Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

Options

Kemi now clear betting favourite to be next CON leader – politicalbetting.com

SystemSystem Posts: 11,688
edited October 2023 in General
imageKemi now clear betting favourite to be next CON leader – politicalbetting.com

It is hard to see Sunak being CON leader in 18 months time. A general election will have had to take place during that time period and it is very hard on current polling that there will be anything other than a LAB majority.

Read the full story here

«134567

Comments

  • Options
    MattWMattW Posts: 18,593
    edited October 2023
    First. Ahem.

    I like "emerge".

    The next Tory leader is going to be "The Thing From The Swamp" - a refugee from a 1970s Shlock ! Horror ! movie.
  • Options
    stodgestodge Posts: 12,864
    Afternoon all :)

    The problem for the immediate post-election leader is going to be first association with the departed Government and second, no one will be interested in anything they have to say for the first year or so as there will be a new Government in town.
  • Options
    FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 76,285
    edited October 2023
    A period of silence will be held before England's game with Australia for "the innocent victims of the devastating events in Israel and Palestine".

    "Following discussions with partners and external stakeholders, we will only permit flags, replica kits and other representations of nationality for the competing nations inside Wembley Stadium for the upcoming matches against Australia [13 October] and Italy [17 October]."

    Israel-Gaza: England v Australia game to be preceded by period of silence - https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/67089363
  • Options
    tlg86tlg86 Posts: 25,190
    edited October 2023
    https://twitter.com/DPJHodges/status/1712441648393654610

    (((Dan Hodges)))
    @DPJHodges
    While the focus is on the FA I understand the anger from the Jewish community about the silence from Spurs and Arsenal is also growing.
  • Options
    AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 23,758
    Labours head will explode if it is Badenoch.

    Stale male Starmer versus a black woman.

    Stand by for calls of shes the wrong kind of black or Starmer saying shes got a penis.
  • Options
    Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 26,696
    FPT
    Leon said:

    American toilet bowls are very large and deep.
    Don’t know what’s going on with them, really.

    And as for the plugs, I am constantly fretting that someone might electrocute themselves.

    British plugs on the other hand are such clunky, ungainly things. (A lot of British design is like that, the best British design somehow makes a virtue of its ungainliness).

    NZ plugs are good.

    British plugs are beautiful. A masterpiece of design. They are the most reliable, robust plugs in the world - and what’s more, the design expresses that. Pure functionality, at its best, evinces loveliness

    The Mies van der Rohe of plug designs. Fie on you, you Antipodean heathen

    Tom Scott video on why they are indeed the best.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UEfP1OKKz_Q
  • Options
    tlg86tlg86 Posts: 25,190
    And here we go...

    https://twitter.com/FA/status/1712434660062396766

    The FA
    @FA
    Wembley remembers the victims of the conflict in Israel and Palestine.
  • Options
    LeonLeon Posts: 47,302
    Andy_JS said:

    FPT

    Leon said:

    American toilet bowls are very large and deep.
    Don’t know what’s going on with them, really.

    And as for the plugs, I am constantly fretting that someone might electrocute themselves.

    British plugs on the other hand are such clunky, ungainly things. (A lot of British design is like that, the best British design somehow makes a virtue of its ungainliness).

    NZ plugs are good.

    British plugs are beautiful. A masterpiece of design. They are the most reliable, robust plugs in the world - and what’s more, the design expresses that. Pure functionality, at its best, evinces loveliness

    The Mies van der Rohe of plug designs. Fie on you, you Antipodean heathen

    Tom Scott video on why they are indeed the best.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UEfP1OKKz_Q
    And kettles
  • Options
    BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 31,688

    Labours head will explode if it is Badenoch.

    Stale male Starmer versus a black woman.

    Stand by for calls of shes the wrong kind of black or Starmer saying shes got a penis.

    Your desperate attempts to find something, anything, positive for the moribund Tories is a continuous source of amusement.
  • Options
    TazTaz Posts: 11,198
    tlg86 said:

    https://twitter.com/DPJHodges/status/1712441648393654610

    (((Dan Hodges)))
    @DPJHodges
    While the focus is on the FA I understand the anger from the Jewish community about the silence from Spurs and Arsenal is also growing.

    I wonder if we will have sponsors withdrawing their support as a consequence.

    Highly unlikely as there is no co-ordinated online twitter campaign bombarding their feed with threats to not use them.

    The moral cowardice of the like of the FA and Arsenal and Spurs truly shames the beautiful game. Soccer was happy to take the knee for George Floyd yet it won't show solidarity with the nation that suffered, among other things, beheaded babies for fear of offending "communities"

    Spinless trash
  • Options
    SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,907
    It’s hard not to LOL at the virtue-signalling w*****s of the FA, tying themselves up in knots about this.

    They now come across as giving the impression that, of 200 countries in the world, they’d change the lights at the stadium in support of a nation suffering from a terrorist attack for 199 of them.
  • Options
    BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 31,688
    On topic, it will be interesting to see if the reactionary xenophobes who make up the Tory membership will bring themselves to vote for a 'diverse' candidate.
  • Options
    MattWMattW Posts: 18,593
    I'm not quite sure how I ran across this one.

    Black bear walks into a gas station bar, takes a pack of gummy bears and leaves
    https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/black-bear-gummy-bears-lake-cowichan-vancouver-island-bc-1.6993278
  • Options
    TazTaz Posts: 11,198

    Labours head will explode if it is Badenoch.

    Stale male Starmer versus a black woman.

    Stand by for calls of shes the wrong kind of black or Starmer saying shes got a penis.

    Your desperate attempts to find something, anything, positive for the moribund Tories is a continuous source of amusement.
    Yet it would be a positive, certainly as a symbol. I do not see how anyone, aside from the most partisan, could say otherwise.

    The Tories have given us the first woman to lead a mainstream party, first female PM, and first non white PM

    There may not be much to celebrate them for but all these are positives.
  • Options
    SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,907
    On topic, definitely Team Kemi.
  • Options
    TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 41,327
    I mean I am a fan of people taking the knee. A visible action against racism, of which there continues to be a fuckload at footie matches and which was beyond endemic in times gone by.

    Equally it gives me great pleasure to see a typical PL footie match wherein there is a united nations of races, creeds, colours (not sexuality yet but I'm sure it is coming) and I believe the game is truly colour blind. You only have to see celebrations after a goal to confirm this at least amongst the players.

    However, the pickle that the FA and indeed all football clubs finds itself in wrt Israel/Gaza is as a consequence of these gestures.
  • Options
    BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 31,688
    Sandpit said:

    It’s hard not to LOL at the virtue-signalling w*****s of the FA, tying themselves up in knots about this.

    They now come across as giving the impression that, of 200 countries in the world, they’d change the lights at the stadium in support of a nation suffering from a terrorist attack for 199 of them.

    Toeing the 'show support for Israel line' would have been the virtue-signalling option, surely?
  • Options
    TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 41,327
    Leon said:

    Andy_JS said:

    FPT

    Leon said:

    American toilet bowls are very large and deep.
    Don’t know what’s going on with them, really.

    And as for the plugs, I am constantly fretting that someone might electrocute themselves.

    British plugs on the other hand are such clunky, ungainly things. (A lot of British design is like that, the best British design somehow makes a virtue of its ungainliness).

    NZ plugs are good.

    British plugs are beautiful. A masterpiece of design. They are the most reliable, robust plugs in the world - and what’s more, the design expresses that. Pure functionality, at its best, evinces loveliness

    The Mies van der Rohe of plug designs. Fie on you, you Antipodean heathen

    Tom Scott video on why they are indeed the best.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UEfP1OKKz_Q
    And kettles
    Didn't we Brexit because of kettles. Am I remembering correctly?
  • Options
    ThomasNasheThomasNashe Posts: 4,980
    MattW said:

    I'm not quite sure how I ran across this one.

    Black bear walks into a gas station bar, takes a pack of gummy bears and leaves
    https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/black-bear-gummy-bears-lake-cowichan-vancouver-island-bc-1.6993278

    Eats, shoots and leaves?
  • Options
    TimSTimS Posts: 9,650
    edited October 2023
    Only time I’ve seen Badenoch speak live she was rather underwhelming. Just a lot of predictable culture warry comments thrown out scattergun in an attempt at humour. It was jarring and not even slickly done, just seemed childish. It was at an event celebrating the UK-Aus trade deal and followed a series of very diplomatic and non political speeches by others from both countries.
  • Options

    Sandpit said:

    It’s hard not to LOL at the virtue-signalling w*****s of the FA, tying themselves up in knots about this.

    They now come across as giving the impression that, of 200 countries in the world, they’d change the lights at the stadium in support of a nation suffering from a terrorist attack for 199 of them.

    Toeing the 'show support for Israel line' would have been the virtue-signalling option, surely?
    That's the good kind of virtue, not the ghastly lefty kind.
  • Options
    isamisam Posts: 40,933
    edited October 2023
    Taz said:

    tlg86 said:

    https://twitter.com/DPJHodges/status/1712441648393654610

    (((Dan Hodges)))
    @DPJHodges
    While the focus is on the FA I understand the anger from the Jewish community about the silence from Spurs and Arsenal is also growing.

    I wonder if we will have sponsors withdrawing their support as a consequence.

    Highly unlikely as there is no co-ordinated online twitter campaign bombarding their feed with threats to not use them.

    The moral cowardice of the like of the FA and Arsenal and Spurs truly shames the beautiful game. Soccer was happy to take the knee for George Floyd yet it won't show solidarity with the nation that suffered, among other things, beheaded babies for fear of offending "communities"

    Spinless trash
    BLM UK seem to be on the side of the Palestinians. So is taking the knee tacit support for them?

    https://x.com/ukblm/status/1710914507646595124?s=46&t=CW4pL-mMpTqsJXCdjW0Z6Q
  • Options
    BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 31,688

    Sandpit said:

    It’s hard not to LOL at the virtue-signalling w*****s of the FA, tying themselves up in knots about this.

    They now come across as giving the impression that, of 200 countries in the world, they’d change the lights at the stadium in support of a nation suffering from a terrorist attack for 199 of them.

    Toeing the 'show support for Israel line' would have been the virtue-signalling option, surely?
    That's the good kind of virtue, not the ghastly lefty kind.
    Fair point, my bad.
  • Options
    SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,907

    Sandpit said:

    It’s hard not to LOL at the virtue-signalling w*****s of the FA, tying themselves up in knots about this.

    They now come across as giving the impression that, of 200 countries in the world, they’d change the lights at the stadium in support of a nation suffering from a terrorist attack for 199 of them.

    Toeing the 'show support for Israel line' would have been the virtue-signalling option, surely?
    Showing support for Israel would be in line with what they’ve made a habit of doing in recent years.

    But this time they’re not, they’re doing something different. Because it’s Israel.
  • Options
    AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 23,758

    Labours head will explode if it is Badenoch.

    Stale male Starmer versus a black woman.

    Stand by for calls of shes the wrong kind of black or Starmer saying shes got a penis.

    Your desperate attempts to find something, anything, positive for the moribund Tories is a continuous source of amusement.
    I dont defend the Tories I criticise Labour I am by nature an ABL.

    However we now have the prospect of the Tories on their 4th woman leader, and second BAME all while "progressive" Labour stay in the nineteenth century. Even the DUP have had a woman leader which shows just how neanderthal Labour is. And from that list of candidates above the one white guy has no chance.

    So perhaps you as a Labourite would like to explain what your party has against women or non-whites. ? Why is there a glass ceiling that none can pierce ?


  • Options
    BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 31,688
    TimS said:

    Only time I’ve seen Badenoch speak live she was rather underwhelming. Just a lot of predictable culture warry comments thrown out scattergun in an attempt at humour. It was jarring and not even slickly done, just seemed childish. It was at an event celebrating the UK-Aus trade deal and followed a series of very diplomatic and non political speeches by others from both countries.

    Hey Tim, knowing you know your weather, would I be right in thinking the 2nd half of October is shaping up to be cold and dry? That view seems to be a change from just a week ago when wetter milder than average was expected.
  • Options
    BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 31,688
    TOPPING said:

    I mean I am a fan of people taking the knee. A visible action against racism, of which there continues to be a fuckload at footie matches and which was beyond endemic in times gone by.

    Equally it gives me great pleasure to see a typical PL footie match wherein there is a united nations of races, creeds, colours (not sexuality yet but I'm sure it is coming) and I believe the game is truly colour blind. You only have to see celebrations after a goal to confirm this at least amongst the players.

    However, the pickle that the FA and indeed all football clubs finds itself in wrt Israel/Gaza is as a consequence of these gestures.

    That's fair
  • Options
    bondegezoubondegezou Posts: 7,673
    TimS said:

    Only time I’ve seen Badenoch speak live she was rather underwhelming. Just a lot of predictable culture warry comments thrown out scattergun in an attempt at humour. It was jarring and not even slickly done, just seemed childish. It was at an event celebrating the UK-Aus trade deal and followed a series of very diplomatic and non political speeches by others from both countries.

    Indeed. She is deeply unimpressive if you actually focus on what she says. Maybe she will develop with age and experience, but she was obviously a too-soon in the last leadership race and I see little sign she has developed since.

    When Zac Goldsmith criticised the Conservatives' pulling back from Net Zero pledges, Badenoch said he was out of touch because he has "way more money than pretty much everyone in the UK". That may be true about Zac, but it seems a silly thing to say when Rishi Sunak is your leader.
  • Options
    TimSTimS Posts: 9,650

    TimS said:

    Only time I’ve seen Badenoch speak live she was rather underwhelming. Just a lot of predictable culture warry comments thrown out scattergun in an attempt at humour. It was jarring and not even slickly done, just seemed childish. It was at an event celebrating the UK-Aus trade deal and followed a series of very diplomatic and non political speeches by others from both countries.

    Hey Tim, knowing you know your weather, would I be right in thinking the 2nd half of October is shaping up to be cold and dry? That view seems to be a change from just a week ago when wetter milder than average was expected.
    Looks that way but I’ve only had half an eye on it as I’ll be in Georgia for 2 weeks where it’s an autumn mixture of hot and sunny, cold and damp and overcast and mild.
  • Options
    LeonLeon Posts: 47,302
    TOPPING said:

    Leon said:

    Andy_JS said:

    FPT

    Leon said:

    American toilet bowls are very large and deep.
    Don’t know what’s going on with them, really.

    And as for the plugs, I am constantly fretting that someone might electrocute themselves.

    British plugs on the other hand are such clunky, ungainly things. (A lot of British design is like that, the best British design somehow makes a virtue of its ungainliness).

    NZ plugs are good.

    British plugs are beautiful. A masterpiece of design. They are the most reliable, robust plugs in the world - and what’s more, the design expresses that. Pure functionality, at its best, evinces loveliness

    The Mies van der Rohe of plug designs. Fie on you, you Antipodean heathen

    Tom Scott video on why they are indeed the best.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UEfP1OKKz_Q
    And kettles
    Didn't we Brexit because of kettles. Am I remembering correctly?
    No, that’s right. EU Directive 168 (b), 2016: “forbids the use of fast water-boiling devices, and obliges Anglophones to heat water in rusty saucepans dangerously balanced on gas hobs”
  • Options
    TazTaz Posts: 11,198
    isam said:

    Taz said:

    tlg86 said:

    https://twitter.com/DPJHodges/status/1712441648393654610

    (((Dan Hodges)))
    @DPJHodges
    While the focus is on the FA I understand the anger from the Jewish community about the silence from Spurs and Arsenal is also growing.

    I wonder if we will have sponsors withdrawing their support as a consequence.

    Highly unlikely as there is no co-ordinated online twitter campaign bombarding their feed with threats to not use them.

    The moral cowardice of the like of the FA and Arsenal and Spurs truly shames the beautiful game. Soccer was happy to take the knee for George Floyd yet it won't show solidarity with the nation that suffered, among other things, beheaded babies for fear of offending "communities"

    Spinless trash
    BLM UK seem to be on the side of the Palestinians. So is taking the knee tacit support for them?

    https://x.com/ukblm/status/1710914507646595124?s=46&t=CW4pL-mMpTqsJXCdjW0Z6Q
    Ooh, awkward !!
  • Options
    bondegezoubondegezou Posts: 7,673

    Labours head will explode if it is Badenoch.

    Stale male Starmer versus a black woman.

    Stand by for calls of shes the wrong kind of black or Starmer saying shes got a penis.

    Your desperate attempts to find something, anything, positive for the moribund Tories is a continuous source of amusement.
    I dont defend the Tories I criticise Labour I am by nature an ABL.

    However we now have the prospect of the Tories on their 4th woman leader, and second BAME all while "progressive" Labour stay in the nineteenth century. Even the DUP have had a woman leader which shows just how neanderthal Labour is. And from that list of candidates above the one white guy has no chance.

    So perhaps you as a Labourite would like to explain what your party has against women or non-whites. ? Why is there a glass ceiling that none can pierce ?
    Trouble is, it's a small sample size. It's hard to be convincing that Labour is biased without a bigger sample, more leaders, more PMs. Of course, if Labour starts emulating the Tories in terms of replacing leaders, they'll get there soon enough.
  • Options
    ThomasNasheThomasNashe Posts: 4,980

    TimS said:

    Only time I’ve seen Badenoch speak live she was rather underwhelming. Just a lot of predictable culture warry comments thrown out scattergun in an attempt at humour. It was jarring and not even slickly done, just seemed childish. It was at an event celebrating the UK-Aus trade deal and followed a series of very diplomatic and non political speeches by others from both countries.

    Indeed. She is deeply unimpressive if you actually focus on what she says. Maybe she will develop with age and experience, but she was obviously a too-soon in the last leadership race and I see little sign she has developed since.

    When Zac Goldsmith criticised the Conservatives' pulling back from Net Zero pledges, Badenoch said he was out of touch because he has "way more money than pretty much everyone in the UK". That may be true about Zac, but it seems a silly thing to say when Rishi Sunak is your leader.
    Has achieved bugger all in office. Like Mordaunt in that respect.
  • Options
    NigelbNigelb Posts: 62,649

    Labours head will explode if it is Badenoch.

    Stale male Starmer versus a black woman.

    Stand by for calls of shes the wrong kind of black or Starmer saying shes got a penis.

    I think it's actually your head with the odd stuff going on in it.
  • Options
    PhilPhil Posts: 1,942
    TOPPING said:

    Leon said:

    Andy_JS said:

    FPT

    Leon said:

    American toilet bowls are very large and deep.
    Don’t know what’s going on with them, really.

    And as for the plugs, I am constantly fretting that someone might electrocute themselves.

    British plugs on the other hand are such clunky, ungainly things. (A lot of British design is like that, the best British design somehow makes a virtue of its ungainliness).

    NZ plugs are good.

    British plugs are beautiful. A masterpiece of design. They are the most reliable, robust plugs in the world - and what’s more, the design expresses that. Pure functionality, at its best, evinces loveliness

    The Mies van der Rohe of plug designs. Fie on you, you Antipodean heathen

    Tom Scott video on why they are indeed the best.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UEfP1OKKz_Q
    And kettles
    Didn't we Brexit because of kettles. Am I remembering correctly?
    Hoovers were the thin end of the wedge.
  • Options
    TazTaz Posts: 11,198
    TimS said:

    TimS said:

    Only time I’ve seen Badenoch speak live she was rather underwhelming. Just a lot of predictable culture warry comments thrown out scattergun in an attempt at humour. It was jarring and not even slickly done, just seemed childish. It was at an event celebrating the UK-Aus trade deal and followed a series of very diplomatic and non political speeches by others from both countries.

    Hey Tim, knowing you know your weather, would I be right in thinking the 2nd half of October is shaping up to be cold and dry? That view seems to be a change from just a week ago when wetter milder than average was expected.
    Looks that way but I’ve only had half an eye on it as I’ll be in Georgia for 2 weeks where it’s an autumn mixture of hot and sunny, cold and damp and overcast and mild.
    USA or Caucasus ?
  • Options
    BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 31,688

    Labours head will explode if it is Badenoch.

    Stale male Starmer versus a black woman.

    Stand by for calls of shes the wrong kind of black or Starmer saying shes got a penis.

    Your desperate attempts to find something, anything, positive for the moribund Tories is a continuous source of amusement.
    I dont defend the Tories I criticise Labour I am by nature an ABL.

    However we now have the prospect of the Tories on their 4th woman leader, and second BAME all while "progressive" Labour stay in the nineteenth century. Even the DUP have had a woman leader which shows just how neanderthal Labour is. And from that list of candidates above the one white guy has no chance.

    So perhaps you as a Labourite would like to explain what your party has against women or non-whites. ? Why is there a glass ceiling that none can pierce ?
    And I am not a Labourite, I am an ABC.
  • Options
    AlistairMAlistairM Posts: 2,004
    isam said:

    Taz said:

    tlg86 said:

    https://twitter.com/DPJHodges/status/1712441648393654610

    (((Dan Hodges)))
    @DPJHodges
    While the focus is on the FA I understand the anger from the Jewish community about the silence from Spurs and Arsenal is also growing.

    I wonder if we will have sponsors withdrawing their support as a consequence.

    Highly unlikely as there is no co-ordinated online twitter campaign bombarding their feed with threats to not use them.

    The moral cowardice of the like of the FA and Arsenal and Spurs truly shames the beautiful game. Soccer was happy to take the knee for George Floyd yet it won't show solidarity with the nation that suffered, among other things, beheaded babies for fear of offending "communities"

    Spinless trash
    BLM UK seem to be on the side of the Palestinians. So is taking the knee tacit support for them?

    https://x.com/ukblm/status/1710914507646595124?s=46&t=CW4pL-mMpTqsJXCdjW0Z6Q
    Comment on the Twitter post by the FA said that their statement could.have been written by Jeremy Corbyn. They are spot on.

    Anyone taking the knee is now, in effect, supporting Hamas.
  • Options
    darkagedarkage Posts: 4,797
    FPT

    darkage said:

    darkage said:

    darkage said:

    darkage said:

    darkage said:

    Carnyx said:

    Carnyx said:

    Uncle Barty always makes Warrington sound bloody awful, soulless identikit housing surrounded by motorways. I have been to Warrington, it’s not that bad in real life. At least not the bit I visited.

    Hmm, a look at TripAdvisor throws up cultural activities like Zombie Scavenger Hunts (not sure if the undead are doinf the scavenging or being eaten), though there is a nice looking trad municipal museum with mummy and paintings and dino and all. Okay. Walton Hall is No 1 Best Thing to Do in Warrington, and the Museum is No 3., but it 's a bit worrying that Gullivers World Theme Park is no 2 and an alpaca farm is no 4. Really trad Lanc culture that, of a part with parkin and faggot and so on. It thins out a bit later, No 105 being a bcobblestoned street, which at least doesn't take long to inspect.
    Of course people are mobile and via motorways you can get elsewhere within the NW within a very reasonable time too. Want to be in Liverpool, or Manchester, or Chester, or North Wales? All easily accessible.
    "Of course people are mobile [...] via motorways [...]".

    Lots of people don't have cars. As much reminded on here.
    Warrington is not a model that can be transposed on to more densely populated parts of the country, particularly not the south east. You can't just build 10 lane motorways through AONB's and National Parks, which is what would happen if you try and fulfil the demand for car use through building new roads, at some point you need to start reducing the demand for car use and developing other options (public transport) - something we realised about 30-40 years ago.

    Also the situation in Warrington and this part of the north west is a product of town planning, not something that has happened because town planning has been swept away. All the roads, infrastructure to go with the housing have to be planned and co-ordinated, along with policies that direct growth to certain areas. You don't just create it by throwing up a few motorways and letting people build wherever they want on vaguely defined zones. Even if you create a zonal system, like Japan and many other countries in Europe, it still has to be planned, it is just a slightly different type of planning.
    Yes. I haven't ever advocated anarchy, I advocate zonal planning. Which contrary to what @Richard_Tyndall keeps claiming is not what we have in this country.

    In a sensible zonal system, like Japan, you can build whatever you want subject without asking permission first if three conditions are met.

    1. You own the land (obviously)
    2. It is already zoned for housing.
    3. You build to building codes.

    Neighbours or Councils don't get a say if you want to demolish your home and rebuild it to something else as it's already zoned.

    Plan the public infrastructure absolutely. But the land zoned for housing is NOT the public infrastructure land. Leave that to fill in with whatever people want.
    The comment I have is that you purport to be in favour of a radical reform of planning in your posts but when it comes down to it, all you are actually arguing for is for more land to be released for housing (something almost everyone who works in the area agrees with- but subject to it being the right land in the right place which is more difficult to resolve) and a different delivery mechanism - a code based system rather than a discretionary system - something that is also not that controversial to deal with in principle, until you start trying to work out what the code should and shouldn't allow, and how deviations are resolved.

    The problem with the last 13 years of planning policy is that the government don't want to tackle difficult decisions about where growth goes, they just keep avoiding it - palming it off to someone else, local authorities, civil servants etc... the Labour party seem to be making the right noises , but lets see.
    I don't consider zonal planning a radical concept whatsoever.

    But to switch from our current system where politicians and neighbours and assorted NIMBYs get a say in blocking development, to one where they don't, would have radical consequences.

    It would end the oligopoly of developers that can play the system to acquire and sit on consent (especially but not only if done in conjunction with a switch to LVT).
    It would allow more variety in what is built, rather than what is
    It would allow adaptability as if higher density housing for example were desired people could bulldoze low density housing and rebuild to higher density, without having to get their neighbours or Councillors to approve.
    It would mean politicians would no longer have to appeal or pander to NIMBYs as codes being set nationally and zoning being approved locally means they have no more input after its zoned.
    You may be interested to hear that our house in Finland is in a zoning system. We cannot cut down a tree in the garden without permission. The guy across the road is trying to do a self build and has been waiting for 10 months for permission to knock down the existing building and because the new house is 1m higher than the code allows. And of course, in these established built up areas there are exactly the same grievances and arguments between neighbours, they don't disappear with a code system.

    The code system works and it doesn't. On the other hand a relative built an entire housing estate on his farm over the course of about 5 years through a code based system selling the plots off individually. But the latter happened not just because of the code system, also because there is unlimited land in Finland to build on and a low population density and no opposition, also because the Finns keep on top of building new infrastructure, unlike the UK. They've also made mistakes in Finland with too liberal code based systems on similar estates, there are estates where opportunistic developers have crammed in too many single storey houses with no space/gardens, it is the cheapest, poor quality type of development, something must have gone wrong with the plot/space ratios. In our relatives case he thinks it worked better because he employed a landscape architect to design the layout, but that was his choice (and expense)
    If its already zoned for residential then I'm proposing abolishing seeking permission [except for special circumstances, like listed buildings]. So if the guy across the road is waiting for permission, then that's not a pure zonal system like I propose.

    Absolutely agreed that low density is better, hence the parallel conversation about transport. Some people prefer high density though, so if they do then there should be freedom to do that too.

    Of course if we have enough houses able to be built, and a liberal zone/code based system then situations where some developments are badly designed while others are well designed, may mean that the well designed developments are sold and lived in while the badly designed ones may end up vacant and be a burden on the owner who badly designed them as nobody is forced to buy or let them given better alternatives and the stupid owner who screwed up needs to continue paying all taxes on the land himself rather than getting an income from those who have no better alternative.
    But is there a code or no code in your preferred zoning system? If there is a code then there has to be a method of dealing with situations that breach the code, hence the requirement for permission. I am not aware of any zoning system in a developed country that does not have some sort of building code that sets out limits that must be followed. The examples you use in support of your proposal all have this characteristic.
    Why do you need permission? They don't in Japan.

    Yes there should be a code, no there should not be a requirement for permission.

    Build to code. If you break the code, then you should face consequences, same as breaking any other law, but if you are operating legally you shouldn't need to ask permission first.
    So you want to have a code where there are no exceptions. It sounds to me like this would ultimately be a more restrictive system than that which exists at the moment, where you can apply for anything you want.
    No, I want a code where if you build to code you don't need to ask permission, its automatic, for normal zoned appropriately land buildings which are not listed.

    Want to build an extension to your property? If its to code, build it. Want to knock down your property and rebuild it? If its to code, do it. Want to buy undeveloped land (that is zoned appropriately) buy it and start building on it. No consultations, no discussions with neighbours, no politicians getting involved.

    If you want an exemption? Then apply for one. If you want to convert land not zoned for housing to land zoned for housing? Then apply for it.

    But only those outside of code, or outside of what is already zoned, would be going through a permission process.
    Ok. But in terms of extensions, you are arguing for the system that we already have. Because you can already extend and alter your property without planning permission under permitted development rules that are very liberal already. It is only when you go beyond PD that you have to apply for permission.

    Regarding the idea that you effectively grant permission for new buildings upfront at the time of making a plan, subject to compliance with a code... few people working in the industry would find that idea controversial. But the difficulty of implementing it is that you would have to do a lot more upfront work in making the plan that allocates the land in the first place. Already it takes 5 years to make a plan that allocates sites to resolve all the issues that come with allocating land. If you have to go further and work out where the roads are going and allocate sites all the way down to plot level and write a building code it will just take longer and be much more expensive = it won't ever happen.

    The problem ultimately comes down to it being difficult to get anything done because of some strange disorder in the english bureaucratic state. The tories have spent 13 years trying to blast their way through it and bring the blob in to order but somehow they have managed only to make it even more dysfunctional.

  • Options
    AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 23,758

    Labours head will explode if it is Badenoch.

    Stale male Starmer versus a black woman.

    Stand by for calls of shes the wrong kind of black or Starmer saying shes got a penis.

    Your desperate attempts to find something, anything, positive for the moribund Tories is a continuous source of amusement.
    I dont defend the Tories I criticise Labour I am by nature an ABL.

    However we now have the prospect of the Tories on their 4th woman leader, and second BAME all while "progressive" Labour stay in the nineteenth century. Even the DUP have had a woman leader which shows just how neanderthal Labour is. And from that list of candidates above the one white guy has no chance.

    So perhaps you as a Labourite would like to explain what your party has against women or non-whites. ? Why is there a glass ceiling that none can pierce ?
    Trouble is, it's a small sample size. It's hard to be convincing that Labour is biased without a bigger sample, more leaders, more PMs. Of course, if Labour starts emulating the Tories in terms of replacing leaders, they'll get there soon enough.
    Well of course you clung on to Jezza like a frightened child and all said how wonderful he was and then suddenly he wasnt wonderful any more. Maybe a bit of sorting out the chaff would help with your woman problem.
  • Options
    TimSTimS Posts: 9,650
    If anyone fancies a bet on the first party leader or CoE of West African descent (not that there’s a market yet) then Miatta Fahnbulleh might be a good choice. Inheriting a rock solid safe seat, and with strong economic credentials. I saw her speak at an event in Liverpool and she was very impressive.
  • Options
    148grss148grss Posts: 3,679
    I think that would be a trainwreck for the Tories, and I think even SKS with his robotic delivery would do well against her at PMQs and such. She is too much a creation of the reactionary right who can only talk in red meat; after likely losing an election in big way, more of the same will be out of fashion. I also don't know if the (surviving) MPs would let her get into the last 2, but that really depends on who is left sitting.
  • Options
    AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 23,758

    Labours head will explode if it is Badenoch.

    Stale male Starmer versus a black woman.

    Stand by for calls of shes the wrong kind of black or Starmer saying shes got a penis.

    Your desperate attempts to find something, anything, positive for the moribund Tories is a continuous source of amusement.
    I dont defend the Tories I criticise Labour I am by nature an ABL.

    However we now have the prospect of the Tories on their 4th woman leader, and second BAME all while "progressive" Labour stay in the nineteenth century. Even the DUP have had a woman leader which shows just how neanderthal Labour is. And from that list of candidates above the one white guy has no chance.

    So perhaps you as a Labourite would like to explain what your party has against women or non-whites. ? Why is there a glass ceiling that none can pierce ?
    And I am not a Labourite, I am an ABC.
    Well now that we understand each other positions we can stop assigning each other to parties we dont support
  • Options
    GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 20,857
    Phil said:

    TOPPING said:

    Leon said:

    Andy_JS said:

    FPT

    Leon said:

    American toilet bowls are very large and deep.
    Don’t know what’s going on with them, really.

    And as for the plugs, I am constantly fretting that someone might electrocute themselves.

    British plugs on the other hand are such clunky, ungainly things. (A lot of British design is like that, the best British design somehow makes a virtue of its ungainliness).

    NZ plugs are good.

    British plugs are beautiful. A masterpiece of design. They are the most reliable, robust plugs in the world - and what’s more, the design expresses that. Pure functionality, at its best, evinces loveliness

    The Mies van der Rohe of plug designs. Fie on you, you Antipodean heathen

    Tom Scott video on why they are indeed the best.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UEfP1OKKz_Q
    And kettles
    Didn't we Brexit because of kettles. Am I remembering correctly?
    Hoovers were the thin end of the wedge.
    Speaking of “Hoover”, I was talking to colleagues about vaccuum cleaners the other day. (My work touches on such things)

    “Whatever happened to Hoover?” I said.
    “Dyson totally destroyed them. Absolutely annihilated them.”

    By which I understand to mean that Dyson totally owns the premium vacuum segment in the US.

    A rare and welcome victory for British design and marketing - even if James Dyson is a Brexity twat who fled to Singapore.
  • Options
    TimSTimS Posts: 9,650
    Taz said:

    TimS said:

    TimS said:

    Only time I’ve seen Badenoch speak live she was rather underwhelming. Just a lot of predictable culture warry comments thrown out scattergun in an attempt at humour. It was jarring and not even slickly done, just seemed childish. It was at an event celebrating the UK-Aus trade deal and followed a series of very diplomatic and non political speeches by others from both countries.

    Hey Tim, knowing you know your weather, would I be right in thinking the 2nd half of October is shaping up to be cold and dry? That view seems to be a change from just a week ago when wetter milder than average was expected.
    Looks that way but I’ve only had half an eye on it as I’ll be in Georgia for 2 weeks where it’s an autumn mixture of hot and sunny, cold and damp and overcast and mild.
    USA or Caucasus ?
    Georgia (country) (see disambiguation), as Wikipedia might say.
  • Options
    TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 114,488
    edited October 2023
    A clear lay, I'll explain why at the weekend.
  • Options
    AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 23,758
    Nigelb said:

    Labours head will explode if it is Badenoch.

    Stale male Starmer versus a black woman.

    Stand by for calls of shes the wrong kind of black or Starmer saying shes got a penis.

    I think it's actually your head with the odd stuff going on in it.
    Oh away with you

    Why not post some rubbish about how Joe Biden is worshipped as a God.
  • Options
    DavidLDavidL Posts: 51,311
    What were the chances of getting Simon Clarke's mum in the sample?
  • Options
    Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 30,964
    edited October 2023
    FPT
    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    DavidL said:

    Cyclefree said:

    I am old enough to remember when Israel was being pressed to give up land for peace. Well it did that in Gaza. It gave up land. It removed the settlers. And what it got in return was Hamas and rockets and now massacres.

    Israel has made many mistakes over the years. Netanyahu is unquestionably the wrong leader for it, especially at such a time. I fear that an invasion of Gaza now will be a strategic error and lead to all sorts of casualties for the innocent.

    But the Palestinians have consistently made huge errors, the biggest one of all being their refusal to accept Israel's right to exist. Hamas seeks the elimination of Israel and the killing of every Jew everywhere - not just in Israel. This is explicitly genocidal. There is no negotiation with such a movement. Eliminating it is the only answer. Just as we sought to eliminate Nazism and ISIS and other similar genocidal movements.

    Those who worry about what happens next need to provide an alternative to Israel, one that will not make that country prey to genocidal maniacs. Lots of people are willing to speak hard truths to Israel about obeying the laws of war and civilian deaths and the rest of it. Very few are telling Hamas that it is their genocidal ideology which has brought Gaza to the point it is, that it is their deliberate policy of hiding amongst civilians which is putting Palestinians at risk, it is their refusal to accept Israel's right to exist which means there is not the remotest hope of starting any peace talks.

    There is plenty of pressure which needs putting on Israel but Hamas must first be eliminated. It cannot - until it changes what it wants - be a player. It has taken itself outside the universe of civilised decency. So if invasion of Gaza is not the solution, what is? And if we don't have an alternative solution, then we can hardly be surprised if Israel does what it thinks necessary to save itself. What would we do were we in their position?

    I sometimes feel that commentators are unwilling to provide or even begin to think about what an alternative might be because - after all the condemnations of Hamas - they give up at expecting anything better from the Palestinians and it is, after all, so much easier and more comfortable to revert to criticising Israel.

    I was saying something similar the other day. Gaza allows itself to be ruled by Hamas. It does this in the knowledge that Hamas is committed to the death of all Jews. The murderous assaults came from their territory and seem to have been a source of glee.

    I fully get that the residents of Gaza have a terrible life, that they are economically repressed by Israel and made to beg for water and electricity. Israel’s policies have been unenlightened at best and self harming all too often. If I lived in Gaza I would hate the Israeli government and want to resist that oppression.

    But if you want to be listened to, if you want things to change, you do not start with the beheading of babies because they are Jews.
    It is 17 years since there was an election in Gaza. 17 years during which Hamas has done it's best to kill anyone who actively opposes them. The Palestinians there 'allow' themselves to be ruled by Hamas about as much as the inhabitants of Kabul 'allow' themselves to be ruled by the Taliban.
    Or the Germans "allowed" themselves to be ruled by Hitler. Good point.
    What is amusing is that I suspect you and I regard that comment in very different ways.
    I regard it in a very simple way, Richard. According to Israel the country is at war. You may disagree and we can discuss the difference between a terrorist act and an act of war. Israel, as one of the belligerents, thinks it is war. An existential one, to boot. If it is war then it is war.

    I would be very interested to know how you regard that comment.
    I agree. Israel is at war. And I do not even think discussing whose fault it might be in the long term changes anything there.

    The difference appears to be that you think that being at war means that Israel are allowed to do anything they like to the Palestinian population and sod the consequences. You are one of those who quote, either directly or by inference, a war that ended 78 years ago in defence of this idea.

    I believe that, partly as a result of what happened during that war, the world has rightly moved on and certain actions are now considered no longer acceptable even in war and are legally proscribed as such. Indiscriminate bombing of civilians, whether by intent or negligence, is one of thoise things. This is the case whether we believe the faiult lies entirely with Israel, entirely with the Palestinians or with a mixture of the two.
  • Options
    tlg86 said:

    https://twitter.com/DPJHodges/status/1712441648393654610

    (((Dan Hodges)))
    @DPJHodges
    While the focus is on the FA I understand the anger from the Jewish community about the silence from Spurs and Arsenal is also growing.

    Lucky your owner isn't known as Silent Stan.
  • Options
    Partly it depends on how winnable 2029 looks.

    Even if everyone says "it's a two term project", I suspect the mood of the nation is that election losers don't get another go any more.

    And whilst Starmer shows that a huge defeat can be turned round quickly, he has had an awful lot of help from the Conservatives.

    Is someone like Kemi prepared to the Moses, leading her people to the edge of the promised land but not entering it herself?
  • Options
    TazTaz Posts: 11,198
    TOPPING said:

    I mean I am a fan of people taking the knee. A visible action against racism, of which there continues to be a fuckload at footie matches and which was beyond endemic in times gone by.

    Equally it gives me great pleasure to see a typical PL footie match wherein there is a united nations of races, creeds, colours (not sexuality yet but I'm sure it is coming) and I believe the game is truly colour blind. You only have to see celebrations after a goal to confirm this at least amongst the players.

    However, the pickle that the FA and indeed all football clubs finds itself in wrt Israel/Gaza is as a consequence of these gestures.

    Like you I have no issue with taking the knee. It’s a harmless gesture against racism and helps raise awareness so where’s the downside ?

    Soccer is also happy to have players wear rainbow laces. Again. No problem there.

    When people complained about the taking of the knee or the laces the FA and twitterati were quick to condemn. They’re silent now a and this silence shames them.

    They’ve made a major error here. They have a chance to rectify it. They need to do it ASAP.
  • Options
    NigelbNigelb Posts: 62,649

    TimS said:

    Only time I’ve seen Badenoch speak live she was rather underwhelming. Just a lot of predictable culture warry comments thrown out scattergun in an attempt at humour. It was jarring and not even slickly done, just seemed childish. It was at an event celebrating the UK-Aus trade deal and followed a series of very diplomatic and non political speeches by others from both countries.

    Indeed. She is deeply unimpressive if you actually focus on what she says. Maybe she will develop with age and experience, but she was obviously a too-soon in the last leadership race and I see little sign she has developed since...
    I'd agree that I have yet to see anything about her that massively impressed me - but I really haven't seen all that much anyway, and it's surely way too early to judge whether or not she has the capacity to be a good leader or not ?
  • Options
    PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 75,930
    The US SoS gave a short press conference, blink and you'd miss it.
  • Options
    FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 76,285
    edited October 2023
    AlistairM said:

    isam said:

    Taz said:

    tlg86 said:

    https://twitter.com/DPJHodges/status/1712441648393654610

    (((Dan Hodges)))
    @DPJHodges
    While the focus is on the FA I understand the anger from the Jewish community about the silence from Spurs and Arsenal is also growing.

    I wonder if we will have sponsors withdrawing their support as a consequence.

    Highly unlikely as there is no co-ordinated online twitter campaign bombarding their feed with threats to not use them.

    The moral cowardice of the like of the FA and Arsenal and Spurs truly shames the beautiful game. Soccer was happy to take the knee for George Floyd yet it won't show solidarity with the nation that suffered, among other things, beheaded babies for fear of offending "communities"

    Spinless trash
    BLM UK seem to be on the side of the Palestinians. So is taking the knee tacit support for them?

    https://x.com/ukblm/status/1710914507646595124?s=46&t=CW4pL-mMpTqsJXCdjW0Z6Q
    Comment on the Twitter post by the FA said that their statement could.have been written by Jeremy Corbyn. They are spot on.

    Anyone taking the knee is now, in effect, supporting Hamas.
    I said at the time the NFL got it right. They setup Inspire Change, in doing so they didn't hook their wagon to politics or these groups whom they can't control what crazy they might do or say. Knee taking was always limited in the NFL, the players did ask for some response / action, they got it, in the form of a positive inclusive messaging.
  • Options
    LeonLeon Posts: 47,302
    Off topic I reckon Suella Braverman is now more likely. And also more impressive (even if you despise her views)
  • Options
    GIN1138GIN1138 Posts: 20,826
    I tipped Kemi for LOTO on here ages ago.

    She'll need to tone down all the culture wars/woke stuff though if she's to cut through with floaters but given the way she took on the ERG over removing EU laws she's proven she can be "flexible" with her views when required.
  • Options
    AnabobazinaAnabobazina Posts: 20,011

    Labours head will explode if it is Badenoch.

    Stale male Starmer versus a black woman.

    Stand by for calls of shes the wrong kind of black or Starmer saying shes got a penis.

    Your desperate attempts to find something, anything, positive for the moribund Tories is a continuous source of amusement.
    It is pseudo-satire at its very finest
  • Options
    NigelbNigelb Posts: 62,649
    TimS said:

    If anyone fancies a bet on the first party leader or CoE of West African descent (not that there’s a market yet) then Miatta Fahnbulleh might be a good choice. Inheriting a rock solid safe seat, and with strong economic credentials. I saw her speak at an event in Liverpool and she was very impressive.

    Mildly ironic if she were, given that she's yet another Oxford PPE graduate.

    Interesting tip though.
  • Options
    Northern_AlNorthern_Al Posts: 7,543
    edited October 2023
    When challenged (e.g. in Parliament and Select Committees) Badenoch has a tendency to be arrogant, patronising, and dismissive. She is absolutely sure she is always right, and brooks no disagreement - she seems to have no self-doubt whatsoever. I'm not sure these are the qualities that the next Tory leader needs. Though she could, of course, tone down these characteristics.
  • Options
    LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 15,305
    edited October 2023
    Jeremy Hunt is the obvious person missing from that list. Given his prominent role as the grown-up brought in so that the Good Ship Truss could sink gracefully without bringing the whole fleet with her, then he would seem like the person to lead the party while it worked out what it wanted to be.
  • Options
    TazTaz Posts: 11,198

    TimS said:

    Only time I’ve seen Badenoch speak live she was rather underwhelming. Just a lot of predictable culture warry comments thrown out scattergun in an attempt at humour. It was jarring and not even slickly done, just seemed childish. It was at an event celebrating the UK-Aus trade deal and followed a series of very diplomatic and non political speeches by others from both countries.

    Indeed. She is deeply unimpressive if you actually focus on what she says. Maybe she will develop with age and experience, but she was obviously a too-soon in the last leadership race and I see little sign she has developed since.

    When Zac Goldsmith criticised the Conservatives' pulling back from Net Zero pledges, Badenoch said he was out of touch because he has "way more money than pretty much everyone in the UK". That may be true about Zac, but it seems a silly thing to say when Rishi Sunak is your leader.
    Not if you’re looking to usurp him at some time.
  • Options
    AnabobazinaAnabobazina Posts: 20,011
    Can someone explain to me the appeal of Bad Enoch?

    She is dreary when on telly, and has been invisible as a minister.

  • Options
    GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 20,857
    Leon said:

    Off topic I reckon Suella Braverman is now more likely. And also more impressive (even if you despise her views)

    Agree. I think she’s a thick as two short planks, but she has really WORKED on her presentation, and it has paid off.

    Tory members just won’t be able to help themselves.
  • Options
    NigelbNigelb Posts: 62,649
    Damascus International Airport and Aleppo Airport in Western Syria were both Targeted today by the Isreali Air Force resulting in such Serious Damage that the Airports are currently Closed to any and all Flights including a Aircraft from the Iranian Government reportedly carrying the Foreign Minister, Hossein Amir-Abdollahian.
    https://twitter.com/sentdefender/status/1712441679758639171
  • Options
    GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 20,857

    Can someone explain to me the appeal of Bad Enoch?

    She is dreary when on telly, and has been invisible as a minister.

    I still think she is v promising, but she was pushed out too soon.
  • Options
    stodgestodge Posts: 12,864

    Labours head will explode if it is Badenoch.

    Stale male Starmer versus a black woman.

    Stand by for calls of shes the wrong kind of black or Starmer saying shes got a penis.

    Your desperate attempts to find something, anything, positive for the moribund Tories is a continuous source of amusement.
    I dont defend the Tories I criticise Labour I am by nature an ABL.

    However we now have the prospect of the Tories on their 4th woman leader, and second BAME all while "progressive" Labour stay in the nineteenth century. Even the DUP have had a woman leader which shows just how neanderthal Labour is. And from that list of candidates above the one white guy has no chance.

    So perhaps you as a Labourite would like to explain what your party has against women or non-whites. ? Why is there a glass ceiling that none can pierce ?

    The Conservatives have had three women leaders - none of them lost an election. Why did the Conservatives turn on three women whom they chose and one of whom was arguably the most successful PM since 1945?

    What has the Conservative Party got against women such that they choose them and then stick a knife in their backs?
  • Options
    boulayboulay Posts: 3,961
    Taz said:

    TOPPING said:

    I mean I am a fan of people taking the knee. A visible action against racism, of which there continues to be a fuckload at footie matches and which was beyond endemic in times gone by.

    Equally it gives me great pleasure to see a typical PL footie match wherein there is a united nations of races, creeds, colours (not sexuality yet but I'm sure it is coming) and I believe the game is truly colour blind. You only have to see celebrations after a goal to confirm this at least amongst the players.

    However, the pickle that the FA and indeed all football clubs finds itself in wrt Israel/Gaza is as a consequence of these gestures.

    Like you I have no issue with taking the knee. It’s a harmless gesture against racism and helps raise awareness so where’s the downside ?

    Soccer is also happy to have players wear rainbow laces. Again. No problem there.

    When people complained about the taking of the knee or the laces the FA and twitterati were quick to condemn. They’re silent now a and this silence shames them.

    They’ve made a major error here. They have a chance to rectify it. They need to do it ASAP.
    I’m guessing that if, say the real IRA, committed a terror attack that killed a load of people in the UK, then the FA wouldn’t remotely be disgruntled if other nations didn’t mark it?

    Maybe the Red Sox or the Patriots are playing and the NBA and NFL say they won’t be lighting up the stadiums as it might upset a community in Boston.
  • Options

    TimS said:

    Only time I’ve seen Badenoch speak live she was rather underwhelming. Just a lot of predictable culture warry comments thrown out scattergun in an attempt at humour. It was jarring and not even slickly done, just seemed childish. It was at an event celebrating the UK-Aus trade deal and followed a series of very diplomatic and non political speeches by others from both countries.

    Indeed. She is deeply unimpressive if you actually focus on what she says. Maybe she will develop with age and experience, but she was obviously a too-soon in the last leadership race and I see little sign she has developed since.

    When Zac Goldsmith criticised the Conservatives' pulling back from Net Zero pledges, Badenoch said he was out of touch because he has "way more money than pretty much everyone in the UK". That may be true about Zac, but it seems a silly thing to say when Rishi Sunak is your leader.
    Also a bit silly if you're an ex associate director of Coutts and your husband is a big cheese at Deutsche Bank. The various stratifications of out-of-touchedness in the Tory party are a wonder to behold.
  • Options
    148grss148grss Posts: 3,679
    edited October 2023
    AlistairM said:

    isam said:

    Taz said:

    tlg86 said:

    https://twitter.com/DPJHodges/status/1712441648393654610

    (((Dan Hodges)))
    @DPJHodges
    While the focus is on the FA I understand the anger from the Jewish community about the silence from Spurs and Arsenal is also growing.

    I wonder if we will have sponsors withdrawing their support as a consequence.

    Highly unlikely as there is no co-ordinated online twitter campaign bombarding their feed with threats to not use them.

    The moral cowardice of the like of the FA and Arsenal and Spurs truly shames the beautiful game. Soccer was happy to take the knee for George Floyd yet it won't show solidarity with the nation that suffered, among other things, beheaded babies for fear of offending "communities"

    Spinless trash
    BLM UK seem to be on the side of the Palestinians. So is taking the knee tacit support for them?

    https://x.com/ukblm/status/1710914507646595124?s=46&t=CW4pL-mMpTqsJXCdjW0Z6Q
    Comment on the Twitter post by the FA said that their statement could.have been written by Jeremy Corbyn. They are spot on.

    Anyone taking the knee is now, in effect, supporting Hamas.
    Not wanting dead Palestinian civilians is not the same as supporting Hamas. What's the relative value of a Palestinian life versus an Israeli? 3? 5? 10? Do you want to say for every Israeli death they can kill 15 Palestinian kids, get the bloodlust out of the system? The average age in Gaza, as has been noted, is 18. 42% are under 15. Do you think every building bombed, every hospital shut due to power off, everyone starving or dying of thirst is magically going to be a member of Hamas, or a Hamas sympathiser? Everyone wringing their hands over the objectively horrific attacks on Israeli civilians is now happy to wade through waves of Palestinian blood for what - justice? Revenge? To make a point? This is the immediate post 9-11 bullshit again, where all that people have is a desire for blood, ignoring a) the original policy failures and violence that obviously caused this reaction in the first place and b) will lead to worse horrors beyond our thinking in the future. If Israel kills indiscriminately and no one flutters an eyelid, where's the moral high ground to say Russia or Ukraine shouldn't do the same? If Gaza is flattened and starved and pulverised with no recourse, what nation will look at war crimes and international law with any seriousness again? What is the lesson this will teach?

    “William Roper: “So, now you give the Devil the benefit of law!”

    Sir Thomas More: “Yes! What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?”

    William Roper: “Yes, I'd cut down every law in England to do that!”

    Sir Thomas More: “Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned 'round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast, Man's laws, not God's! And if you cut them down, and you're just the man to do it, do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake!”
  • Options
    GIN1138GIN1138 Posts: 20,826
    edited October 2023
    Leon said:

    Off topic I reckon Suella Braverman is now more likely. And also more impressive (even if you despise her views)

    I don't think the MPs will put her through to the membership though.

    If you think Sue-Ellen is at one extreme and Penny the other, then Kemi fits nicely in the middle.

    I think it'll be Kemi and maybe Penny or Barclay who MP's put through to the membership.
  • Options
    TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 41,327

    FPT

    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    DavidL said:

    Cyclefree said:

    I am old enough to remember when Israel was being pressed to give up land for peace. Well it did that in Gaza. It gave up land. It removed the settlers. And what it got in return was Hamas and rockets and now massacres.

    Israel has made many mistakes over the years. Netanyahu is unquestionably the wrong leader for it, especially at such a time. I fear that an invasion of Gaza now will be a strategic error and lead to all sorts of casualties for the innocent.

    But the Palestinians have consistently made huge errors, the biggest one of all being their refusal to accept Israel's right to exist. Hamas seeks the elimination of Israel and the killing of every Jew everywhere - not just in Israel. This is explicitly genocidal. There is no negotiation with such a movement. Eliminating it is the only answer. Just as we sought to eliminate Nazism and ISIS and other similar genocidal movements.

    Those who worry about what happens next need to provide an alternative to Israel, one that will not make that country prey to genocidal maniacs. Lots of people are willing to speak hard truths to Israel about obeying the laws of war and civilian deaths and the rest of it. Very few are telling Hamas that it is their genocidal ideology which has brought Gaza to the point it is, that it is their deliberate policy of hiding amongst civilians which is putting Palestinians at risk, it is their refusal to accept Israel's right to exist which means there is not the remotest hope of starting any peace talks.

    There is plenty of pressure which needs putting on Israel but Hamas must first be eliminated. It cannot - until it changes what it wants - be a player. It has taken itself outside the universe of civilised decency. So if invasion of Gaza is not the solution, what is? And if we don't have an alternative solution, then we can hardly be surprised if Israel does what it thinks necessary to save itself. What would we do were we in their position?

    I sometimes feel that commentators are unwilling to provide or even begin to think about what an alternative might be because - after all the condemnations of Hamas - they give up at expecting anything better from the Palestinians and it is, after all, so much easier and more comfortable to revert to criticising Israel.

    I was saying something similar the other day. Gaza allows itself to be ruled by Hamas. It does this in the knowledge that Hamas is committed to the death of all Jews. The murderous assaults came from their territory and seem to have been a source of glee.

    I fully get that the residents of Gaza have a terrible life, that they are economically repressed by Israel and made to beg for water and electricity. Israel’s policies have been unenlightened at best and self harming all too often. If I lived in Gaza I would hate the Israeli government and want to resist that oppression.

    But if you want to be listened to, if you want things to change, you do not start with the beheading of babies because they are Jews.
    It is 17 years since there was an election in Gaza. 17 years during which Hamas has done it's best to kill anyone who actively opposes them. The Palestinians there 'allow' themselves to be ruled by Hamas about as much as the inhabitants of Kabul 'allow' themselves to be ruled by the Taliban.
    Or the Germans "allowed" themselves to be ruled by Hitler. Good point.
    What is amusing is that I suspect you and I regard that comment in very different ways.
    I regard it in a very simple way, Richard. According to Israel the country is at war. You may disagree and we can discuss the difference between a terrorist act and an act of war. Israel, as one of the belligerents, thinks it is war. An existential one, to boot. If it is war then it is war.

    I would be very interested to know how you regard that comment.
    I agree. Israel is at war. And I do not even think discussing whose fault it might be in the long term changes anything there.

    The difference appears to be that you think that being at war means that Israel are allowed to do anything they like to the Palestinian population and sod the consequences. You are one of those who quote, either directly or by inference, a war that ended 78 years ago in defence of this idea.

    I believe that, partly as a result of what happened during that war, the world has rightly moved on and certain actions are now considered no longer acceptable even in war and are legally proscribed as such. Indiscriminate bombing of civilians, whether by intent or negligence, is one of thoise things. This is the case whether we believe the faiult lies entirely with Israel, entirely with the Palestinians or with a mixture of the two.
    I think the issue here is that we are not used to existential wars. We have wars with limited aims and at the end of them the Americans bug out. Er, I mean at the end of them either one side wins, or there is a working negotiated settlement, or the matter is resolved one way or another.

    Israel believes that it is in an existential war, just like we did 80 years ago (and hence my Godwin). In an existential war there is no merit in saying well we lost but at least we played by the (new, victor-imposed) rules. Losing equals annihilation.

    And hence under those circumstances I am prepared, as you might have noticed from my various posts on the subject, to cut Israel quite a bit of slack. You often mention the use of white phosphorous by Israel, a horrible weapon. But again, and here we go back to WWII, and our own existential war, firebombing of German cities was seen as a legitimate act of war.
  • Options
    AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 23,758
    stodge said:

    Labours head will explode if it is Badenoch.

    Stale male Starmer versus a black woman.

    Stand by for calls of shes the wrong kind of black or Starmer saying shes got a penis.

    Your desperate attempts to find something, anything, positive for the moribund Tories is a continuous source of amusement.
    I dont defend the Tories I criticise Labour I am by nature an ABL.

    However we now have the prospect of the Tories on their 4th woman leader, and second BAME all while "progressive" Labour stay in the nineteenth century. Even the DUP have had a woman leader which shows just how neanderthal Labour is. And from that list of candidates above the one white guy has no chance.

    So perhaps you as a Labourite would like to explain what your party has against women or non-whites. ? Why is there a glass ceiling that none can pierce ?

    The Conservatives have had three women leaders - none of them lost an election. Why did the Conservatives turn on three women whom they chose and one of whom was arguably the most successful PM since 1945?

    What has the Conservative Party got against women such that they choose them and then stick a knife in their backs?
    since Im not a conservative party member youd better ask someone who is.

  • Options
    TazTaz Posts: 11,198
    edited October 2023

    Can someone explain to me the appeal of Bad Enoch?

    She is dreary when on telly, and has been invisible as a minister.

    Bad Enoch. A real rib tickler. Any reason to believe she’s anti immigration ?

    What’s good about her. She will protect our cash, of course.

  • Options
    GIN1138GIN1138 Posts: 20,826
    stodge said:

    Labours head will explode if it is Badenoch.

    Stale male Starmer versus a black woman.

    Stand by for calls of shes the wrong kind of black or Starmer saying shes got a penis.

    Your desperate attempts to find something, anything, positive for the moribund Tories is a continuous source of amusement.
    I dont defend the Tories I criticise Labour I am by nature an ABL.

    However we now have the prospect of the Tories on their 4th woman leader, and second BAME all while "progressive" Labour stay in the nineteenth century. Even the DUP have had a woman leader which shows just how neanderthal Labour is. And from that list of candidates above the one white guy has no chance.

    So perhaps you as a Labourite would like to explain what your party has against women or non-whites. ? Why is there a glass ceiling that none can pierce ?

    The Conservatives have had three women leaders - none of them lost an election. Why did the Conservatives turn on three women whom they chose and one of whom was arguably the most successful PM since 1945?

    What has the Conservative Party got against women such that they choose them and then stick a knife in their backs?
    I suspect you've got your tongue firmly in cheek, but we must forget all the male leaders they've stuck the knife into as well.

    Knifing their leaders (male, female or even non binary) is what the Tories do...
  • Options
    Dura_AceDura_Ace Posts: 13,009

    When challenged (e.g. in Parliament and Select Committees) Badenoch has a tendency to be arrogant, patronising, and dismissive. She is absolutely sure she is always right, and brooks no disagreement - she seems to have no self-doubt whatsoever. I'm not sure these are the qualities that the next Tory leader needs. Though she could, of course, tone down these characteristics.

    The tory leadership bet is really betting on who the MPs put in front of the Werther's Originals gobbling membership.

    Will they send Despicable She to the final two? Feels like a no...
  • Options
    LeonLeon Posts: 47,302

    Leon said:

    Off topic I reckon Suella Braverman is now more likely. And also more impressive (even if you despise her views)

    Agree. I think she’s a thick as two short planks, but she has really WORKED on her presentation, and it has paid off.

    Tory members just won’t be able to help themselves.
    I don’t believe she’s “thick as two short planks”

    “She attended the Uxendon Manor Primary School in Brent and the fee-paying Heathfield School, Pinner, on a partial scholarship,[1][9] after which she read law at Queens' College, Cambridge. During her undergraduate studies, she was chairman of the Cambridge University Conservative Association.[10]

    Braverman lived in France for two years, as an Erasmus Programme student and then as an Entente Cordiale Scholar, where she studied for a master's degree in European and French law at Panthéon-Sorbonne University.[11]”

    Then became a highly qualified lawyer AND passed the US bar
  • Options
    AlistairM said:

    isam said:

    Taz said:

    tlg86 said:

    https://twitter.com/DPJHodges/status/1712441648393654610

    (((Dan Hodges)))
    @DPJHodges
    While the focus is on the FA I understand the anger from the Jewish community about the silence from Spurs and Arsenal is also growing.

    I wonder if we will have sponsors withdrawing their support as a consequence.

    Highly unlikely as there is no co-ordinated online twitter campaign bombarding their feed with threats to not use them.

    The moral cowardice of the like of the FA and Arsenal and Spurs truly shames the beautiful game. Soccer was happy to take the knee for George Floyd yet it won't show solidarity with the nation that suffered, among other things, beheaded babies for fear of offending "communities"

    Spinless trash
    BLM UK seem to be on the side of the Palestinians. So is taking the knee tacit support for them?

    https://x.com/ukblm/status/1710914507646595124?s=46&t=CW4pL-mMpTqsJXCdjW0Z6Q
    Comment on the Twitter post by the FA said that their statement could.have been written by Jeremy Corbyn. They are spot on.

    Anyone taking the knee is now, in effect, supporting Hamas.
    Well I never!


  • Options
    DavidLDavidL Posts: 51,311
    148grss said:

    AlistairM said:

    isam said:

    Taz said:

    tlg86 said:

    https://twitter.com/DPJHodges/status/1712441648393654610

    (((Dan Hodges)))
    @DPJHodges
    While the focus is on the FA I understand the anger from the Jewish community about the silence from Spurs and Arsenal is also growing.

    I wonder if we will have sponsors withdrawing their support as a consequence.

    Highly unlikely as there is no co-ordinated online twitter campaign bombarding their feed with threats to not use them.

    The moral cowardice of the like of the FA and Arsenal and Spurs truly shames the beautiful game. Soccer was happy to take the knee for George Floyd yet it won't show solidarity with the nation that suffered, among other things, beheaded babies for fear of offending "communities"

    Spinless trash
    BLM UK seem to be on the side of the Palestinians. So is taking the knee tacit support for them?

    https://x.com/ukblm/status/1710914507646595124?s=46&t=CW4pL-mMpTqsJXCdjW0Z6Q
    Comment on the Twitter post by the FA said that their statement could.have been written by Jeremy Corbyn. They are spot on.

    Anyone taking the knee is now, in effect, supporting Hamas.
    Not wanting dead Palestinian civilians is not the same as supporting Hamas. What's the relative value of a Palestinian life versus an Israeli? 3? 5? 10? Do you want to say for every Israeli death they can kill 15 Palestinian kids, get the bloodlust out of the system? The average age in Gaza, as has been noted, is 18. 42% are under 15. Do you think every building bombed, every hospital shut due to power off, everyone starving or dying of thirst is magically going to be a member of Hamas, or a Hamas sympathiser? Everyone wringing their hands over the objectively horrific attacks on Israeli civilians is now happy to wade through waves of Palestinian blood for what - justice? Revenge? To make a point? This is the immediate post 9-11 bullshit again, where all that people have is a desire for blood, ignoring a) the original policy failures and violence that obviously caused this reaction in the first place and b) will lead to worse horrors beyond our thinking in the future. If Israel kills indiscriminately and no one flutters an eyelid, where's the moral high ground to say Russia or Ukraine shouldn't do the same? If Gaza is flattened and starved and pulverised with no recourse, what nation will look at war crimes and international law with any seriousness again? What is the lesson this will teach?

    “William Roper: “So, now you give the Devil the benefit of law!”

    Sir Thomas More: “Yes! What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?”

    William Roper: “Yes, I'd cut down every law in England to do that!”

    Sir Thomas More: “Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned 'round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast, Man's laws, not God's! And if you cut them down, and you're just the man to do it, do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake!”
    I've said before but studying that play at school persuaded me to take law at University. I may forgive Bolt one day.
  • Options
    148grss148grss Posts: 3,679
    TOPPING said:

    FPT

    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    DavidL said:

    Cyclefree said:

    I am old enough to remember when Israel was being pressed to give up land for peace. Well it did that in Gaza. It gave up land. It removed the settlers. And what it got in return was Hamas and rockets and now massacres.

    Israel has made many mistakes over the years. Netanyahu is unquestionably the wrong leader for it, especially at such a time. I fear that an invasion of Gaza now will be a strategic error and lead to all sorts of casualties for the innocent.

    But the Palestinians have consistently made huge errors, the biggest one of all being their refusal to accept Israel's right to exist. Hamas seeks the elimination of Israel and the killing of every Jew everywhere - not just in Israel. This is explicitly genocidal. There is no negotiation with such a movement. Eliminating it is the only answer. Just as we sought to eliminate Nazism and ISIS and other similar genocidal movements.

    Those who worry about what happens next need to provide an alternative to Israel, one that will not make that country prey to genocidal maniacs. Lots of people are willing to speak hard truths to Israel about obeying the laws of war and civilian deaths and the rest of it. Very few are telling Hamas that it is their genocidal ideology which has brought Gaza to the point it is, that it is their deliberate policy of hiding amongst civilians which is putting Palestinians at risk, it is their refusal to accept Israel's right to exist which means there is not the remotest hope of starting any peace talks.

    There is plenty of pressure which needs putting on Israel but Hamas must first be eliminated. It cannot - until it changes what it wants - be a player. It has taken itself outside the universe of civilised decency. So if invasion of Gaza is not the solution, what is? And if we don't have an alternative solution, then we can hardly be surprised if Israel does what it thinks necessary to save itself. What would we do were we in their position?

    I sometimes feel that commentators are unwilling to provide or even begin to think about what an alternative might be because - after all the condemnations of Hamas - they give up at expecting anything better from the Palestinians and it is, after all, so much easier and more comfortable to revert to criticising Israel.

    I was saying something similar the other day. Gaza allows itself to be ruled by Hamas. It does this in the knowledge that Hamas is committed to the death of all Jews. The murderous assaults came from their territory and seem to have been a source of glee.

    I fully get that the residents of Gaza have a terrible life, that they are economically repressed by Israel and made to beg for water and electricity. Israel’s policies have been unenlightened at best and self harming all too often. If I lived in Gaza I would hate the Israeli government and want to resist that oppression.

    But if you want to be listened to, if you want things to change, you do not start with the beheading of babies because they are Jews.
    It is 17 years since there was an election in Gaza. 17 years during which Hamas has done it's best to kill anyone who actively opposes them. The Palestinians there 'allow' themselves to be ruled by Hamas about as much as the inhabitants of Kabul 'allow' themselves to be ruled by the Taliban.
    Or the Germans "allowed" themselves to be ruled by Hitler. Good point.
    What is amusing is that I suspect you and I regard that comment in very different ways.
    I regard it in a very simple way, Richard. According to Israel the country is at war. You may disagree and we can discuss the difference between a terrorist act and an act of war. Israel, as one of the belligerents, thinks it is war. An existential one, to boot. If it is war then it is war.

    I would be very interested to know how you regard that comment.
    I agree. Israel is at war. And I do not even think discussing whose fault it might be in the long term changes anything there.

    The difference appears to be that you think that being at war means that Israel are allowed to do anything they like to the Palestinian population and sod the consequences. You are one of those who quote, either directly or by inference, a war that ended 78 years ago in defence of this idea.

    I believe that, partly as a result of what happened during that war, the world has rightly moved on and certain actions are now considered no longer acceptable even in war and are legally proscribed as such. Indiscriminate bombing of civilians, whether by intent or negligence, is one of thoise things. This is the case whether we believe the faiult lies entirely with Israel, entirely with the Palestinians or with a mixture of the two.
    I think the issue here is that we are not used to existential wars. We have wars with limited aims and at the end of them the Americans bug out. Er, I mean at the end of them either one side wins, or there is a working negotiated settlement, or the matter is resolved one way or another.

    Israel believes that it is in an existential war, just like we did 80 years ago (and hence my Godwin). In an existential war there is no merit in saying well we lost but at least we played by the (new, victor-imposed) rules. Losing equals annihilation.

    And hence under those circumstances I am prepared, as you might have noticed from my various posts on the subject, to cut Israel quite a bit of slack. You often mention the use of white phosphorous by Israel, a horrible weapon. But again, and here we go back to WWII, and our own existential war, firebombing of German cities was seen as a legitimate act of war.
    When Israel was founded, I can understand that feeling. Now, as the primary beneficiary of the world's only existing superpowers military largesse and political hegemonic power, no. If they believe it is an existential war it is only because they have propagandised it so to themselves. And I don't think those in the Israeli government do even view it as an existential war, because if you want a sure fire way to guarantee the entire Middle East will never normalise relations with you and may even go to war with you, start doing a genocide in Gaza.
  • Options
    stodge said:

    Labours head will explode if it is Badenoch.

    Stale male Starmer versus a black woman.

    Stand by for calls of shes the wrong kind of black or Starmer saying shes got a penis.

    Your desperate attempts to find something, anything, positive for the moribund Tories is a continuous source of amusement.
    I dont defend the Tories I criticise Labour I am by nature an ABL.

    However we now have the prospect of the Tories on their 4th woman leader, and second BAME all while "progressive" Labour stay in the nineteenth century. Even the DUP have had a woman leader which shows just how neanderthal Labour is. And from that list of candidates above the one white guy has no chance.

    So perhaps you as a Labourite would like to explain what your party has against women or non-whites. ? Why is there a glass ceiling that none can pierce ?

    The Conservatives have had three women leaders - none of them lost an election. Why did the Conservatives turn on three women whom they chose and one of whom was arguably the most successful PM since 1945?

    What has the Conservative Party got against women such that they choose them and then stick a knife in their backs?
    That is pretty desperate stuff there. They get ousted when they fail. Whether that is by election defeat or by clearly being a liability is beside the point. The same applies to most of the male Tory leaders over the last 50 years.
  • Options
    DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 24,430
    edited October 2023
    Babies Can’t Read The Text In This Video But Their Parents Can
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hh8t8sHnTng

    The government of Israel has uploaded some short (30 or 40 seconds) videos to Youtube (and presumably the other platforms). They are played as adverts, but can also be viewed directly at the Foreign Ministry's channel here:-
    https://www.youtube.com/@IsraelMFA/videos
  • Options
    SirNorfolkPassmoreSirNorfolkPassmore Posts: 6,259
    edited October 2023

    Can someone explain to me the appeal of Bad Enoch?

    She is dreary when on telly, and has been invisible as a minister.

    In terms of invisibility, is that the worst tactic in the current situation?

    Braverman has pushed herself to the fore but, when the ship inevitably goes down (maybe not the best metaphor but I'm sticking with it) she'll have her fingerprints all over the defeat - her language, her policies, her failure to deliver.

    In keeping relatively quiet, Badenoch isn't too connected in voters' minds with the defeat, and can act wise after the event, telling Braverman and others what they did wrong.
  • Options
    CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 39,803

    darkage said:

    FPT

    darkage said:

    darkage said:

    darkage said:

    darkage said:

    darkage said:

    Carnyx said:

    Carnyx said:

    Uncle Barty always makes Warrington sound bloody awful, soulless identikit housing surrounded by motorways. I have been to Warrington, it’s not that bad in real life. At least not the bit I visited.

    Hmm, a look at TripAdvisor throws up cultural activities like Zombie Scavenger Hunts (not sure if the undead are doinf the scavenging or being eaten), though there is a nice looking trad municipal museum with mummy and paintings and dino and all. Okay. Walton Hall is No 1 Best Thing to Do in Warrington, and the Museum is No 3., but it 's a bit worrying that Gullivers World Theme Park is no 2 and an alpaca farm is no 4. Really trad Lanc culture that, of a part with parkin and faggot and so on. It thins out a bit later, No 105 being a bcobblestoned street, which at least doesn't take long to inspect.
    Of course people are mobile and via motorways you can get elsewhere within the NW within a very reasonable time too. Want to be in Liverpool, or Manchester, or Chester, or North Wales? All easily accessible.
    "Of course people are mobile [...] via motorways [...]".

    Lots of people don't have cars. As much reminded on here.
    Warrington is not a model that can be transposed on to more densely populated parts of the country, particularly not the south east. You can't just build 10 lane motorways through AONB's and National Parks, which is what would happen if you try and fulfil the demand for car use through building new roads, at some point you need to start reducing the demand for car use and developing other options (public transport) - something we realised about 30-40 years ago.

    Also the situation in Warrington and this part of the north west is a product of town planning, not something that has happened because town planning has been swept away. All the roads, infrastructure to go with the housing have to be planned and co-ordinated, along with policies that direct growth to certain areas. You don't just create it by throwing up a few motorways and letting people build wherever they want on vaguely defined zones. Even if you create a zonal system, like Japan and many other countries in Europe, it still has to be planned, it is just a slightly different type of planning.
    Yes. I haven't ever advocated anarchy, I advocate zonal planning. Which contrary to what @Richard_Tyndall keeps claiming is not what we have in this country.

    In a sensible zonal system, like Japan, you can build whatever you want subject without asking permission first if three conditions are met.

    1. You own the land (obviously)
    2. It is already zoned for housing.
    3. You build to building codes.

    Neighbours or Councils don't get a say if you want to demolish your home and rebuild it to something else as it's already zoned.

    Plan the public infrastructure absolutely. But the land zoned for housing is NOT the public infrastructure land. Leave that to fill in with whatever people want.
    The comment I have is that you purport to be in favour of a radical reform of planning in your posts but when it comes down to it, all you are actually arguing for is for more land to be released for housing (something almost everyone who works in the area agrees with- but subject to it being the right land in the right place which is more difficult to resolve) and a different delivery mechanism - a code based system rather than a discretionary system - something that is also not that controversial to deal with in principle, until you start trying to work out what the code should and shouldn't allow, and how deviations are resolved.

    The problem with the last 13 years of planning policy is that the government don't want to tackle difficult decisions about where growth goes, they just keep avoiding it - palming it off to someone else, local authorities, civil servants etc... the Labour party seem to be making the right noises , but lets see.
    I don't consider zonal planning a radical concept whatsoever.

    But to switch from our current system where politicians and neighbours and assorted NIMBYs get a say in blocking development, to one where they don't, would have radical consequences.

    It would end the oligopoly of developers that can play the system to acquire and sit on consent (especially but not only if done in conjunction with a switch to LVT).
    It would allow more variety in what is built, rather than what is
    It would allow adaptability as if higher density housing for example were desired people could bulldoze low density housing and rebuild to higher density, without having to get their neighbours or Councillors to approve.
    It would mean politicians would no longer have to appeal or pander to NIMBYs as codes being set nationally and zoning being approved locally means they have no more input after its zoned.
    You may be interested to hear that our house in Finland is in a zoning system. We cannot cut down a tree in the garden without permission. The guy across the road is trying to do a self build and has been waiting for 10 months for permission to knock down the existing building and because the new house is 1m higher than the code allows. And of course, in these established built up areas there are exactly the same grievances and arguments between neighbours, they don't disappear with a code system.

    The code system works and it doesn't. On the other hand a relative built an entire housing estate on his farm over the course of about 5 years through a code based system selling the plots off individually. But the latter happened not just because of the code system, also because there is unlimited land in Finland to build on and a low population density and no opposition, also because the Finns keep on top of building new infrastructure, unlike the UK. They've also made mistakes in Finland with too liberal code based systems on similar estates, there are estates where opportunistic developers have crammed in too many single storey houses with no space/gardens, it is the cheapest, poor quality type of development, something must have gone wrong with the plot/space ratios. In our relatives case he thinks it worked better because he employed a landscape architect to design the layout, but that was his choice (and expense)
    If its already zoned for residential then I'm proposing abolishing seeking permission [except for special circumstances, like listed buildings]. So if the guy across the road is waiting for permission, then that's not a pure zonal system like I propose.

    Absolutely agreed that low density is better, hence the parallel conversation about transport. Some people prefer high density though, so if they do then there should be freedom to do that too.

    Of course if we have enough houses able to be built, and a liberal zone/code based system then situations where some developments are badly designed while others are well designed, may mean that the well designed developments are sold and lived in while the badly designed ones may end up vacant and be a burden on the owner who badly designed them as nobody is forced to buy or let them given better alternatives and the stupid owner who screwed up needs to continue paying all taxes on the land himself rather than getting an income from those who have no better alternative.
    But is there a code or no code in your preferred zoning system? If there is a code then there has to be a method of dealing with situations that breach the code, hence the requirement for permission. I am not aware of any zoning system in a developed country that does not have some sort of building code that sets out limits that must be followed. The examples you use in support of your proposal all have this characteristic.
    Why do you need permission? They don't in Japan.

    Yes there should be a code, no there should not be a requirement for permission.

    Build to code. If you break the code, then you should face consequences, same as breaking any other law, but if you are operating legally you shouldn't need to ask permission first.
    So you want to have a code where there are no exceptions. It sounds to me like this would ultimately be a more restrictive system than that which exists at the moment, where you can apply for anything you want.
    No, I want a code where if you build to code you don't need to ask permission, its automatic, for normal zoned appropriately land buildings which are not listed.

    Want to build an extension to your property? If its to code, build it. Want to knock down your property and rebuild it? If its to code, do it. Want to buy undeveloped land (that is zoned appropriately) buy it and start building on it. No consultations, no discussions with neighbours, no politicians getting involved.

    If you want an exemption? Then apply for one. If you want to convert land not zoned for housing to land zoned for housing? Then apply for it.

    But only those outside of code, or outside of what is already zoned, would be going through a permission process.
    Ok. But in terms of extensions, you are arguing for the system that we already have. Because you can already extend and alter your property without planning permission under permitted development rules that are very liberal already. It is only when you go beyond PD that you have to apply for permission.

    Regarding the idea that you effectively grant permission for new buildings upfront at the time of making a plan, subject to compliance with a code... few people working in the industry would find that idea controversial. But the difficulty of implementing it is that you would have to do a lot more upfront work in making the plan that allocates the land in the first place. Already it takes 5 years to make a plan that allocates sites to resolve all the issues that come with allocating land. If you have to go further and work out where the roads are going and allocate sites all the way down to plot level and write a building code it will just take longer and be much more expensive = it won't ever happen.

    The problem ultimately comes down to it being difficult to get anything done because of some strange disorder in the english bureaucratic state. The tories have spent 13 years trying to blast their way through it and bring the blob in to order but somehow they have managed only to make it even more dysfunctional.

    The answer to this is to adopt one of the Dutch systems.

    There the local Government allocate land for building. They then undertake all the preliminary work, archaeology, environmental etc. They then put in all the services, roads etc. They then allow people to buy plots - paying their share of all the previous costs to date and build their houses (or rather usually get a builder to do it for them) according to any of twenty or more designs previously agreed by the local Goverment.

    It is a system as old as the Romans. We know that they often built street plans well in advance of putting in the buildings as we have found lots of examples where the building bit never happened.

    Under this system you can still have all the planning rules etc but it is the council who are meeting them not a developer.

    Of course developers would hate the system as it leaves nothing for them to do.
    The Edinburgh New Towns were built on much that principle, complete with strict planning laws and specs for standards and style of building. Yo could also build others elsewhere if they passed the planning committee, though it was called the Dean of Guild Court. The records are absolutely fascimating and a real historical goldmine.
  • Options
    LeonLeon Posts: 47,302
    TOPPING said:

    FPT

    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    DavidL said:

    Cyclefree said:

    I am old enough to remember when Israel was being pressed to give up land for peace. Well it did that in Gaza. It gave up land. It removed the settlers. And what it got in return was Hamas and rockets and now massacres.

    Israel has made many mistakes over the years. Netanyahu is unquestionably the wrong leader for it, especially at such a time. I fear that an invasion of Gaza now will be a strategic error and lead to all sorts of casualties for the innocent.

    But the Palestinians have consistently made huge errors, the biggest one of all being their refusal to accept Israel's right to exist. Hamas seeks the elimination of Israel and the killing of every Jew everywhere - not just in Israel. This is explicitly genocidal. There is no negotiation with such a movement. Eliminating it is the only answer. Just as we sought to eliminate Nazism and ISIS and other similar genocidal movements.

    Those who worry about what happens next need to provide an alternative to Israel, one that will not make that country prey to genocidal maniacs. Lots of people are willing to speak hard truths to Israel about obeying the laws of war and civilian deaths and the rest of it. Very few are telling Hamas that it is their genocidal ideology which has brought Gaza to the point it is, that it is their deliberate policy of hiding amongst civilians which is putting Palestinians at risk, it is their refusal to accept Israel's right to exist which means there is not the remotest hope of starting any peace talks.

    There is plenty of pressure which needs putting on Israel but Hamas must first be eliminated. It cannot - until it changes what it wants - be a player. It has taken itself outside the universe of civilised decency. So if invasion of Gaza is not the solution, what is? And if we don't have an alternative solution, then we can hardly be surprised if Israel does what it thinks necessary to save itself. What would we do were we in their position?

    I sometimes feel that commentators are unwilling to provide or even begin to think about what an alternative might be because - after all the condemnations of Hamas - they give up at expecting anything better from the Palestinians and it is, after all, so much easier and more comfortable to revert to criticising Israel.

    I was saying something similar the other day. Gaza allows itself to be ruled by Hamas. It does this in the knowledge that Hamas is committed to the death of all Jews. The murderous assaults came from their territory and seem to have been a source of glee.

    I fully get that the residents of Gaza have a terrible life, that they are economically repressed by Israel and made to beg for water and electricity. Israel’s policies have been unenlightened at best and self harming all too often. If I lived in Gaza I would hate the Israeli government and want to resist that oppression.

    But if you want to be listened to, if you want things to change, you do not start with the beheading of babies because they are Jews.
    It is 17 years since there was an election in Gaza. 17 years during which Hamas has done it's best to kill anyone who actively opposes them. The Palestinians there 'allow' themselves to be ruled by Hamas about as much as the inhabitants of Kabul 'allow' themselves to be ruled by the Taliban.
    Or the Germans "allowed" themselves to be ruled by Hitler. Good point.
    What is amusing is that I suspect you and I regard that comment in very different ways.
    I regard it in a very simple way, Richard. According to Israel the country is at war. You may disagree and we can discuss the difference between a terrorist act and an act of war. Israel, as one of the belligerents, thinks it is war. An existential one, to boot. If it is war then it is war.

    I would be very interested to know how you regard that comment.
    I agree. Israel is at war. And I do not even think discussing whose fault it might be in the long term changes anything there.

    The difference appears to be that you think that being at war means that Israel are allowed to do anything they like to the Palestinian population and sod the consequences. You are one of those who quote, either directly or by inference, a war that ended 78 years ago in defence of this idea.

    I believe that, partly as a result of what happened during that war, the world has rightly moved on and certain actions are now considered no longer acceptable even in war and are legally proscribed as such. Indiscriminate bombing of civilians, whether by intent or negligence, is one of thoise things. This is the case whether we believe the faiult lies entirely with Israel, entirely with the Palestinians or with a mixture of the two.
    I think the issue here is that we are not used to existential wars. We have wars with limited aims and at the end of them the Americans bug out. Er, I mean at the end of them either one side wins, or there is a working negotiated settlement, or the matter is resolved one way or another.

    Israel believes that it is in an existential war, just like we did 80 years ago (and hence my Godwin). In an existential war there is no merit in saying well we lost but at least we played by the (new, victor-imposed) rules. Losing equals annihilation.

    And hence under those circumstances I am prepared, as you might have noticed from my various posts on the subject, to cut Israel quite a bit of slack. You often mention the use of white phosphorous by Israel, a horrible weapon. But again, and here we go back to WWII, and our own existential war, firebombing of German cities was seen as a legitimate act of war.
    I largely agree with this. Israelis view this war as one they MUST win, or the country is finished - and after October 7 I can see why. Extrapolate from a failure to destroy Hamas and Israel soon becomes too dangerous for Jews. You can’t “negotiate” with people who think it’s “good” to murder Jewish babies

    The coming war is going to be brutal. Israel will make many enemies; they won’t care as the alternative, for them, is worse
  • Options
    FlatlanderFlatlander Posts: 3,891
    edited October 2023

    darkage said:

    FPT

    darkage said:

    darkage said:

    darkage said:

    darkage said:

    darkage said:

    Carnyx said:

    Carnyx said:

    Uncle Barty always makes Warrington sound bloody awful, soulless identikit housing surrounded by motorways. I have been to Warrington, it’s not that bad in real life. At least not the bit I visited.

    Hmm, a look at TripAdvisor throws up cultural activities like Zombie Scavenger Hunts (not sure if the undead are doinf the scavenging or being eaten), though there is a nice looking trad municipal museum with mummy and paintings and dino and all. Okay. Walton Hall is No 1 Best Thing to Do in Warrington, and the Museum is No 3., but it 's a bit worrying that Gullivers World Theme Park is no 2 and an alpaca farm is no 4. Really trad Lanc culture that, of a part with parkin and faggot and so on. It thins out a bit later, No 105 being a bcobblestoned street, which at least doesn't take long to inspect.
    Of course people are mobile and via motorways you can get elsewhere within the NW within a very reasonable time too. Want to be in Liverpool, or Manchester, or Chester, or North Wales? All easily accessible.
    "Of course people are mobile [...] via motorways [...]".

    Lots of people don't have cars. As much reminded on here.
    Warrington is not a model that can be transposed on to more densely populated parts of the country, particularly not the south east. You can't just build 10 lane motorways through AONB's and National Parks, which is what would happen if you try and fulfil the demand for car use through building new roads, at some point you need to start reducing the demand for car use and developing other options (public transport) - something we realised about 30-40 years ago.

    Also the situation in Warrington and this part of the north west is a product of town planning, not something that has happened because town planning has been swept away. All the roads, infrastructure to go with the housing have to be planned and co-ordinated, along with policies that direct growth to certain areas. You don't just create it by throwing up a few motorways and letting people build wherever they want on vaguely defined zones. Even if you create a zonal system, like Japan and many other countries in Europe, it still has to be planned, it is just a slightly different type of planning.
    Yes. I haven't ever advocated anarchy, I advocate zonal planning. Which contrary to what @Richard_Tyndall keeps claiming is not what we have in this country.

    In a sensible zonal system, like Japan, you can build whatever you want subject without asking permission first if three conditions are met.

    1. You own the land (obviously)
    2. It is already zoned for housing.
    3. You build to building codes.

    Neighbours or Councils don't get a say if you want to demolish your home and rebuild it to something else as it's already zoned.

    Plan the public infrastructure absolutely. But the land zoned for housing is NOT the public infrastructure land. Leave that to fill in with whatever people want.
    The comment I have is that you purport to be in favour of a radical reform of planning in your posts but when it comes down to it, all you are actually arguing for is for more land to be released for housing (something almost everyone who works in the area agrees with- but subject to it being the right land in the right place which is more difficult to resolve) and a different delivery mechanism - a code based system rather than a discretionary system - something that is also not that controversial to deal with in principle, until you start trying to work out what the code should and shouldn't allow, and how deviations are resolved.

    The problem with the last 13 years of planning policy is that the government don't want to tackle difficult decisions about where growth goes, they just keep avoiding it - palming it off to someone else, local authorities, civil servants etc... the Labour party seem to be making the right noises , but lets see.
    I don't consider zonal planning a radical concept whatsoever.

    But to switch from our current system where politicians and neighbours and assorted NIMBYs get a say in blocking development, to one where they don't, would have radical consequences.

    It would end the oligopoly of developers that can play the system to acquire and sit on consent (especially but not only if done in conjunction with a switch to LVT).
    It would allow more variety in what is built, rather than what is
    It would allow adaptability as if higher density housing for example were desired people could bulldoze low density housing and rebuild to higher density, without having to get their neighbours or Councillors to approve.
    It would mean politicians would no longer have to appeal or pander to NIMBYs as codes being set nationally and zoning being approved locally means they have no more input after its zoned.
    You may be interested to hear that our house in Finland is in a zoning system. We cannot cut down a tree in the garden without permission. The guy across the road is trying to do a self build and has been waiting for 10 months for permission to knock down the existing building and because the new house is 1m higher than the code allows. And of course, in these established built up areas there are exactly the same grievances and arguments between neighbours, they don't disappear with a code system.

    The code system works and it doesn't. On the other hand a relative built an entire housing estate on his farm over the course of about 5 years through a code based system selling the plots off individually. But the latter happened not just because of the code system, also because there is unlimited land in Finland to build on and a low population density and no opposition, also because the Finns keep on top of building new infrastructure, unlike the UK. They've also made mistakes in Finland with too liberal code based systems on similar estates, there are estates where opportunistic developers have crammed in too many single storey houses with no space/gardens, it is the cheapest, poor quality type of development, something must have gone wrong with the plot/space ratios. In our relatives case he thinks it worked better because he employed a landscape architect to design the layout, but that was his choice (and expense)
    If its already zoned for residential then I'm proposing abolishing seeking permission [except for special circumstances, like listed buildings]. So if the guy across the road is waiting for permission, then that's not a pure zonal system like I propose.

    Absolutely agreed that low density is better, hence the parallel conversation about transport. Some people prefer high density though, so if they do then there should be freedom to do that too.

    Of course if we have enough houses able to be built, and a liberal zone/code based system then situations where some developments are badly designed while others are well designed, may mean that the well designed developments are sold and lived in while the badly designed ones may end up vacant and be a burden on the owner who badly designed them as nobody is forced to buy or let them given better alternatives and the stupid owner who screwed up needs to continue paying all taxes on the land himself rather than getting an income from those who have no better alternative.
    But is there a code or no code in your preferred zoning system? If there is a code then there has to be a method of dealing with situations that breach the code, hence the requirement for permission. I am not aware of any zoning system in a developed country that does not have some sort of building code that sets out limits that must be followed. The examples you use in support of your proposal all have this characteristic.
    Why do you need permission? They don't in Japan.

    Yes there should be a code, no there should not be a requirement for permission.

    Build to code. If you break the code, then you should face consequences, same as breaking any other law, but if you are operating legally you shouldn't need to ask permission first.
    So you want to have a code where there are no exceptions. It sounds to me like this would ultimately be a more restrictive system than that which exists at the moment, where you can apply for anything you want.
    No, I want a code where if you build to code you don't need to ask permission, its automatic, for normal zoned appropriately land buildings which are not listed.

    Want to build an extension to your property? If its to code, build it. Want to knock down your property and rebuild it? If its to code, do it. Want to buy undeveloped land (that is zoned appropriately) buy it and start building on it. No consultations, no discussions with neighbours, no politicians getting involved.

    If you want an exemption? Then apply for one. If you want to convert land not zoned for housing to land zoned for housing? Then apply for it.

    But only those outside of code, or outside of what is already zoned, would be going through a permission process.
    Ok. But in terms of extensions, you are arguing for the system that we already have. Because you can already extend and alter your property without planning permission under permitted development rules that are very liberal already. It is only when you go beyond PD that you have to apply for permission.

    Regarding the idea that you effectively grant permission for new buildings upfront at the time of making a plan, subject to compliance with a code... few people working in the industry would find that idea controversial. But the difficulty of implementing it is that you would have to do a lot more upfront work in making the plan that allocates the land in the first place. Already it takes 5 years to make a plan that allocates sites to resolve all the issues that come with allocating land. If you have to go further and work out where the roads are going and allocate sites all the way down to plot level and write a building code it will just take longer and be much more expensive = it won't ever happen.

    The problem ultimately comes down to it being difficult to get anything done because of some strange disorder in the english bureaucratic state. The tories have spent 13 years trying to blast their way through it and bring the blob in to order but somehow they have managed only to make it even more dysfunctional.

    The answer to this is to adopt one of the Dutch systems.

    There the local Government allocate land for building. They then undertake all the preliminary work, archaeology, environmental etc. They then put in all the services, roads etc. They then allow people to buy plots - paying their share of all the previous costs to date and build their houses (or rather usually get a builder to do it for them) according to any of twenty or more designs previously agreed by the local Goverment.

    It is a system as old as the Romans. We know that they often built street plans well in advance of putting in the buildings as we have found lots of examples where the building bit never happened.

    Under this system you can still have all the planning rules etc but it is the council who are meeting them not a developer.

    Of course developers would hate the system as it leaves nothing for them to do.
    Didn't work for Ravenscar!
    https://www.thetownthatneverwas.co.uk/39th-map

    Though I agree.

    The 'poshest' road in Doncaster is the one where people built the house they wanted on their own plot.

    Some are boring bungalows, some are Georgian pastiches - all a bit random - but it is the exact opposite of the Barratt horrors nearby.

    Big plots though - which would be the problem now.
  • Options
    LeonLeon Posts: 47,302

    Can someone explain to me the appeal of Bad Enoch?

    She is dreary when on telly, and has been invisible as a minister.

    In terms of invisibility, is that the worst tactic in the current situation?

    Braverman has pushed herself to the fore but, when the ship inevitably goes down (maybe not the best metaphor but I'm sticking with it) she'll have her fingerprints all over the defeat - her language, her policies, her failure to deliver.

    In keeping relatively quiet, Badenoch isn't too connected in voters' minds with the defeat, and can act wise after the event, telling Braverman and others what they did wrong.
    No this is nonsense

    Sunak and Hunt will get the blame
  • Options
    LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 15,305

    Partly it depends on how winnable 2029 looks.

    Even if everyone says "it's a two term project", I suspect the mood of the nation is that election losers don't get another go any more.

    And whilst Starmer shows that a huge defeat can be turned round quickly, he has had an awful lot of help from the Conservatives.

    Is someone like Kemi prepared to the Moses, leading her people to the edge of the promised land but not entering it herself?

    The better way round to do this is to have the elder statesman sort of figure do the thankless task of opposing the first term of a Labour government, with the added benefit that they look credible as an alternative government if Labour implode. And you provide space for the next generation to work out a new direction for policy and take over subsequently.
  • Options
    Sean_FSean_F Posts: 35,850
    edited October 2023
    Taz said:

    TOPPING said:

    I mean I am a fan of people taking the knee. A visible action against racism, of which there continues to be a fuckload at footie matches and which was beyond endemic in times gone by.

    Equally it gives me great pleasure to see a typical PL footie match wherein there is a united nations of races, creeds, colours (not sexuality yet but I'm sure it is coming) and I believe the game is truly colour blind. You only have to see celebrations after a goal to confirm this at least amongst the players.

    However, the pickle that the FA and indeed all football clubs finds itself in wrt Israel/Gaza is as a consequence of these gestures.

    Like you I have no issue with taking the knee. It’s a harmless gesture against racism and helps raise awareness so where’s the downside ?

    Soccer is also happy to have players wear rainbow laces. Again. No problem there.

    When people complained about the taking of the knee or the laces the FA and twitterati were quick to condemn. They’re silent now a and this silence shames them.

    They’ve made a major error here. They have a chance to rectify it. They need to do it ASAP.
    Their reasoning is clear. They don’t want to offend the sort of people who believe 6MWNE.
  • Options
    FishingFishing Posts: 4,561

    darkage said:

    FPT

    darkage said:

    darkage said:

    darkage said:

    darkage said:

    darkage said:

    Carnyx said:

    Carnyx said:

    Uncle Barty always makes Warrington sound bloody awful, soulless identikit housing surrounded by motorways. I have been to Warrington, it’s not that bad in real life. At least not the bit I visited.

    Hmm, a look at TripAdvisor throws up cultural activities like Zombie Scavenger Hunts (not sure if the undead are doinf the scavenging or being eaten), though there is a nice looking trad municipal museum with mummy and paintings and dino and all. Okay. Walton Hall is No 1 Best Thing to Do in Warrington, and the Museum is No 3., but it 's a bit worrying that Gullivers World Theme Park is no 2 and an alpaca farm is no 4. Really trad Lanc culture that, of a part with parkin and faggot and so on. It thins out a bit later, No 105 being a bcobblestoned street, which at least doesn't take long to inspect.
    Of course people are mobile and via motorways you can get elsewhere within the NW within a very reasonable time too. Want to be in Liverpool, or Manchester, or Chester, or North Wales? All easily accessible.
    "Of course people are mobile [...] via motorways [...]".

    Lots of people don't have cars. As much reminded on here.
    Warrington is not a model that can be transposed on to more densely populated parts of the country, particularly not the south east. You can't just build 10 lane motorways through AONB's and National Parks, which is what would happen if you try and fulfil the demand for car use through building new roads, at some point you need to start reducing the demand for car use and developing other options (public transport) - something we realised about 30-40 years ago.

    Also the situation in Warrington and this part of the north west is a product of town planning, not something that has happened because town planning has been swept away. All the roads, infrastructure to go with the housing have to be planned and co-ordinated, along with policies that direct growth to certain areas. You don't just create it by throwing up a few motorways and letting people build wherever they want on vaguely defined zones. Even if you create a zonal system, like Japan and many other countries in Europe, it still has to be planned, it is just a slightly different type of planning.
    Yes. I haven't ever advocated anarchy, I advocate zonal planning. Which contrary to what @Richard_Tyndall keeps claiming is not what we have in this country.

    In a sensible zonal system, like Japan, you can build whatever you want subject without asking permission first if three conditions are met.

    1. You own the land (obviously)
    2. It is already zoned for housing.
    3. You build to building codes.

    Neighbours or Councils don't get a say if you want to demolish your home and rebuild it to something else as it's already zoned.

    Plan the public infrastructure absolutely. But the land zoned for housing is NOT the public infrastructure land. Leave that to fill in with whatever people want.
    The comment I have is that you purport to be in favour of a radical reform of planning in your posts but when it comes down to it, all you are actually arguing for is for more land to be released for housing (something almost everyone who works in the area agrees with- but subject to it being the right land in the right place which is more difficult to resolve) and a different delivery mechanism - a code based system rather than a discretionary system - something that is also not that controversial to deal with in principle, until you start trying to work out what the code should and shouldn't allow, and how deviations are resolved.

    The problem with the last 13 years of planning policy is that the government don't want to tackle difficult decisions about where growth goes, they just keep avoiding it - palming it off to someone else, local authorities, civil servants etc... the Labour party seem to be making the right noises , but lets see.
    I don't consider zonal planning a radical concept whatsoever.

    But to switch from our current system where politicians and neighbours and assorted NIMBYs get a say in blocking development, to one where they don't, would have radical consequences.

    It would end the oligopoly of developers that can play the system to acquire and sit on consent (especially but not only if done in conjunction with a switch to LVT).
    It would allow more variety in what is built, rather than what is
    It would allow adaptability as if higher density housing for example were desired people could bulldoze low density housing and rebuild to higher density, without having to get their neighbours or Councillors to approve.
    It would mean politicians would no longer have to appeal or pander to NIMBYs as codes being set nationally and zoning being approved locally means they have no more input after its zoned.
    You may be interested to hear that our house in Finland is in a zoning system. We cannot cut down a tree in the garden without permission. The guy across the road is trying to do a self build and has been waiting for 10 months for permission to knock down the existing building and because the new house is 1m higher than the code allows. And of course, in these established built up areas there are exactly the same grievances and arguments between neighbours, they don't disappear with a code system.

    The code system works and it doesn't. On the other hand a relative built an entire housing estate on his farm over the course of about 5 years through a code based system selling the plots off individually. But the latter happened not just because of the code system, also because there is unlimited land in Finland to build on and a low population density and no opposition, also because the Finns keep on top of building new infrastructure, unlike the UK. They've also made mistakes in Finland with too liberal code based systems on similar estates, there are estates where opportunistic developers have crammed in too many single storey houses with no space/gardens, it is the cheapest, poor quality type of development, something must have gone wrong with the plot/space ratios. In our relatives case he thinks it worked better because he employed a landscape architect to design the layout, but that was his choice (and expense)
    If its already zoned for residential then I'm proposing abolishing seeking permission [except for special circumstances, like listed buildings]. So if the guy across the road is waiting for permission, then that's not a pure zonal system like I propose.

    Absolutely agreed that low density is better, hence the parallel conversation about transport. Some people prefer high density though, so if they do then there should be freedom to do that too.

    Of course if we have enough houses able to be built, and a liberal zone/code based system then situations where some developments are badly designed while others are well designed, may mean that the well designed developments are sold and lived in while the badly designed ones may end up vacant and be a burden on the owner who badly designed them as nobody is forced to buy or let them given better alternatives and the stupid owner who screwed up needs to continue paying all taxes on the land himself rather than getting an income from those who have no better alternative.
    But is there a code or no code in your preferred zoning system? If there is a code then there has to be a method of dealing with situations that breach the code, hence the requirement for permission. I am not aware of any zoning system in a developed country that does not have some sort of building code that sets out limits that must be followed. The examples you use in support of your proposal all have this characteristic.
    Why do you need permission? They don't in Japan.

    Yes there should be a code, no there should not be a requirement for permission.

    Build to code. If you break the code, then you should face consequences, same as breaking any other law, but if you are operating legally you shouldn't need to ask permission first.
    So you want to have a code where there are no exceptions. It sounds to me like this would ultimately be a more restrictive system than that which exists at the moment, where you can apply for anything you want.
    No, I want a code where if you build to code you don't need to ask permission, its automatic, for normal zoned appropriately land buildings which are not listed.

    Want to build an extension to your property? If its to code, build it. Want to knock down your property and rebuild it? If its to code, do it. Want to buy undeveloped land (that is zoned appropriately) buy it and start building on it. No consultations, no discussions with neighbours, no politicians getting involved.

    If you want an exemption? Then apply for one. If you want to convert land not zoned for housing to land zoned for housing? Then apply for it.

    But only those outside of code, or outside of what is already zoned, would be going through a permission process.
    Ok. But in terms of extensions, you are arguing for the system that we already have. Because you can already extend and alter your property without planning permission under permitted development rules that are very liberal already. It is only when you go beyond PD that you have to apply for permission.

    Regarding the idea that you effectively grant permission for new buildings upfront at the time of making a plan, subject to compliance with a code... few people working in the industry would find that idea controversial. But the difficulty of implementing it is that you would have to do a lot more upfront work in making the plan that allocates the land in the first place. Already it takes 5 years to make a plan that allocates sites to resolve all the issues that come with allocating land. If you have to go further and work out where the roads are going and allocate sites all the way down to plot level and write a building code it will just take longer and be much more expensive = it won't ever happen.

    The problem ultimately comes down to it being difficult to get anything done because of some strange disorder in the english bureaucratic state. The tories have spent 13 years trying to blast their way through it and bring the blob in to order but somehow they have managed only to make it even more dysfunctional.

    The answer to this is to adopt one of the Dutch systems.

    There the local Government allocate land for building. They then undertake all the preliminary work, archaeology, environmental etc. They then put in all the services, roads etc. They then allow people to buy plots - paying their share of all the previous costs to date and build their houses (or rather usually get a builder to do it for them) according to any of twenty or more designs previously agreed by the local Goverment.

    It is a system as old as the Romans. We know that they often built street plans well in advance of putting in the buildings as we have found lots of examples where the building bit never happened.

    Under this system you can still have all the planning rules etc but it is the council who are meeting them not a developer.

    Of course developers would hate the system as it leaves nothing for them to do.
    That last sentence alone is recommendation enough for it.
  • Options
    Mine water heat experts highlight the potential of mine water heat 6 months since the nation's first large-scale scheme in Gateshead started operating.
    https://www.gov.uk/government/news/mine-water-heat-a-proven-success
  • Options
    Dura_AceDura_Ace Posts: 13,009
    Leon said:

    Can someone explain to me the appeal of Bad Enoch?

    She is dreary when on telly, and has been invisible as a minister.

    In terms of invisibility, is that the worst tactic in the current situation?

    Braverman has pushed herself to the fore but, when the ship inevitably goes down (maybe not the best metaphor but I'm sticking with it) she'll have her fingerprints all over the defeat - her language, her policies, her failure to deliver.

    In keeping relatively quiet, Badenoch isn't too connected in voters' minds with the defeat, and can act wise after the event, telling Braverman and others what they did wrong.
    No this is nonsense

    Sunak and Hunt will get the blame
    Swella let the boats happen and hides behind legal bullshit to excuse her failure.
  • Options
    carnforthcarnforth Posts: 3,219

    Partly it depends on how winnable 2029 looks.

    Even if everyone says "it's a two term project", I suspect the mood of the nation is that election losers don't get another go any more.

    And whilst Starmer shows that a huge defeat can be turned round quickly, he has had an awful lot of help from the Conservatives.

    Is someone like Kemi prepared to the Moses, leading her people to the edge of the promised land but not entering it herself?

    The better way round to do this is to have the elder statesman sort of figure do the thankless task of opposing the first term of a Labour government, with the added benefit that they look credible as an alternative government if Labour implode. And you provide space for the next generation to work out a new direction for policy and take over subsequently.
    Gove.
  • Options
    GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 20,857

    darkage said:

    FPT

    darkage said:

    darkage said:

    darkage said:

    darkage said:

    darkage said:

    Carnyx said:

    Carnyx said:

    Uncle Barty always makes Warrington sound bloody awful, soulless identikit housing surrounded by motorways. I have been to Warrington, it’s not that bad in real life. At least not the bit I visited.

    Hmm, a look at TripAdvisor throws up cultural activities like Zombie Scavenger Hunts (not sure if the undead are doinf the scavenging or being eaten), though there is a nice looking trad municipal museum with mummy and paintings and dino and all. Okay. Walton Hall is No 1 Best Thing to Do in Warrington, and the Museum is No 3., but it 's a bit worrying that Gullivers World Theme Park is no 2 and an alpaca farm is no 4. Really trad Lanc culture that, of a part with parkin and faggot and so on. It thins out a bit later, No 105 being a bcobblestoned street, which at least doesn't take long to inspect.
    Of course people are mobile and via motorways you can get elsewhere within the NW within a very reasonable time too. Want to be in Liverpool, or Manchester, or Chester, or North Wales? All easily accessible.
    "Of course people are mobile [...] via motorways [...]".

    Lots of people don't have cars. As much reminded on here.
    Warrington is not a model that can be transposed on to more densely populated parts of the country, particularly not the south east. You can't just build 10 lane motorways through AONB's and National Parks, which is what would happen if you try and fulfil the demand for car use through building new roads, at some point you need to start reducing the demand for car use and developing other options (public transport) - something we realised about 30-40 years ago.

    Also the situation in Warrington and this part of the north west is a product of town planning, not something that has happened because town planning has been swept away. All the roads, infrastructure to go with the housing have to be planned and co-ordinated, along with policies that direct growth to certain areas. You don't just create it by throwing up a few motorways and letting people build wherever they want on vaguely defined zones. Even if you create a zonal system, like Japan and many other countries in Europe, it still has to be planned, it is just a slightly different type of planning.
    Yes. I haven't ever advocated anarchy, I advocate zonal planning. Which contrary to what @Richard_Tyndall keeps claiming is not what we have in this country.

    In a sensible zonal system, like Japan, you can build whatever you want subject without asking permission first if three conditions are met.

    1. You own the land (obviously)
    2. It is already zoned for housing.
    3. You build to building codes.

    Neighbours or Councils don't get a say if you want to demolish your home and rebuild it to something else as it's already zoned.

    Plan the public infrastructure absolutely. But the land zoned for housing is NOT the public infrastructure land. Leave that to fill in with whatever people want.
    The comment I have is that you purport to be in favour of a radical reform of planning in your posts but when it comes down to it, all you are actually arguing for is for more land to be released for housing (something almost everyone who works in the area agrees with- but subject to it being the right land in the right place which is more difficult to resolve) and a different delivery mechanism - a code based system rather than a discretionary system - something that is also not that controversial to deal with in principle, until you start trying to work out what the code should and shouldn't allow, and how deviations are resolved.

    The problem with the last 13 years of planning policy is that the government don't want to tackle difficult decisions about where growth goes, they just keep avoiding it - palming it off to someone else, local authorities, civil servants etc... the Labour party seem to be making the right noises , but lets see.
    I don't consider zonal planning a radical concept whatsoever.

    But to switch from our current system where politicians and neighbours and assorted NIMBYs get a say in blocking development, to one where they don't, would have radical consequences.

    It would end the oligopoly of developers that can play the system to acquire and sit on consent (especially but not only if done in conjunction with a switch to LVT).
    It would allow more variety in what is built, rather than what is
    It would allow adaptability as if higher density housing for example were desired people could bulldoze low density housing and rebuild to higher density, without having to get their neighbours or Councillors to approve.
    It would mean politicians would no longer have to appeal or pander to NIMBYs as codes being set nationally and zoning being approved locally means they have no more input after its zoned.
    You may be interested to hear that our house in Finland is in a zoning system. We cannot cut down a tree in the garden without permission. The guy across the road is trying to do a self build and has been waiting for 10 months for permission to knock down the existing building and because the new house is 1m higher than the code allows. And of course, in these established built up areas there are exactly the same grievances and arguments between neighbours, they don't disappear with a code system.

    The code system works and it doesn't. On the other hand a relative built an entire housing estate on his farm over the course of about 5 years through a code based system selling the plots off individually. But the latter happened not just because of the code system, also because there is unlimited land in Finland to build on and a low population density and no opposition, also because the Finns keep on top of building new infrastructure, unlike the UK. They've also made mistakes in Finland with too liberal code based systems on similar estates, there are estates where opportunistic developers have crammed in too many single storey houses with no space/gardens, it is the cheapest, poor quality type of development, something must have gone wrong with the plot/space ratios. In our relatives case he thinks it worked better because he employed a landscape architect to design the layout, but that was his choice (and expense)
    If its already zoned for residential then I'm proposing abolishing seeking permission [except for special circumstances, like listed buildings]. So if the guy across the road is waiting for permission, then that's not a pure zonal system like I propose.

    Absolutely agreed that low density is better, hence the parallel conversation about transport. Some people prefer high density though, so if they do then there should be freedom to do that too.

    Of course if we have enough houses able to be built, and a liberal zone/code based system then situations where some developments are badly designed while others are well designed, may mean that the well designed developments are sold and lived in while the badly designed ones may end up vacant and be a burden on the owner who badly designed them as nobody is forced to buy or let them given better alternatives and the stupid owner who screwed up needs to continue paying all taxes on the land himself rather than getting an income from those who have no better alternative.
    But is there a code or no code in your preferred zoning system? If there is a code then there has to be a method of dealing with situations that breach the code, hence the requirement for permission. I am not aware of any zoning system in a developed country that does not have some sort of building code that sets out limits that must be followed. The examples you use in support of your proposal all have this characteristic.
    Why do you need permission? They don't in Japan.

    Yes there should be a code, no there should not be a requirement for permission.

    Build to code. If you break the code, then you should face consequences, same as breaking any other law, but if you are operating legally you shouldn't need to ask permission first.
    So you want to have a code where there are no exceptions. It sounds to me like this would ultimately be a more restrictive system than that which exists at the moment, where you can apply for anything you want.
    No, I want a code where if you build to code you don't need to ask permission, its automatic, for normal zoned appropriately land buildings which are not listed.

    Want to build an extension to your property? If its to code, build it. Want to knock down your property and rebuild it? If its to code, do it. Want to buy undeveloped land (that is zoned appropriately) buy it and start building on it. No consultations, no discussions with neighbours, no politicians getting involved.

    If you want an exemption? Then apply for one. If you want to convert land not zoned for housing to land zoned for housing? Then apply for it.

    But only those outside of code, or outside of what is already zoned, would be going through a permission process.
    Ok. But in terms of extensions, you are arguing for the system that we already have. Because you can already extend and alter your property without planning permission under permitted development rules that are very liberal already. It is only when you go beyond PD that you have to apply for permission.

    Regarding the idea that you effectively grant permission for new buildings upfront at the time of making a plan, subject to compliance with a code... few people working in the industry would find that idea controversial. But the difficulty of implementing it is that you would have to do a lot more upfront work in making the plan that allocates the land in the first place. Already it takes 5 years to make a plan that allocates sites to resolve all the issues that come with allocating land. If you have to go further and work out where the roads are going and allocate sites all the way down to plot level and write a building code it will just take longer and be much more expensive = it won't ever happen.

    The problem ultimately comes down to it being difficult to get anything done because of some strange disorder in the english bureaucratic state. The tories have spent 13 years trying to blast their way through it and bring the blob in to order but somehow they have managed only to make it even more dysfunctional.

    The answer to this is to adopt one of the Dutch systems.

    There the local Government allocate land for building. They then undertake all the preliminary work, archaeology, environmental etc. They then put in all the services, roads etc. They then allow people to buy plots - paying their share of all the previous costs to date and build their houses (or rather usually get a builder to do it for them) according to any of twenty or more designs previously agreed by the local Goverment.

    It is a system as old as the Romans. We know that they often built street plans well in advance of putting in the buildings as we have found lots of examples where the building bit never happened.

    Under this system you can still have all the planning rules etc but it is the council who are meeting them not a developer.

    Of course developers would hate the system as it leaves nothing for them to do.
    Didn't work for Ravenscar!
    https://www.thetownthatneverwas.co.uk/39th-map

    Though I agree.

    The 'poshest' road in Doncaster is the one where people built the house they wanted on their own plot.

    Some are boring bungalows, some are Georgian pastiches - all a bit random - but it is the exact opposite of the Barratt horrors nearby.

    Big plots though - which would be the problem now.
    That posh road sounds like a lot of posh American suburbia.
  • Options
    LeonLeon Posts: 47,302
    148grss said:

    TOPPING said:

    FPT

    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    DavidL said:

    Cyclefree said:

    I am old enough to remember when Israel was being pressed to give up land for peace. Well it did that in Gaza. It gave up land. It removed the settlers. And what it got in return was Hamas and rockets and now massacres.

    Israel has made many mistakes over the years. Netanyahu is unquestionably the wrong leader for it, especially at such a time. I fear that an invasion of Gaza now will be a strategic error and lead to all sorts of casualties for the innocent.

    But the Palestinians have consistently made huge errors, the biggest one of all being their refusal to accept Israel's right to exist. Hamas seeks the elimination of Israel and the killing of every Jew everywhere - not just in Israel. This is explicitly genocidal. There is no negotiation with such a movement. Eliminating it is the only answer. Just as we sought to eliminate Nazism and ISIS and other similar genocidal movements.

    Those who worry about what happens next need to provide an alternative to Israel, one that will not make that country prey to genocidal maniacs. Lots of people are willing to speak hard truths to Israel about obeying the laws of war and civilian deaths and the rest of it. Very few are telling Hamas that it is their genocidal ideology which has brought Gaza to the point it is, that it is their deliberate policy of hiding amongst civilians which is putting Palestinians at risk, it is their refusal to accept Israel's right to exist which means there is not the remotest hope of starting any peace talks.

    There is plenty of pressure which needs putting on Israel but Hamas must first be eliminated. It cannot - until it changes what it wants - be a player. It has taken itself outside the universe of civilised decency. So if invasion of Gaza is not the solution, what is? And if we don't have an alternative solution, then we can hardly be surprised if Israel does what it thinks necessary to save itself. What would we do were we in their position?

    I sometimes feel that commentators are unwilling to provide or even begin to think about what an alternative might be because - after all the condemnations of Hamas - they give up at expecting anything better from the Palestinians and it is, after all, so much easier and more comfortable to revert to criticising Israel.

    I was saying something similar the other day. Gaza allows itself to be ruled by Hamas. It does this in the knowledge that Hamas is committed to the death of all Jews. The murderous assaults came from their territory and seem to have been a source of glee.

    I fully get that the residents of Gaza have a terrible life, that they are economically repressed by Israel and made to beg for water and electricity. Israel’s policies have been unenlightened at best and self harming all too often. If I lived in Gaza I would hate the Israeli government and want to resist that oppression.

    But if you want to be listened to, if you want things to change, you do not start with the beheading of babies because they are Jews.
    It is 17 years since there was an election in Gaza. 17 years during which Hamas has done it's best to kill anyone who actively opposes them. The Palestinians there 'allow' themselves to be ruled by Hamas about as much as the inhabitants of Kabul 'allow' themselves to be ruled by the Taliban.
    Or the Germans "allowed" themselves to be ruled by Hitler. Good point.
    What is amusing is that I suspect you and I regard that comment in very different ways.
    I regard it in a very simple way, Richard. According to Israel the country is at war. You may disagree and we can discuss the difference between a terrorist act and an act of war. Israel, as one of the belligerents, thinks it is war. An existential one, to boot. If it is war then it is war.

    I would be very interested to know how you regard that comment.
    I agree. Israel is at war. And I do not even think discussing whose fault it might be in the long term changes anything there.

    The difference appears to be that you think that being at war means that Israel are allowed to do anything they like to the Palestinian population and sod the consequences. You are one of those who quote, either directly or by inference, a war that ended 78 years ago in defence of this idea.

    I believe that, partly as a result of what happened during that war, the world has rightly moved on and certain actions are now considered no longer acceptable even in war and are legally proscribed as such. Indiscriminate bombing of civilians, whether by intent or negligence, is one of thoise things. This is the case whether we believe the faiult lies entirely with Israel, entirely with the Palestinians or with a mixture of the two.
    I think the issue here is that we are not used to existential wars. We have wars with limited aims and at the end of them the Americans bug out. Er, I mean at the end of them either one side wins, or there is a working negotiated settlement, or the matter is resolved one way or another.

    Israel believes that it is in an existential war, just like we did 80 years ago (and hence my Godwin). In an existential war there is no merit in saying well we lost but at least we played by the (new, victor-imposed) rules. Losing equals annihilation.

    And hence under those circumstances I am prepared, as you might have noticed from my various posts on the subject, to cut Israel quite a bit of slack. You often mention the use of white phosphorous by Israel, a horrible weapon. But again, and here we go back to WWII, and our own existential war, firebombing of German cities was seen as a legitimate act of war.
    When Israel was founded, I can understand that feeling. Now, as the primary beneficiary of the world's only existing superpowers military largesse and political hegemonic power, no. If they believe it is an existential war it is only because they have propagandised it so to themselves. And I don't think those in the Israeli government do even view it as an existential war, because if you want a sure fire way to guarantee the entire Middle East will never normalise relations with you and may even go to war with you, start doing a genocide in Gaza.
    On October 7 more Jews died than on any other day since the Holocaust. What’s more, nearly all of them were civilians - from tiny babies butchered in their cribs to 85 year old women shot in the head

    I don’t lightly accuse someone of anti-Semitism but your inability to see how this impacts the Jewish psyche is alarming. I’ll leave it there
  • Options
    TOPPING said:

    FPT

    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    DavidL said:

    Cyclefree said:

    I am old enough to remember when Israel was being pressed to give up land for peace. Well it did that in Gaza. It gave up land. It removed the settlers. And what it got in return was Hamas and rockets and now massacres.

    Israel has made many mistakes over the years. Netanyahu is unquestionably the wrong leader for it, especially at such a time. I fear that an invasion of Gaza now will be a strategic error and lead to all sorts of casualties for the innocent.

    But the Palestinians have consistently made huge errors, the biggest one of all being their refusal to accept Israel's right to exist. Hamas seeks the elimination of Israel and the killing of every Jew everywhere - not just in Israel. This is explicitly genocidal. There is no negotiation with such a movement. Eliminating it is the only answer. Just as we sought to eliminate Nazism and ISIS and other similar genocidal movements.

    Those who worry about what happens next need to provide an alternative to Israel, one that will not make that country prey to genocidal maniacs. Lots of people are willing to speak hard truths to Israel about obeying the laws of war and civilian deaths and the rest of it. Very few are telling Hamas that it is their genocidal ideology which has brought Gaza to the point it is, that it is their deliberate policy of hiding amongst civilians which is putting Palestinians at risk, it is their refusal to accept Israel's right to exist which means there is not the remotest hope of starting any peace talks.

    There is plenty of pressure which needs putting on Israel but Hamas must first be eliminated. It cannot - until it changes what it wants - be a player. It has taken itself outside the universe of civilised decency. So if invasion of Gaza is not the solution, what is? And if we don't have an alternative solution, then we can hardly be surprised if Israel does what it thinks necessary to save itself. What would we do were we in their position?

    I sometimes feel that commentators are unwilling to provide or even begin to think about what an alternative might be because - after all the condemnations of Hamas - they give up at expecting anything better from the Palestinians and it is, after all, so much easier and more comfortable to revert to criticising Israel.

    I was saying something similar the other day. Gaza allows itself to be ruled by Hamas. It does this in the knowledge that Hamas is committed to the death of all Jews. The murderous assaults came from their territory and seem to have been a source of glee.

    I fully get that the residents of Gaza have a terrible life, that they are economically repressed by Israel and made to beg for water and electricity. Israel’s policies have been unenlightened at best and self harming all too often. If I lived in Gaza I would hate the Israeli government and want to resist that oppression.

    But if you want to be listened to, if you want things to change, you do not start with the beheading of babies because they are Jews.
    It is 17 years since there was an election in Gaza. 17 years during which Hamas has done it's best to kill anyone who actively opposes them. The Palestinians there 'allow' themselves to be ruled by Hamas about as much as the inhabitants of Kabul 'allow' themselves to be ruled by the Taliban.
    Or the Germans "allowed" themselves to be ruled by Hitler. Good point.
    What is amusing is that I suspect you and I regard that comment in very different ways.
    I regard it in a very simple way, Richard. According to Israel the country is at war. You may disagree and we can discuss the difference between a terrorist act and an act of war. Israel, as one of the belligerents, thinks it is war. An existential one, to boot. If it is war then it is war.

    I would be very interested to know how you regard that comment.
    I agree. Israel is at war. And I do not even think discussing whose fault it might be in the long term changes anything there.

    The difference appears to be that you think that being at war means that Israel are allowed to do anything they like to the Palestinian population and sod the consequences. You are one of those who quote, either directly or by inference, a war that ended 78 years ago in defence of this idea.

    I believe that, partly as a result of what happened during that war, the world has rightly moved on and certain actions are now considered no longer acceptable even in war and are legally proscribed as such. Indiscriminate bombing of civilians, whether by intent or negligence, is one of thoise things. This is the case whether we believe the faiult lies entirely with Israel, entirely with the Palestinians or with a mixture of the two.
    I think the issue here is that we are not used to existential wars. We have wars with limited aims and at the end of them the Americans bug out. Er, I mean at the end of them either one side wins, or there is a working negotiated settlement, or the matter is resolved one way or another.

    Israel believes that it is in an existential war, just like we did 80 years ago (and hence my Godwin). In an existential war there is no merit in saying well we lost but at least we played by the (new, victor-imposed) rules. Losing equals annihilation.

    And hence under those circumstances I am prepared, as you might have noticed from my various posts on the subject, to cut Israel quite a bit of slack. You often mention the use of white phosphorous by Israel, a horrible weapon. But again, and here we go back to WWII, and our own existential war, firebombing of German cities was seen as a legitimate act of war.
    And no longer is under any circumstances. We were a signatory in 1949 to the 4th Geneva Convention and we were clear that it applied to us as much as anyone else. Under those laws that we keep purporting to support and try to impose on others, firebombing cities is no longer a legitimate act. Just like the use of chemical weapons or the murder of POWs.

    Using the acts of the Allies 80 years ago as support for the current actions of countries is not a defendable argument.
  • Options
    JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 39,044

    Barty is a loon, but I agree with him on zoning.

    In my twenty years of experiencing housing market dysfunction in the UK - and having heard every excuse under the sun, from evil landlords, to greedy foreigners, to lazy councils, to selfish nimbys - the essential issue is that Britain doesn’t zone enough space for housing.

    Such zones do not need to be new land area.
    They could, and in the main should, be “up”, as Auckland has done successfully in the last several years.

    But we need to mandate zoning and area plans for every local authority, and strong design codes as well.

    And then after that, we need the planning system to let people get on with it, instead of strangling them with a thousand petty rules and a thousand opportunities for people object.

    "They could, and in the main should, be “up”,"

    A significant issue is that the British 'dream' is not a flat in a tall tower block. It is a detached or semi-detached house with garage and a garden. Hence that is what builders try to build, squeezing as many such houses onto as small a plot as possible.

    It is a situation made worse by the tower block disasters of the 1960s and 1970s, reinforced by Grenfell and access to gardens during Covid lockdowns.

    Perhaps this should change; but good luck with that.
  • Options
    LeonLeon Posts: 47,302
    Dura_Ace said:

    Leon said:

    Can someone explain to me the appeal of Bad Enoch?

    She is dreary when on telly, and has been invisible as a minister.

    In terms of invisibility, is that the worst tactic in the current situation?

    Braverman has pushed herself to the fore but, when the ship inevitably goes down (maybe not the best metaphor but I'm sticking with it) she'll have her fingerprints all over the defeat - her language, her policies, her failure to deliver.

    In keeping relatively quiet, Badenoch isn't too connected in voters' minds with the defeat, and can act wise after the event, telling Braverman and others what they did wrong.
    No this is nonsense

    Sunak and Hunt will get the blame
    Swella let the boats happen and hides behind legal bullshit to excuse her failure.
    You’re not exactly the target demographic here
This discussion has been closed.