bunch of laughs from the hall, she isn’t convincing swing voters that she’s wanting to be a senior member of the next government. If they wanted a comic, there’s plenty of Labour-supporting professionals they could have hired to make the same joke.
People complain about professional politicians, then complain about unprofessional ones. People complain about politicians who have not had careers outside politics, and the lack of real working class representation, they say too many go to university, them complain that someone is uneducated and politically inexperienced.
Rayner is a star. She has convictions, authenticity and style, she is intelligent, canny and organised. No wonder she is popular.
Time enough to attack them when they demonstrate incompetence in government.
I wonder if Starmer will have Attlee's ruthlessness with colleagues who are 'not up to it' - or indeed whether he will be up to it himself ?
Starmers reshuffles have demonstrated so already. Meanwhile Sunaks reshuffles just demonstrate that he is scraping the bottom of the barrel and in hock to faction fights in his party.
The problem Starmer will have (thanks to Corbyn) is that if he does win he’ll have more than 100 new MPs who will all want a ministerial role by the end of the first term, as well as a solid core of old lags who think it’s their turn. Though I presume the 100 will have been vetted to be pure New Labour.
If the forecasts are anywhere near accurate, there are likely to be a lo
The difference between the Soviet-era tanks and the Western models that the Ukranians now have, is that the Soviet tanks get blown to bits by a single hit on them, often with loss of life, thanks to the way they’re constructed with the ammunition under the barrel; whereas the Western tanks are designed to be, and often are, repairable after being hit by artillery fire, and the crew can usually escape.
There is a crazy machismo in the Russian military, that as soon as they lose a village/strong point/tree line, they must recapture it, whatever the cost. So Ukraine makes gains and waits for the inevitable Russian push - usually from an entirely predictable vector. With their use of drones and HIMARS and other artillery able to blast the head off a pin, the Russians inevitably become another bunch of battlefield statistics.
Yes, that’s been the suggestion as to what’s been going on in the area around Tokmak. That the Russians are pushing troops forward to maintain every inch of ground, rather than slowly walking back and taking time to re-compose themselves.
With the end result that one day there’s simply no-one left behind th front line, and it all happens rather quickly after that.
That the Russians are reported to be heavily laying mines around Tokmak in recent days, suggests that we’re now close to that point where the lines move significantly in a short amount of time. They’re still a month or more away from winter in the Southern regions as well, whereas further North around Kharkiv, it’s now starting to get muddy.
The British tactics at Paschendale were "bite and hold" and then demolish the inevitable counter attack, rather than attempt breakthrough and outrun artillery and logistic support. Hindenberg described it as the graveyard of the German Army.
Attritional tactics work, but both sides pay dearly in blood and treasure.
As an example, when they built my 'village' (actually a town now), there was no public transport aside from a bus. The developers built a short section of dual carriageway onto the A428, which HA later grudgigly extended to meet the existing dual carriageway near Cambridge.
For public transport, we still rely on busses, and are at the whim of Stagecoach (who have withdrawn many of the services, and cut the routes through the village), and Whippet, who are good but small. We have no railway, no tram,; not even a good cycle route to Cambridge.
Any new town should have excellent transport links. Nearby, the new Northstowe should have the misguided bus link into Cambridge (along an old railway line, natch). Waterbeach New Town is going to be served by moving the existing station a short distance north. All these are paid for by the council, not developers.
We cannot - and must not - so new towns on the cheap.
Absolutely any new towns should have excellent transport links, I said there should be new motorways.
But that should not be the "developers" responsibility.
If you want community infrastructure, then it is the responsibility of the entire community, the entire country, to pay for that - not just pile the burden on those who get a new house all alone while those who live in secure housing that was built years ago abscond from any responsibilities.
That's sorta my point. It should be paid for by the councils involved, and it should be there when it is needed.
As an example of where S106 can go wrong, see this story (yes, DM...). The first houses in Nortstowe (a development northwest of Cambridge) have been occupied for six years now, and it has no shops, pubs, cafes, public toilets, or even a GP practice.
I know Northstowe fairly well (I've run around all of it as of a few months ago, but the ****ards keep on opening new roads...), and although I'm not a fan of the architecture, the layout seems fairly well designed. But it's terrible that a place that is housing thousands does not have the basic amenities.
It's fine for the council to say: a 'community centre building will be provided before the 900th home was occupied, or a sports pavilion before the 500th - when there are 1,200 homes occupied and they have not been built.
The council should be able to make the developer stop all building works on houses - and sales of completed houses - until it meets its obligations.
S106 simply doesn't work very well, even on large developments.
The housing developer should have nothing to do with "obligations" on other things. The housing developer should be dealing with housing and housing alone.
It should be no more the housing developers responsibility to meet the Councils obligations than it is the Schools obligation to meet the GPs obligations.
Suggesting stopping housing until other things is resolved is like suggesting shutting schools until other things are resolved.
S106 should not exist.
I mean, it’s a view. Just an odd one. The theory of s106 is great. Make the entity already building lots of stuff, and due to make lots of cash from it, build in the infrastructure as it goes, in lieu of tax.
The issue is making the buggers actually do it, and the problem is too much power in the hands of local politicians, who are partial to a brown envelope, or even just a nice lunch and the feel of being important.
You either need an enforceable contract, with regard to the timeline of facilities and services around a development, agreed at the time permission is given, or else you need to have the developer pay a bond directly to the council, who then assume themselves the responsibility for contracting the building of such things.
The current system comes across as the worst of both worlds, with small towns being built with not even a small shop or a bus stop for years - but the councillors themselves having had some very nice dinners.
Actually, Cambourne West's roads are being built with streetlights and shiny new bus stops all over the place - including on roads where houses are not going to be built for a few years. It feels rather odd to run along a near-pristine road with bus stops and street lights, but green fields beyond.
Especially as its unclear where bus services will run. I bet several of the stops never see a bus...
Sunak will be hoping that the news coverage stays firmly on Israel . Anything that takes attention away from domestic issues could help in the two by-elections coming up .
Starmers big speech tomorrow does look going by the leaks to include some large scale plans in terms of new towns. It does though look to get drowned out by the Israeli coverage .
Fantastic news if Starmer is planning on some large scale new towns.
Especially if he's planning on the appropriate infrastructure of new motorways to link those new towns to the rest of the country.
I won't be holding my breath though.
One of the weekend briefings said that the new towns will be centred around railway stations, and cited East-West Rail as an example.
As someone who lives in a compact town centred around a railway station (I suspect we have among the highest rail journeys:population ratios anywhere in the country) I think this is a pretty good idea.
Means Starmer is going to have to pay off the inflated demands of the rail unions first. Otherwise, no point in having a rail hub without running trains.
Given the RMT strikes are avowedly political they may well settle with Starmer far more easily than with the Tories, and the same goes for the BMA who have already said in England they won't settle for what they have in the devolved regions because, the Tories, innit
ASLEF will be a tougher nut to crack.
Just more expensive.
They unashamedly just want the money.
They should just fuck off and join the Tories.....
As an example, when they built my 'village' (actually a town now), there was no public transport aside from a bus. The developers built a short section of dual carriageway onto the A428, which HA later grudgigly extended to meet the existing dual carriageway near Cambridge.
For public transport, we still rely on busses, and are at the whim of Stagecoach (who have withdrawn many of the services, and cut the routes through the village), and Whippet, who are good but small. We have no railway, no tram,; not even a good cycle route to Cambridge.
Any new town should have excellent transport links. Nearby, the new Northstowe should have the misguided bus link into Cambridge (along an old railway line, natch). Waterbeach New Town is going to be served by moving the existing station a short distance north. All these are paid for by the council, not developers.
We cannot - and must not - so new towns on the cheap.
Absolutely any new towns should have excellent transport links, I said there should be new motorways.
But that should not be the "developers" responsibility.
If you want community infrastructure, then it is the responsibility of the entire community, the entire country, to pay for that - not just pile the burden on those who get a new house all alone while those who live in secure housing that was built years ago abscond from any responsibilities.
That's sorta my point. It should be paid for by the councils involved, and it should be there when it is needed.
As an example of where S106 can go wrong, see this story (yes, DM...). The first houses in Nortstowe (a development northwest of Cambridge) have been occupied for six years now, and it has no shops, pubs, cafes, public toilets, or even a GP practice.
I know Northstowe fairly well (I've run around all of it as of a few months ago, but the ****ards keep on opening new roads...), and although I'm not a fan of the architecture, the layout seems fairly well designed. But it's terrible that a place that is housing thousands does not have the basic amenities.
It's fine for the council to say: a 'community centre building will be provided before the 900th home was occupied, or a sports pavilion before the 500th - when there are 1,200 homes occupied and they have not been built.
The council should be able to make the developer stop all building works on houses - and sales of completed houses - until it meets its obligations.
S106 simply doesn't work very well, even on large developments.
The housing developer should have nothing to do with "obligations" on other things. The housing developer should be dealing with housing and housing alone.
It should be no more the housing developers responsibility to meet the Councils obligations than it is the Schools obligation to meet the GPs obligations.
Suggesting stopping housing until other things is resolved is like suggesting shutting schools until other things are resolved.
S106 should not exist.
I mean, it’s a view. Just an odd one. The theory of s106 is great. Make the entity already building lots of stuff, and due to make lots of cash from it, build in the infrastructure as it goes, in lieu of tax.
The issue is making the buggers actually do it, and the problem is too much power in the hands of local politicians, who are partial to a brown envelope, or even just a nice lunch and the feel of being important.
You either need an enforceable contract, with regard to the timeline of facilities and services around a development, agreed at the time permission is given, or else you need to have the developer pay a bond directly to the council, who then assume themselves the responsibility for contracting the building of such things.
The current system comes across as the worst of both worlds, with small towns being built with not even a small shop or a bus stop for years - but the councillors themselves having had some very nice dinners.
I agree. I return to my proposal to abolish all locally elected politicians and instead put in place professionals who could enforce said contracts or make use of said bonds.
As an example, when they built my 'village' (actually a town now), there was no public transport aside from a bus. The developers built a short section of dual carriageway onto the A428, which HA later grudgigly extended to meet the existing dual carriageway near Cambridge.
For public transport, we still rely on busses, and are at the whim of Stagecoach (who have withdrawn many of the services, and cut the routes through the village), and Whippet, who are good but small. We have no railway, no tram,; not even a good cycle route to Cambridge.
Any new town should have excellent transport links. Nearby, the new Northstowe should have the misguided bus link into Cambridge (along an old railway line, natch). Waterbeach New Town is going to be served by moving the existing station a short distance north. All these are paid for by the council, not developers.
We cannot - and must not - so new towns on the cheap.
Absolutely any new towns should have excellent transport links, I said there should be new motorways.
But that should not be the "developers" responsibility.
If you want community infrastructure, then it is the responsibility of the entire community, the entire country, to pay for that - not just pile the burden on those who get a new house all alone while those who live in secure housing that was built years ago abscond from any responsibilities.
That's sorta my point. It should be paid for by the councils involved, and it should be there when it is needed.
As an example of where S106 can go wrong, see this story (yes, DM...). The first houses in Nortstowe (a development northwest of Cambridge) have been occupied for six years now, and it has no shops, pubs, cafes, public toilets, or even a GP practice.
I know Northstowe fairly well (I've run around all of it as of a few months ago, but the ****ards keep on opening new roads...), and although I'm not a fan of the architecture, the layout seems fairly well designed. But it's terrible that a place that is housing thousands does not have the basic amenities.
It's fine for the council to say: a 'community centre building will be provided before the 900th home was occupied, or a sports pavilion before the 500th - when there are 1,200 homes occupied and they have not been built.
The council should be able to make the developer stop all building works on houses - and sales of completed houses - until it meets its obligations.
S106 simply doesn't work very well, even on large developments.
The housing developer should have nothing to do with "obligations" on other things. The housing developer should be dealing with housing and housing alone.
It should be no more the housing developers responsibility to meet the Councils obligations than it is the Schools obligation to meet the GPs obligations.
Suggesting stopping housing until other things are resolved is like suggesting shutting schools until other things are resolved.
S106 should not exist.
Yes and no.
When development happens there needs to be long term infrastructure planning that takes into account how people will actually live in the space. So all community stuff - schools, GPs, public transport, community centres, etc. etc. - should be part of the planning from day one.
On the other hand, yeah I agree S106 is shit. This stuff shouldn't be paid for with a one off levy from developers, and only via that. It should be paid through, you know, taxes and an actual functioning state at local and national levels. Indeed, maybe development in general should be done that way rather than filtering through many layers of bullshit subcontractors and what not.
On this topic (somewhat), found this episode interesting this morning discussing HS2 and the inability of the British state to do, you know, simple functions of statehood:
Was especially poignant as I was on my commute where first my bus just did not turn up, and when a different bus did turn up it was standing room only and so many passengers were waiting at the stop because buses hadn't shown up that we couldn't all actually get on said bus, so I had to finally take the third bus that happens to be a longer journey because it is the one that goes all around the houses (a necessary route for people, but an aggravation when you are trying to just get to work on time)...
Sunak has no understanding of normal people and no ability to communicate with them.
Hopeless.
Especially given he's up against the true master of empathy, Sir Keir Starmer. A man who oozes charm from every pore. A man who lights up every room he walks in to.
Sunak was beaten by a candidate who in turn was beaten by a lettuce
Any sentient being is an improvement on him
Now, hang on. He's better than Michael Fabricant, Jacob Rees-Mogg, Richard Burgon, Laura Pid...oh, hold on, you did say 'sentient.' As you were.
As we are doing jokes, a reminder of Angela Rayner's quip that the Prime Minister has failed to provide his Whatsapp messages to the Covid inquiry, and Jacob Rees-Mogg has yet to hand over his carrier pigeon.
So preferring to making a joke, when she could have actually made a good political point about the PM and his record-keeping?
She comes across as a comedian, rather than a serious politician. Even if the joke got a bunch of laughs from the hall, she isn’t convincing swing voters that she’s wanting to be a senior member of the next government. If they wanted a comic, there’s plenty of Labour-supporting professionals they could have hired to make the same joke.
People complain about professional politicians, then complain about unprofessional ones. People complain about politicians who have not had careers outside politics, and the lack of real working class representation, they say too many go to university, them complain that someone is uneducated and politically inexperienced.
Rayner is a star. She has convictions, authenticity and style, she is intelligent, canny and organised. No wonder she is popular.
Time enough to attack them when they demonstrate incompetence in government.
I wonder if Starmer will have Attlee's ruthlessness with colleagues who are 'not up to it' - or indeed whether he will be up to it himself ?
Starmers reshuffles have demonstrated so already. Meanwhile Sunaks reshuffles just demonstrate that he is scraping the bottom of the barrel and in hock to faction fights in his party.
The problem Starmer will have (thanks to Corbyn) is that if he does win he’ll have more than 100 new MPs who will all want a ministerial role by the end of the first term, as well as a solid core of old lags who think it’s their turn. Though I presume the 100 will have been vetted to be pure New Labour.
If the forecasts are anywhere near accurate, there are likely to be a lot of unexpected victors sitting for seats in what were thought to be safe Tory seats. I don't think massive majorities make good governments.
I am really hoping Labour learned from the Sheffield Hallam idiot, and given the polling are vetting properly up to about seat 400.
Was he not a product of Momentum? But yeah, hopefully the Centrist Dad Ascendency will produce fewer double-barrelled* roasters like that pillock.
Edit: was going to say ‘full bore’ but realise SKS has that well covered.
Sunak has no understanding of normal people and no ability to communicate with them.
Hopeless.
Especially given he's up against the true master of empathy, Sir Keir Starmer. A man who oozes charm from every pore. A man who lights up every room he walks in to.
Sunak was beaten by a candidate who in turn was beaten by a lettuce
Any sentient being is an improvement on him
Now, hang on. He's better than Michael Fabricant, Jacob Rees-Mogg, Richard Burgon, Laura Pid...oh, hold on, you did say 'sentient.' As you were.
As we are doing jokes, a reminder of Angela Rayner's quip that the Prime Minister has failed to provide his Whatsapp messages to the Covid inquiry, and Jacob Rees-Mogg has yet to hand over his carrier pigeon.
So preferring to making a joke, when she could have actually made a good political point about the PM and his record-keeping?
She comes across as a comedian, rather than a serious politician. Even if the joke got a bunch of laughs from the hall, she isn’t convincing swing voters that she’s wanting to be a senior member of the next government. If they wanted a comic, there’s plenty of Labour-supporting professionals they could have hired to make the same joke.
Rayner did make the point and it is normal for speeches to be leavened by humour, especially on the opening day.
She’s also deputy; she’s supposed to rouse the troops a bit.
The more Ange the better imo. She really seems to hit something atavistic and uncomfortable in the retired colonel types.
Perhaps the 'retired colonel types' are onto something...
Yeah, maybe - in that she cuts through and seems like a normal person. She's a working class h-dropping (formerly) single mum who understands what it's like to manage in pretty dire circumstances, but through hard work, grit and brains she has got to the brink of serious power. TBH it's the sort of story the Conservatives should love in theory, but in practice it triggers their worst instincts around jumped-up women and proles.
A woman is supposed to do it by being pretty. Not practical and competent. Although Ms Rayner looks good as well!
As an example, when they built my 'village' (actually a town now), there was no public transport aside from a bus. The developers built a short section of dual carriageway onto the A428, which HA later grudgigly extended to meet the existing dual carriageway near Cambridge.
For public transport, we still rely on busses, and are at the whim of Stagecoach (who have withdrawn many of the services, and cut the routes through the village), and Whippet, who are good but small. We have no railway, no tram,; not even a good cycle route to Cambridge.
Any new town should have excellent transport links. Nearby, the new Northstowe should have the misguided bus link into Cambridge (along an old railway line, natch). Waterbeach New Town is going to be served by moving the existing station a short distance north. All these are paid for by the council, not developers.
We cannot - and must not - so new towns on the cheap.
Absolutely any new towns should have excellent transport links, I said there should be new motorways.
But that should not be the "developers" responsibility.
If you want community infrastructure, then it is the responsibility of the entire community, the entire country, to pay for that - not just pile the burden on those who get a new house all alone while those who live in secure housing that was built years ago abscond from any responsibilities.
That's sorta my point. It should be paid for by the councils involved, and it should be there when it is needed.
As an example of where S106 can go wrong, see this story (yes, DM...). The first houses in Nortstowe (a development northwest of Cambridge) have been occupied for six years now, and it has no shops, pubs, cafes, public toilets, or even a GP practice.
I know Northstowe fairly well (I've run around all of it as of a few months ago, but the ****ards keep on opening new roads...), and although I'm not a fan of the architecture, the layout seems fairly well designed. But it's terrible that a place that is housing thousands does not have the basic amenities.
It's fine for the council to say: a 'community centre building will be provided before the 900th home was occupied, or a sports pavilion before the 500th - when there are 1,200 homes occupied and they have not been built.
The council should be able to make the developer stop all building works on houses - and sales of completed houses - until it meets its obligations.
S106 simply doesn't work very well, even on large developments.
The housing developer should have nothing to do with "obligations" on other things. The housing developer should be dealing with housing and housing alone.
It should be no more the housing developers responsibility to meet the Councils obligations than it is the Schools obligation to meet the GPs obligations.
Suggesting stopping housing until other things is resolved is like suggesting shutting schools until other things are resolved.
S106 should not exist.
I mean, it’s a view. Just an odd one. The theory of s106 is great. Make the entity already building lots of stuff, and due to make lots of cash from it, build in the infrastructure as it goes, in lieu of tax.
The issue is making the buggers actually do it, and the problem is too much power in the hands of local politicians, who are partial to a brown envelope, or even just a nice lunch and the feel of being important.
The entity making cash doesn't pay for it, the buyers of the houses get the price added on to pay for it as it gets built in.
Why should they pay for it? Why shouldn't the whole of society pay for societal infrastructure?
Just cut out the middle man and get Councils to pull their finger out and do their own job.
Grey field sounds similar to brown field. Not entirely sure of the difference. Old style pre-internet shopping complexes. Are there really a tonne of those. Great if so.
In London, there are quite a few, surprisingly central, warehouse/factory sites.
There’s quite a lot of “business parks” as well. Quite a few people have commented that Chiswick Business Park is a rather nice environment - they put in a lot of work to make it so.
Compare it to the new flats being jammed between motorways and rail tracks.
Same in Oxford - the river-rail corridor is in part absolutely crammed with dolls' housing compared to 4- years ago - any brownfield has been built on, and not just the Business School which caused the demolition of the Crystal Palace-modular LNWR Station (rebuilt elsewhere, happily, by its very nature). There's a huge development of flats on some old railway sidings on the edge of the haughland to the east, next to my friends' allotment, between the river and canal and railway, whioch has caused mote than a little grief because it blocks the view of the 'dreaming spires' from the Sunday lunch pub run, sorry, Port Meadow, and still more wedged in between there and the railway station an any other old railway lands. I have no idea if flooding has been properly taken into account. TBF that is nicer than a motorway, even if the line is not electrified. Plus they did spare a little space for the old swing bridge.
Rishi Sunak has defended pumping money from HS2 into projects in the south of England as he faced criticism over the plans.
Ministers have come under fire after publishing the “Network North” plans, which included more than 100 regional transport projects, including schemes that had already been completed or were already funded.
The prime minister insisted that the projects he claimed to be funding were “illustrative” only and designed “to give people a sense of things that people have asked for in that area”.
The government published plans for the Network North, including a full list of projects, on its website on Wednesday afternoon, following Sunak’s address to the Tory party conference.
However, some pages were quickly deleted including where the government pledged to “revolutionise mass transit in Bristol”. A page about reopening Transport North East’s Leamside line was also removed.
Grey field sounds similar to brown field. Not entirely sure of the difference. Old style pre-internet shopping complexes. Are there really a tonne of those. Great if so.
In London, there are quite a few, surprisingly central, warehouse/factory sites.
There’s quite a lot of “business parks” as well. Quite a few people have commented that Chiswick Business Park is a rather nice environment - they put in a lot of work to make it so.
Compare it to the new flats being jammed between motorways and rail tracks.
As I've mentioned before, there is vast building potential on brownfield sites, former warehouses, retail sites, light factories etc, all the way up the Old Kent Road. All ready to go. All blocked until the money is found to extend the Bakerloo Line.
They should definitely use the money from the cancellation of HS2 to extend the Bakerloo line and build Crossrail 2. The business cases are much better in just about every way. Also the West London Orbital Rail needs funding (though I haven't seen a business case for that yet). Expanding mass transit makes much more sense than a high speed rail line in a small, crowded country.
All in London. And do you have details of the Bakerloo Line and CR2 business cases? It'd be interesting, especially as AIUI the exact routes are not chosen yet AIUI. Which makes costs, and the business cases, rather fluid.
Grey field sounds similar to brown field. Not entirely sure of the difference. Old style pre-internet shopping complexes. Are there really a tonne of those. Great if so.
In London, there are quite a few, surprisingly central, warehouse/factory sites.
There’s quite a lot of “business parks” as well. Quite a few people have commented that Chiswick Business Park is a rather nice environment - they put in a lot of work to make it so.
Compare it to the new flats being jammed between motorways and rail tracks.
As I've mentioned before, there is vast building potential on brownfield sites, former warehouses, retail sites, light factories etc, all the way up the Old Kent Road. All ready to go. All blocked until the money is found to extend the Bakerloo Line.
They should definitely use the money from the cancellation of HS2 to extend the Bakerloo line and build Crossrail 2. The business cases are much better in just about every way. Also the West London Orbital Rail needs funding (though I haven't seen a business case for that yet). Expanding mass transit makes much more sense than a high speed rail line in a small, crowded country.
You and @OnlyLivingBoy are perhaps misunderstanding the centre of gravity of the Labour Party. It isn't or shouldn't be Chiswick or the Old Kent Road.
As an example, when they built my 'village' (actually a town now), there was no public transport aside from a bus. The developers built a short section of dual carriageway onto the A428, which HA later grudgigly extended to meet the existing dual carriageway near Cambridge.
For public transport, we still rely on busses, and are at the whim of Stagecoach (who have withdrawn many of the services, and cut the routes through the village), and Whippet, who are good but small. We have no railway, no tram,; not even a good cycle route to Cambridge.
Any new town should have excellent transport links. Nearby, the new Northstowe should have the misguided bus link into Cambridge (along an old railway line, natch). Waterbeach New Town is going to be served by moving the existing station a short distance north. All these are paid for by the council, not developers.
We cannot - and must not - so new towns on the cheap.
Absolutely any new towns should have excellent transport links, I said there should be new motorways.
But that should not be the "developers" responsibility.
If you want community infrastructure, then it is the responsibility of the entire community, the entire country, to pay for that - not just pile the burden on those who get a new house all alone while those who live in secure housing that was built years ago abscond from any responsibilities.
That's sorta my point. It should be paid for by the councils involved, and it should be there when it is needed.
As an example of where S106 can go wrong, see this story (yes, DM...). The first houses in Nortstowe (a development northwest of Cambridge) have been occupied for six years now, and it has no shops, pubs, cafes, public toilets, or even a GP practice.
I know Northstowe fairly well (I've run around all of it as of a few months ago, but the ****ards keep on opening new roads...), and although I'm not a fan of the architecture, the layout seems fairly well designed. But it's terrible that a place that is housing thousands does not have the basic amenities.
It's fine for the council to say: a 'community centre building will be provided before the 900th home was occupied, or a sports pavilion before the 500th - when there are 1,200 homes occupied and they have not been built.
The council should be able to make the developer stop all building works on houses - and sales of completed houses - until it meets its obligations.
S106 simply doesn't work very well, even on large developments.
The housing developer should have nothing to do with "obligations" on other things. The housing developer should be dealing with housing and housing alone.
It should be no more the housing developers responsibility to meet the Councils obligations than it is the Schools obligation to meet the GPs obligations.
Suggesting stopping housing until other things is resolved is like suggesting shutting schools until other things are resolved.
S106 should not exist.
I mean, it’s a view. Just an odd one. The theory of s106 is great. Make the entity already building lots of stuff, and due to make lots of cash from it, build in the infrastructure as it goes, in lieu of tax.
The issue is making the buggers actually do it, and the problem is too much power in the hands of local politicians, who are partial to a brown envelope, or even just a nice lunch and the feel of being important.
You either need an enforceable contract, with regard to the timeline of facilities and services around a development, agreed at the time permission is given, or else you need to have the developer pay a bond directly to the council, who then assume themselves the responsibility for contracting the building of such things.
The current system comes across as the worst of both worlds, with small towns being built with not even a small shop or a bus stop for years - but the councillors themselves having had some very nice dinners.
Actually, Cambourne West's roads are being built with streetlights and shiny new bus stops all over the place - including on roads where houses are not going to be built for a few years. It feels rather odd to run along a near-pristine road with bus stops and street lights, but green fields beyond.
Especially as its unclear where bus services will run. I bet several of the stops never see a bus...
Good to see some infrastructure going in ahead of time, although perhaps I should have referred to bus services rather than physical bus stops. You can have loads of laybys, but if there’s no buses then everyone moving in will get around by c*r.
Sunak has no understanding of normal people and no ability to communicate with them.
Hopeless.
Especially given he's up against the true master of empathy, Sir Keir Starmer. A man who oozes charm from every pore. A man who lights up every room he walks in to.
Sunak was beaten by a candidate who in turn was beaten by a lettuce
Any sentient being is an improvement on him
Now, hang on. He's better than Michael Fabricant, Jacob Rees-Mogg, Richard Burgon, Laura Pid...oh, hold on, you did say 'sentient.' As you were.
As we are doing jokes, a reminder of Angela Rayner's quip that the Prime Minister has failed to provide his Whatsapp messages to the Covid inquiry, and Jacob Rees-Mogg has yet to hand over his carrier pigeon.
So preferring to making a joke, when she could have actually made a good political point about the PM and his record-keeping?
She comes across as a comedian, rather than a serious politician. Even if the joke got a bunch of laughs from the hall, she isn’t convincing swing voters that she’s wanting to be a senior member of the next government. If they wanted a comic, there’s plenty of Labour-supporting professionals they could have hired to make the same joke.
Rayner did make the point and it is normal for speeches to be leavened by humour, especially on the opening day.
She’s also deputy; she’s supposed to rouse the troops a bit.
The more Ange the better imo. She really seems to hit something atavistic and uncomfortable in the retired colonel types.
Perhaps the 'retired colonel types' are onto something...
Yeah, maybe - in that she cuts through and seems like a normal person. She's a working class h-dropping (formerly) single mum who understands what it's like to manage in pretty dire circumstances, but through hard work, grit and brains she has got to the brink of serious power. TBH it's the sort of story the Conservatives should love in theory, but in practice it triggers their worst instincts around jumped-up women and proles.
A woman is supposed to do it by being pretty. Not practical and competent. Although Ms Rayner looks good as well!
Made fleeting eye contact walking past her at Euston a couple of weeks ago. She has a natural charisma.
As an example, when they built my 'village' (actually a town now), there was no public transport aside from a bus. The developers built a short section of dual carriageway onto the A428, which HA later grudgigly extended to meet the existing dual carriageway near Cambridge.
For public transport, we still rely on busses, and are at the whim of Stagecoach (who have withdrawn many of the services, and cut the routes through the village), and Whippet, who are good but small. We have no railway, no tram,; not even a good cycle route to Cambridge.
Any new town should have excellent transport links. Nearby, the new Northstowe should have the misguided bus link into Cambridge (along an old railway line, natch). Waterbeach New Town is going to be served by moving the existing station a short distance north. All these are paid for by the council, not developers.
We cannot - and must not - so new towns on the cheap.
Absolutely any new towns should have excellent transport links, I said there should be new motorways.
But that should not be the "developers" responsibility.
If you want community infrastructure, then it is the responsibility of the entire community, the entire country, to pay for that - not just pile the burden on those who get a new house all alone while those who live in secure housing that was built years ago abscond from any responsibilities.
That's sorta my point. It should be paid for by the councils involved, and it should be there when it is needed.
As an example of where S106 can go wrong, see this story (yes, DM...). The first houses in Nortstowe (a development northwest of Cambridge) have been occupied for six years now, and it has no shops, pubs, cafes, public toilets, or even a GP practice.
I know Northstowe fairly well (I've run around all of it as of a few months ago, but the ****ards keep on opening new roads...), and although I'm not a fan of the architecture, the layout seems fairly well designed. But it's terrible that a place that is housing thousands does not have the basic amenities.
It's fine for the council to say: a 'community centre building will be provided before the 900th home was occupied, or a sports pavilion before the 500th - when there are 1,200 homes occupied and they have not been built.
The council should be able to make the developer stop all building works on houses - and sales of completed houses - until it meets its obligations.
S106 simply doesn't work very well, even on large developments.
The housing developer should have nothing to do with "obligations" on other things. The housing developer should be dealing with housing and housing alone.
It should be no more the housing developers responsibility to meet the Councils obligations than it is the Schools obligation to meet the GPs obligations.
Suggesting stopping housing until other things is resolved is like suggesting shutting schools until other things are resolved.
S106 should not exist.
I mean, it’s a view. Just an odd one. The theory of s106 is great. Make the entity already building lots of stuff, and due to make lots of cash from it, build in the infrastructure as it goes, in lieu of tax.
The issue is making the buggers actually do it, and the problem is too much power in the hands of local politicians, who are partial to a brown envelope, or even just a nice lunch and the feel of being important.
You either need an enforceable contract, with regard to the timeline of facilities and services around a development, agreed at the time permission is given, or else you need to have the developer pay a bond directly to the council, who then assume themselves the responsibility for contracting the building of such things.
The current system comes across as the worst of both worlds, with small towns being built with not even a small shop or a bus stop for years - but the councillors themselves having had some very nice dinners.
Actually, Cambourne West's roads are being built with streetlights and shiny new bus stops all over the place - including on roads where houses are not going to be built for a few years. It feels rather odd to run along a near-pristine road with bus stops and street lights, but green fields beyond.
Especially as its unclear where bus services will run. I bet several of the stops never see a bus...
I remember parts of Basildon being like that. 5 years later it was all built up.
As an example, when they built my 'village' (actually a town now), there was no public transport aside from a bus. The developers built a short section of dual carriageway onto the A428, which HA later grudgigly extended to meet the existing dual carriageway near Cambridge.
For public transport, we still rely on busses, and are at the whim of Stagecoach (who have withdrawn many of the services, and cut the routes through the village), and Whippet, who are good but small. We have no railway, no tram,; not even a good cycle route to Cambridge.
Any new town should have excellent transport links. Nearby, the new Northstowe should have the misguided bus link into Cambridge (along an old railway line, natch). Waterbeach New Town is going to be served by moving the existing station a short distance north. All these are paid for by the council, not developers.
We cannot - and must not - so new towns on the cheap.
Absolutely any new towns should have excellent transport links, I said there should be new motorways.
But that should not be the "developers" responsibility.
If you want community infrastructure, then it is the responsibility of the entire community, the entire country, to pay for that - not just pile the burden on those who get a new house all alone while those who live in secure housing that was built years ago abscond from any responsibilities.
That's sorta my point. It should be paid for by the councils involved, and it should be there when it is needed.
As an example of where S106 can go wrong, see this story (yes, DM...). The first houses in Nortstowe (a development northwest of Cambridge) have been occupied for six years now, and it has no shops, pubs, cafes, public toilets, or even a GP practice.
I know Northstowe fairly well (I've run around all of it as of a few months ago, but the ****ards keep on opening new roads...), and although I'm not a fan of the architecture, the layout seems fairly well designed. But it's terrible that a place that is housing thousands does not have the basic amenities.
It's fine for the council to say: a 'community centre building will be provided before the 900th home was occupied, or a sports pavilion before the 500th - when there are 1,200 homes occupied and they have not been built.
The council should be able to make the developer stop all building works on houses - and sales of completed houses - until it meets its obligations.
S106 simply doesn't work very well, even on large developments.
The housing developer should have nothing to do with "obligations" on other things. The housing developer should be dealing with housing and housing alone.
It should be no more the housing developers responsibility to meet the Councils obligations than it is the Schools obligation to meet the GPs obligations.
Suggesting stopping housing until other things are resolved is like suggesting shutting schools until other things are resolved.
S106 should not exist.
I think that's the point I've been making. It isn't fit for purpose.
But there's an important question for you: when you say: "The housing developer should be dealing with housing and housing alone. ", then what do you define as 'housing'? Should they be building the local roads in a cul-de-sac? The drainage? How about putting in water or gas mains?/ Where does 'housing' end and public infrastructure begin?
All these things are needed, and someone needs to build them. If not the developer, then the council. And that requires funding, and hence more taxation of some form.
"Suggesting stopping housing until other things are resolved is like suggesting shutting schools until other things are resolved. "
Rubbish. Developers come to an agreement with a council. In return, they get to build houses. If they break that agreement, they should not build any more houses until they do as agreed.
Just like any other contract.
The obvious fix is to abolish S106, and replace it with a "New Homes Levy" set at say 2% of revenue generated by the sales of the new homes. It goes to the local council, who have to ring fence it to spend on infrastructure.
If they wish, they can contract the same developer to spend it to say build a GP surgery on a new estate - but crucially, this is all done on a commercial basis. So the developer must pay up the levy as houses on the estate are sold. They only get the money for building the GP's surgery when it's completed and handed over to the council. That way there can't be the situation we have at the moment where the developers won't do their S106 stuff until the bitter end, and you get massive developments half built and sold with no matching infrastructure.
The other virtue of this is it wipes out all the stupid S106 haggling holding up planning applications (at which most councils seem pretty bad - ours managed to win a pointless roundabout in the middle of no-where in return for a housing estate the other side of town!) - level playing field, you build, you sell, you cough up, and some money goes in a "new infrastructure" pot.
As an example, when they built my 'village' (actually a town now), there was no public transport aside from a bus. The developers built a short section of dual carriageway onto the A428, which HA later grudgigly extended to meet the existing dual carriageway near Cambridge.
For public transport, we still rely on busses, and are at the whim of Stagecoach (who have withdrawn many of the services, and cut the routes through the village), and Whippet, who are good but small. We have no railway, no tram,; not even a good cycle route to Cambridge.
Any new town should have excellent transport links. Nearby, the new Northstowe should have the misguided bus link into Cambridge (along an old railway line, natch). Waterbeach New Town is going to be served by moving the existing station a short distance north. All these are paid for by the council, not developers.
We cannot - and must not - so new towns on the cheap.
Absolutely any new towns should have excellent transport links, I said there should be new motorways.
But that should not be the "developers" responsibility.
If you want community infrastructure, then it is the responsibility of the entire community, the entire country, to pay for that - not just pile the burden on those who get a new house all alone while those who live in secure housing that was built years ago abscond from any responsibilities.
That's sorta my point. It should be paid for by the councils involved, and it should be there when it is needed.
As an example of where S106 can go wrong, see this story (yes, DM...). The first houses in Nortstowe (a development northwest of Cambridge) have been occupied for six years now, and it has no shops, pubs, cafes, public toilets, or even a GP practice.
I know Northstowe fairly well (I've run around all of it as of a few months ago, but the ****ards keep on opening new roads...), and although I'm not a fan of the architecture, the layout seems fairly well designed. But it's terrible that a place that is housing thousands does not have the basic amenities.
It's fine for the council to say: a 'community centre building will be provided before the 900th home was occupied, or a sports pavilion before the 500th - when there are 1,200 homes occupied and they have not been built.
The council should be able to make the developer stop all building works on houses - and sales of completed houses - until it meets its obligations.
S106 simply doesn't work very well, even on large developments.
The housing developer should have nothing to do with "obligations" on other things. The housing developer should be dealing with housing and housing alone.
It should be no more the housing developers responsibility to meet the Councils obligations than it is the Schools obligation to meet the GPs obligations.
Suggesting stopping housing until other things is resolved is like suggesting shutting schools until other things are resolved.
S106 should not exist.
I mean, it’s a view. Just an odd one. The theory of s106 is great. Make the entity already building lots of stuff, and due to make lots of cash from it, build in the infrastructure as it goes, in lieu of tax.
The issue is making the buggers actually do it, and the problem is too much power in the hands of local politicians, who are partial to a brown envelope, or even just a nice lunch and the feel of being important.
The entity making cash doesn't pay for it, the buyers of the houses get the price added on to pay for it as it gets built in.
Why should they pay for it? Why shouldn't the whole of society pay for societal infrastructure?
Just cut out the middle man and get Councils to pull their finger out and do their own job.
The extra costs passed on to home buyers are, I suspect, trivial compared to the new build premium they are already being stung for. In any case, the new development paying for up front costs related to itself is perfectly sensible. Local taxes will of course then kick in for the on costs.
Your model seems to be “build baby, build” and then worry about funding essential services later when the schools are overcrowded because no one thought ahead.
Edit - and don’t get me started on how none of this debate about building buildings actually gets you any people to run them.
As an example, when they built my 'village' (actually a town now), there was no public transport aside from a bus. The developers built a short section of dual carriageway onto the A428, which HA later grudgigly extended to meet the existing dual carriageway near Cambridge.
For public transport, we still rely on busses, and are at the whim of Stagecoach (who have withdrawn many of the services, and cut the routes through the village), and Whippet, who are good but small. We have no railway, no tram,; not even a good cycle route to Cambridge.
Any new town should have excellent transport links. Nearby, the new Northstowe should have the misguided bus link into Cambridge (along an old railway line, natch). Waterbeach New Town is going to be served by moving the existing station a short distance north. All these are paid for by the council, not developers.
We cannot - and must not - so new towns on the cheap.
Absolutely any new towns should have excellent transport links, I said there should be new motorways.
But that should not be the "developers" responsibility.
If you want community infrastructure, then it is the responsibility of the entire community, the entire country, to pay for that - not just pile the burden on those who get a new house all alone while those who live in secure housing that was built years ago abscond from any responsibilities.
That's sorta my point. It should be paid for by the councils involved, and it should be there when it is needed.
As an example of where S106 can go wrong, see this story (yes, DM...). The first houses in Nortstowe (a development northwest of Cambridge) have been occupied for six years now, and it has no shops, pubs, cafes, public toilets, or even a GP practice.
I know Northstowe fairly well (I've run around all of it as of a few months ago, but the ****ards keep on opening new roads...), and although I'm not a fan of the architecture, the layout seems fairly well designed. But it's terrible that a place that is housing thousands does not have the basic amenities.
It's fine for the council to say: a 'community centre building will be provided before the 900th home was occupied, or a sports pavilion before the 500th - when there are 1,200 homes occupied and they have not been built.
The council should be able to make the developer stop all building works on houses - and sales of completed houses - until it meets its obligations.
S106 simply doesn't work very well, even on large developments.
The housing developer should have nothing to do with "obligations" on other things. The housing developer should be dealing with housing and housing alone.
It should be no more the housing developers responsibility to meet the Councils obligations than it is the Schools obligation to meet the GPs obligations.
Suggesting stopping housing until other things are resolved is like suggesting shutting schools until other things are resolved.
S106 should not exist.
I think that's the point I've been making. It isn't fit for purpose.
But there's an important question for you: when you say: "The housing developer should be dealing with housing and housing alone. ", then what do you define as 'housing'? Should they be building the local roads in a cul-de-sac? The drainage? How about putting in water or gas mains?/ Where does 'housing' end and public infrastructure begin?
All these things are needed, and someone needs to build them. If not the developer, then the council. And that requires funding, and hence more taxation of some form.
"Suggesting stopping housing until other things are resolved is like suggesting shutting schools until other things are resolved. "
Rubbish. Developers come to an agreement with a council. In return, they get to build houses. If they break that agreement, they should not build any more houses until they do as agreed.
Just like any other contract.
The obvious fix is to abolish S106, and replace it with a "New Homes Levy" set at say 2% of revenue generated by the sales of the new homes. It goes to the local council, who have to ring fence it to spend on infrastructure.
If they wish, they can contract the same developer to spend it to say build a GP surgery on a new estate - but crucially, this is all done on a commercial basis. So the developer must pay up the levy as houses on the estate are sold. They only get the money for building the GP's surgery when it's completed and handed over to the council. That way there can't be the situation we have at the moment where the developers won't do their S106 stuff until the bitter end, and you get massive developments half built and sold with no matching infrastructure.
The other virtue of this is it wipes out all the stupid S106 haggling holding up planning applications (at which most councils seem pretty bad - ours managed to win a pointless roundabout in the middle of no-where in return for a housing estate the other side of town!) - level playing field, you build, you sell, you cough up, and some money goes in a "new infrastructure" pot.
That's a proposal I made below - though I said 1%....
As an example, when they built my 'village' (actually a town now), there was no public transport aside from a bus. The developers built a short section of dual carriageway onto the A428, which HA later grudgigly extended to meet the existing dual carriageway near Cambridge.
For public transport, we still rely on busses, and are at the whim of Stagecoach (who have withdrawn many of the services, and cut the routes through the village), and Whippet, who are good but small. We have no railway, no tram,; not even a good cycle route to Cambridge.
Any new town should have excellent transport links. Nearby, the new Northstowe should have the misguided bus link into Cambridge (along an old railway line, natch). Waterbeach New Town is going to be served by moving the existing station a short distance north. All these are paid for by the council, not developers.
We cannot - and must not - so new towns on the cheap.
Absolutely any new towns should have excellent transport links, I said there should be new motorways.
But that should not be the "developers" responsibility.
If you want community infrastructure, then it is the responsibility of the entire community, the entire country, to pay for that - not just pile the burden on those who get a new house all alone while those who live in secure housing that was built years ago abscond from any responsibilities.
That's sorta my point. It should be paid for by the councils involved, and it should be there when it is needed.
As an example of where S106 can go wrong, see this story (yes, DM...). The first houses in Nortstowe (a development northwest of Cambridge) have been occupied for six years now, and it has no shops, pubs, cafes, public toilets, or even a GP practice.
I know Northstowe fairly well (I've run around all of it as of a few months ago, but the ****ards keep on opening new roads...), and although I'm not a fan of the architecture, the layout seems fairly well designed. But it's terrible that a place that is housing thousands does not have the basic amenities.
It's fine for the council to say: a 'community centre building will be provided before the 900th home was occupied, or a sports pavilion before the 500th - when there are 1,200 homes occupied and they have not been built.
The council should be able to make the developer stop all building works on houses - and sales of completed houses - until it meets its obligations.
S106 simply doesn't work very well, even on large developments.
The housing developer should have nothing to do with "obligations" on other things. The housing developer should be dealing with housing and housing alone.
It should be no more the housing developers responsibility to meet the Councils obligations than it is the Schools obligation to meet the GPs obligations.
Suggesting stopping housing until other things are resolved is like suggesting shutting schools until other things are resolved.
S106 should not exist.
And how does the council pay for that additional infrastructure, which needs to be in place as the houses are completed?
You would see Council Tax rising in those areas building more houses - that's going to quash Nimbyism, oh yes.
You tax wealth nationally and redistribute it to where it is needed? Progressive and redistributive taxation is better than our council tax system (which is a joke) and S106 money (which is awful). First as comedy, then as tragedy - British taxation policy...
As an example, when they built my 'village' (actually a town now), there was no public transport aside from a bus. The developers built a short section of dual carriageway onto the A428, which HA later grudgigly extended to meet the existing dual carriageway near Cambridge.
For public transport, we still rely on busses, and are at the whim of Stagecoach (who have withdrawn many of the services, and cut the routes through the village), and Whippet, who are good but small. We have no railway, no tram,; not even a good cycle route to Cambridge.
Any new town should have excellent transport links. Nearby, the new Northstowe should have the misguided bus link into Cambridge (along an old railway line, natch). Waterbeach New Town is going to be served by moving the existing station a short distance north. All these are paid for by the council, not developers.
We cannot - and must not - so new towns on the cheap.
Absolutely any new towns should have excellent transport links, I said there should be new motorways.
But that should not be the "developers" responsibility.
If you want community infrastructure, then it is the responsibility of the entire community, the entire country, to pay for that - not just pile the burden on those who get a new house all alone while those who live in secure housing that was built years ago abscond from any responsibilities.
That's sorta my point. It should be paid for by the councils involved, and it should be there when it is needed.
As an example of where S106 can go wrong, see this story (yes, DM...). The first houses in Nortstowe (a development northwest of Cambridge) have been occupied for six years now, and it has no shops, pubs, cafes, public toilets, or even a GP practice.
I know Northstowe fairly well (I've run around all of it as of a few months ago, but the ****ards keep on opening new roads...), and although I'm not a fan of the architecture, the layout seems fairly well designed. But it's terrible that a place that is housing thousands does not have the basic amenities.
It's fine for the council to say: a 'community centre building will be provided before the 900th home was occupied, or a sports pavilion before the 500th - when there are 1,200 homes occupied and they have not been built.
The council should be able to make the developer stop all building works on houses - and sales of completed houses - until it meets its obligations.
S106 simply doesn't work very well, even on large developments.
The housing developer should have nothing to do with "obligations" on other things. The housing developer should be dealing with housing and housing alone.
It should be no more the housing developers responsibility to meet the Councils obligations than it is the Schools obligation to meet the GPs obligations.
Suggesting stopping housing until other things are resolved is like suggesting shutting schools until other things are resolved.
S106 should not exist.
I think that's the point I've been making. It isn't fit for purpose.
But there's an important question for you: when you say: "The housing developer should be dealing with housing and housing alone. ", then what do you define as 'housing'? Should they be building the local roads in a cul-de-sac? The drainage? How about putting in water or gas mains?/ Where does 'housing' end and public infrastructure begin?
All these things are needed, and someone needs to build them. If not the developer, then the council. And that requires funding, and hence more taxation of some form.
"Suggesting stopping housing until other things are resolved is like suggesting shutting schools until other things are resolved. "
Rubbish. Developers come to an agreement with a council. In return, they get to build houses. If they break that agreement, they should not build any more houses until they do as agreed.
Just like any other contract.
The obvious fix is to abolish S106, and replace it with a "New Homes Levy" set at say 2% of revenue generated by the sales of the new homes. It goes to the local council, who have to ring fence it to spend on infrastructure.
If they wish, they can contract the same developer to spend it to say build a GP surgery on a new estate - but crucially, this is all done on a commercial basis. So the developer must pay up the levy as houses on the estate are sold. They only get the money for building the GP's surgery when it's completed and handed over to the council. That way there can't be the situation we have at the moment where the developers won't do their S106 stuff until the bitter end, and you get massive developments half built and sold with no matching infrastructure.
The other virtue of this is it wipes out all the stupid S106 haggling holding up planning applications (at which most councils seem pretty bad - ours managed to win a pointless roundabout in the middle of no-where in return for a housing estate the other side of town!) - level playing field, you build, you sell, you cough up, and some money goes in a "new infrastructure" pot.
Also, deals with the case where the developer firm goes bust once the profits have been moved to some other firm in the network, and before the infra has been put in properly.
As an example, when they built my 'village' (actually a town now), there was no public transport aside from a bus. The developers built a short section of dual carriageway onto the A428, which HA later grudgigly extended to meet the existing dual carriageway near Cambridge.
For public transport, we still rely on busses, and are at the whim of Stagecoach (who have withdrawn many of the services, and cut the routes through the village), and Whippet, who are good but small. We have no railway, no tram,; not even a good cycle route to Cambridge.
Any new town should have excellent transport links. Nearby, the new Northstowe should have the misguided bus link into Cambridge (along an old railway line, natch). Waterbeach New Town is going to be served by moving the existing station a short distance north. All these are paid for by the council, not developers.
We cannot - and must not - so new towns on the cheap.
Absolutely any new towns should have excellent transport links, I said there should be new motorways.
But that should not be the "developers" responsibility.
If you want community infrastructure, then it is the responsibility of the entire community, the entire country, to pay for that - not just pile the burden on those who get a new house all alone while those who live in secure housing that was built years ago abscond from any responsibilities.
That's sorta my point. It should be paid for by the councils involved, and it should be there when it is needed.
As an example of where S106 can go wrong, see this story (yes, DM...). The first houses in Nortstowe (a development northwest of Cambridge) have been occupied for six years now, and it has no shops, pubs, cafes, public toilets, or even a GP practice.
I know Northstowe fairly well (I've run around all of it as of a few months ago, but the ****ards keep on opening new roads...), and although I'm not a fan of the architecture, the layout seems fairly well designed. But it's terrible that a place that is housing thousands does not have the basic amenities.
It's fine for the council to say: a 'community centre building will be provided before the 900th home was occupied, or a sports pavilion before the 500th - when there are 1,200 homes occupied and they have not been built.
The council should be able to make the developer stop all building works on houses - and sales of completed houses - until it meets its obligations.
S106 simply doesn't work very well, even on large developments.
The housing developer should have nothing to do with "obligations" on other things. The housing developer should be dealing with housing and housing alone.
It should be no more the housing developers responsibility to meet the Councils obligations than it is the Schools obligation to meet the GPs obligations.
Suggesting stopping housing until other things are resolved is like suggesting shutting schools until other things are resolved.
S106 should not exist.
And how does the council pay for that additional infrastructure, which needs to be in place as the houses are completed?
You would see Council Tax rising in those areas building more houses - that's going to quash Nimbyism, oh yes.
You tax wealth nationally and redistribute it to where it is needed? Progressive and redistributive taxation is better than our council tax system (which is a joke) and S106 money (which is awful). First as comedy, then as tragedy - British taxation policy...
Yup. In addition to scrapping local politicians I would also scrap local taxation. It’s bonkers. The most scandalous thing was Osborne saying local Gvt could keep business rates. Wonderful, if you’re Westminster….
This discussion is the essence of what Barty would call Nimbyism. He would build 20 houses in the field next door to him and sod everyone else because development. But people forget externalities. That is why there is the planning procedure. If those 20 houses need sewers, water, electricity, road access then that affects the community and has to be paid for. It can't be hand waved away.
Rishi Sunak has defended pumping money from HS2 into projects in the south of England as he faced criticism over the plans.
Ministers have come under fire after publishing the “Network North” plans, which included more than 100 regional transport projects, including schemes that had already been completed or were already funded.
The prime minister insisted that the projects he claimed to be funding were “illustrative” only and designed “to give people a sense of things that people have asked for in that area”.
The government published plans for the Network North, including a full list of projects, on its website on Wednesday afternoon, following Sunak’s address to the Tory party conference.
However, some pages were quickly deleted including where the government pledged to “revolutionise mass transit in Bristol”. A page about reopening Transport North East’s Leamside line was also removed.
HS2. How Sunak gifted Starmer another opportunity to present Labour as a party of competence. ... The wider point is that decisions on how to spend £36 billion appear to have been made in a haphazard and ill-informed manner. It may be unfair to assume that the constituent elements were chosen by an exhausted Prime Minister in his Manchester hotel room in the early hours of the morning but that is exactly what it looks like from the outside. One can see the political imperatives to keep the process tight (to avoid further leaks) and to make an early announcement, but this does not constitute “doing politics differently from the last 30 years”. In fact, it looks like Brownian micromanagement combined with Johnsonian frivolity. (Thankfully, Gordon Brown was never frivolous and Boris Johnson never micro-managed.) https://conservativehome.com/2023/10/09/david-gauke-hs2-how-sunak-gifted-starmer-another-opportunity-to-present-labour-as-a-party-of-competence/
As an example, when they built my 'village' (actually a town now), there was no public transport aside from a bus. The developers built a short section of dual carriageway onto the A428, which HA later grudgigly extended to meet the existing dual carriageway near Cambridge.
For public transport, we still rely on busses, and are at the whim of Stagecoach (who have withdrawn many of the services, and cut the routes through the village), and Whippet, who are good but small. We have no railway, no tram,; not even a good cycle route to Cambridge.
Any new town should have excellent transport links. Nearby, the new Northstowe should have the misguided bus link into Cambridge (along an old railway line, natch). Waterbeach New Town is going to be served by moving the existing station a short distance north. All these are paid for by the council, not developers.
We cannot - and must not - so new towns on the cheap.
Absolutely any new towns should have excellent transport links, I said there should be new motorways.
But that should not be the "developers" responsibility.
If you want community infrastructure, then it is the responsibility of the entire community, the entire country, to pay for that - not just pile the burden on those who get a new house all alone while those who live in secure housing that was built years ago abscond from any responsibilities.
That's sorta my point. It should be paid for by the councils involved, and it should be there when it is needed.
As an example of where S106 can go wrong, see this story (yes, DM...). The first houses in Nortstowe (a development northwest of Cambridge) have been occupied for six years now, and it has no shops, pubs, cafes, public toilets, or even a GP practice.
I know Northstowe fairly well (I've run around all of it as of a few months ago, but the ****ards keep on opening new roads...), and although I'm not a fan of the architecture, the layout seems fairly well designed. But it's terrible that a place that is housing thousands does not have the basic amenities.
It's fine for the council to say: a 'community centre building will be provided before the 900th home was occupied, or a sports pavilion before the 500th - when there are 1,200 homes occupied and they have not been built.
The council should be able to make the developer stop all building works on houses - and sales of completed houses - until it meets its obligations.
S106 simply doesn't work very well, even on large developments.
The housing developer should have nothing to do with "obligations" on other things. The housing developer should be dealing with housing and housing alone.
It should be no more the housing developers responsibility to meet the Councils obligations than it is the Schools obligation to meet the GPs obligations.
Suggesting stopping housing until other things are resolved is like suggesting shutting schools until other things are resolved.
S106 should not exist.
And how does the council pay for that additional infrastructure, which needs to be in place as the houses are completed?
You would see Council Tax rising in those areas building more houses - that's going to quash Nimbyism, oh yes.
You tax wealth nationally and redistribute it to where it is needed? Progressive and redistributive taxation is better than our council tax system (which is a joke) and S106 money (which is awful). First as comedy, then as tragedy - British taxation policy...
Yup. In addition to scrapping local politicians I would also scrap local taxation. It’s bonkers. The most scandalous thing was Osborne saying local Gvt could keep business rates. Wonderful, if you’re Westminster….
See, I disagree about local politicians. We have the most centralised government and economic planning of any developed nation. And it has increasingly led to London getting investment and everywhere else basically getting shafted. We need national government to do the long term planning and specifications, alongside local government to manage the delivery and the nuances. Councils should be funded via national taxation - the wealth of people who live in London should be leverage to help grow the infrastructure of those who live in Stoke.
As an example, when they built my 'village' (actually a town now), there was no public transport aside from a bus. The developers built a short section of dual carriageway onto the A428, which HA later grudgigly extended to meet the existing dual carriageway near Cambridge.
For public transport, we still rely on busses, and are at the whim of Stagecoach (who have withdrawn many of the services, and cut the routes through the village), and Whippet, who are good but small. We have no railway, no tram,; not even a good cycle route to Cambridge.
Any new town should have excellent transport links. Nearby, the new Northstowe should have the misguided bus link into Cambridge (along an old railway line, natch). Waterbeach New Town is going to be served by moving the existing station a short distance north. All these are paid for by the council, not developers.
We cannot - and must not - so new towns on the cheap.
Absolutely any new towns should have excellent transport links, I said there should be new motorways.
But that should not be the "developers" responsibility.
If you want community infrastructure, then it is the responsibility of the entire community, the entire country, to pay for that - not just pile the burden on those who get a new house all alone while those who live in secure housing that was built years ago abscond from any responsibilities.
That's sorta my point. It should be paid for by the councils involved, and it should be there when it is needed.
As an example of where S106 can go wrong, see this story (yes, DM...). The first houses in Nortstowe (a development northwest of Cambridge) have been occupied for six years now, and it has no shops, pubs, cafes, public toilets, or even a GP practice.
I know Northstowe fairly well (I've run around all of it as of a few months ago, but the ****ards keep on opening new roads...), and although I'm not a fan of the architecture, the layout seems fairly well designed. But it's terrible that a place that is housing thousands does not have the basic amenities.
It's fine for the council to say: a 'community centre building will be provided before the 900th home was occupied, or a sports pavilion before the 500th - when there are 1,200 homes occupied and they have not been built.
The council should be able to make the developer stop all building works on houses - and sales of completed houses - until it meets its obligations.
S106 simply doesn't work very well, even on large developments.
The housing developer should have nothing to do with "obligations" on other things. The housing developer should be dealing with housing and housing alone.
It should be no more the housing developers responsibility to meet the Councils obligations than it is the Schools obligation to meet the GPs obligations.
Suggesting stopping housing until other things is resolved is like suggesting shutting schools until other things are resolved.
S106 should not exist.
I mean, it’s a view. Just an odd one. The theory of s106 is great. Make the entity already building lots of stuff, and due to make lots of cash from it, build in the infrastructure as it goes, in lieu of tax.
The issue is making the buggers actually do it, and the problem is too much power in the hands of local politicians, who are partial to a brown envelope, or even just a nice lunch and the feel of being important.
The entity making cash doesn't pay for it, the buyers of the houses get the price added on to pay for it as it gets built in.
Why should they pay for it? Why shouldn't the whole of society pay for societal infrastructure?
Just cut out the middle man and get Councils to pull their finger out and do their own job.
The obvious reason why buyers of new homes should pay for infrastructure (via the developer) is that a town of 40k people needs quite a bit more infrastructure than one of 20k.
Whilst it's true the tax base expands, the bulk of that is going on the revenue budget - the income generated from Council Tax for the extra people isn't on a scale for the level of capital investment needed on the infrastructure.
This discussion is the essence of what Barty would call Nimbyism. He would build 20 houses in the field next door to him and sod everyone else because development. But people forget externalities. That is why there is the planning procedure. If those 20 houses need sewers, water, electricity, road access then that affects the community and has to be paid for. It can't be hand waved away.
Except that many of those things aren't covered in planning procedure - you cannot put in a concern about planning if you, say, live in Hertfordshire on water grounds when Hertfordshire is in an semi permanent state of drought, with local waterways being over used and crumbling, because there is a statutory duty on water companies to provide water to new developments. Sure - there needs to be procedure in the logistics of putting that infrastructure in - but the actual considerations of real externalities is lacking in many ways.
As an example, when they built my 'village' (actually a town now), there was no public transport aside from a bus. The developers built a short section of dual carriageway onto the A428, which HA later grudgigly extended to meet the existing dual carriageway near Cambridge.
For public transport, we still rely on busses, and are at the whim of Stagecoach (who have withdrawn many of the services, and cut the routes through the village), and Whippet, who are good but small. We have no railway, no tram,; not even a good cycle route to Cambridge.
Any new town should have excellent transport links. Nearby, the new Northstowe should have the misguided bus link into Cambridge (along an old railway line, natch). Waterbeach New Town is going to be served by moving the existing station a short distance north. All these are paid for by the council, not developers.
We cannot - and must not - so new towns on the cheap.
Absolutely any new towns should have excellent transport links, I said there should be new motorways.
But that should not be the "developers" responsibility.
If you want community infrastructure, then it is the responsibility of the entire community, the entire country, to pay for that - not just pile the burden on those who get a new house all alone while those who live in secure housing that was built years ago abscond from any responsibilities.
That's sorta my point. It should be paid for by the councils involved, and it should be there when it is needed.
As an example of where S106 can go wrong, see this story (yes, DM...). The first houses in Nortstowe (a development northwest of Cambridge) have been occupied for six years now, and it has no shops, pubs, cafes, public toilets, or even a GP practice.
I know Northstowe fairly well (I've run around all of it as of a few months ago, but the ****ards keep on opening new roads...), and although I'm not a fan of the architecture, the layout seems fairly well designed. But it's terrible that a place that is housing thousands does not have the basic amenities.
It's fine for the council to say: a 'community centre building will be provided before the 900th home was occupied, or a sports pavilion before the 500th - when there are 1,200 homes occupied and they have not been built.
The council should be able to make the developer stop all building works on houses - and sales of completed houses - until it meets its obligations.
S106 simply doesn't work very well, even on large developments.
The housing developer should have nothing to do with "obligations" on other things. The housing developer should be dealing with housing and housing alone.
It should be no more the housing developers responsibility to meet the Councils obligations than it is the Schools obligation to meet the GPs obligations.
Suggesting stopping housing until other things are resolved is like suggesting shutting schools until other things are resolved.
S106 should not exist.
And how does the council pay for that additional infrastructure, which needs to be in place as the houses are completed?
You would see Council Tax rising in those areas building more houses - that's going to quash Nimbyism, oh yes.
You tax wealth nationally and redistribute it to where it is needed? Progressive and redistributive taxation is better than our council tax system (which is a joke) and S106 money (which is awful). First as comedy, then as tragedy - British taxation policy...
Yup. In addition to scrapping local politicians I would also scrap local taxation. It’s bonkers. The most scandalous thing was Osborne saying local Gvt could keep business rates. Wonderful, if you’re Westminster….
See, I disagree about local politicians. We have the most centralised government and economic planning of any developed nation. And it has increasingly led to London getting investment and everywhere else basically getting shafted. We need national government to do the long term planning and specifications, alongside local government to manage the delivery and the nuances. Councils should be funded via national taxation - the wealth of people who live in London should be leverage to help grow the infrastructure of those who live in Stoke.
Not a bad theory until you meet local councillors. Nationalise it and give everyone the same.
As an example, when they built my 'village' (actually a town now), there was no public transport aside from a bus. The developers built a short section of dual carriageway onto the A428, which HA later grudgigly extended to meet the existing dual carriageway near Cambridge.
For public transport, we still rely on busses, and are at the whim of Stagecoach (who have withdrawn many of the services, and cut the routes through the village), and Whippet, who are good but small. We have no railway, no tram,; not even a good cycle route to Cambridge.
Any new town should have excellent transport links. Nearby, the new Northstowe should have the misguided bus link into Cambridge (along an old railway line, natch). Waterbeach New Town is going to be served by moving the existing station a short distance north. All these are paid for by the council, not developers.
We cannot - and must not - so new towns on the cheap.
Absolutely any new towns should have excellent transport links, I said there should be new motorways.
But that should not be the "developers" responsibility.
If you want community infrastructure, then it is the responsibility of the entire community, the entire country, to pay for that - not just pile the burden on those who get a new house all alone while those who live in secure housing that was built years ago abscond from any responsibilities.
That's sorta my point. It should be paid for by the councils involved, and it should be there when it is needed.
As an example of where S106 can go wrong, see this story (yes, DM...). The first houses in Nortstowe (a development northwest of Cambridge) have been occupied for six years now, and it has no shops, pubs, cafes, public toilets, or even a GP practice.
I know Northstowe fairly well (I've run around all of it as of a few months ago, but the ****ards keep on opening new roads...), and although I'm not a fan of the architecture, the layout seems fairly well designed. But it's terrible that a place that is housing thousands does not have the basic amenities.
It's fine for the council to say: a 'community centre building will be provided before the 900th home was occupied, or a sports pavilion before the 500th - when there are 1,200 homes occupied and they have not been built.
The council should be able to make the developer stop all building works on houses - and sales of completed houses - until it meets its obligations.
S106 simply doesn't work very well, even on large developments.
The housing developer should have nothing to do with "obligations" on other things. The housing developer should be dealing with housing and housing alone.
It should be no more the housing developers responsibility to meet the Councils obligations than it is the Schools obligation to meet the GPs obligations.
Suggesting stopping housing until other things are resolved is like suggesting shutting schools until other things are resolved.
S106 should not exist.
And how does the council pay for that additional infrastructure, which needs to be in place as the houses are completed?
You would see Council Tax rising in those areas building more houses - that's going to quash Nimbyism, oh yes.
You tax wealth nationally and redistribute it to where it is needed? Progressive and redistributive taxation is better than our council tax system (which is a joke) and S106 money (which is awful). First as comedy, then as tragedy - British taxation policy...
Yup. In addition to scrapping local politicians I would also scrap local taxation. It’s bonkers. The most scandalous thing was Osborne saying local Gvt could keep business rates. Wonderful, if you’re Westminster….
That’s where we disagree. Councils need to be much more responsible for raising their own budgets, and need to have many more levers available to them. They should be allowed much more say in council tax and business rates, and should be competing with each other to attract businesses to their areas. The incentives should line up that an increased population generates more income for the local authority, which incentivises the councillors to prioritise building. Perhaps even set councillor pay to be proportional to council gross and net revenue.
This discussion is the essence of what Barty would call Nimbyism. He would build 20 houses in the field next door to him and sod everyone else because development. But people forget externalities. That is why there is the planning procedure. If those 20 houses need sewers, water, electricity, road access then that affects the community and has to be paid for. It can't be hand waved away.
Barty's logic is to follow that with 50 in the next field, and so on and so on. Your analysis applies even more to that!
Edit: Always useful technique to start with one unit, and then see what happens if one adds a second unit. There's a fancy mathematical technique for it, but I forget the name. If you end up with a runaway situation ...!
There was a brownfield site near me. 20 years ago it was a parcel delivery warehouse on the edge of the industrial estate. When that closed the site was derelict for a decade. Now it has I think 60 low cost houses on it.
The strange bit is since the houses were completed earlier this year, the site has remained fenced off. No residents have moved in.
Sunak will be hoping that the news coverage stays firmly on Israel . Anything that takes attention away from domestic issues could help in the two by-elections coming up .
Starmers big speech tomorrow does look going by the leaks to include some large scale plans in terms of new towns. It does though look to get drowned out by the Israeli coverage .
Fantastic news if Starmer is planning on some large scale new towns.
Especially if he's planning on the appropriate infrastructure of new motorways to link those new towns to the rest of the country.
I won't be holding my breath though.
One of the weekend briefings said that the new towns will be centred around railway stations, and cited East-West Rail as an example.
As someone who lives in a compact town centred around a railway station (I suspect we have among the highest rail journeys:population ratios anywhere in the country) I think this is a pretty good idea.
But that’s flawed analytically
You have decided it’s a good idea to live in a town centred around a railway station. This announcement validates your choice. Therefore you think it’s a good idea
Sure. If you want market validation, then property prices round here are a pretty good indication that I'm far from the only one - they're probably 40% higher than the town ten miles down the road with no railway station. I'm pretty sure that if you went to any housing developer and said "hey, we're offering you some fields on which to build a new town of 30,000 people with a guaranteed direct express train to Oxford and London", they'd bite your hand off.
As an example, when they built my 'village' (actually a town now), there was no public transport aside from a bus. The developers built a short section of dual carriageway onto the A428, which HA later grudgigly extended to meet the existing dual carriageway near Cambridge.
For public transport, we still rely on busses, and are at the whim of Stagecoach (who have withdrawn many of the services, and cut the routes through the village), and Whippet, who are good but small. We have no railway, no tram,; not even a good cycle route to Cambridge.
Any new town should have excellent transport links. Nearby, the new Northstowe should have the misguided bus link into Cambridge (along an old railway line, natch). Waterbeach New Town is going to be served by moving the existing station a short distance north. All these are paid for by the council, not developers.
We cannot - and must not - so new towns on the cheap.
Absolutely any new towns should have excellent transport links, I said there should be new motorways.
But that should not be the "developers" responsibility.
If you want community infrastructure, then it is the responsibility of the entire community, the entire country, to pay for that - not just pile the burden on those who get a new house all alone while those who live in secure housing that was built years ago abscond from any responsibilities.
That's sorta my point. It should be paid for by the councils involved, and it should be there when it is needed.
As an example of where S106 can go wrong, see this story (yes, DM...). The first houses in Nortstowe (a development northwest of Cambridge) have been occupied for six years now, and it has no shops, pubs, cafes, public toilets, or even a GP practice.
I know Northstowe fairly well (I've run around all of it as of a few months ago, but the ****ards keep on opening new roads...), and although I'm not a fan of the architecture, the layout seems fairly well designed. But it's terrible that a place that is housing thousands does not have the basic amenities.
It's fine for the council to say: a 'community centre building will be provided before the 900th home was occupied, or a sports pavilion before the 500th - when there are 1,200 homes occupied and they have not been built.
The council should be able to make the developer stop all building works on houses - and sales of completed houses - until it meets its obligations.
S106 simply doesn't work very well, even on large developments.
The housing developer should have nothing to do with "obligations" on other things. The housing developer should be dealing with housing and housing alone.
It should be no more the housing developers responsibility to meet the Councils obligations than it is the Schools obligation to meet the GPs obligations.
Suggesting stopping housing until other things are resolved is like suggesting shutting schools until other things are resolved.
S106 should not exist.
And how does the council pay for that additional infrastructure, which needs to be in place as the houses are completed?
You would see Council Tax rising in those areas building more houses - that's going to quash Nimbyism, oh yes.
You tax wealth nationally and redistribute it to where it is needed? Progressive and redistributive taxation is better than our council tax system (which is a joke) and S106 money (which is awful). First as comedy, then as tragedy - British taxation policy...
Yup. In addition to scrapping local politicians I would also scrap local taxation. It’s bonkers. The most scandalous thing was Osborne saying local Gvt could keep business rates. Wonderful, if you’re Westminster….
See, I disagree about local politicians. We have the most centralised government and economic planning of any developed nation. And it has increasingly led to London getting investment and everywhere else basically getting shafted. We need national government to do the long term planning and specifications, alongside local government to manage the delivery and the nuances. Councils should be funded via national taxation - the wealth of people who live in London should be leverage to help grow the infrastructure of those who live in Stoke.
Not a bad theory until you meet local councillors. Nationalise it and give everyone the same.
I have met local councillors - I've helped a few get elected. I understand the reticence. But I would also argue that the lack of talent within local councils partly comes from the incentive structure having such a centralised political system creates - essentially all good civil servants and politicians aim for Westminster because that's the only place to "do anything that matters" (outside of the devolved governments). Whereas if the power was distributed more equitably across the country, more people with the relevant skills may consider doing that kind of work.
This discussion is the essence of what Barty would call Nimbyism. He would build 20 houses in the field next door to him and sod everyone else because development. But people forget externalities. That is why there is the planning procedure. If those 20 houses need sewers, water, electricity, road access then that affects the community and has to be paid for. It can't be hand waved away.
Not much clarity on the state of the border crossing from Gaza to Egypt.
Sisi needs to pull his finger out and show leadership here, otherwise he’s revealing what everyone else suspects I.E. most of the Arab world for all its talk doesn’t give a flying f*** about actual Palestinian people and Israel just gives them a bogeyman they can blame everything on.
Maybe MBS can house them in one of his mad linear cities?
Sunak will be hoping that the news coverage stays firmly on Israel . Anything that takes attention away from domestic issues could help in the two by-elections coming up .
Starmers big speech tomorrow does look going by the leaks to include some large scale plans in terms of new towns. It does though look to get drowned out by the Israeli coverage .
Fantastic news if Starmer is planning on some large scale new towns.
Especially if he's planning on the appropriate infrastructure of new motorways to link those new towns to the rest of the country.
I won't be holding my breath though.
One of the weekend briefings said that the new towns will be centred around railway stations, and cited East-West Rail as an example.
As someone who lives in a compact town centred around a railway station (I suspect we have among the highest rail journeys:population ratios anywhere in the country) I think this is a pretty good idea.
But that’s flawed analytically
You have decided it’s a good idea to live in a town centred around a railway station. This announcement validates your choice. Therefore you think it’s a good idea
Sure. If you want market validation, then property prices round here are a pretty good indication that I'm far from the only one - they're probably 40% higher than the town ten miles down the road with no railway station. I'm pretty sure that if you went to any housing developer and said "hey, we're offering you some fields on which to build a new town of 30,000 people with a guaranteed direct express train to Oxford and London", they'd bite your hand off.
As an example, when they built my 'village' (actually a town now), there was no public transport aside from a bus. The developers built a short section of dual carriageway onto the A428, which HA later grudgigly extended to meet the existing dual carriageway near Cambridge.
For public transport, we still rely on busses, and are at the whim of Stagecoach (who have withdrawn many of the services, and cut the routes through the village), and Whippet, who are good but small. We have no railway, no tram,; not even a good cycle route to Cambridge.
Any new town should have excellent transport links. Nearby, the new Northstowe should have the misguided bus link into Cambridge (along an old railway line, natch). Waterbeach New Town is going to be served by moving the existing station a short distance north. All these are paid for by the council, not developers.
We cannot - and must not - so new towns on the cheap.
Absolutely any new towns should have excellent transport links, I said there should be new motorways.
But that should not be the "developers" responsibility.
If you want community infrastructure, then it is the responsibility of the entire community, the entire country, to pay for that - not just pile the burden on those who get a new house all alone while those who live in secure housing that was built years ago abscond from any responsibilities.
That's sorta my point. It should be paid for by the councils involved, and it should be there when it is needed.
As an example of where S106 can go wrong, see this story (yes, DM...). The first houses in Nortstowe (a development northwest of Cambridge) have been occupied for six years now, and it has no shops, pubs, cafes, public toilets, or even a GP practice.
I know Northstowe fairly well (I've run around all of it as of a few months ago, but the ****ards keep on opening new roads...), and although I'm not a fan of the architecture, the layout seems fairly well designed. But it's terrible that a place that is housing thousands does not have the basic amenities.
It's fine for the council to say: a 'community centre building will be provided before the 900th home was occupied, or a sports pavilion before the 500th - when there are 1,200 homes occupied and they have not been built.
The council should be able to make the developer stop all building works on houses - and sales of completed houses - until it meets its obligations.
S106 simply doesn't work very well, even on large developments.
The housing developer should have nothing to do with "obligations" on other things. The housing developer should be dealing with housing and housing alone.
It should be no more the housing developers responsibility to meet the Councils obligations than it is the Schools obligation to meet the GPs obligations.
Suggesting stopping housing until other things are resolved is like suggesting shutting schools until other things are resolved.
S106 should not exist.
And how does the council pay for that additional infrastructure, which needs to be in place as the houses are completed?
You would see Council Tax rising in those areas building more houses - that's going to quash Nimbyism, oh yes.
You tax wealth nationally and redistribute it to where it is needed? Progressive and redistributive taxation is better than our council tax system (which is a joke) and S106 money (which is awful). First as comedy, then as tragedy - British taxation policy...
Yup. In addition to scrapping local politicians I would also scrap local taxation. It’s bonkers. The most scandalous thing was Osborne saying local Gvt could keep business rates. Wonderful, if you’re Westminster….
That’s where we disagree. Councils need to be much more responsible for raising their own budgets, and need to have many more levers available to them. They should be allowed much more say in council tax and business rates, and should be competing with each other to attract businesses to their areas. The incentives should line up that an increased population generates more income for the local authority, which incentivises the councillors to prioritise building. Perhaps even set councillor pay to be proportional to council gross and net revenue.
The issue is that if you have elections then politics gets involved. They is no “Tory” or “Labour” way to manage road maintenance or bin collection. There will just be a most efficient way. The local politicians will always want to interfere.
Scrap the local politicians, boost the local professionals, and set a national standard for the services we all get.
Not much clarity on the state of the border crossing from Gaza to Egypt.
Sisi needs to pull his finger out and show leadership here, otherwise he’s revealing what everyone else suspects I.E. most of the Arab world for all its talk doesn’t give a flying f*** about actual Palestinian people and Israel just gives them a bogeyman they can blame everything on.
Maybe MBS can house them in one of his mad linear cities?
Sisi doesn't give a sh1t. As with most of the Arab world, he sees the Palestinians as a problem.
Sunak has no understanding of normal people and no ability to communicate with them.
Hopeless.
Especially given he's up against the true master of empathy, Sir Keir Starmer. A man who oozes charm from every pore. A man who lights up every room he walks in to.
Sunak was beaten by a candidate who in turn was beaten by a lettuce
Any sentient being is an improvement on him
Now, hang on. He's better than Michael Fabricant, Jacob Rees-Mogg, Richard Burgon, Laura Pid...oh, hold on, you did say 'sentient.' As you were.
As we are doing jokes, a reminder of Angela Rayner's quip that the Prime Minister has failed to provide his Whatsapp messages to the Covid inquiry, and Jacob Rees-Mogg has yet to hand over his carrier pigeon.
So preferring to making a joke, when she could have actually made a good political point about the PM and his record-keeping?
She comes across as a comedian, rather than a serious politician. Even if the joke got a bunch of laughs from the hall, she isn’t convincing swing voters that she’s wanting to be a senior member of the next government. If they wanted a comic, there’s plenty of Labour-supporting professionals they could have hired to make the same joke.
People complain about professional politicians, then complain about unprofessional ones. People complain about politicians who have not had careers outside politics, and the lack of real working class representation, they say too many go to university, them complain that someone is uneducated and politically inexperienced.
Rayner is a star. She has convictions, authenticity and style, she is intelligent, canny and organised. No wonder she is popular.
A rare moment of agreement. I like Ms Rayner. She’s feisty, funny and interesting. A lot of the flak she gets is pure snobbery
As an example, when they built my 'village' (actually a town now), there was no public transport aside from a bus. The developers built a short section of dual carriageway onto the A428, which HA later grudgigly extended to meet the existing dual carriageway near Cambridge.
For public transport, we still rely on busses, and are at the whim of Stagecoach (who have withdrawn many of the services, and cut the routes through the village), and Whippet, who are good but small. We have no railway, no tram,; not even a good cycle route to Cambridge.
Any new town should have excellent transport links. Nearby, the new Northstowe should have the misguided bus link into Cambridge (along an old railway line, natch). Waterbeach New Town is going to be served by moving the existing station a short distance north. All these are paid for by the council, not developers.
We cannot - and must not - so new towns on the cheap.
Absolutely any new towns should have excellent transport links, I said there should be new motorways.
But that should not be the "developers" responsibility.
If you want community infrastructure, then it is the responsibility of the entire community, the entire country, to pay for that - not just pile the burden on those who get a new house all alone while those who live in secure housing that was built years ago abscond from any responsibilities.
That's sorta my point. It should be paid for by the councils involved, and it should be there when it is needed.
As an example of where S106 can go wrong, see this story (yes, DM...). The first houses in Nortstowe (a development northwest of Cambridge) have been occupied for six years now, and it has no shops, pubs, cafes, public toilets, or even a GP practice.
I know Northstowe fairly well (I've run around all of it as of a few months ago, but the ****ards keep on opening new roads...), and although I'm not a fan of the architecture, the layout seems fairly well designed. But it's terrible that a place that is housing thousands does not have the basic amenities.
It's fine for the council to say: a 'community centre building will be provided before the 900th home was occupied, or a sports pavilion before the 500th - when there are 1,200 homes occupied and they have not been built.
The council should be able to make the developer stop all building works on houses - and sales of completed houses - until it meets its obligations.
S106 simply doesn't work very well, even on large developments.
The housing developer should have nothing to do with "obligations" on other things. The housing developer should be dealing with housing and housing alone.
It should be no more the housing developers responsibility to meet the Councils obligations than it is the Schools obligation to meet the GPs obligations.
Suggesting stopping housing until other things are resolved is like suggesting shutting schools until other things are resolved.
S106 should not exist.
And how does the council pay for that additional infrastructure, which needs to be in place as the houses are completed?
You would see Council Tax rising in those areas building more houses - that's going to quash Nimbyism, oh yes.
You tax wealth nationally and redistribute it to where it is needed? Progressive and redistributive taxation is better than our council tax system (which is a joke) and S106 money (which is awful). First as comedy, then as tragedy - British taxation policy...
Yup. In addition to scrapping local politicians I would also scrap local taxation. It’s bonkers. The most scandalous thing was Osborne saying local Gvt could keep business rates. Wonderful, if you’re Westminster….
That’s where we disagree. Councils need to be much more responsible for raising their own budgets, and need to have many more levers available to them. They should be allowed much more say in council tax and business rates, and should be competing with each other to attract businesses to their areas. The incentives should line up that an increased population generates more income for the local authority, which incentivises the councillors to prioritise building. Perhaps even set councillor pay to be proportional to council gross and net revenue.
The issue is that if you have elections then politics get involved. They is no “Tory” or “Labour” way to manage road maintenance or bin collection. There will just be a most efficient way.
Scrap the local politicians, boost the local professionals, and set a national standard for the services we all get.
But there are most definitely “Tory” and “Labour” rates of council tax, parking charges, and especially business tax, along with different philosphphies as to the mix of different revenue streams and incentives for relocation.
Why not a simple rule that developers cannot sell any houses they have built until they have built the roads, GP surgeries etc required for the development?
As an example, when they built my 'village' (actually a town now), there was no public transport aside from a bus. The developers built a short section of dual carriageway onto the A428, which HA later grudgigly extended to meet the existing dual carriageway near Cambridge.
For public transport, we still rely on busses, and are at the whim of Stagecoach (who have withdrawn many of the services, and cut the routes through the village), and Whippet, who are good but small. We have no railway, no tram,; not even a good cycle route to Cambridge.
Any new town should have excellent transport links. Nearby, the new Northstowe should have the misguided bus link into Cambridge (along an old railway line, natch). Waterbeach New Town is going to be served by moving the existing station a short distance north. All these are paid for by the council, not developers.
We cannot - and must not - so new towns on the cheap.
Absolutely any new towns should have excellent transport links, I said there should be new motorways.
But that should not be the "developers" responsibility.
If you want community infrastructure, then it is the responsibility of the entire community, the entire country, to pay for that - not just pile the burden on those who get a new house all alone while those who live in secure housing that was built years ago abscond from any responsibilities.
That's sorta my point. It should be paid for by the councils involved, and it should be there when it is needed.
As an example of where S106 can go wrong, see this story (yes, DM...). The first houses in Nortstowe (a development northwest of Cambridge) have been occupied for six years now, and it has no shops, pubs, cafes, public toilets, or even a GP practice.
I know Northstowe fairly well (I've run around all of it as of a few months ago, but the ****ards keep on opening new roads...), and although I'm not a fan of the architecture, the layout seems fairly well designed. But it's terrible that a place that is housing thousands does not have the basic amenities.
It's fine for the council to say: a 'community centre building will be provided before the 900th home was occupied, or a sports pavilion before the 500th - when there are 1,200 homes occupied and they have not been built.
The council should be able to make the developer stop all building works on houses - and sales of completed houses - until it meets its obligations.
S106 simply doesn't work very well, even on large developments.
The housing developer should have nothing to do with "obligations" on other things. The housing developer should be dealing with housing and housing alone.
It should be no more the housing developers responsibility to meet the Councils obligations than it is the Schools obligation to meet the GPs obligations.
Suggesting stopping housing until other things are resolved is like suggesting shutting schools until other things are resolved.
S106 should not exist.
And how does the council pay for that additional infrastructure, which needs to be in place as the houses are completed?
You would see Council Tax rising in those areas building more houses - that's going to quash Nimbyism, oh yes.
You tax wealth nationally and redistribute it to where it is needed? Progressive and redistributive taxation is better than our council tax system (which is a joke) and S106 money (which is awful). First as comedy, then as tragedy - British taxation policy...
Yup. In addition to scrapping local politicians I would also scrap local taxation. It’s bonkers. The most scandalous thing was Osborne saying local Gvt could keep business rates. Wonderful, if you’re Westminster….
That’s where we disagree. Councils need to be much more responsible for raising their own budgets, and need to have many more levers available to them. They should be allowed much more say in council tax and business rates, and should be competing with each other to attract businesses to their areas. The incentives should line up that an increased population generates more income for the local authority, which incentivises the councillors to prioritise building. Perhaps even set councillor pay to be proportional to council gross and net revenue.
The issue is that if you have elections then politics get involved. They is no “Tory” or “Labour” way to manage road maintenance or bin collection. There will just be a most efficient way.
Scrap the local politicians, boost the local professionals, and set a national standard for the services we all get.
But there are most definitely “Tory” and “Labour” rates of council tax, parking charges, and especially business tax, along with different philosphphies as to the mix of different revenue streams and incentives for relocation.
Yup. Scrap them all and fund it centrally. Because, by definition, local funding for local services is a doddle if you’re running Westminster and impossible if you’re running Jarrow.
This discussion is the essence of what Barty would call Nimbyism. He would build 20 houses in the field next door to him and sod everyone else because development. But people forget externalities. That is why there is the planning procedure. If those 20 houses need sewers, water, electricity, road access then that affects the community and has to be paid for. It can't be hand waved away.
Barty's logic is to follow that with 50 in the next field, and so on and so on. Your analysis applies even more to that!
Edit: Always useful technique to start with one unit, and then see what happens if one adds a second unit. There's a fancy mathematical technique for it, but I forget the name. If you end up with a runaway situation ...!
I don't get why our new towns are have to be massive low density villages, but with no pub or primary school.
When Edinburgh underwent expansion in the late Victorian period, you had agricultural/industrial areas in places like Marchmont and Leith covered in tenements, with trams, schools and commercial arteries included.
Why not a simple rule that developers cannot sell any houses they have built until they have built the roads, GP surgeries etc required for the development?
While we are on the topic of legal controls on development and standards, I did notice this the other day:
Tories hate Angela Rayner so much because she’s proof that you can climb your way to the top through hard work instead of relying on privilege.
She terrifies them.
Can we all stop encouraging hard work? It’s been in political language for far too long. I have got where I am by being lazy but competent. That’s the key to a happy life.
All this “hard working families” stuff needs to stop. What about “lazy gits who build a niche and make money from it”. We made the empire.
Not much clarity on the state of the border crossing from Gaza to Egypt.
Sisi needs to pull his finger out and show leadership here, otherwise he’s revealing what everyone else suspects I.E. most of the Arab world for all its talk doesn’t give a flying f*** about actual Palestinian people and Israel just gives them a bogeyman they can blame everything on.
Maybe MBS can house them in one of his mad linear cities?
Sisi doesn't give a sh1t. As with most of the Arab world, he sees the Palestinians as a problem.
I thought that Hamas had links with the Muslim Brotherhood? Sisi would not support Hamas as a result?
As an example, when they built my 'village' (actually a town now), there was no public transport aside from a bus. The developers built a short section of dual carriageway onto the A428, which HA later grudgigly extended to meet the existing dual carriageway near Cambridge.
For public transport, we still rely on busses, and are at the whim of Stagecoach (who have withdrawn many of the services, and cut the routes through the village), and Whippet, who are good but small. We have no railway, no tram,; not even a good cycle route to Cambridge.
Any new town should have excellent transport links. Nearby, the new Northstowe should have the misguided bus link into Cambridge (along an old railway line, natch). Waterbeach New Town is going to be served by moving the existing station a short distance north. All these are paid for by the council, not developers.
We cannot - and must not - so new towns on the cheap.
Absolutely any new towns should have excellent transport links, I said there should be new motorways.
But that should not be the "developers" responsibility.
If you want community infrastructure, then it is the responsibility of the entire community, the entire country, to pay for that - not just pile the burden on those who get a new house all alone while those who live in secure housing that was built years ago abscond from any responsibilities.
That's sorta my point. It should be paid for by the councils involved, and it should be there when it is needed.
As an example of where S106 can go wrong, see this story (yes, DM...). The first houses in Nortstowe (a development northwest of Cambridge) have been occupied for six years now, and it has no shops, pubs, cafes, public toilets, or even a GP practice.
I know Northstowe fairly well (I've run around all of it as of a few months ago, but the ****ards keep on opening new roads...), and although I'm not a fan of the architecture, the layout seems fairly well designed. But it's terrible that a place that is housing thousands does not have the basic amenities.
It's fine for the council to say: a 'community centre building will be provided before the 900th home was occupied, or a sports pavilion before the 500th - when there are 1,200 homes occupied and they have not been built.
The council should be able to make the developer stop all building works on houses - and sales of completed houses - until it meets its obligations.
S106 simply doesn't work very well, even on large developments.
The housing developer should have nothing to do with "obligations" on other things. The housing developer should be dealing with housing and housing alone.
It should be no more the housing developers responsibility to meet the Councils obligations than it is the Schools obligation to meet the GPs obligations.
Suggesting stopping housing until other things are resolved is like suggesting shutting schools until other things are resolved.
S106 should not exist.
And how does the council pay for that additional infrastructure, which needs to be in place as the houses are completed?
You would see Council Tax rising in those areas building more houses - that's going to quash Nimbyism, oh yes.
You tax wealth nationally and redistribute it to where it is needed? Progressive and redistributive taxation is better than our council tax system (which is a joke) and S106 money (which is awful). First as comedy, then as tragedy - British taxation policy...
Yup. In addition to scrapping local politicians I would also scrap local taxation. It’s bonkers. The most scandalous thing was Osborne saying local Gvt could keep business rates. Wonderful, if you’re Westminster….
That’s where we disagree. Councils need to be much more responsible for raising their own budgets, and need to have many more levers available to them. They should be allowed much more say in council tax and business rates, and should be competing with each other to attract businesses to their areas. The incentives should line up that an increased population generates more income for the local authority, which incentivises the councillors to prioritise building. Perhaps even set councillor pay to be proportional to council gross and net revenue.
The issue is that if you have elections then politics gets involved. They is no “Tory” or “Labour” way to manage road maintenance or bin collection. There will just be a most efficient way. The local politicians will always want to interfere.
Scrap the local politicians, boost the local professionals, and set a national standard for the services we all get.
Half agree with that. Like the way schools used to co-opt governors with particular skills onto the GB (E.g. financial oversight), ideally councils would be able to have more professionals co-opted as councillors, perhaps on a stipend and a fixed term*. There is too much local politics in politics, and you end up with weird fiefdoms like Manchester where 95% of councillors belong to one party. That’s not healthy for anyone.
*I can see how this would be open to abuse, but the lack of actual skills is a big issue in local government. Even the one-in-four councillors who are actually diligent custodians of their local community (rather than party climbers, layabouts or nutters) often just aren’t equipped with the right skills or experience to make the decisions they are required to.
As an example, when they built my 'village' (actually a town now), there was no public transport aside from a bus. The developers built a short section of dual carriageway onto the A428, which HA later grudgigly extended to meet the existing dual carriageway near Cambridge.
For public transport, we still rely on busses, and are at the whim of Stagecoach (who have withdrawn many of the services, and cut the routes through the village), and Whippet, who are good but small. We have no railway, no tram,; not even a good cycle route to Cambridge.
Any new town should have excellent transport links. Nearby, the new Northstowe should have the misguided bus link into Cambridge (along an old railway line, natch). Waterbeach New Town is going to be served by moving the existing station a short distance north. All these are paid for by the council, not developers.
We cannot - and must not - so new towns on the cheap.
Absolutely any new towns should have excellent transport links, I said there should be new motorways.
But that should not be the "developers" responsibility.
If you want community infrastructure, then it is the responsibility of the entire community, the entire country, to pay for that - not just pile the burden on those who get a new house all alone while those who live in secure housing that was built years ago abscond from any responsibilities.
That's sorta my point. It should be paid for by the councils involved, and it should be there when it is needed.
As an example of where S106 can go wrong, see this story (yes, DM...). The first houses in Nortstowe (a development northwest of Cambridge) have been occupied for six years now, and it has no shops, pubs, cafes, public toilets, or even a GP practice.
I know Northstowe fairly well (I've run around all of it as of a few months ago, but the ****ards keep on opening new roads...), and although I'm not a fan of the architecture, the layout seems fairly well designed. But it's terrible that a place that is housing thousands does not have the basic amenities.
It's fine for the council to say: a 'community centre building will be provided before the 900th home was occupied, or a sports pavilion before the 500th - when there are 1,200 homes occupied and they have not been built.
The council should be able to make the developer stop all building works on houses - and sales of completed houses - until it meets its obligations.
S106 simply doesn't work very well, even on large developments.
The housing developer should have nothing to do with "obligations" on other things. The housing developer should be dealing with housing and housing alone.
It should be no more the housing developers responsibility to meet the Councils obligations than it is the Schools obligation to meet the GPs obligations.
Suggesting stopping housing until other things are resolved is like suggesting shutting schools until other things are resolved.
S106 should not exist.
And how does the council pay for that additional infrastructure, which needs to be in place as the houses are completed?
You would see Council Tax rising in those areas building more houses - that's going to quash Nimbyism, oh yes.
You tax wealth nationally and redistribute it to where it is needed? Progressive and redistributive taxation is better than our council tax system (which is a joke) and S106 money (which is awful). First as comedy, then as tragedy - British taxation policy...
Yup. In addition to scrapping local politicians I would also scrap local taxation. It’s bonkers. The most scandalous thing was Osborne saying local Gvt could keep business rates. Wonderful, if you’re Westminster….
That’s where we disagree. Councils need to be much more responsible for raising their own budgets, and need to have many more levers available to them. They should be allowed much more say in council tax and business rates, and should be competing with each other to attract businesses to their areas. The incentives should line up that an increased population generates more income for the local authority, which incentivises the councillors to prioritise building. Perhaps even set councillor pay to be proportional to council gross and net revenue.
The issue is that if you have elections then politics get involved. They is no “Tory” or “Labour” way to manage road maintenance or bin collection. There will just be a most efficient way.
Scrap the local politicians, boost the local professionals, and set a national standard for the services we all get.
But there are most definitely “Tory” and “Labour” rates of council tax, parking charges, and especially business tax, along with different philosphphies as to the mix of different revenue streams and incentives for relocation.
Yup. Scrap them all and fund it centrally. Because, by definition, local funding for local services is a doddle if you’re running Westminster and impossible if you’re running Jarrow.
No, centralisation leads to the worst of all worlds, sclerotic management of decline, as seen in most of the UK at the moment. Having a hundred different local authorities all doing their own thing, leads to innovation and cost savings from which others can learn.
Neighbouring local authorities with wildly different rates of taxes and services, is undoubtedly a good thing. I want to see them compete on business rates, to attract new businesses to their area.
Someone close to me has had tea with Keir Starmer and said he was great: relaxed, easy to get on with, and funny.
The issue is more that people don't yet see Starmer. If my friend is right then it will come through during the GE campaign.
What's abundantly clear to all of us who actually live in this country Robert @rcs1000 is that the more we see of Sunak, the worse he appears.
With respect every politician who has a dull public persona, Brown and May were others, we hear these stories about.
How they were down to earth and surprisingly funny.
Yet they can never convey it in public and it never comes through in an election either.
John Major being the counter example. Dull in public, witty and charming in private. But I think the public sensed his underlying decency (albeit with a bitchy and vengeful streak)
Rayner's vastly overrated. The 'scum' comments were wretched.
Agree about scum comments; that was two years ago and she has changed a lot and is generally OK on the media; not the smallest change is by starring in Basic Instinct which means that (while few will admit it) millions of people, mostly men, look at her differently and in a way which loses few votes.
Sunak has no understanding of normal people and no ability to communicate with them.
Hopeless.
Especially given he's up against the true master of empathy, Sir Keir Starmer. A man who oozes charm from every pore. A man who lights up every room he walks in to.
Sunak was beaten by a candidate who in turn was beaten by a lettuce
Any sentient being is an improvement on him
Now, hang on. He's better than Michael Fabricant, Jacob Rees-Mogg, Richard Burgon, Laura Pid...oh, hold on, you did say 'sentient.' As you were.
As we are doing jokes, a reminder of Angela Rayner's quip that the Prime Minister has failed to provide his Whatsapp messages to the Covid inquiry, and Jacob Rees-Mogg has yet to hand over his carrier pigeon.
So preferring to making a joke, when she could have actually made a good political point about the PM and his record-keeping?
She comes across as a comedian, rather than a serious politician. Even if the joke got a bunch of laughs from the hall, she isn’t convincing swing voters that she’s wanting to be a senior member of the next government. If they wanted a comic, there’s plenty of Labour-supporting professionals they could have hired to make the same joke.
People complain about professional politicians, then complain about unprofessional ones. People complain about politicians who have not had careers outside politics, and the lack of real working class representation, they say too many go to university, them complain that someone is uneducated and politically inexperienced.
Rayner is a star. She has convictions, authenticity and style, she is intelligent, canny and organised. No wonder she is popular.
To this potentially floating voter, she comes across as superficial and not serious. I can’t imagine her as a DPM, or occupying one of the Great Offices.
Grant Shapps was recently Home Secretary. Was anybody's imagination equal to the task of conjuring that phantasmagoria?
This discussion is the essence of what Barty would call Nimbyism. He would build 20 houses in the field next door to him and sod everyone else because development. But people forget externalities. That is why there is the planning procedure. If those 20 houses need sewers, water, electricity, road access then that affects the community and has to be paid for. It can't be hand waved away.
Barty's logic is to follow that with 50 in the next field, and so on and so on. Your analysis applies even more to that!
Edit: Always useful technique to start with one unit, and then see what happens if one adds a second unit. There's a fancy mathematical technique for it, but I forget the name. If you end up with a runaway situation ...!
I don't get why our new towns are have to be massive low density villages, but with no pub or primary school.
When Edinburgh underwent expansion in the late Victorian period, you had agricultural/industrial areas in places like Marchmont and Leith covered in tenements, with trams, schools and commercial arteries included.
Why can't we do that again?
If you mean Marchmont and Leith were covered in tenements etc - yes, quite so. Though there was always something of a penumbra of rustic-type villas in small to large grounds such as in the tract north of the Braid Burn and Jordan Burn, or Trinity, from the early C19.
Those developers being let off doing infra are simply recreating an owner-occupier version of the original Castlemilk!
Edit: for the southern reader, 'tenement' here means anything in the way of purpose-designed low-rise flatted accommodation fdrom cheap slum-grade accommodation to some very upper middle class stuff - think Continental apartments as in Paris and Berlin.
Someone close to me has had tea with Keir Starmer and said he was great: relaxed, easy to get on with, and funny.
The issue is more that people don't yet see Starmer. If my friend is right then it will come through during the GE campaign.
What's abundantly clear to all of us who actually live in this country Robert @rcs1000 is that the more we see of Sunak, the worse he appears.
With respect every politician who has a dull public persona, Brown and May were others, we hear these stories about.
How they were down to earth and surprisingly funny.
Yet they can never convey it in public and it never comes through in an election either.
John Major being the counter example. Dull in public, witty and charming in private. But I think the public sensed his underlying decency (albeit with a bitchy and vengeful streak)
He was lucky that his love of Currie didn’t become public knowledge, until well after he was spending his days at the cricket.
Grey field sounds similar to brown field. Not entirely sure of the difference. Old style pre-internet shopping complexes. Are there really a tonne of those. Great if so.
Grey field is technically (= legally) green belt but they want it to sound less bad to build on
As an example, when they built my 'village' (actually a town now), there was no public transport aside from a bus. The developers built a short section of dual carriageway onto the A428, which HA later grudgigly extended to meet the existing dual carriageway near Cambridge.
For public transport, we still rely on busses, and are at the whim of Stagecoach (who have withdrawn many of the services, and cut the routes through the village), and Whippet, who are good but small. We have no railway, no tram,; not even a good cycle route to Cambridge.
Any new town should have excellent transport links. Nearby, the new Northstowe should have the misguided bus link into Cambridge (along an old railway line, natch). Waterbeach New Town is going to be served by moving the existing station a short distance north. All these are paid for by the council, not developers.
We cannot - and must not - so new towns on the cheap.
Absolutely any new towns should have excellent transport links, I said there should be new motorways.
But that should not be the "developers" responsibility.
If you want community infrastructure, then it is the responsibility of the entire community, the entire country, to pay for that - not just pile the burden on those who get a new house all alone while those who live in secure housing that was built years ago abscond from any responsibilities.
That's sorta my point. It should be paid for by the councils involved, and it should be there when it is needed.
As an example of where S106 can go wrong, see this story (yes, DM...). The first houses in Nortstowe (a development northwest of Cambridge) have been occupied for six years now, and it has no shops, pubs, cafes, public toilets, or even a GP practice.
I know Northstowe fairly well (I've run around all of it as of a few months ago, but the ****ards keep on opening new roads...), and although I'm not a fan of the architecture, the layout seems fairly well designed. But it's terrible that a place that is housing thousands does not have the basic amenities.
It's fine for the council to say: a 'community centre building will be provided before the 900th home was occupied, or a sports pavilion before the 500th - when there are 1,200 homes occupied and they have not been built.
The council should be able to make the developer stop all building works on houses - and sales of completed houses - until it meets its obligations.
S106 simply doesn't work very well, even on large developments.
The housing developer should have nothing to do with "obligations" on other things. The housing developer should be dealing with housing and housing alone.
It should be no more the housing developers responsibility to meet the Councils obligations than it is the Schools obligation to meet the GPs obligations.
Suggesting stopping housing until other things are resolved is like suggesting shutting schools until other things are resolved.
S106 should not exist.
And how does the council pay for that additional infrastructure, which needs to be in place as the houses are completed?
You would see Council Tax rising in those areas building more houses - that's going to quash Nimbyism, oh yes.
You tax wealth nationally and redistribute it to where it is needed? Progressive and redistributive taxation is better than our council tax system (which is a joke) and S106 money (which is awful). First as comedy, then as tragedy - British taxation policy...
Yup. In addition to scrapping local politicians I would also scrap local taxation. It’s bonkers. The most scandalous thing was Osborne saying local Gvt could keep business rates. Wonderful, if you’re Westminster….
That’s where we disagree. Councils need to be much more responsible for raising their own budgets, and need to have many more levers available to them. They should be allowed much more say in council tax and business rates, and should be competing with each other to attract businesses to their areas. The incentives should line up that an increased population generates more income for the local authority, which incentivises the councillors to prioritise building. Perhaps even set councillor pay to be proportional to council gross and net revenue.
The issue is that if you have elections then politics get involved. They is no “Tory” or “Labour” way to manage road maintenance or bin collection. There will just be a most efficient way.
Scrap the local politicians, boost the local professionals, and set a national standard for the services we all get.
But there are most definitely “Tory” and “Labour” rates of council tax, parking charges, and especially business tax, along with different philosphphies as to the mix of different revenue streams and incentives for relocation.
Yup. Scrap them all and fund it centrally. Because, by definition, local funding for local services is a doddle if you’re running Westminster and impossible if you’re running Jarrow.
No, centralisation leads to the worst of all worlds, sclerotic management of decline, as seen in most of the UK at the moment. Having a hundred different local authorities all doing their own thing, leads to innovation and cost savings from which others can learn.
Neighbouring local authorities with wildly different rates of taxes and services, is undoubtedly a good thing. I want to see them compete on business rates, to attract new businesses to their area.
It sounds nice in theory, but it’s rubbish if you live in the area that doesn’t attract any and can’t have nice things. You and your family end up screwed through no fault of your own, in the interested of running an experiment.
Rayner's vastly overrated. The 'scum' comments were wretched.
Agree about scum comments; that was two years ago and she has changed a lot and is generally OK on the media; not the smallest change is by starring in Basic Instinct which means that (while few will admit it) millions of people, mostly men, look at her differently and in a way which loses few votes.
I don’t find her at all fanciable. Too tall and masculine. Give me the submissive, coquettish, manic pixie dream girl that was the young Yvette Cooper
Can we all stop encouraging hard work? It’s been in political language for far too long. I have got where I am by being lazy but competent. That’s the key to a happy life.
It would if the lazy and incompetent didn't always seem to be doing better...
As an example, when they built my 'village' (actually a town now), there was no public transport aside from a bus. The developers built a short section of dual carriageway onto the A428, which HA later grudgigly extended to meet the existing dual carriageway near Cambridge.
For public transport, we still rely on busses, and are at the whim of Stagecoach (who have withdrawn many of the services, and cut the routes through the village), and Whippet, who are good but small. We have no railway, no tram,; not even a good cycle route to Cambridge.
Any new town should have excellent transport links. Nearby, the new Northstowe should have the misguided bus link into Cambridge (along an old railway line, natch). Waterbeach New Town is going to be served by moving the existing station a short distance north. All these are paid for by the council, not developers.
We cannot - and must not - so new towns on the cheap.
Absolutely any new towns should have excellent transport links, I said there should be new motorways.
But that should not be the "developers" responsibility.
If you want community infrastructure, then it is the responsibility of the entire community, the entire country, to pay for that - not just pile the burden on those who get a new house all alone while those who live in secure housing that was built years ago abscond from any responsibilities.
That's sorta my point. It should be paid for by the councils involved, and it should be there when it is needed.
As an example of where S106 can go wrong, see this story (yes, DM...). The first houses in Nortstowe (a development northwest of Cambridge) have been occupied for six years now, and it has no shops, pubs, cafes, public toilets, or even a GP practice.
I know Northstowe fairly well (I've run around all of it as of a few months ago, but the ****ards keep on opening new roads...), and although I'm not a fan of the architecture, the layout seems fairly well designed. But it's terrible that a place that is housing thousands does not have the basic amenities.
It's fine for the council to say: a 'community centre building will be provided before the 900th home was occupied, or a sports pavilion before the 500th - when there are 1,200 homes occupied and they have not been built.
The council should be able to make the developer stop all building works on houses - and sales of completed houses - until it meets its obligations.
S106 simply doesn't work very well, even on large developments.
The housing developer should have nothing to do with "obligations" on other things. The housing developer should be dealing with housing and housing alone.
It should be no more the housing developers responsibility to meet the Councils obligations than it is the Schools obligation to meet the GPs obligations.
Suggesting stopping housing until other things are resolved is like suggesting shutting schools until other things are resolved.
S106 should not exist.
And how does the council pay for that additional infrastructure, which needs to be in place as the houses are completed?
You would see Council Tax rising in those areas building more houses - that's going to quash Nimbyism, oh yes.
You tax wealth nationally and redistribute it to where it is needed? Progressive and redistributive taxation is better than our council tax system (which is a joke) and S106 money (which is awful). First as comedy, then as tragedy - British taxation policy...
Yup. In addition to scrapping local politicians I would also scrap local taxation. It’s bonkers. The most scandalous thing was Osborne saying local Gvt could keep business rates. Wonderful, if you’re Westminster….
That’s where we disagree. Councils need to be much more responsible for raising their own budgets, and need to have many more levers available to them. They should be allowed much more say in council tax and business rates, and should be competing with each other to attract businesses to their areas. The incentives should line up that an increased population generates more income for the local authority, which incentivises the councillors to prioritise building. Perhaps even set councillor pay to be proportional to council gross and net revenue.
The issue is that if you have elections then politics get involved. They is no “Tory” or “Labour” way to manage road maintenance or bin collection. There will just be a most efficient way.
Scrap the local politicians, boost the local professionals, and set a national standard for the services we all get.
But there are most definitely “Tory” and “Labour” rates of council tax, parking charges, and especially business tax, along with different philosphphies as to the mix of different revenue streams and incentives for relocation.
Yup. Scrap them all and fund it centrally. Because, by definition, local funding for local services is a doddle if you’re running Westminster and impossible if you’re running Jarrow.
No, centralisation leads to the worst of all worlds, sclerotic management of decline, as seen in most of the UK at the moment. Having a hundred different local authorities all doing their own thing, leads to innovation and cost savings from which others can learn.
Neighbouring local authorities with wildly different rates of taxes and services, is undoubtedly a good thing. I want to see them compete on business rates, to attract new businesses to their area.
I am happy with centralised funding but localised planning. If you have only local funding, you entrench existing poverty. If you only have central planning, you entrench existing power structures. Central funding is the only way to redistribute the wealth across the nation from the developed (and arguably overdeveloped) wealthy parts to the underdeveloped parts. And local planning is the only way to understand and meet the needs of local people that also gets their buy in.
...But I’ll tell you something. In a way, the fact that they shot the mortars at our community before they broke through the border saved a lot of people’s lives, because it caused people to run into the safe room. And this safe room, if you lock it properly, is very hard to open from the outside. A lot of people were barricaded in those safe rooms for hours and sometimes an entire day. In a lot of cases, the terrorists tried to break in, and they couldn’t.
What happened in our case was that we were sitting there in the dark. A few minutes after we got in and we heard this gunfire, the electricity stopped. We had no food. We did have some water. And we’re telling our daughters, “You have to be quiet now. You have to be absolutely quiet. Not a word. You can’t cry. Can’t talk. It’s dangerous.” And my girls were absolute heroes. They waited silently in the dark for 10 hours, and they did not cry. They understood. ..
...successive Israeli governments, all of them led by Benjamin Netanyahu, invested billions of dollars—I think some of them actually from U.S. support—in constructing an underground wall to prevent Hamas from using those tunnels again. This was a major infrastructure project for the state of Israel. And that project allowed us to sleep at night, because you can deal with rockets falling over your head if you have a safe room in your house, but if terrorists are infiltrating underground and they can walk into your community, that’s a game changer. And so the reason we could live there, and that’s true for everyone, is because of this underground wall that Israel constructed. And in the morning hours of Saturday, October 7, when we heard the gunfire outside our window, we realized that this project is an utter and complete failure.
Israel invested so much in it, and what did the Hamas people do? They took a few tractors and SUVs, and they ran over the border fence. ..
Yes, but that meant they couldn’t use the tunnels. So the money wasn’t wasted - unfortunately evil people found a new way to evil. So defences need to be strengthened going forward
Rayner's vastly overrated. The 'scum' comments were wretched.
Agree about scum comments; that was two years ago and she has changed a lot and is generally OK on the media; not the smallest change is by starring in Basic Instinct which means that (while few will admit it) millions of people, mostly men, look at her differently and in a way which loses few votes.
I don’t find her at all fanciable. Too tall and masculine. Give me the submissive, coquettish, manic pixie dream girl that was the young Yvette Cooper
Tories hate Angela Rayner so much because she’s proof that you can climb your way to the top through hard work instead of relying on privilege.
She terrifies them.
Maybe one day the Tories will have someone in charge, not even deputy leader, who is a woman, maybe the daughter of a humble shopkeeper, who works hard instead of relying on privilege.
Perhaps they would still worship her decades later and not hate her. I can’t imagine Labour supporters hating such a person.
But there are most definitely “Tory” and “Labour” rates of council tax, parking charges, and especially business tax, along with different philosphphies as to the mix of different revenue streams and incentives for relocation.
Business rates are set centrally and almost entirely go to the central Government. Even as a Council Executive member I do agree with that, since otherwise councils will race each pther to the bottom and the richer areas will benefit at the expense of the others. But it's not an area of Lab/Con division at local level.
Tories hate Angela Rayner so much because she’s proof that you can climb your way to the top through hard work instead of relying on privilege.
She terrifies them.
Can we all stop encouraging hard work? It’s been in political language for far too long. I have got where I am by being lazy but competent. That’s the key to a happy life.
All this “hard working families” stuff needs to stop. What about “lazy gits who build a niche and make money from it”. We made the empire.
Yes. I fully agree, though it is dangerous to say so in most contexts. The much missed David Graeber in 'Bullshit Jobs' makes a bullseye point about whole jobs and careers that are a fatuous waste of time. But in a sense even more important is the amount of energy, even within real jobs, that goes into having BS stuff (Graeber's 5 categories still apply) imposed on you to waste your time and theirs, and also (terrifying this) the number of people who impose it on themselves.
Comments
The more Ange the better imo. She really seems to hit something atavistic and uncomfortable in the retired colonel types.
The housing developer should have nothing to do with "obligations" on other things. The housing developer should be dealing with housing and housing alone.
It should be no more the housing developers responsibility to meet the Councils obligations than it is the Schools obligation to meet the GPs obligations.
Suggesting stopping housing until other things are resolved is like suggesting shutting schools until other things are resolved.
S106 should not exist.
With the end result that one day there’s simply no-one left behind th front line, and it all happens rather quickly after that.
That the Russians are reported to be heavily laying mines around Tokmak in recent days, suggests that we’re now close to that point where the lines move significantly in a short amount of time. They’re still a month or more away from winter in the Southern regions as well, whereas further North around Kharkiv, it’s now starting to get muddy.
Re the by-elections, my view is the Tories will hold onto Tamworth. I don't know enough about Mid-Beds but, from what has been said on here, that has to be a strong possibility.
The rationale for the Tory hold is this. I mentioned on Saturday that one of the by-products of the Hamas attacks was likely to be a strengthening in support for right-wing parties because it would bring back into focus concerns over immigration and / or whether immigrant populations who may be seen as a source of trouble. Hard to see how that plays out yet but, given the AfD had very good results in both Bavaria and Hesse and (reading between the lines) exceeded expectations, it may already be starting to come through.
I think Tamworth is the sort of constituency that could / will be prone to similar sentiments - heavily leave, mainly WWC and lower middle class demographic.
Then add in the publicity the likes of Corbyn and the pro-Palestinian fringe have been getting plus the 'equivalence' shown by many on the left towards the attacks (as shown on here). That is also likely to put off some voters who may feel that, whatever Starmer says, his base has a disproportionate number of such members.
Just a gut feel.
The issue is making the buggers actually do it, and the problem is too much power in the hands of local politicians, who are partial to a brown envelope, or even just a nice lunch and the feel of being important.
You would see Council Tax rising in those areas building more houses - that's going to quash Nimbyism, oh yes.
This is probably why he is thought of as boring and dull.
The current system comes across as the worst of both worlds, with small towns being built with not even a small shop or a bus stop for years - but the councillors themselves having had some very nice dinners.
But there's an important question for you: when you say: "The housing developer should be dealing with housing and housing alone. ", then what do you define as 'housing'? Should they be building the local roads in a cul-de-sac? The drainage? How about putting in water or gas mains?/ Where does 'housing' end and public infrastructure begin?
All these things are needed, and someone needs to build them. If not the developer, then the council. And that requires funding, and hence more taxation of some form.
"Suggesting stopping housing until other things are resolved is like suggesting shutting schools until other things are resolved. "
Rubbish. Developers come to an agreement with a council. In return, they get to build houses. If they break that agreement, they should not build any more houses until they do as agreed.
Just like any other contract.
Of course they’re playing in cooler conditions and at quite a high altitude.
Attritional tactics work, but both sides pay dearly in blood and treasure.
Especially as its unclear where bus services will run. I bet several of the stops never see a bus...
When development happens there needs to be long term infrastructure planning that takes into account how people will actually live in the space. So all community stuff - schools, GPs, public transport, community centres, etc. etc. - should be part of the planning from day one.
On the other hand, yeah I agree S106 is shit. This stuff shouldn't be paid for with a one off levy from developers, and only via that. It should be paid through, you know, taxes and an actual functioning state at local and national levels. Indeed, maybe development in general should be done that way rather than filtering through many layers of bullshit subcontractors and what not.
On this topic (somewhat), found this episode interesting this morning discussing HS2 and the inability of the British state to do, you know, simple functions of statehood:
https://open.spotify.com/episode/4matCcogp0wMEy3dM7mVYz
Was especially poignant as I was on my commute where first my bus just did not turn up, and when a different bus did turn up it was standing room only and so many passengers were waiting at the stop because buses hadn't shown up that we couldn't all actually get on said bus, so I had to finally take the third bus that happens to be a longer journey because it is the one that goes all around the houses (a necessary route for people, but an aggravation when you are trying to just get to work on time)...
Edit: was going to say ‘full bore’ but realise SKS has that well covered.
Although Ms Rayner looks good as well!
Why should they pay for it? Why shouldn't the whole of society pay for societal infrastructure?
Just cut out the middle man and get Councils to pull their finger out and do their own job.
Rishi Sunak has defended pumping money from HS2 into projects in the south of England as he faced criticism over the plans.
Ministers have come under fire after publishing the “Network North” plans, which included more than 100 regional transport projects, including schemes that had already been completed or were already funded.
The prime minister insisted that the projects he claimed to be funding were “illustrative” only and designed “to give people a sense of things that people have asked for in that area”.
The government published plans for the Network North, including a full list of projects, on its website on Wednesday afternoon, following Sunak’s address to the Tory party conference.
However, some pages were quickly deleted including where the government pledged to “revolutionise mass transit in Bristol”. A page about reopening Transport North East’s Leamside line was also removed.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/rishi-sunak-defends-spending-hs2-cash-in-the-south-brxkgtq2c
It should be Hart Lane, Hartlepool.
Opposition leader Donald Tusk challenges PM Mateusz Morawiecki to a do-over before Sunday’s general election.
https://www.politico.eu/article/polish-election-debate-descends-into-farce/
If they wish, they can contract the same developer to spend it to say build a GP surgery on a new estate - but crucially, this is all done on a commercial basis. So the developer must pay up the levy as houses on the estate are sold. They only get the money for building the GP's surgery when it's completed and handed over to the council. That way there can't be the situation we have at the moment where the developers won't do their S106 stuff until the bitter end, and you get massive developments half built and sold with no matching infrastructure.
The other virtue of this is it wipes out all the stupid S106 haggling holding up planning applications (at which most councils seem pretty bad - ours managed to win a pointless roundabout in the middle of no-where in return for a housing estate the other side of town!) - level playing field, you build, you sell, you cough up, and some money goes in a "new infrastructure" pot.
Your model seems to be “build baby, build” and then worry about funding essential services later when the schools are overcrowded because no one thought ahead.
Edit - and don’t get me started on how none of this debate about building buildings actually gets you any people to run them.
HS2. How Sunak gifted Starmer another opportunity to present Labour as a party of competence.
...
The wider point is that decisions on how to spend £36 billion appear to have been made in a haphazard and ill-informed manner. It may be unfair to assume that the constituent elements were chosen by an exhausted Prime Minister in his Manchester hotel room in the early hours of the morning but that is exactly what it looks like from the outside. One can see the political imperatives to keep the process tight (to avoid further leaks) and to make an early announcement, but this does not constitute “doing politics differently from the last 30 years”. In fact, it looks like Brownian micromanagement combined with Johnsonian frivolity. (Thankfully, Gordon Brown was never frivolous and Boris Johnson never micro-managed.)
https://conservativehome.com/2023/10/09/david-gauke-hs2-how-sunak-gifted-starmer-another-opportunity-to-present-labour-as-a-party-of-competence/
Whilst it's true the tax base expands, the bulk of that is going on the revenue budget - the income generated from Council Tax for the extra people isn't on a scale for the level of capital investment needed on the infrastructure.
Edit: Always useful technique to start with one unit, and then see what happens if one adds a second unit. There's a fancy mathematical technique for it, but I forget the name. If you end up with a runaway situation ...!
The strange bit is since the houses were completed earlier this year, the site has remained fenced off. No residents have moved in.
Sisi needs to pull his finger out and show leadership here, otherwise he’s revealing what everyone else suspects I.E. most of the Arab world for all its talk doesn’t give a flying f*** about actual Palestinian people and Israel just gives them a bogeyman they can blame everything on.
Maybe MBS can house them in one of his mad linear cities?
Scrap the local politicians, boost the local professionals, and set a national standard for the services we all get.
Rayner's vastly overrated. The 'scum' comments were wretched.
Tories hate Angela Rayner so much because she’s proof that you can climb your way to the top through hard work instead of relying on privilege.
She terrifies them.
When Edinburgh underwent expansion in the late Victorian period, you had agricultural/industrial areas in places like Marchmont and Leith covered in tenements, with trams, schools and commercial arteries included.
Why can't we do that again?
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2023/oct/04/at-least-one-tenth-tory-donations-since-2010-property-industry
All this “hard working families” stuff needs to stop. What about “lazy gits who build a niche and make money from it”. We made the empire.
*I can see how this would be open to abuse, but the lack of actual skills is a big issue in local government. Even the one-in-four councillors who are actually diligent custodians of their local community (rather than party climbers, layabouts or nutters) often just aren’t equipped with the right skills or experience to make the decisions they are required to.
Neighbouring local authorities with wildly different rates of taxes and services, is undoubtedly a good thing. I want to see them compete on business rates, to attract new businesses to their area.
Those developers being let off doing infra are simply recreating an owner-occupier version of the original Castlemilk!
Edit: for the southern reader, 'tenement' here means anything in the way of purpose-designed low-rise flatted accommodation fdrom cheap slum-grade accommodation to some very upper middle class stuff - think Continental apartments as in Paris and Berlin.
Perhaps they would still worship her decades later and not hate her. I can’t imagine Labour supporters hating such a person.
Oooooh
*rubs ageing thighs*