Tonight on Channel 4 at 7.55pm, the Reform Party will release one of the most exciting Party Election Broadcasts ever produced.
I’m amazed it even got past compliance, but we did it.
You won’t want to miss this.
Triumph of the Will ?
The camera will pan in from Nigel's arrival at Heathrow, as the adoring hordes line the road to Buckingham Palace, and as a new "National Government of Stability" is formed. We all owe it to Firsr Citizen Nigel and Fatherland, to plsy a little of our part, and we will all stand to attention will a celebratory smoke and a pint, when he gets in.
Does anyone know the details of Labour's proposed planning reforms?
All I can see on BBC is that "planning is at the heart of reforms" but then silence on what those reforms are?
Our planning system and NIMBYism is the biggest barrier to growth and development in this country. But as far as reforms are concerned, I'll believe it when I see it.
If they dick about with planning, making conditions less stringent, I'm voting LD.
So you oppose growth and development?
And still we hear on here "everyone believes in growth" - bullshit do they!
Far too many people have a vested interest in preventing growth.
Tonight on Channel 4 at 7.55pm, the Reform Party will release one of the most exciting Party Election Broadcasts ever produced.
I’m amazed it even got past compliance, but we did it.
You won’t want to miss this.
Does it contain a soundtrack of Songs from the Hitler Youth?
I thought it was very funny when they interviewed the legal council that South Park keep on retainer. Every week, can we say x, no, but you can say y. But that is surely worse....
“Oh dear, it seems some of these retiring Labour MPs who had peerages dangled in front of them to encourage [them to] give up their seats, didn't know that in its manifesto Labour was about to impose a new age limit for members of the Lords, of 80 at the end of each Parliament.”
LOL
Mugged off by the bright young things in charge of Labour now.
Serves them right.
Re Labour's proposed age limit of 80 for the House of Lords.
Margaret Beckett is 81, Margaret Hodge 79 and Barry Sheerman 83 and I think they are the only ones likely to be affected. The others are either at least one parliamentary term younger, like Harriet Harman at 73, and George Howarth at 74, and a lot more in their 60s, or not famous enough.
An age limit seems counterproductive for Labour considering that most Labour peers Blair and Brown created were 14+ years ago, while most Cameron onwards peers were obviously more recent.
I'd have thought the modal Tory Peer would be younger than the modal Labour one as a result.
This is a genuine question. Can a Lib Dem pb-er explain to me why their party isn’t going all out for “rejoin the single market immediately!” And “we will offer a rejoin referendum in our first term”
Everyone knows the libs are pro-EU so it’s hardly gonna put off likely voters. At the same time polls show great Brexit regret and a desire to rejoin and even a swing in favour of free movement
So this seems like an easy way for the libs to grab millions of votes - at a time of great volatility - and possibly overtake the Tories and become the official opposition. Chances like this happen once in a century. You could argue it’s a gamble (I don’t believe it is) but even then it’s a gamble with a massive prize
Yet they’re not doing it?
Why?
This is a sincere query. I don’t understand their positioning
First, manage with you. However I have two theories:
1) The polling shows that other things are higher priority and they have decided the better long term choice is to be in all this debates; and/or
2) If you talk about rejoining, you get asked about the mechanism and it becomes apparent it’s almost impossible in the near future, and that our deal is long gone. You therefore force Labour to be more skeptical and make closer links less likely.
Both of these are feeble. However that doesn’t mean they’re wrong inasmuch as it could be Lib Dem thinking. If it is they’re even stupider than the Tories
This is from the Lib Dem manifesto.
Fix the UK’s broken relationship with Europe by following our four-stage roadmap:
1.Taking initial unilateral steps to rebuild the relationship, starting by declaring a fundamental change in the UK’s approach and improving channels for foreign policy cooperation.
2. Rebuilding confidence through seeking to agree partnerships or associations with EU agencies and programmes such as the European Aviation Safety Agency, Erasmus Plus, scientific programmes, climate and environment initiatives, and cooperation on defence, security and crime.
3. Deepening the trading relationship with critical steps for the British economy, including negotiating comprehensive veterinary and plant health agreements and mutual recognition agreements.
4. Finally, once ties of trust and friendship have been renewed, and the damage the Conservatives have caused to trade between the UK and EU has begun to be repaired, we would aim to place the UK-EU relationship on a more formal and stable footing by seeking to join the Single Market.
All these measures will help to restore the British economy and the prosperity and opportunities of its citizens, and are also essential steps on the road to EU membership, which remains our longer-term objective.
It's a cautious wordy approach but the objective is clear.
It's a bit too cautious for me but I can live with it.
I understand "doorstep issues" of NHS, COL, Crime etc but all the parties are talking about them.
I'd like the LibDems to distinguish themselves with a snappier approach to Europe. But the direction is clear enough.
It’s far too weak
It needs to be their first and biggest policy and it needs to be much more immediate and dramatic not “waffle waffle waffle long term blah blah”. Shout it out loudly and make sure people know the libs will have us in the single market on day 1 and a new vote in the first term
Yeah it’s a gamble. But the prize is enormous
I am so old I can remember when you called anyone who talked about rejoining the Single Market traitors.
As you are recuperating from that nasty op I shall overlook your lack of acuity. I am not saying I personally would vote for any of this - I am still a brexiteer and would vote leave tomorrow
However I am also fascinated by politics - as we all are on here - and I can spot a massive political opportunity when it is going begging. And that’s what I see here
Oh well. If the libs have a lack of ambition and are happy just to claw back five or ten seats so be it, that is their destiny
I can see your point of view. However, If they went hard on a rejoin message that is all they would get to talk about - and there is only so many ludicrous stunts they could get Davey to do on that prospectus. It feels that the aside from sh!tty water companies (which gives Davey opportunity to wear a wetsuit) they are playing the traditional local Lib Dem’s campaign.
Personally I reckon the latter has a greater chance of picking up more seats. Ultimately I think the limit of their ambition is to be the third party again so they get more coverage going into the election after next.
“Oh dear, it seems some of these retiring Labour MPs who had peerages dangled in front of them to encourage [them to] give up their seats, didn't know that in its manifesto Labour was about to impose a new age limit for members of the Lords, of 80 at the end of each Parliament.”
LOL
Mugged off by the bright young things in charge of Labour now.
Serves them right.
Re Labour's proposed age limit of 80 for the House of Lords.
Margaret Beckett is 81, Margaret Hodge 79 and Barry Sheerman 83 and I think they are the only ones likely to be affected. The others are either at least one parliamentary term younger, like Harriet Harman at 73, and George Howarth at 74, and a lot more in their 60s, or not famous enough.
The 80 rule is silly. But if it helps defer the madness of an elected Upper House, then I welcome it.
I remain of the view that Labour will probably get slightly less than 40% and the Tories at least 25%. Not sure about the other parties, or the size of the majority though. The electoral calculators say a Lab maj of 200 seats but it may not work out like that.
That is almost exactly my take on it, what is far from certain in my mind, is how the other parties divide up
This seems out of line with other markets, particularly when it'll be a divided opposition. Electoral Calculus has it as about 53rd safest Tory seat iirc. So I'm on.
But it's also something that should surely be a story in itself. The market thinks there's a 1/3rd chance the current PM loses his seat! Talk about a Portillo moment!
That's people betting with their heart, not their head. 1.5 is excellent value.
Remember a week or so back there were rumours Rishi would quit before election day, so there might be an element of panic or wishful thinking.
“Oh dear, it seems some of these retiring Labour MPs who had peerages dangled in front of them to encourage [them to] give up their seats, didn't know that in its manifesto Labour was about to impose a new age limit for members of the Lords, of 80 at the end of each Parliament.”
LOL
Mugged off by the bright young things in charge of Labour now.
Serves them right.
Re Labour's proposed age limit of 80 for the House of Lords.
Margaret Beckett is 81, Margaret Hodge 79 and Barry Sheerman 83 and I think they are the only ones likely to be affected. The others are either at least one parliamentary term younger, like Harriet Harman at 73, and George Howarth at 74, and a lot more in their 60s, or not famous enough.
An age limit seems counterproductive for Labour considering that most Labour peers Blair and Brown created were 14+ years ago, while most Cameron onwards peers were obviously more recent.
I'd have thought the modal Tory Peer would be younger than the modal Labour one as a result.
The Labour vote is soft as babyfood. See how much it has slipped in 2 weeks of campaigning. Some polls have them down 7 points. No one is enthusiastic about Starmer, it’s just anti Tory sentiment
So there’s a huge target of Labour Remainers waiting to be tempted by an eu offer from the Lib Dem’s. People like @Roger and many many others
Millions of them. Also lots of media people
And they don’t offer it?? This is the one chance they will get. They are dumb as rocks
I don't often agree with you Leon, but on this I do. I've said it before and I'll say it again. Everyone hates the Labour party in Bootle, and will never vote for them again.... except on General Election day.
John Major managed 30.7% in 1997. Blair 43.2%.
Is Sunak as bad as Major was in 1997? Maybe, maybe not. Is Starmer as good as Blair? No.
The Conservatives aren't going to win, but I'm far from convinced Labour will get the 120 seat gain they need to avoid a hung parliament.
Edit - And I'd love to be wrong, I really would - but history has taught me Labour almost always fail to meet the expected grade.
This seems out of line with other markets, particularly when it'll be a divided opposition. Electoral Calculus has it as about 53rd safest Tory seat iirc. So I'm on.
But it's also something that should surely be a story in itself. The market thinks there's a 1/3rd chance the current PM loses his seat! Talk about a Portillo moment!
That's people betting with their heart, not their head. 1.5 is excellent value.
Remember a week or so back there were rumours Rishi would quit before election day, so there might be an element of panic or wishful thinking.
He can't quit as a candidate, the ballot deadline has passed.
I remain of the view that Labour will probably get slightly less than 40% and the Tories at least 25%. Not sure about the other parties, or the size of the majority though. The electoral calculators say a Lab maj of 200 seats but it may not work out like that.
That is almost exactly my take on it, what is far from certain in my mind, is how the other parties divide up
I saw a study saying that the undecideds were breaking in line with existing polling.... in other words, the final outcome is expected to be in line with current polling.
Does anyone know the details of Labour's proposed planning reforms?
All I can see on BBC is that "planning is at the heart of reforms" but then silence on what those reforms are?
Our planning system and NIMBYism is the biggest barrier to growth and development in this country. But as far as reforms are concerned, I'll believe it when I see it.
If they dick about with planning, making conditions less stringent, I'm voting LD.
So you oppose growth and development?
And still we hear on here "everyone believes in growth" - bullshit do they!
Far too many people have a vested interest in preventing growth.
You can build houses on brownfield sites. There are loads of opportunities. We are deindustralizing.
The Labour vote is soft as babyfood. See how much it has slipped in 2 weeks of campaigning. Some polls have them down 7 points. No one is enthusiastic about Starmer, it’s just anti Tory sentiment
So there’s a huge target of Labour Remainers waiting to be tempted by an eu offer from the Lib Dem’s. People like @Roger and many many others
Millions of them. Also lots of media people
And they don’t offer it?? This is the one chance they will get. They are dumb as rocks
I don't often agree with you Leon, but on this I do. I've said it before and I'll say it again. Everyone hates the Labour party in Bootle, and will never vote for them again.... except on General Election day.
John Major managed 30.7% in 1997. Blair 43.2%.
Is Sunak as bad as Major was in 1997? Maybe, maybe not. Is Starmer as good as Blair? No.
The Conservatives aren't going to win, but I'm far from convinced Labour will get the 120 seat gain they need to avoid a hung parliament.
Edit - And I'd love to be wrong, I really would - but history has taught me Labour almost always fail to meet the expected grade.
Is Starmer as good as Blair? Maybe, maybe not.
Is Sunak as bad as Major was? No he's much, much worse.
This is a genuine question. Can a Lib Dem pb-er explain to me why their party isn’t going all out for “rejoin the single market immediately!” And “we will offer a rejoin referendum in our first term”
Everyone knows the libs are pro-EU so it’s hardly gonna put off likely voters. At the same time polls show great Brexit regret and a desire to rejoin and even a swing in favour of free movement
So this seems like an easy way for the libs to grab millions of votes - at a time of great volatility - and possibly overtake the Tories and become the official opposition. Chances like this happen once in a century. You could argue it’s a gamble (I don’t believe it is) but even then it’s a gamble with a massive prize
Yet they’re not doing it?
Why?
This is a sincere query. I don’t understand their positioning
First, manage with you. However I have two theories:
1) The polling shows that other things are higher priority and they have decided the better long term choice is to be in all this debates; and/or
2) If you talk about rejoining, you get asked about the mechanism and it becomes apparent it’s almost impossible in the near future, and that our deal is long gone. You therefore force Labour to be more skeptical and make closer links less likely.
Both of these are feeble. However that doesn’t mean they’re wrong inasmuch as it could be Lib Dem thinking. If it is they’re even stupider than the Tories
This is from the Lib Dem manifesto.
Fix the UK’s broken relationship with Europe by following our four-stage roadmap:
1.Taking initial unilateral steps to rebuild the relationship, starting by declaring a fundamental change in the UK’s approach and improving channels for foreign policy cooperation.
2. Rebuilding confidence through seeking to agree partnerships or associations with EU agencies and programmes such as the European Aviation Safety Agency, Erasmus Plus, scientific programmes, climate and environment initiatives, and cooperation on defence, security and crime.
3. Deepening the trading relationship with critical steps for the British economy, including negotiating comprehensive veterinary and plant health agreements and mutual recognition agreements.
4. Finally, once ties of trust and friendship have been renewed, and the damage the Conservatives have caused to trade between the UK and EU has begun to be repaired, we would aim to place the UK-EU relationship on a more formal and stable footing by seeking to join the Single Market.
All these measures will help to restore the British economy and the prosperity and opportunities of its citizens, and are also essential steps on the road to EU membership, which remains our longer-term objective.
It's a cautious wordy approach but the objective is clear.
It's a bit too cautious for me but I can live with it.
I understand "doorstep issues" of NHS, COL, Crime etc but all the parties are talking about them.
I'd like the LibDems to distinguish themselves with a snappier approach to Europe. But the direction is clear enough.
It’s far too weak
It needs to be their first and biggest policy and it needs to be much more immediate and dramatic not “waffle waffle waffle long term blah blah”. Shout it out loudly and make sure people know the libs will have us in the single market on day 1 and a new vote in the first term
Yeah it’s a gamble. But the prize is enormous
I am so old I can remember when you called anyone who talked about rejoining the Single Market traitors.
As you are recuperating from that nasty op I shall overlook your lack of acuity. I am not saying I personally would vote for any of this - I am still a brexiteer and would vote leave tomorrow
However I am also fascinated by politics - as we all are on here - and I can spot a massive political opportunity when it is going begging. And that’s what I see here
Oh well. If the libs have a lack of ambition and are happy just to claw back five or ten seats so be it, that is their destiny
I can see your point of view. However, If they went hard on a rejoin message that is all they would get to talk about - and there is only so many ludicrous stunts they could get Davey to do on that prospectus. It feels that the aside from sh!tty water companies (which gives Davey opportunity to wear a wetsuit) they are playing the traditional local Lib Dem’s campaign.
Personally I reckon the latter has a greater chance of picking up more seats. Ultimately I think the limit of their ambition is to be the third party again so they get more coverage going into the election after next.
Rejoin turns this into a "what, so single currency and full open borders then?" debate.
What is increasingly clear is that there isn't a public mandate for "hard" brexit. But then again there never was - "The status quo, with maybe a few more opt-outs or concessions" would've won it had it been on offer in 2016.
Bringing up rejoin at this point would be like ripping off a scab that's barely crusted over yet. It's easy to forget, post-covid, just how febrile and ill-tempered the arguments were becoming on all sides.
What the UK needs now is a long-ish period of independence where we can work out our place in the world, and perhaps slowly move towards a closer alignment with the EU where we get the good stuff (free trade) without the federal superstate and corresponding democratic deficit attached.
This is a genuine question. Can a Lib Dem pb-er explain to me why their party isn’t going all out for “rejoin the single market immediately!” And “we will offer a rejoin referendum in our first term”
Everyone knows the libs are pro-EU so it’s hardly gonna put off likely voters. At the same time polls show great Brexit regret and a desire to rejoin and even a swing in favour of free movement
So this seems like an easy way for the libs to grab millions of votes - at a time of great volatility - and possibly overtake the Tories and become the official opposition. Chances like this happen once in a century. You could argue it’s a gamble (I don’t believe it is) but even then it’s a gamble with a massive prize
Yet they’re not doing it?
Why?
This is a sincere query. I don’t understand their positioning
First, manage with you. However I have two theories:
1) The polling shows that other things are higher priority and they have decided the better long term choice is to be in all this debates; and/or
2) If you talk about rejoining, you get asked about the mechanism and it becomes apparent it’s almost impossible in the near future, and that our deal is long gone. You therefore force Labour to be more skeptical and make closer links less likely.
Both of these are feeble. However that doesn’t mean they’re wrong inasmuch as it could be Lib Dem thinking. If it is they’re even stupider than the Tories
This is from the Lib Dem manifesto.
Fix the UK’s broken relationship with Europe by following our four-stage roadmap:
1.Taking initial unilateral steps to rebuild the relationship, starting by declaring a fundamental change in the UK’s approach and improving channels for foreign policy cooperation.
2. Rebuilding confidence through seeking to agree partnerships or associations with EU agencies and programmes such as the European Aviation Safety Agency, Erasmus Plus, scientific programmes, climate and environment initiatives, and cooperation on defence, security and crime.
3. Deepening the trading relationship with critical steps for the British economy, including negotiating comprehensive veterinary and plant health agreements and mutual recognition agreements.
4. Finally, once ties of trust and friendship have been renewed, and the damage the Conservatives have caused to trade between the UK and EU has begun to be repaired, we would aim to place the UK-EU relationship on a more formal and stable footing by seeking to join the Single Market.
All these measures will help to restore the British economy and the prosperity and opportunities of its citizens, and are also essential steps on the road to EU membership, which remains our longer-term objective.
It's a cautious wordy approach but the objective is clear.
It's a bit too cautious for me but I can live with it.
I understand "doorstep issues" of NHS, COL, Crime etc but all the parties are talking about them.
I'd like the LibDems to distinguish themselves with a snappier approach to Europe. But the direction is clear enough.
It’s far too weak
It needs to be their first and biggest policy and it needs to be much more immediate and dramatic not “waffle waffle waffle long term blah blah”. Shout it out loudly and make sure people know the libs will have us in the single market on day 1 and a new vote in the first term
Yeah it’s a gamble. But the prize is enormous
I am so old I can remember when you called anyone who talked about rejoining the Single Market traitors.
As you are recuperating from that nasty op I shall overlook your lack of acuity. I am not saying I personally would vote for any of this - I am still a brexiteer and would vote leave tomorrow
However I am also fascinated by politics - as we all are on here - and I can spot a massive political opportunity when it is going begging. And that’s what I see here
Oh well. If the libs have a lack of ambition and are happy just to claw back five or ten seats so be it, that is their destiny
I can see your point of view. However, If they went hard on a rejoin message that is all they would get to talk about - and there is only so many ludicrous stunts they could get Davey to do on that prospectus. It feels that the aside from sh!tty water companies (which gives Davey opportunity to wear a wetsuit) they are playing the traditional local Lib Dem’s campaign.
Personally I reckon the latter has a greater chance of picking up more seats. Ultimately I think the limit of their ambition is to be the third party again so they get more coverage going into the election after next.
It’s a tragic missed opportunity - for them. Personally I don’t give a fuck if they come third yet again - or fourth - but manage to win back east dawlish. Well done them
They remind me of small town friends I used to have as a kid - in my small town. They always spoke of going to london or abroad and doing something big and amazing but when offers came they got all nervous and shifty and found a reason to say no
The Lib Dems are happy to be the small town solicitor for ever and don’t actually want to be the hot shot silk in the big city. They are happy in their minor role. And fair enough - they should just stop pretending otherwise
The Labour vote is soft as babyfood. See how much it has slipped in 2 weeks of campaigning. Some polls have them down 7 points. No one is enthusiastic about Starmer, it’s just anti Tory sentiment
So there’s a huge target of Labour Remainers waiting to be tempted by an eu offer from the Lib Dem’s. People like @Roger and many many others
Millions of them. Also lots of media people
And they don’t offer it?? This is the one chance they will get. They are dumb as rocks
I don't often agree with you Leon, but on this I do. I've said it before and I'll say it again. Everyone hates the Labour party in Bootle, and will never vote for them again.... except on General Election day.
John Major managed 30.7% in 1997. Blair 43.2%.
Is Sunak as bad as Major was in 1997? Maybe, maybe not. Is Starmer as good as Blair? No.
The Conservatives aren't going to win, but I'm far from convinced Labour will get the 120 seat gain they need to avoid a hung parliament.
Edit - And I'd love to be wrong, I really would - but history has taught me Labour almost always fail to meet the expected grade.
This seems out of line with other markets, particularly when it'll be a divided opposition. Electoral Calculus has it as about 53rd safest Tory seat iirc. So I'm on.
But it's also something that should surely be a story in itself. The market thinks there's a 1/3rd chance the current PM loses his seat! Talk about a Portillo moment!
That's people betting with their heart, not their head. 1.5 is excellent value.
Remember a week or so back there were rumours Rishi would quit before election day, so there might be an element of panic or wishful thinking.
He can't quit as a candidate, the ballot deadline has passed.
Yes but what would be the incentive for his supporters to venture out on a cold wet Thursday in Stoke Richmond-up-north if he had already announced he will off to America? That is what might have influenced the betting. It is moot now, of course. Probably.
Does anyone know the details of Labour's proposed planning reforms?
All I can see on BBC is that "planning is at the heart of reforms" but then silence on what those reforms are?
Our planning system and NIMBYism is the biggest barrier to growth and development in this country. But as far as reforms are concerned, I'll believe it when I see it.
If they dick about with planning, making conditions less stringent, I'm voting LD.
So you oppose growth and development?
And still we hear on here "everyone believes in growth" - bullshit do they!
Far too many people have a vested interest in preventing growth.
You can build houses on brownfield sites. There are loads of opportunities. We are deindustralizing.
Bullshit. Our population is growing by hundreds of thousands a year. Over a million in the past two years alone. And demographically our population is ageing with more people living longer in houses without children in them.
There simply is NOT enough brownfield land.
People need a place to live. That has to trump greenfield as a population.
Only way to avoid building on greenfield is to have a falling population, given our demographics. Falling by about ten million to reverse our current housing shortage. We don't.
This is a genuine question. Can a Lib Dem pb-er explain to me why their party isn’t going all out for “rejoin the single market immediately!” And “we will offer a rejoin referendum in our first term”
Everyone knows the libs are pro-EU so it’s hardly gonna put off likely voters. At the same time polls show great Brexit regret and a desire to rejoin and even a swing in favour of free movement
So this seems like an easy way for the libs to grab millions of votes - at a time of great volatility - and possibly overtake the Tories and become the official opposition. Chances like this happen once in a century. You could argue it’s a gamble (I don’t believe it is) but even then it’s a gamble with a massive prize
Yet they’re not doing it?
Why?
This is a sincere query. I don’t understand their positioning
First, manage with you. However I have two theories:
1) The polling shows that other things are higher priority and they have decided the better long term choice is to be in all this debates; and/or
2) If you talk about rejoining, you get asked about the mechanism and it becomes apparent it’s almost impossible in the near future, and that our deal is long gone. You therefore force Labour to be more skeptical and make closer links less likely.
Both of these are feeble. However that doesn’t mean they’re wrong inasmuch as it could be Lib Dem thinking. If it is they’re even stupider than the Tories
This is from the Lib Dem manifesto.
Fix the UK’s broken relationship with Europe by following our four-stage roadmap:
1.Taking initial unilateral steps to rebuild the relationship, starting by declaring a fundamental change in the UK’s approach and improving channels for foreign policy cooperation.
2. Rebuilding confidence through seeking to agree partnerships or associations with EU agencies and programmes such as the European Aviation Safety Agency, Erasmus Plus, scientific programmes, climate and environment initiatives, and cooperation on defence, security and crime.
3. Deepening the trading relationship with critical steps for the British economy, including negotiating comprehensive veterinary and plant health agreements and mutual recognition agreements.
4. Finally, once ties of trust and friendship have been renewed, and the damage the Conservatives have caused to trade between the UK and EU has begun to be repaired, we would aim to place the UK-EU relationship on a more formal and stable footing by seeking to join the Single Market.
All these measures will help to restore the British economy and the prosperity and opportunities of its citizens, and are also essential steps on the road to EU membership, which remains our longer-term objective.
It's a cautious wordy approach but the objective is clear.
It's a bit too cautious for me but I can live with it.
I understand "doorstep issues" of NHS, COL, Crime etc but all the parties are talking about them.
I'd like the LibDems to distinguish themselves with a snappier approach to Europe. But the direction is clear enough.
To me that doesn't look feasible.
It is short on self-respect. It is a little too much ...
"Dear Ursula, here I am bending over the sofa holding a sink plunger. Which end would you like to use?"
Does anyone know the details of Labour's proposed planning reforms?
All I can see on BBC is that "planning is at the heart of reforms" but then silence on what those reforms are?
Our planning system and NIMBYism is the biggest barrier to growth and development in this country. But as far as reforms are concerned, I'll believe it when I see it.
If they dick about with planning, making conditions less stringent, I'm voting LD.
So you oppose growth and development?
And still we hear on here "everyone believes in growth" - bullshit do they!
Far too many people have a vested interest in preventing growth.
You can build houses on brownfield sites. There are loads of opportunities. We are deindustralizing.
Bullshit. Our population is growing by hundreds of thousands a year. Over a million in the past two years alone. And demographically our population is ageing with more people living longer in houses without children in them.
There simply is NOT enough brownfield land.
People need a place to live. That has to trump greenfield as a population.
Only way to avoid building on greenfield is to have a falling population, given our demographics. Falling by about ten million to reverse our current housing shortage. We don't.
New towns is the answer, as it has been in decades past. Green fields but not green belt.
Does anyone know the details of Labour's proposed planning reforms?
All I can see on BBC is that "planning is at the heart of reforms" but then silence on what those reforms are?
Our planning system and NIMBYism is the biggest barrier to growth and development in this country. But as far as reforms are concerned, I'll believe it when I see it.
Labour Manifesto:
Planning reform to build 1.5 million new homes ... Britain is hampered by a planning regime that means we struggle to build either the infrastructure or housing the country needs. ... The current planning regime acts as a major brake on economic growth. Labour will make the changes we need to forge ahead with new roads, railways, reservoirs, and other nationally significant infrastructure. We will set out new national policy statements, make major projects faster and cheaper by slashing red tape, and build support for developments by ensuring communities directly benefit. We will also update national planning policy to ensure the planning system meets the needs of a modern economy, making it easier to build laboratories, digital infrastructure, and gigafactories. ... We will ensure our industrial strategy supports the development of the Artificial Intelligence (AI) sector, removes planning barriers to new datacentres. ... We will immediately update the National Policy Planning Framework to undo damaging Conservative changes, including restoring mandatory housing targets...strengthen the presumption in favour of sustainable development. ... Appoint 300 new planning officers
The above is essentially everything from the Labour manifesto that mentions planning. There's a bit more detail on local plans, green belt, (& 5G!) etc, but nothing you'd miss.
The best thing you can say about it is that recruiting more planning officers should at least mean that planning applications are processed more quickly.
I guess we'd have to wait and see a future Planning Bill to get the detail. I expect that it's a long way from what you want.
This seems out of line with other markets, particularly when it'll be a divided opposition. Electoral Calculus has it as about 53rd safest Tory seat iirc. So I'm on.
But it's also something that should surely be a story in itself. The market thinks there's a 1/3rd chance the current PM loses his seat! Talk about a Portillo moment!
That's people betting with their heart, not their head. 1.5 is excellent value.
That's right. It would be extraordinarily unusual for a Leader to lose his or her seat, and would suggest considerable animus. I do not detect this with Sunak. Rather the opposite.
He bears some responsibility for the current position of the party, but when the charge list is drawn up he will be a fair way down it.
I'd expect the locals to rally round. He'll probably outperform the Party as a whole. He has to be a back at 1.5.
Does anyone know the details of Labour's proposed planning reforms?
All I can see on BBC is that "planning is at the heart of reforms" but then silence on what those reforms are?
Our planning system and NIMBYism is the biggest barrier to growth and development in this country. But as far as reforms are concerned, I'll believe it when I see it.
If they dick about with planning, making conditions less stringent, I'm voting LD.
So you oppose growth and development?
And still we hear on here "everyone believes in growth" - bullshit do they!
Far too many people have a vested interest in preventing growth.
You can build houses on brownfield sites. There are loads of opportunities. We are deindustralizing.
Bullshit. Our population is growing by hundreds of thousands a year. Over a million in the past two years alone. And demographically our population is ageing with more people living longer in houses without children in them.
There simply is NOT enough brownfield land.
People need a place to live. That has to trump greenfield as a population.
Only way to avoid building on greenfield is to have a falling population, given our demographics. Falling by about ten million to reverse our current housing shortage. We don't.
Would you want Labour buying the field behind your house for development ?
Does anyone know the details of Labour's proposed planning reforms?
All I can see on BBC is that "planning is at the heart of reforms" but then silence on what those reforms are?
Our planning system and NIMBYism is the biggest barrier to growth and development in this country. But as far as reforms are concerned, I'll believe it when I see it.
If they dick about with planning, making conditions less stringent, I'm voting LD.
So you oppose growth and development?
And still we hear on here "everyone believes in growth" - bullshit do they!
Far too many people have a vested interest in preventing growth.
You can build houses on brownfield sites. There are loads of opportunities. We are deindustralizing.
Bullshit. Our population is growing by hundreds of thousands a year. Over a million in the past two years alone. And demographically our population is ageing with more people living longer in houses without children in them.
There simply is NOT enough brownfield land.
People need a place to live. That has to trump greenfield as a population.
Only way to avoid building on greenfield is to have a falling population, given our demographics. Falling by about ten million to reverse our current housing shortage. We don't.
We can’t even manage to build on brownfield land at the moment because the planning system is set up to do it’s best to prevent any kind of building whatsoever.
Oxford University has been forced to cancel exams after pro-Palestinian protesters occupied a building. The demonstrators entered the hall in the East School ahead of the scheduled exams on Thursday morning. Around six protestors were reportedly seen inside the Examination Schools carrying Palestine flags.
6...6...f##king don't piss out, throw them out.
I feel sorry for the students whose exams are affected by thee pro-Hamas shitheads,
No way that six people, unless they're heavily armed, should be able to disrupt exams. The university administration is being incredibly weak and allowing itself to be walked over.
£27,750 in tuition fees for a degree and six people can cause your exam to be cancelled? That's a joke.
Well 99.9% of exams go undisrupted. Stationing a dozen burly blokes outside every exam hall in the country would be... expensive.
You don't need a dozen burly blokes at every exam hall. You simply need a plan to deal with disruption that isn't simply to meekly roll over and let it happen.
The Labour vote is soft as babyfood. See how much it has slipped in 2 weeks of campaigning. Some polls have them down 7 points. No one is enthusiastic about Starmer, it’s just anti Tory sentiment
So there’s a huge target of Labour Remainers waiting to be tempted by an eu offer from the Lib Dem’s. People like @Roger and many many others
Millions of them. Also lots of media people
And they don’t offer it?? This is the one chance they will get. They are dumb as rocks
I don't often agree with you Leon, but on this I do. I've said it before and I'll say it again. Everyone hates the Labour party in Bootle, and will never vote for them again.... except on General Election day.
John Major managed 30.7% in 1997. Blair 43.2%.
Is Sunak as bad as Major was in 1997? Maybe, maybe not. Is Starmer as good as Blair? No.
The Conservatives aren't going to win, but I'm far from convinced Labour will get the 120 seat gain they need to avoid a hung parliament.
Edit - And I'd love to be wrong, I really would - but history has taught me Labour almost always fail to meet the expected grade.
The disconnect is because Labour seats in this election is primarily dependent on a low Conservative vote not a high Labour one. So any votes for Reform, LD, Greens, independents, not bothering to vote all move that majority up.
Oxford University has been forced to cancel exams after pro-Palestinian protesters occupied a building. The demonstrators entered the hall in the East School ahead of the scheduled exams on Thursday morning. Around six protestors were reportedly seen inside the Examination Schools carrying Palestine flags.
6...6...f##king don't piss out, throw them out.
I feel sorry for the students whose exams are affected by thee pro-Hamas shitheads,
No way that six people, unless they're heavily armed, should be able to disrupt exams. The university administration is being incredibly weak and allowing itself to be walked over.
£27,750 in tuition fees for a degree and six people can cause your exam to be cancelled? That's a joke.
Well 99.9% of exams go undisrupted. Stationing a dozen burly blokes outside every exam hall in the country would be... expensive.
You don't need a dozen burly blokes at every exam hall. You simply need a plan to deal with disruption that isn't simply to meekly roll over and let it happen.
Yes. You just need to arrest one and give them six weeks in prison and a criminal record and that will deter all the others
This is a genuine question. Can a Lib Dem pb-er explain to me why their party isn’t going all out for “rejoin the single market immediately!” And “we will offer a rejoin referendum in our first term”
Everyone knows the libs are pro-EU so it’s hardly gonna put off likely voters. At the same time polls show great Brexit regret and a desire to rejoin and even a swing in favour of free movement
So this seems like an easy way for the libs to grab millions of votes - at a time of great volatility - and possibly overtake the Tories and become the official opposition. Chances like this happen once in a century. You could argue it’s a gamble (I don’t believe it is) but even then it’s a gamble with a massive prize
Yet they’re not doing it?
Why?
This is a sincere query. I don’t understand their positioning
First, manage with you. However I have two theories:
1) The polling shows that other things are higher priority and they have decided the better long term choice is to be in all this debates; and/or
2) If you talk about rejoining, you get asked about the mechanism and it becomes apparent it’s almost impossible in the near future, and that our deal is long gone. You therefore force Labour to be more skeptical and make closer links less likely.
Both of these are feeble. However that doesn’t mean they’re wrong inasmuch as it could be Lib Dem thinking. If it is they’re even stupider than the Tories
This is from the Lib Dem manifesto.
Fix the UK’s broken relationship with Europe by following our four-stage roadmap:
1.Taking initial unilateral steps to rebuild the relationship, starting by declaring a fundamental change in the UK’s approach and improving channels for foreign policy cooperation.
2. Rebuilding confidence through seeking to agree partnerships or associations with EU agencies and programmes such as the European Aviation Safety Agency, Erasmus Plus, scientific programmes, climate and environment initiatives, and cooperation on defence, security and crime.
3. Deepening the trading relationship with critical steps for the British economy, including negotiating comprehensive veterinary and plant health agreements and mutual recognition agreements.
4. Finally, once ties of trust and friendship have been renewed, and the damage the Conservatives have caused to trade between the UK and EU has begun to be repaired, we would aim to place the UK-EU relationship on a more formal and stable footing by seeking to join the Single Market.
All these measures will help to restore the British economy and the prosperity and opportunities of its citizens, and are also essential steps on the road to EU membership, which remains our longer-term objective.
It's a cautious wordy approach but the objective is clear.
It's a bit too cautious for me but I can live with it.
I understand "doorstep issues" of NHS, COL, Crime etc but all the parties are talking about them.
I'd like the LibDems to distinguish themselves with a snappier approach to Europe. But the direction is clear enough.
It’s far too weak
It needs to be their first and biggest policy and it needs to be much more immediate and dramatic not “waffle waffle waffle long term blah blah”. Shout it out loudly and make sure people know the libs will have us in the single market on day 1 and a new vote in the first term
Yeah it’s a gamble. But the prize is enormous
I am so old I can remember when you called anyone who talked about rejoining the Single Market traitors.
As you are recuperating from that nasty op I shall overlook your lack of acuity. I am not saying I personally would vote for any of this - I am still a brexiteer and would vote leave tomorrow
However I am also fascinated by politics - as we all are on here - and I can spot a massive political opportunity when it is going begging. And that’s what I see here
Oh well. If the libs have a lack of ambition and are happy just to claw back five or ten seats so be it, that is their destiny
I can see your point of view. However, If they went hard on a rejoin message that is all they would get to talk about - and there is only so many ludicrous stunts they could get Davey to do on that prospectus. It feels that the aside from sh!tty water companies (which gives Davey opportunity to wear a wetsuit) they are playing the traditional local Lib Dem’s campaign.
Personally I reckon the latter has a greater chance of picking up more seats. Ultimately I think the limit of their ambition is to be the third party again so they get more coverage going into the election after next.
It’s a tragic missed opportunity - for them. Personally I don’t give a fuck if they come third yet again - or fourth - but manage to win back east dawlish. Well done them
They remind me of small town friends I used to have as a kid - in my small town. They always spoke of going to london or abroad and doing something big and amazing but when offers came they got all nervous and shifty and found a reason to say no
The Lib Dems are happy to be the small town solicitor for ever and don’t actually want to be the hot shot silk in the big city. They are happy in their minor role. And fair enough - they should just stop pretending otherwise
Don’t disagree. They are playing low risk politics. To a certain extent that is why this election is so dull - all of them are doing it. Tories are trying to avoid getting killed, Labour are just trying to get over the line, and the Libs just want enough seats so they get a guaranteed question at PMQs for the next four to five years.
Reform are the only wild card mixing it up - largely as they have nothing to lose. But I am definitely in the dislike column for Farage so can’t get excited by his next prank / racist dog whistle.
The Labour vote is soft as babyfood. See how much it has slipped in 2 weeks of campaigning. Some polls have them down 7 points. No one is enthusiastic about Starmer, it’s just anti Tory sentiment
So there’s a huge target of Labour Remainers waiting to be tempted by an eu offer from the Lib Dem’s. People like @Roger and many many others
Millions of them. Also lots of media people
And they don’t offer it?? This is the one chance they will get. They are dumb as rocks
I don't often agree with you Leon, but on this I do. I've said it before and I'll say it again. Everyone hates the Labour party in Bootle, and will never vote for them again.... except on General Election day.
John Major managed 30.7% in 1997. Blair 43.2%.
Is Sunak as bad as Major was in 1997? Maybe, maybe not. Is Starmer as good as Blair? No.
The Conservatives aren't going to win, but I'm far from convinced Labour will get the 120 seat gain they need to avoid a hung parliament.
Edit - And I'd love to be wrong, I really would - but history has taught me Labour almost always fail to meet the expected grade.
Oxford University has been forced to cancel exams after pro-Palestinian protesters occupied a building. The demonstrators entered the hall in the East School ahead of the scheduled exams on Thursday morning. Around six protestors were reportedly seen inside the Examination Schools carrying Palestine flags.
6...6...f##king don't piss out, throw them out.
I feel sorry for the students whose exams are affected by thee pro-Hamas shitheads,
No way that six people, unless they're heavily armed, should be able to disrupt exams. The university administration is being incredibly weak and allowing itself to be walked over.
£27,750 in tuition fees for a degree and six people can cause your exam to be cancelled? That's a joke.
Well 99.9% of exams go undisrupted. Stationing a dozen burly blokes outside every exam hall in the country would be... expensive.
You don't need a dozen burly blokes at every exam hall. You simply need a plan to deal with disruption that isn't simply to meekly roll over and let it happen.
Yes. You just need to arrest one and give them six weeks in prison and a criminal record and that will deter all the others
...and to wait 41 months for it to work its way through the resource-starved court system.
This seems out of line with other markets, particularly when it'll be a divided opposition. Electoral Calculus has it as about 53rd safest Tory seat iirc. So I'm on.
But it's also something that should surely be a story in itself. The market thinks there's a 1/3rd chance the current PM loses his seat! Talk about a Portillo moment!
That's people betting with their heart, not their head. 1.5 is excellent value.
That's right. It would be extraordinarily unusual for a Leader to lose his or her seat, and would suggest considerable animus. I do not detect this with Sunak. Rather the opposite.
He bears some responsibility for the current position of the party, but when the charge list is drawn up he will be a fair way down it.
I'd expect the locals to rally round. He'll probably outperform the Party as a whole. He has to be a back at 1.5.
I don't wish to alarm you but I also tipped Sunak to hold on.
Does anyone know the details of Labour's proposed planning reforms?
All I can see on BBC is that "planning is at the heart of reforms" but then silence on what those reforms are?
Our planning system and NIMBYism is the biggest barrier to growth and development in this country. But as far as reforms are concerned, I'll believe it when I see it.
Labour Manifesto:
Planning reform to build 1.5 million new homes ... Britain is hampered by a planning regime that means we struggle to build either the infrastructure or housing the country needs. ... The current planning regime acts as a major brake on economic growth. Labour will make the changes we need to forge ahead with new roads, railways, reservoirs, and other nationally significant infrastructure. We will set out new national policy statements, make major projects faster and cheaper by slashing red tape, and build support for developments by ensuring communities directly benefit. We will also update national planning policy to ensure the planning system meets the needs of a modern economy, making it easier to build laboratories, digital infrastructure, and gigafactories. ... We will ensure our industrial strategy supports the development of the Artificial Intelligence (AI) sector, removes planning barriers to new datacentres. ... We will immediately update the National Policy Planning Framework to undo damaging Conservative changes, including restoring mandatory housing targets...strengthen the presumption in favour of sustainable development. ... Appoint 300 new planning officers
The above is essentially everything from the Labour manifesto that mentions planning. There's a bit more detail on local plans, green belt, (& 5G!) etc, but nothing you'd miss.
The best thing you can say about it is that recruiting more planning officers should at least mean that planning applications are processed more quickly.
I guess we'd have to wait and see a future Planning Bill to get the detail. I expect that it's a long way from what you want.
Thanks.
Abolishing planning officers altogether by making planning automatic would be a far better policy. But looks like nobody is brave enough to embrace that approach unfortunately.
Looks like Labour at least understand the problem and are attempting a solution, even if its not enough its better than nothing.
Does anyone know the details of Labour's proposed planning reforms?
All I can see on BBC is that "planning is at the heart of reforms" but then silence on what those reforms are?
Our planning system and NIMBYism is the biggest barrier to growth and development in this country. But as far as reforms are concerned, I'll believe it when I see it.
If they dick about with planning, making conditions less stringent, I'm voting LD.
So you oppose growth and development?
And still we hear on here "everyone believes in growth" - bullshit do they!
Far too many people have a vested interest in preventing growth.
You can build houses on brownfield sites. There are loads of opportunities. We are deindustralizing.
Bullshit. Our population is growing by hundreds of thousands a year. Over a million in the past two years alone. And demographically our population is ageing with more people living longer in houses without children in them.
There simply is NOT enough brownfield land.
People need a place to live. That has to trump greenfield as a population.
Only way to avoid building on greenfield is to have a falling population, given our demographics. Falling by about ten million to reverse our current housing shortage. We don't.
New towns is the answer, as it has been in decades past. Green fields but not green belt.
No thank you. I don't care about some arbitrary designation. A green field site is a green field site and should not be built on. If it isn't required for agriculture, it should be rewilded.
Does anyone know the details of Labour's proposed planning reforms?
All I can see on BBC is that "planning is at the heart of reforms" but then silence on what those reforms are?
Our planning system and NIMBYism is the biggest barrier to growth and development in this country. But as far as reforms are concerned, I'll believe it when I see it.
Labour Manifesto:
Planning reform to build 1.5 million new homes ... Britain is hampered by a planning regime that means we struggle to build either the infrastructure or housing the country needs. ... The current planning regime acts as a major brake on economic growth. Labour will make the changes we need to forge ahead with new roads, railways, reservoirs, and other nationally significant infrastructure. We will set out new national policy statements, make major projects faster and cheaper by slashing red tape, and build support for developments by ensuring communities directly benefit. We will also update national planning policy to ensure the planning system meets the needs of a modern economy, making it easier to build laboratories, digital infrastructure, and gigafactories. ... We will ensure our industrial strategy supports the development of the Artificial Intelligence (AI) sector, removes planning barriers to new datacentres. ... We will immediately update the National Policy Planning Framework to undo damaging Conservative changes, including restoring mandatory housing targets...strengthen the presumption in favour of sustainable development. ... Appoint 300 new planning officers
The above is essentially everything from the Labour manifesto that mentions planning. There's a bit more detail on local plans, green belt, (& 5G!) etc, but nothing you'd miss.
The best thing you can say about it is that recruiting more planning officers should at least mean that planning applications are processed more quickly.
I guess we'd have to wait and see a future Planning Bill to get the detail. I expect that it's a long way from what you want.
Thanks.
Abolishing planning officers altogether by making planning automatic would be a far better policy. But looks like nobody is brave enough to embrace that approach unfortunately.
Looks like Labour at least understand the problem and are attempting a solution, even if its not enough its better than nothing.
I may have to lend them my vote.
Abolishing planning officers? Nonsense. Would make planning completely nonexistent. Housing estates built without the sewerage and processing ability, that sort of tyhing, a shitstorm in the most literal sense.
This seems out of line with other markets, particularly when it'll be a divided opposition. Electoral Calculus has it as about 53rd safest Tory seat iirc. So I'm on.
But it's also something that should surely be a story in itself. The market thinks there's a 1/3rd chance the current PM loses his seat! Talk about a Portillo moment!
That's people betting with their heart, not their head. 1.5 is excellent value.
That's right. It would be extraordinarily unusual for a Leader to lose his or her seat, and would suggest considerable animus. I do not detect this with Sunak. Rather the opposite.
He bears some responsibility for the current position of the party, but when the charge list is drawn up he will be a fair way down it.
I'd expect the locals to rally round. He'll probably outperform the Party as a whole. He has to be a back at 1.5.
I don't wish to alarm you but I also tipped Sunak to hold on.
Does anyone know the details of Labour's proposed planning reforms?
All I can see on BBC is that "planning is at the heart of reforms" but then silence on what those reforms are?
Our planning system and NIMBYism is the biggest barrier to growth and development in this country. But as far as reforms are concerned, I'll believe it when I see it.
If they dick about with planning, making conditions less stringent, I'm voting LD.
So you oppose growth and development?
And still we hear on here "everyone believes in growth" - bullshit do they!
Far too many people have a vested interest in preventing growth.
You can build houses on brownfield sites. There are loads of opportunities. We are deindustralizing.
Bullshit. Our population is growing by hundreds of thousands a year. Over a million in the past two years alone. And demographically our population is ageing with more people living longer in houses without children in them.
There simply is NOT enough brownfield land.
People need a place to live. That has to trump greenfield as a population.
Only way to avoid building on greenfield is to have a falling population, given our demographics. Falling by about ten million to reverse our current housing shortage. We don't.
Would you want Labour buying the field behind your house for development ?
The Labour vote is soft as babyfood. See how much it has slipped in 2 weeks of campaigning. Some polls have them down 7 points. No one is enthusiastic about Starmer, it’s just anti Tory sentiment
So there’s a huge target of Labour Remainers waiting to be tempted by an eu offer from the Lib Dem’s. People like @Roger and many many others
Millions of them. Also lots of media people
And they don’t offer it?? This is the one chance they will get. They are dumb as rocks
I don't often agree with you Leon, but on this I do. I've said it before and I'll say it again. Everyone hates the Labour party in Bootle, and will never vote for them again.... except on General Election day.
John Major managed 30.7% in 1997. Blair 43.2%.
Is Sunak as bad as Major was in 1997? Maybe, maybe not. Is Starmer as good as Blair? No.
The Conservatives aren't going to win, but I'm far from convinced Labour will get the 120 seat gain they need to avoid a hung parliament.
Edit - And I'd love to be wrong, I really would - but history has taught me Labour almost always fail to meet the expected grade.
Sunak is far, far worse than Major.
Sunak is far worse than IDS.
I always have a slight soft spot and fondness for Ian Duncan-Smith, because his "Quiet Man" speech was one of the funniest things I've ever seen in politics.
Sunsk is more of a slowly-developing character, Tony Hancock, or Frank Spencer.
Does anyone know the details of Labour's proposed planning reforms?
All I can see on BBC is that "planning is at the heart of reforms" but then silence on what those reforms are?
Our planning system and NIMBYism is the biggest barrier to growth and development in this country. But as far as reforms are concerned, I'll believe it when I see it.
If they dick about with planning, making conditions less stringent, I'm voting LD.
So you oppose growth and development?
And still we hear on here "everyone believes in growth" - bullshit do they!
Far too many people have a vested interest in preventing growth.
You can build houses on brownfield sites. There are loads of opportunities. We are deindustralizing.
Bullshit. Our population is growing by hundreds of thousands a year. Over a million in the past two years alone. And demographically our population is ageing with more people living longer in houses without children in them.
There simply is NOT enough brownfield land.
People need a place to live. That has to trump greenfield as a population.
Only way to avoid building on greenfield is to have a falling population, given our demographics. Falling by about ten million to reverse our current housing shortage. We don't.
New towns is the answer, as it has been in decades past. Green fields but not green belt.
No thank you. I don't care about some arbitrary designation. A green field site is a green field site and should not be built on. If it isn't required for agriculture, it should be rewilded.
Does anyone know the details of Labour's proposed planning reforms?
All I can see on BBC is that "planning is at the heart of reforms" but then silence on what those reforms are?
Our planning system and NIMBYism is the biggest barrier to growth and development in this country. But as far as reforms are concerned, I'll believe it when I see it.
If they dick about with planning, making conditions less stringent, I'm voting LD.
So you oppose growth and development?
And still we hear on here "everyone believes in growth" - bullshit do they!
Far too many people have a vested interest in preventing growth.
You can build houses on brownfield sites. There are loads of opportunities. We are deindustralizing.
Bullshit. Our population is growing by hundreds of thousands a year. Over a million in the past two years alone. And demographically our population is ageing with more people living longer in houses without children in them.
There simply is NOT enough brownfield land.
People need a place to live. That has to trump greenfield as a population.
Only way to avoid building on greenfield is to have a falling population, given our demographics. Falling by about ten million to reverse our current housing shortage. We don't.
New towns is the answer, as it has been in decades past. Green fields but not green belt.
No thank you. I don't care about some arbitrary designation. A green field site is a green field site and should not be built on. If it isn't required for agriculture, it should be rewilded.
And people live where exactly then? 🤦♂️
If we didn't import 2 million extra people in 3 years then we wouldn't need so much housing.
Does anyone know the details of Labour's proposed planning reforms?
All I can see on BBC is that "planning is at the heart of reforms" but then silence on what those reforms are?
Our planning system and NIMBYism is the biggest barrier to growth and development in this country. But as far as reforms are concerned, I'll believe it when I see it.
Labour Manifesto:
Planning reform to build 1.5 million new homes ... Britain is hampered by a planning regime that means we struggle to build either the infrastructure or housing the country needs. ... The current planning regime acts as a major brake on economic growth. Labour will make the changes we need to forge ahead with new roads, railways, reservoirs, and other nationally significant infrastructure. We will set out new national policy statements, make major projects faster and cheaper by slashing red tape, and build support for developments by ensuring communities directly benefit. We will also update national planning policy to ensure the planning system meets the needs of a modern economy, making it easier to build laboratories, digital infrastructure, and gigafactories. ... We will ensure our industrial strategy supports the development of the Artificial Intelligence (AI) sector, removes planning barriers to new datacentres. ... We will immediately update the National Policy Planning Framework to undo damaging Conservative changes, including restoring mandatory housing targets...strengthen the presumption in favour of sustainable development. ... Appoint 300 new planning officers
The above is essentially everything from the Labour manifesto that mentions planning. There's a bit more detail on local plans, green belt, (& 5G!) etc, but nothing you'd miss.
The best thing you can say about it is that recruiting more planning officers should at least mean that planning applications are processed more quickly.
I guess we'd have to wait and see a future Planning Bill to get the detail. I expect that it's a long way from what you want.
Thanks.
Abolishing planning officers altogether by making planning automatic would be a far better policy. But looks like nobody is brave enough to embrace that approach unfortunately.
Looks like Labour at least understand the problem and are attempting a solution, even if its not enough its better than nothing.
I may have to lend them my vote.
Abolishing planning officers? Nonsense. Would make planning completely nonexistent. Housing estates built without the sewerage and processing ability, that sort of tyhing, a shitstorm in the most literal sense.
Yes, planning should be completely non existent.
It's the water firms responsibility to handle sewerage not housing developers. They need to do their own job, not pass the buck.
All developments should pay for is to connect to the network. Once it's in the network, it's not their responsibility anymore.
Although I’m sure it’s vague with respect to public services, it’s pretty clear what Labour’s fiscal policy will be and their planning policies also seem to be decently constructed.
We need growth, and I actually think Reeves gets that.
Everybody gets that we need growth. The problem is we haven't had sustained stonking growth since around 2001. Brown and what followed certainly eliminated boom and bust, we don't get any boom anymore (excluding the one post-pandemic year). Most years sub 2% growth.
With an inflation target of 2%, if you don't even grow 2% you falling behind.
Productivity has been a growing problem for ages. The crashes of 2008 and 2020 haven't had the effects of previous recessions where businesses had to get lean and more productive or go busto.
Except the Greens.
That's reason number 27 why I couldn't vote for the Greens at national level, unless I was sure there was no chance of them having any significant influence, but I would be happy to do so at local level (fat chance of that becoming possible).
Have they yet tumbled to the trend of reducing energy intensity of GDP in real terms over time?
So, Labour's manifesto contains no (new) gimmicks, and is consistent with Starmer's serious, non-gimmicky approach thus far.
To a leftie like me, it's all a bit disappointing. However, my disappointment is heavily tempered by the fact that the agenda is so modest that it may well be achievable, which is rare in the world of manifestos. Under-promise and over-deliver is the guiding principle.
Does anyone know the details of Labour's proposed planning reforms?
All I can see on BBC is that "planning is at the heart of reforms" but then silence on what those reforms are?
Our planning system and NIMBYism is the biggest barrier to growth and development in this country. But as far as reforms are concerned, I'll believe it when I see it.
If they dick about with planning, making conditions less stringent, I'm voting LD.
So you oppose growth and development?
And still we hear on here "everyone believes in growth" - bullshit do they!
Far too many people have a vested interest in preventing growth.
You can build houses on brownfield sites. There are loads of opportunities. We are deindustralizing.
Bullshit. Our population is growing by hundreds of thousands a year. Over a million in the past two years alone. And demographically our population is ageing with more people living longer in houses without children in them.
There simply is NOT enough brownfield land.
People need a place to live. That has to trump greenfield as a population.
Only way to avoid building on greenfield is to have a falling population, given our demographics. Falling by about ten million to reverse our current housing shortage. We don't.
New towns is the answer, as it has been in decades past. Green fields but not green belt.
No thank you. I don't care about some arbitrary designation. A green field site is a green field site and should not be built on. If it isn't required for agriculture, it should be rewilded.
And people live where exactly then? 🤦♂️
If we didn't import 2 million extra people in 3 years then we wouldn't need so much housing.
Too little too late.
Even if net migration fell to zero today, we'd still have a shortage of millions of homes.
Tonight on Channel 4 at 7.55pm, the Reform Party will release one of the most exciting Party Election Broadcasts ever produced.
I’m amazed it even got past compliance, but we did it.
You won’t want to miss this.
Does anyone know what "compliance" refers to in this context?
Farage seems to imply there is some official body vetting party election broadcasts before they are transmitted, with the power to exclude content or forbid broadcast.
Is there anything that could be presented as a shred of truth in that?
Does anyone know the details of Labour's proposed planning reforms?
All I can see on BBC is that "planning is at the heart of reforms" but then silence on what those reforms are?
Our planning system and NIMBYism is the biggest barrier to growth and development in this country. But as far as reforms are concerned, I'll believe it when I see it.
Labour Manifesto:
Planning reform to build 1.5 million new homes ... Britain is hampered by a planning regime that means we struggle to build either the infrastructure or housing the country needs. ... The current planning regime acts as a major brake on economic growth. Labour will make the changes we need to forge ahead with new roads, railways, reservoirs, and other nationally significant infrastructure. We will set out new national policy statements, make major projects faster and cheaper by slashing red tape, and build support for developments by ensuring communities directly benefit. We will also update national planning policy to ensure the planning system meets the needs of a modern economy, making it easier to build laboratories, digital infrastructure, and gigafactories. ... We will ensure our industrial strategy supports the development of the Artificial Intelligence (AI) sector, removes planning barriers to new datacentres. ... We will immediately update the National Policy Planning Framework to undo damaging Conservative changes, including restoring mandatory housing targets...strengthen the presumption in favour of sustainable development. ... Appoint 300 new planning officers
The above is essentially everything from the Labour manifesto that mentions planning. There's a bit more detail on local plans, green belt, (& 5G!) etc, but nothing you'd miss.
The best thing you can say about it is that recruiting more planning officers should at least mean that planning applications are processed more quickly.
I guess we'd have to wait and see a future Planning Bill to get the detail. I expect that it's a long way from what you want.
Thanks.
Abolishing planning officers altogether by making planning automatic would be a far better policy. But looks like nobody is brave enough to embrace that approach unfortunately.
Looks like Labour at least understand the problem and are attempting a solution, even if its not enough its better than nothing.
I may have to lend them my vote.
Abolishing planning officers? Nonsense. Would make planning completely nonexistent. Housing estates built without the sewerage and processing ability, that sort of tyhing, a shitstorm in the most literal sense.
Yes, planning should be completely non existent.
It's the water firms responsibility to handle sewerage not housing developers. They need to do their own job, not pass the buck.
All developments should pay for is to connect to the network. Once it's in the network, it's not their responsibility anymore.
You obviously dfon't know that the sewerage network consists of pipes and processing plants. It's the latter that are the issue. They need to be built first. Before the houses. How else is that going to happen, if not planning? Otherwise you are demanding urban level sewerage facilities all over farmland, is the logical consequence of your vision. Just in case some dodgy shoebox merchant might want to build houses 15 miles from nowhere.
Does anyone know the details of Labour's proposed planning reforms?
All I can see on BBC is that "planning is at the heart of reforms" but then silence on what those reforms are?
Our planning system and NIMBYism is the biggest barrier to growth and development in this country. But as far as reforms are concerned, I'll believe it when I see it.
Labour Manifesto:
Planning reform to build 1.5 million new homes ... Britain is hampered by a planning regime that means we struggle to build either the infrastructure or housing the country needs. ... The current planning regime acts as a major brake on economic growth. Labour will make the changes we need to forge ahead with new roads, railways, reservoirs, and other nationally significant infrastructure. We will set out new national policy statements, make major projects faster and cheaper by slashing red tape, and build support for developments by ensuring communities directly benefit. We will also update national planning policy to ensure the planning system meets the needs of a modern economy, making it easier to build laboratories, digital infrastructure, and gigafactories. ... We will ensure our industrial strategy supports the development of the Artificial Intelligence (AI) sector, removes planning barriers to new datacentres. ... We will immediately update the National Policy Planning Framework to undo damaging Conservative changes, including restoring mandatory housing targets...strengthen the presumption in favour of sustainable development. ... Appoint 300 new planning officers
300 planning officers is like the 6600 (?) extra teachers.
If that is England it is about 2/3 of a planning officer per local authority, which won't make much difference.
The Labour vote is soft as babyfood. See how much it has slipped in 2 weeks of campaigning. Some polls have them down 7 points. No one is enthusiastic about Starmer, it’s just anti Tory sentiment
So there’s a huge target of Labour Remainers waiting to be tempted by an eu offer from the Lib Dem’s. People like @Roger and many many others
Millions of them. Also lots of media people
And they don’t offer it?? This is the one chance they will get. They are dumb as rocks
I don't often agree with you Leon, but on this I do. I've said it before and I'll say it again. Everyone hates the Labour party in Bootle, and will never vote for them again.... except on General Election day.
John Major managed 30.7% in 1997. Blair 43.2%.
Is Sunak as bad as Major was in 1997? Maybe, maybe not. Is Starmer as good as Blair? No.
The Conservatives aren't going to win, but I'm far from convinced Labour will get the 120 seat gain they need to avoid a hung parliament.
Edit - And I'd love to be wrong, I really would - but history has taught me Labour almost always fail to meet the expected grade.
Sunak is far, far worse than Major.
Sunak is far worse than IDS.
Bloody hell, that's a low bar. But I agree with you.
This is a genuine question. Can a Lib Dem pb-er explain to me why their party isn’t going all out for “rejoin the single market immediately!” And “we will offer a rejoin referendum in our first term”
Everyone knows the libs are pro-EU so it’s hardly gonna put off likely voters. At the same time polls show great Brexit regret and a desire to rejoin and even a swing in favour of free movement
So this seems like an easy way for the libs to grab millions of votes - at a time of great volatility - and possibly overtake the Tories and become the official opposition. Chances like this happen once in a century. You could argue it’s a gamble (I don’t believe it is) but even then it’s a gamble with a massive prize
Yet they’re not doing it?
Why?
This is a sincere query. I don’t understand their positioning
1. Top priority right now is to rebuild the party from the post-Clegg shell that it has become, to get it back to third place in the HoC 2. Therefore the LibDem approach this time is "do what we know wins seats", which is "50 local campaigns in the Blue Wall" rather than anything majoring on national/international policy. Even the sewage stuff is framed as "they're putting shit in OUR CONSTITUENCY's River Thames" rather than "they're putting shit in the nation's rivers" 3. Swinson tried the rejoin-heavy approach and her campaign was a disaster (though personally I'd argue that was for unrelated reasons) 4. Davey is naturally cautious
I do think there's something in what you're saying. Not all-out rejoin as the main message, but there is a real opportunity for a targeted message at the under-30s (via online advertising) who are very pro-Europe and aren't being offered anything right now. The tuition fees stuff is wearing off and if you're 21 then Starmer doesn't really offer you much. "Hey, university students, vote for us and we'll let you go and work in Europe again" would be a pretty powerful message.
Does anyone know the details of Labour's proposed planning reforms?
All I can see on BBC is that "planning is at the heart of reforms" but then silence on what those reforms are?
Our planning system and NIMBYism is the biggest barrier to growth and development in this country. But as far as reforms are concerned, I'll believe it when I see it.
Labour Manifesto:
Planning reform to build 1.5 million new homes ... Britain is hampered by a planning regime that means we struggle to build either the infrastructure or housing the country needs. ... The current planning regime acts as a major brake on economic growth. Labour will make the changes we need to forge ahead with new roads, railways, reservoirs, and other nationally significant infrastructure. We will set out new national policy statements, make major projects faster and cheaper by slashing red tape, and build support for developments by ensuring communities directly benefit. We will also update national planning policy to ensure the planning system meets the needs of a modern economy, making it easier to build laboratories, digital infrastructure, and gigafactories. ... We will ensure our industrial strategy supports the development of the Artificial Intelligence (AI) sector, removes planning barriers to new datacentres. ... We will immediately update the National Policy Planning Framework to undo damaging Conservative changes, including restoring mandatory housing targets...strengthen the presumption in favour of sustainable development. ... Appoint 300 new planning officers
The above is essentially everything from the Labour manifesto that mentions planning. There's a bit more detail on local plans, green belt, (& 5G!) etc, but nothing you'd miss.
The best thing you can say about it is that recruiting more planning officers should at least mean that planning applications are processed more quickly.
I guess we'd have to wait and see a future Planning Bill to get the detail. I expect that it's a long way from what you want.
Thanks.
Abolishing planning officers altogether by making planning automatic would be a far better policy. But looks like nobody is brave enough to embrace that approach unfortunately.
Looks like Labour at least understand the problem and are attempting a solution, even if its not enough its better than nothing.
I may have to lend them my vote.
Abolishing planning officers? Nonsense. Would make planning completely nonexistent. Housing estates built without the sewerage and processing ability, that sort of tyhing, a shitstorm in the most literal sense.
Yes, planning should be completely non existent.
It's the water firms responsibility to handle sewerage not housing developers. They need to do their own job, not pass the buck.
All developments should pay for is to connect to the network. Once it's in the network, it's not their responsibility anymore.
You obviously dfon't know that the sewerage network consists of pipes and processing plants. It's the latter that are the issue. They need to be built first. Before the houses. How else is that going to happen, if not planning? Otherwise you are demanding urban level sewerage facilities all over farmland, is the logical consequence of your vision. Just in case some dodgy shoebox merchant might want to build houses 15 miles from nowhere.
It's the water firms job to deal with processing plants.
If they haven't built enough they need to do their own job.
That's not an excuse to prevent construction any more than a shortage of construction is preventing population growth.
Absolutely urban level sewerage facilities are needed wherever they are needed.
Oxford University has been forced to cancel exams after pro-Palestinian protesters occupied a building. The demonstrators entered the hall in the East School ahead of the scheduled exams on Thursday morning. Around six protestors were reportedly seen inside the Examination Schools carrying Palestine flags.
6...6...f##king don't piss out, throw them out.
They should have security measures in place to stop this sort of thing from happening. Why don't they?
Does anyone know the details of Labour's proposed planning reforms?
All I can see on BBC is that "planning is at the heart of reforms" but then silence on what those reforms are?
Our planning system and NIMBYism is the biggest barrier to growth and development in this country. But as far as reforms are concerned, I'll believe it when I see it.
Labour Manifesto:
Planning reform to build 1.5 million new homes ... Britain is hampered by a planning regime that means we struggle to build either the infrastructure or housing the country needs. ... The current planning regime acts as a major brake on economic growth. Labour will make the changes we need to forge ahead with new roads, railways, reservoirs, and other nationally significant infrastructure. We will set out new national policy statements, make major projects faster and cheaper by slashing red tape, and build support for developments by ensuring communities directly benefit. We will also update national planning policy to ensure the planning system meets the needs of a modern economy, making it easier to build laboratories, digital infrastructure, and gigafactories. ... We will ensure our industrial strategy supports the development of the Artificial Intelligence (AI) sector, removes planning barriers to new datacentres. ... We will immediately update the National Policy Planning Framework to undo damaging Conservative changes, including restoring mandatory housing targets...strengthen the presumption in favour of sustainable development. ... Appoint 300 new planning officers
The above is essentially everything from the Labour manifesto that mentions planning. There's a bit more detail on local plans, green belt, (& 5G!) etc, but nothing you'd miss.
The best thing you can say about it is that recruiting more planning officers should at least mean that planning applications are processed more quickly.
I guess we'd have to wait and see a future Planning Bill to get the detail. I expect that it's a long way from what you want.
Thanks.
Abolishing planning officers altogether by making planning automatic would be a far better policy. But looks like nobody is brave enough to embrace that approach unfortunately.
Looks like Labour at least understand the problem and are attempting a solution, even if its not enough its better than nothing.
I may have to lend them my vote.
Abolishing planning officers? Nonsense. Would make planning completely nonexistent. Housing estates built without the sewerage and processing ability, that sort of tyhing, a shitstorm in the most literal sense.
Abolition of Planning (incl. officers) would give us gin palaces all over the national talks.
"Money talks" needs a bridle, which is what the planning system is for - and we like it being controlled.
There are opportunities to do much - for example in London quite a lot of the Green Belt can be quite accurately called "brown field", and could be used. And there is a lot of opportunity for intensification of modern estates fairly close to Inner London which are near the end of their design life.
AC Grayling is citing a voodoo poll that shows the Lib Dems getting a huge bounce from their policy of rejoining the single market, so maybe it will start to gain traction in the FBPE community.
The Labour vote is soft as babyfood. See how much it has slipped in 2 weeks of campaigning. Some polls have them down 7 points. No one is enthusiastic about Starmer, it’s just anti Tory sentiment
So there’s a huge target of Labour Remainers waiting to be tempted by an eu offer from the Lib Dem’s. People like @Roger and many many others
Millions of them. Also lots of media people
And they don’t offer it?? This is the one chance they will get. They are dumb as rocks
I don't often agree with you Leon, but on this I do. I've said it before and I'll say it again. Everyone hates the Labour party in Bootle, and will never vote for them again.... except on General Election day.
John Major managed 30.7% in 1997. Blair 43.2%.
Is Sunak as bad as Major was in 1997? Maybe, maybe not. Is Starmer as good as Blair? No.
The Conservatives aren't going to win, but I'm far from convinced Labour will get the 120 seat gain they need to avoid a hung parliament.
Edit - And I'd love to be wrong, I really would - but history has taught me Labour almost always fail to meet the expected grade.
Sunak is far, far worse than Major.
Sunak is far worse than IDS.
I always have a slight soft spot and fondness for Ian Duncan-Smith, because his "Quiet Man" speech was one of the funniest things I've ever seen in politics.
Sunak is more of a slowly-developing character, Tony Hancock, or Frank Spencer.
Does anyone know the details of Labour's proposed planning reforms?
All I can see on BBC is that "planning is at the heart of reforms" but then silence on what those reforms are?
Our planning system and NIMBYism is the biggest barrier to growth and development in this country. But as far as reforms are concerned, I'll believe it when I see it.
If they dick about with planning, making conditions less stringent, I'm voting LD.
So you oppose growth and development?
And still we hear on here "everyone believes in growth" - bullshit do they!
Far too many people have a vested interest in preventing growth.
You can build houses on brownfield sites. There are loads of opportunities. We are deindustralizing.
Bullshit. Our population is growing by hundreds of thousands a year. Over a million in the past two years alone. And demographically our population is ageing with more people living longer in houses without children in them.
There simply is NOT enough brownfield land.
People need a place to live. That has to trump greenfield as a population.
Only way to avoid building on greenfield is to have a falling population, given our demographics. Falling by about ten million to reverse our current housing shortage. We don't.
New towns is the answer, as it has been in decades past. Green fields but not green belt.
No thank you. I don't care about some arbitrary designation. A green field site is a green field site and should not be built on. If it isn't required for agriculture, it should be rewilded.
Mrs Flatlander surveyed a brownfield colliery site not long ago. It had about 200 species of plant and some fairly rare butterflies.
The 'green field' next to it has less than 10 species and actively nukes insects.
If we aren't going to worry about food imports, I know which one I'd build on.
The Labour vote is soft as babyfood. See how much it has slipped in 2 weeks of campaigning. Some polls have them down 7 points. No one is enthusiastic about Starmer, it’s just anti Tory sentiment
So there’s a huge target of Labour Remainers waiting to be tempted by an eu offer from the Lib Dem’s. People like @Roger and many many others
Millions of them. Also lots of media people
And they don’t offer it?? This is the one chance they will get. They are dumb as rocks
I don't often agree with you Leon, but on this I do. I've said it before and I'll say it again. Everyone hates the Labour party in Bootle, and will never vote for them again.... except on General Election day.
John Major managed 30.7% in 1997. Blair 43.2%.
Is Sunak as bad as Major was in 1997? Maybe, maybe not. Is Starmer as good as Blair? No.
The Conservatives aren't going to win, but I'm far from convinced Labour will get the 120 seat gain they need to avoid a hung parliament.
Edit - And I'd love to be wrong, I really would - but history has taught me Labour almost always fail to meet the expected grade.
Sunak is far, far worse than Major.
Sunak is far worse than IDS.
I always have a slight soft spot and fondness for Ian Duncan-Smith, because his "Quiet Man" speech was one of the funniest things I've ever seen in politics.
Sunsk is more of a slowly-developing character, Tony Hancock, or Frank Spencer.
Tonight on Channel 4 at 7.55pm, the Reform Party will release one of the most exciting Party Election Broadcasts ever produced.
I’m amazed it even got past compliance, but we did it.
You won’t want to miss this.
Does anyone know what "compliance" refers to in this context?
Farage seems to imply there is some official body vetting party election broadcasts before they are transmitted, with the power to exclude content or forbid broadcast.
Is there anything that could be presented as a shred of truth in that?
Presumably it still has to go through Ofcom compliance review, i.e. just to check that Our Nige hasn't gone on broadcast TV to announce that "Rishi Sunak rapes dogs".
When ITV was still nominally regional franchises, most of the companies farmed out compliance to Channel Television, which had the franchise for the 170,000 people living on the Channel Islands. The maximum fine for non-compliance was 5% of turnover, and needless to say 5% of Channel's turnover was a fair amount less than 5% of Granada's...
Does anyone know the details of Labour's proposed planning reforms?
All I can see on BBC is that "planning is at the heart of reforms" but then silence on what those reforms are?
Our planning system and NIMBYism is the biggest barrier to growth and development in this country. But as far as reforms are concerned, I'll believe it when I see it.
Labour Manifesto:
Planning reform to build 1.5 million new homes ... Britain is hampered by a planning regime that means we struggle to build either the infrastructure or housing the country needs. ... The current planning regime acts as a major brake on economic growth. Labour will make the changes we need to forge ahead with new roads, railways, reservoirs, and other nationally significant infrastructure. We will set out new national policy statements, make major projects faster and cheaper by slashing red tape, and build support for developments by ensuring communities directly benefit. We will also update national planning policy to ensure the planning system meets the needs of a modern economy, making it easier to build laboratories, digital infrastructure, and gigafactories. ... We will ensure our industrial strategy supports the development of the Artificial Intelligence (AI) sector, removes planning barriers to new datacentres. ... We will immediately update the National Policy Planning Framework to undo damaging Conservative changes, including restoring mandatory housing targets...strengthen the presumption in favour of sustainable development. ... Appoint 300 new planning officers
The above is essentially everything from the Labour manifesto that mentions planning. There's a bit more detail on local plans, green belt, (& 5G!) etc, but nothing you'd miss.
The best thing you can say about it is that recruiting more planning officers should at least mean that planning applications are processed more quickly.
I guess we'd have to wait and see a future Planning Bill to get the detail. I expect that it's a long way from what you want.
Thanks.
Abolishing planning officers altogether by making planning automatic would be a far better policy. But looks like nobody is brave enough to embrace that approach unfortunately.
Looks like Labour at least understand the problem and are attempting a solution, even if its not enough its better than nothing.
I may have to lend them my vote.
Abolishing planning officers? Nonsense. Would make planning completely nonexistent. Housing estates built without the sewerage and processing ability, that sort of tyhing, a shitstorm in the most literal sense.
Yes, planning should be completely non existent.
It's the water firms responsibility to handle sewerage not housing developers. They need to do their own job, not pass the buck.
All developments should pay for is to connect to the network. Once it's in the network, it's not their responsibility anymore.
You obviously dfon't know that the sewerage network consists of pipes and processing plants. It's the latter that are the issue. They need to be built first. Before the houses. How else is that going to happen, if not planning? Otherwise you are demanding urban level sewerage facilities all over farmland, is the logical consequence of your vision. Just in case some dodgy shoebox merchant might want to build houses 15 miles from nowhere.
It's the water firms job to deal with processing plants.
If they haven't built enough they need to do their own job.
That's not an excuse to prevent construction any more than a shortage of construction is preventing population growth.
Absolutely urban level sewerage facilities are needed wherever they are needed.
But you keep ignoring the fact it's slower to build shit processing plants than the sort of shit houses you get now. Very tricky to find sites for them, too. So advance planning is needed.
Edit: where I live, the council has over the years repeatedly identified large swathes of land for new housing, but made sure the sewerage issue was handed over to the water authority in advance.
The Labour vote is soft as babyfood. See how much it has slipped in 2 weeks of campaigning. Some polls have them down 7 points. No one is enthusiastic about Starmer, it’s just anti Tory sentiment
So there’s a huge target of Labour Remainers waiting to be tempted by an eu offer from the Lib Dem’s. People like @Roger and many many others
Millions of them. Also lots of media people
And they don’t offer it?? This is the one chance they will get. They are dumb as rocks
I don't often agree with you Leon, but on this I do. I've said it before and I'll say it again. Everyone hates the Labour party in Bootle, and will never vote for them again.... except on General Election day.
John Major managed 30.7% in 1997. Blair 43.2%.
Is Sunak as bad as Major was in 1997? Maybe, maybe not. Is Starmer as good as Blair? No.
The Conservatives aren't going to win, but I'm far from convinced Labour will get the 120 seat gain they need to avoid a hung parliament.
Edit - And I'd love to be wrong, I really would - but history has taught me Labour almost always fail to meet the expected grade.
Sunak is far, far worse than Major.
Sunak is far worse than IDS.
I always have a slight soft spot and fondness for Ian Duncan-Smith, because his "Quiet Man" speech was one of the funniest things I've ever seen in politics.
Sunsk is more of a slowly-developing character, Tony Hancock, or Frank Spencer.
Does anyone know the details of Labour's proposed planning reforms?
All I can see on BBC is that "planning is at the heart of reforms" but then silence on what those reforms are?
Our planning system and NIMBYism is the biggest barrier to growth and development in this country. But as far as reforms are concerned, I'll believe it when I see it.
Labour Manifesto:
Planning reform to build 1.5 million new homes ... Britain is hampered by a planning regime that means we struggle to build either the infrastructure or housing the country needs. ... The current planning regime acts as a major brake on economic growth. Labour will make the changes we need to forge ahead with new roads, railways, reservoirs, and other nationally significant infrastructure. We will set out new national policy statements, make major projects faster and cheaper by slashing red tape, and build support for developments by ensuring communities directly benefit. We will also update national planning policy to ensure the planning system meets the needs of a modern economy, making it easier to build laboratories, digital infrastructure, and gigafactories. ... We will ensure our industrial strategy supports the development of the Artificial Intelligence (AI) sector, removes planning barriers to new datacentres. ... We will immediately update the National Policy Planning Framework to undo damaging Conservative changes, including restoring mandatory housing targets...strengthen the presumption in favour of sustainable development. ... Appoint 300 new planning officers
The above is essentially everything from the Labour manifesto that mentions planning. There's a bit more detail on local plans, green belt, (& 5G!) etc, but nothing you'd miss.
The best thing you can say about it is that recruiting more planning officers should at least mean that planning applications are processed more quickly.
I guess we'd have to wait and see a future Planning Bill to get the detail. I expect that it's a long way from what you want.
Thanks.
Abolishing planning officers altogether by making planning automatic would be a far better policy. But looks like nobody is brave enough to embrace that approach unfortunately.
Looks like Labour at least understand the problem and are attempting a solution, even if its not enough its better than nothing.
I may have to lend them my vote.
Abolishing planning officers? Nonsense. Would make planning completely nonexistent. Housing estates built without the sewerage and processing ability, that sort of tyhing, a shitstorm in the most literal sense.
Yes, planning should be completely non existent.
It's the water firms responsibility to handle sewerage not housing developers. They need to do their own job, not pass the buck.
All developments should pay for is to connect to the network. Once it's in the network, it's not their responsibility anymore.
You obviously dfon't know that the sewerage network consists of pipes and processing plants. It's the latter that are the issue. They need to be built first. Before the houses. How else is that going to happen, if not planning? Otherwise you are demanding urban level sewerage facilities all over farmland, is the logical consequence of your vision. Just in case some dodgy shoebox merchant might want to build houses 15 miles from nowhere.
It's the water firms job to deal with processing plants.
If they haven't built enough they need to do their own job.
That's not an excuse to prevent construction any more than a shortage of construction is preventing population growth.
Absolutely urban level sewerage facilities are needed wherever they are needed.
But you keep ignoring the fact it's slower to build shit processing plants than the sort of shit houses you get now. Very tricky to find sites for them, too. So advance planning is needed.
The water firms actually have a veto at some planning levels. They have to agree that they can provide water and sewage treatment otherwise the development doesn't happen.
Of course, they never say no, because more houses = more customers.
Running out of water from an aquifer and not having sufficient sewage capacity are things to worry about later.
This seems out of line with other markets, particularly when it'll be a divided opposition. Electoral Calculus has it as about 53rd safest Tory seat iirc. So I'm on.
But it's also something that should surely be a story in itself. The market thinks there's a 1/3rd chance the current PM loses his seat! Talk about a Portillo moment!
That's people betting with their heart, not their head. 1.5 is excellent value.
Remember a week or so back there were rumours Rishi would quit before election day, so there might be an element of panic or wishful thinking.
He can't quit as a candidate, the ballot deadline has passed.
AC Grayling is citing a voodoo poll that shows the Lib Dems getting a huge bounce from their policy of rejoining the single market, so maybe it will start to gain traction in the FBPE community.
Tonight on Channel 4 at 7.55pm, the Reform Party will release one of the most exciting Party Election Broadcasts ever produced.
I’m amazed it even got past compliance, but we did it.
You won’t want to miss this.
Does anyone know what "compliance" refers to in this context?
Farage seems to imply there is some official body vetting party election broadcasts before they are transmitted, with the power to exclude content or forbid broadcast.
Is there anything that could be presented as a shred of truth in that?
Does anyone know the details of Labour's proposed planning reforms?
All I can see on BBC is that "planning is at the heart of reforms" but then silence on what those reforms are?
Our planning system and NIMBYism is the biggest barrier to growth and development in this country. But as far as reforms are concerned, I'll believe it when I see it.
Labour Manifesto:
Planning reform to build 1.5 million new homes ... Britain is hampered by a planning regime that means we struggle to build either the infrastructure or housing the country needs. ... The current planning regime acts as a major brake on economic growth. Labour will make the changes we need to forge ahead with new roads, railways, reservoirs, and other nationally significant infrastructure. We will set out new national policy statements, make major projects faster and cheaper by slashing red tape, and build support for developments by ensuring communities directly benefit. We will also update national planning policy to ensure the planning system meets the needs of a modern economy, making it easier to build laboratories, digital infrastructure, and gigafactories. ... We will ensure our industrial strategy supports the development of the Artificial Intelligence (AI) sector, removes planning barriers to new datacentres. ... We will immediately update the National Policy Planning Framework to undo damaging Conservative changes, including restoring mandatory housing targets...strengthen the presumption in favour of sustainable development. ... Appoint 300 new planning officers
The above is essentially everything from the Labour manifesto that mentions planning. There's a bit more detail on local plans, green belt, (& 5G!) etc, but nothing you'd miss.
The best thing you can say about it is that recruiting more planning officers should at least mean that planning applications are processed more quickly.
I guess we'd have to wait and see a future Planning Bill to get the detail. I expect that it's a long way from what you want.
Thanks.
Abolishing planning officers altogether by making planning automatic would be a far better policy. But looks like nobody is brave enough to embrace that approach unfortunately.
Looks like Labour at least understand the problem and are attempting a solution, even if its not enough its better than nothing.
I may have to lend them my vote.
Abolishing planning officers? Nonsense. Would make planning completely nonexistent. Housing estates built without the sewerage and processing ability, that sort of tyhing, a shitstorm in the most literal sense.
Yes, planning should be completely non existent.
It's the water firms responsibility to handle sewerage not housing developers. They need to do their own job, not pass the buck.
All developments should pay for is to connect to the network. Once it's in the network, it's not their responsibility anymore.
You obviously dfon't know that the sewerage network consists of pipes and processing plants. It's the latter that are the issue. They need to be built first. Before the houses. How else is that going to happen, if not planning? Otherwise you are demanding urban level sewerage facilities all over farmland, is the logical consequence of your vision. Just in case some dodgy shoebox merchant might want to build houses 15 miles from nowhere.
It's the water firms job to deal with processing plants.
If they haven't built enough they need to do their own job.
That's not an excuse to prevent construction any more than a shortage of construction is preventing population growth.
Absolutely urban level sewerage facilities are needed wherever they are needed.
But you keep ignoring the fact it's slower to build shit processing plants than the sort of shit houses you get now. Very tricky to find sites for them, too. So advance planning is needed.
The water firms actually have a veto at some planning levels. They have to agree that they can provide water and sewage treatment otherwise the development doesn't happen.
Of course, they never say no, because more houses = more customers.
Running out of water from an aquifer and not having sufficient sewage capacity are things to worry about later.
Aquifers are not an issue here, believe me: and they did consider sewerage here (and upgrade the plant).
Oxford University has been forced to cancel exams after pro-Palestinian protesters occupied a building. The demonstrators entered the hall in the East School ahead of the scheduled exams on Thursday morning. Around six protestors were reportedly seen inside the Examination Schools carrying Palestine flags.
6...6...f##king don't piss out, throw them out.
They should have security measures in place to stop this sort of thing from happening. Why don't they?
This is a genuine question. Can a Lib Dem pb-er explain to me why their party isn’t going all out for “rejoin the single market immediately!” And “we will offer a rejoin referendum in our first term”
Everyone knows the libs are pro-EU so it’s hardly gonna put off likely voters. At the same time polls show great Brexit regret and a desire to rejoin and even a swing in favour of free movement
So this seems like an easy way for the libs to grab millions of votes - at a time of great volatility - and possibly overtake the Tories and become the official opposition. Chances like this happen once in a century. You could argue it’s a gamble (I don’t believe it is) but even then it’s a gamble with a massive prize
Yet they’re not doing it?
Why?
This is a sincere query. I don’t understand their positioning
First, manage with you. However I have two theories:
1) The polling shows that other things are higher priority and they have decided the better long term choice is to be in all this debates; and/or
2) If you talk about rejoining, you get asked about the mechanism and it becomes apparent it’s almost impossible in the near future, and that our deal is long gone. You therefore force Labour to be more skeptical and make closer links less likely.
Both of these are feeble. However that doesn’t mean they’re wrong inasmuch as it could be Lib Dem thinking. If it is they’re even stupider than the Tories
This is from the Lib Dem manifesto.
Fix the UK’s broken relationship with Europe by following our four-stage roadmap:
1.Taking initial unilateral steps to rebuild the relationship, starting by declaring a fundamental change in the UK’s approach and improving channels for foreign policy cooperation.
2. Rebuilding confidence through seeking to agree partnerships or associations with EU agencies and programmes such as the European Aviation Safety Agency, Erasmus Plus, scientific programmes, climate and environment initiatives, and cooperation on defence, security and crime.
3. Deepening the trading relationship with critical steps for the British economy, including negotiating comprehensive veterinary and plant health agreements and mutual recognition agreements.
4. Finally, once ties of trust and friendship have been renewed, and the damage the Conservatives have caused to trade between the UK and EU has begun to be repaired, we would aim to place the UK-EU relationship on a more formal and stable footing by seeking to join the Single Market.
All these measures will help to restore the British economy and the prosperity and opportunities of its citizens, and are also essential steps on the road to EU membership, which remains our longer-term objective.
It's a cautious wordy approach but the objective is clear.
It's a bit too cautious for me but I can live with it.
I understand "doorstep issues" of NHS, COL, Crime etc but all the parties are talking about them.
I'd like the LibDems to distinguish themselves with a snappier approach to Europe. But the direction is clear enough.
It’s far too weak
It needs to be their first and biggest policy and it needs to be much more immediate and dramatic not “waffle waffle waffle long term blah blah”. Shout it out loudly and make sure people know the libs will have us in the single market on day 1 and a new vote in the first term
Yeah it’s a gamble. But the prize is enormous
I am so old I can remember when you called anyone who talked about rejoining the Single Market traitors.
As you are recuperating from that nasty op I shall overlook your lack of acuity. I am not saying I personally would vote for any of this - I am still a brexiteer and would vote leave tomorrow
However I am also fascinated by politics - as we all are on here - and I can spot a massive political opportunity when it is going begging. And that’s what I see here
Oh well. If the libs have a lack of ambition and are happy just to claw back five or ten seats so be it, that is their destiny
I can see your point of view. However, If they went hard on a rejoin message that is all they would get to talk about - and there is only so many ludicrous stunts they could get Davey to do on that prospectus. It feels that the aside from sh!tty water companies (which gives Davey opportunity to wear a wetsuit) they are playing the traditional local Lib Dem’s campaign.
Personally I reckon the latter has a greater chance of picking up more seats. Ultimately I think the limit of their ambition is to be the third party again so they get more coverage going into the election after next.
It’s a tragic missed opportunity - for them. Personally I don’t give a fuck if they come third yet again - or fourth - but manage to win back east dawlish. Well done them
They remind me of small town friends I used to have as a kid - in my small town. They always spoke of going to london or abroad and doing something big and amazing but when offers came they got all nervous and shifty and found a reason to say no
The Lib Dems are happy to be the small town solicitor for ever and don’t actually want to be the hot shot silk in the big city. They are happy in their minor role. And fair enough - they should just stop pretending otherwise
Don’t disagree. They are playing low risk politics. To a certain extent that is why this election is so dull - all of them are doing it. Tories are trying to avoid getting killed, Labour are just trying to get over the line, and the Libs just want enough seats so they get a guaranteed question at PMQs for the next four to five years.
Reform are the only wild card mixing it up - largely as they have nothing to lose. But I am definitely in the dislike column for Farage so can’t get excited by his next prank / racist dog whistle.
Right about the main parties but wrong about RefUK imo, where Nigel Farage will be just as restrained as the others. He already has the headbangers on board, now he needs to attract soft voters from the mainstream parties. Even when he talks about immigration, it will be about knock-on effects on housing, health and so on. Do not expect fireworks.
This is a genuine question. Can a Lib Dem pb-er explain to me why their party isn’t going all out for “rejoin the single market immediately!” And “we will offer a rejoin referendum in our first term”
Everyone knows the libs are pro-EU so it’s hardly gonna put off likely voters. At the same time polls show great Brexit regret and a desire to rejoin and even a swing in favour of free movement
So this seems like an easy way for the libs to grab millions of votes - at a time of great volatility - and possibly overtake the Tories and become the official opposition. Chances like this happen once in a century. You could argue it’s a gamble (I don’t believe it is) but even then it’s a gamble with a massive prize
Yet they’re not doing it?
Why?
This is a sincere query. I don’t understand their positioning
The two propositions are different - first, the Single Market. Whether we like it or not, there is no public appetite for Freedom of Movement. We might quite like the idea of being able to study, live and work in the EU (as well as buying our holiday/retirement home in the Canarie, Andalusia or the Algarve) and that would be widely popular but it cuts both ways and there's no desire I can see for re-opening the doors to unfettered immigration from the EU. The problem I have with the Party's position on the SM is if that's what SM means. If there are alternatives short of FoM which allow for a more aligned trading relationship I would be happy for those to be explored.
Second, re-joining the EU. We would need to know the terms on which we could re-join. The truth is the current arrangement probably works well for the EU and if re-joining meant the Euro and Schengen, we all know how such a referendum would go. The other aspect is how toxic the 2016 debate became to the extent lives were taken. Nobody wants or needs that kind of national trauma again.
Could we make the current arrangement work better? Undoubtedly.
We could investigate re-joining and re-forming EFTA as a trading arrangement with the EU - this might look quite attractive as a step back from political integration and a return to the original notion of the EEC as a free trade block. I suspect if the "Common Market" were put to the British public as an option it would be widely endorsed.
Oh dear
“There is no public appetite for Freedom of Movement”
Bring back free movement? 56% support 22% oppose
Partisan split LibDems support 85-6 Labour support 76-11 Conservative oppose 35-42
I'm not espousing Party policy but my view so you can tone down the patronising crap.
If you put Freedom of Movement and explained what that actually would mean front and centre as a change which would result from rejoining the Single Market. there would be a tornado of opposition from Conservatives, Reform and other places.
That's the thing - I'd like us to be able to work, live and study in Europe and there are all sorts of people who would like to retire to the Med or somewhere else with a bit of winter sunshine and who can blame them but that's not what Freedom of Movement means. It also drives a coach and horses through one of the primary arguments used by Leave in 2016 - the British Government will be able to say who we allow in to our country.
That's why no one can or will talk about it currently. It might be an option in a second Starmer administration, who knows?
Does anyone know the details of Labour's proposed planning reforms?
All I can see on BBC is that "planning is at the heart of reforms" but then silence on what those reforms are?
Our planning system and NIMBYism is the biggest barrier to growth and development in this country. But as far as reforms are concerned, I'll believe it when I see it.
If they dick about with planning, making conditions less stringent, I'm voting LD.
So you oppose growth and development?
And still we hear on here "everyone believes in growth" - bullshit do they!
Far too many people have a vested interest in preventing growth.
You can build houses on brownfield sites. There are loads of opportunities. We are deindustralizing.
Bullshit. Our population is growing by hundreds of thousands a year. Over a million in the past two years alone. And demographically our population is ageing with more people living longer in houses without children in them.
There simply is NOT enough brownfield land.
People need a place to live. That has to trump greenfield as a population.
Only way to avoid building on greenfield is to have a falling population, given our demographics. Falling by about ten million to reverse our current housing shortage. We don't.
New towns is the answer, as it has been in decades past. Green fields but not green belt.
No thank you. I don't care about some arbitrary designation. A green field site is a green field site and should not be built on. If it isn't required for agriculture, it should be rewilded.
Mrs Flatlander surveyed a brownfield colliery site not long ago. It had about 200 species of plant and some fairly rare butterflies.
The 'green field' next to it has less than 10 species and actively nukes insects.
If we aren't going to worry about food imports, I know which one I'd build on.
Absolutely. The most valuable green space by far is that in cities, much of it on so called "brownfield" sites which are in the process of reverting to nature, although many of them have already now been built on. Our present planning rules allow open season on such sites, yet they treat green deserts well outside city boundaries as sacrosanct. A rebalancing to prioritise development on the monoculture subsidised agrideserts in the countryside is long overdue.
AC Grayling is citing a voodoo poll that shows the Lib Dems getting a huge bounce from their policy of rejoining the single market, so maybe it will start to gain traction in the FBPE community.
. . . lest we forget . . . final day (I think) of counting in Ireland for 2024 Euro election. So far, 5 of 14 seats decided from Muff to Dingle ; all 4 in Dublin Euro constituency, plus on in South constituency.
Crunch time approaching in Midland and Nortwest, with 0 of 5 seats decided so far; Count 17 now ongoing, following exclusion of Aointu candidate (pro-life SF breakaway) redistribution of accumulated 56,633 votes. Quota = 11,325. Current state of play (source RTE)
LUKE 'MING' FLANAGAN, IND + 4072 in count 17 = 110533 NINA CARBERRY, FG + 597 =86865 MARIA WALSH, FG + 1466 = 86401 BARRY COWEN, FF + 627 =85592 MICHELLE GILDERNEW, SF + 20692 =74795 CIARAN MULLOOLY, II + 1168 = 73101 LISA CHAMBERS, FF + 873 =60537
SSI = Ming the Ind clearly elected, and certainly at least one FG and one FF, with strong possibility of 2nd seat for FG. So who gets the 5th & final seat? My less-than-fearless forecast is SF, with Ind for Ire rightwinger getting the booby prize as in Dublin.
This is a genuine question. Can a Lib Dem pb-er explain to me why their party isn’t going all out for “rejoin the single market immediately!” And “we will offer a rejoin referendum in our first term”
Everyone knows the libs are pro-EU so it’s hardly gonna put off likely voters. At the same time polls show great Brexit regret and a desire to rejoin and even a swing in favour of free movement
So this seems like an easy way for the libs to grab millions of votes - at a time of great volatility - and possibly overtake the Tories and become the official opposition. Chances like this happen once in a century. You could argue it’s a gamble (I don’t believe it is) but even then it’s a gamble with a massive prize
Yet they’re not doing it?
Why?
This is a sincere query. I don’t understand their positioning
1. Top priority right now is to rebuild the party from the post-Clegg shell that it has become, to get it back to third place in the HoC 2. Therefore the LibDem approach this time is "do what we know wins seats", which is "50 local campaigns in the Blue Wall" rather than anything majoring on national/international policy. Even the sewage stuff is framed as "they're putting shit in OUR CONSTITUENCY's River Thames" rather than "they're putting shit in the nation's rivers" 3. Swinson tried the rejoin-heavy approach and her campaign was a disaster (though personally I'd argue that was for unrelated reasons) 4. Davey is naturally cautious
I do think there's something in what you're saying. Not all-out rejoin as the main message, but there is a real opportunity for a targeted message at the under-30s (via online advertising) who are very pro-Europe and aren't being offered anything right now. The tuition fees stuff is wearing off and if you're 21 then Starmer doesn't really offer you much. "Hey, university students, vote for us and we'll let you go and work in Europe again" would be a pretty powerful message.
There is a specific policy pledge to support a (partial) free movement for under-35s scheme with the EU. That is more deliverable short term than rejoin.
This is a genuine question. Can a Lib Dem pb-er explain to me why their party isn’t going all out for “rejoin the single market immediately!” And “we will offer a rejoin referendum in our first term”
Everyone knows the libs are pro-EU so it’s hardly gonna put off likely voters. At the same time polls show great Brexit regret and a desire to rejoin and even a swing in favour of free movement
So this seems like an easy way for the libs to grab millions of votes - at a time of great volatility - and possibly overtake the Tories and become the official opposition. Chances like this happen once in a century. You could argue it’s a gamble (I don’t believe it is) but even then it’s a gamble with a massive prize
Yet they’re not doing it?
Why?
This is a sincere query. I don’t understand their positioning
1. Top priority right now is to rebuild the party from the post-Clegg shell that it has become, to get it back to third place in the HoC 2. Therefore the LibDem approach this time is "do what we know wins seats", which is "50 local campaigns in the Blue Wall" rather than anything majoring on national/international policy. Even the sewage stuff is framed as "they're putting shit in OUR CONSTITUENCY's River Thames" rather than "they're putting shit in the nation's rivers" 3. Swinson tried the rejoin-heavy approach and her campaign was a disaster (though personally I'd argue that was for unrelated reasons) 4. Davey is naturally cautious
I do think there's something in what you're saying. Not all-out rejoin as the main message, but there is a real opportunity for a targeted message at the under-30s (via online advertising) who are very pro-Europe and aren't being offered anything right now. The tuition fees stuff is wearing off and if you're 21 then Starmer doesn't really offer you much. "Hey, university students, vote for us and we'll let you go and work in Europe again" would be a pretty powerful message.
It is also the salami approach to Brexit. Take of thin slices until nothing is left but a stub.
Start with rejoining various programmes and agreements, then the Single Market, with a view to full Rejoin once the political will both here and on the continent is clear.
It's not secret or covert, it is in the manifesto.
Tonight on Channel 4 at 7.55pm, the Reform Party will release one of the most exciting Party Election Broadcasts ever produced.
I’m amazed it even got past compliance, but we did it.
You won’t want to miss this.
Does anyone know what "compliance" refers to in this context?
Farage seems to imply there is some official body vetting party election broadcasts before they are transmitted, with the power to exclude content or forbid broadcast.
Is there anything that could be presented as a shred of truth in that?
Presumably it still has to go through Ofcom compliance review, i.e. just to check that Our Nige hasn't gone on broadcast TV to announce that "Rishi Sunak rapes dogs".
When ITV was still nominally regional franchises, most of the companies farmed out compliance to Channel Television, which had the franchise for the 170,000 people living on the Channel Islands. The maximum fine for non-compliance was 5% of turnover, and needless to say 5% of Channel's turnover was a fair amount less than 5% of Granada's...
Thanks. That he was referring to the Ofcom Code was the conclusion I had come to after looking a bit more.
It just seems a ridiculous bit of pseudo-Trump posturing. Is he suggesting that Ofcom was politically biased in drawing up the rules, or that Channel 4 is biased in applying them?
Is it known whether any party election broadcast in the UK has ever been found to be in breach of the rules, and not broadcast as submitted?
Does anyone know the details of Labour's proposed planning reforms?
All I can see on BBC is that "planning is at the heart of reforms" but then silence on what those reforms are?
Our planning system and NIMBYism is the biggest barrier to growth and development in this country. But as far as reforms are concerned, I'll believe it when I see it.
Labour Manifesto:
Planning reform to build 1.5 million new homes ... Britain is hampered by a planning regime that means we struggle to build either the infrastructure or housing the country needs. ... The current planning regime acts as a major brake on economic growth. Labour will make the changes we need to forge ahead with new roads, railways, reservoirs, and other nationally significant infrastructure. We will set out new national policy statements, make major projects faster and cheaper by slashing red tape, and build support for developments by ensuring communities directly benefit. We will also update national planning policy to ensure the planning system meets the needs of a modern economy, making it easier to build laboratories, digital infrastructure, and gigafactories. ... We will ensure our industrial strategy supports the development of the Artificial Intelligence (AI) sector, removes planning barriers to new datacentres. ... We will immediately update the National Policy Planning Framework to undo damaging Conservative changes, including restoring mandatory housing targets...strengthen the presumption in favour of sustainable development. ... Appoint 300 new planning officers
The above is essentially everything from the Labour manifesto that mentions planning. There's a bit more detail on local plans, green belt, (& 5G!) etc, but nothing you'd miss.
The best thing you can say about it is that recruiting more planning officers should at least mean that planning applications are processed more quickly.
I guess we'd have to wait and see a future Planning Bill to get the detail. I expect that it's a long way from what you want.
Thanks.
Abolishing planning officers altogether by making planning automatic would be a far better policy. But looks like nobody is brave enough to embrace that approach unfortunately.
Looks like Labour at least understand the problem and are attempting a solution, even if its not enough its better than nothing.
I may have to lend them my vote.
Abolishing planning officers? Nonsense. Would make planning completely nonexistent. Housing estates built without the sewerage and processing ability, that sort of tyhing, a shitstorm in the most literal sense.
Abolition of Planning (incl. officers) would give us gin palaces all over the national talks.
"Money talks" needs a bridle, which is what the planning system is for - and we like it being controlled.
There are opportunities to do much - for example in London quite a lot of the Green Belt can be quite accurately called "brown field", and could be used. And there is a lot of opportunity for intensification of modern estates fairly close to Inner London which are near the end of their design life.
When you say things like 'we need to get rid of planning officers' I think you mean that you want to allocate land for development, with design codes, rather than a process of 'case by case' wrangling. But someone still has to allocate the land for development and write the design code and then enforce it.
In reference to an earlier comment, I've just been sent two tweets on Sunak and Sky TV by the youth. I can't find a link to them, but:
1. Sunak chatting intimately with a veteran at D-Day thingy. Caption: "You think you had it bad - I didn't have Sky TV" 2. Photo of Sunak's family pharmacy, with a satellite dish clearly circled on the flat above. Scurrilous, I know - but he's being laughed at.
Does anyone know the details of Labour's proposed planning reforms?
All I can see on BBC is that "planning is at the heart of reforms" but then silence on what those reforms are?
Our planning system and NIMBYism is the biggest barrier to growth and development in this country. But as far as reforms are concerned, I'll believe it when I see it.
Labour Manifesto:
Planning reform to build 1.5 million new homes ... Britain is hampered by a planning regime that means we struggle to build either the infrastructure or housing the country needs. ... The current planning regime acts as a major brake on economic growth. Labour will make the changes we need to forge ahead with new roads, railways, reservoirs, and other nationally significant infrastructure. We will set out new national policy statements, make major projects faster and cheaper by slashing red tape, and build support for developments by ensuring communities directly benefit. We will also update national planning policy to ensure the planning system meets the needs of a modern economy, making it easier to build laboratories, digital infrastructure, and gigafactories. ... We will ensure our industrial strategy supports the development of the Artificial Intelligence (AI) sector, removes planning barriers to new datacentres. ... We will immediately update the National Policy Planning Framework to undo damaging Conservative changes, including restoring mandatory housing targets...strengthen the presumption in favour of sustainable development. ... Appoint 300 new planning officers
The above is essentially everything from the Labour manifesto that mentions planning. There's a bit more detail on local plans, green belt, (& 5G!) etc, but nothing you'd miss.
The best thing you can say about it is that recruiting more planning officers should at least mean that planning applications are processed more quickly.
I guess we'd have to wait and see a future Planning Bill to get the detail. I expect that it's a long way from what you want.
Thanks.
Abolishing planning officers altogether by making planning automatic would be a far better policy. But looks like nobody is brave enough to embrace that approach unfortunately.
Looks like Labour at least understand the problem and are attempting a solution, even if its not enough its better than nothing.
I may have to lend them my vote.
Abolishing planning officers? Nonsense. Would make planning completely nonexistent. Housing estates built without the sewerage and processing ability, that sort of tyhing, a shitstorm in the most literal sense.
Abolition of Planning (incl. officers) would give us gin palaces all over the national talks.
"Money talks" needs a bridle, which is what the planning system is for - and we like it being controlled.
There are opportunities to do much - for example in London quite a lot of the Green Belt can be quite accurately called "brown field", and could be used. And there is a lot of opportunity for intensification of modern estates fairly close to Inner London which are near the end of their design life.
When you say things like 'we need to get rid of planning officers' I think you mean that you want to allocate land for development, with design codes, rather than a process of 'case by case' wrangling. But someone still has to allocate the land for development and write the design code and then enforce it.
Exactly so. ABOLISH THE PLANNING OFFICER has become a very strange shibboleth.
Tonight on Channel 4 at 7.55pm, the Reform Party will release one of the most exciting Party Election Broadcasts ever produced.
I’m amazed it even got past compliance, but we did it.
You won’t want to miss this.
Does anyone know what "compliance" refers to in this context?
Farage seems to imply there is some official body vetting party election broadcasts before they are transmitted, with the power to exclude content or forbid broadcast.
Is there anything that could be presented as a shred of truth in that?
In reference to an earlier comment, I've just been sent two tweets on Sunak and Sky TV by the youth. I can't find a link to them, but:
1. Sunak chatting intimately with a veteran at D-Day thingy. Caption: "You think you had it bad - I didn't have Sky TV" 2. Photo of Sunak's family pharmacy, with a satellite dish clearly circled on the flat above. Scurrilous, I know - but he's being laughed at.
Even if the photo is kosher, I don't think the Sunaks lived above the shop!
The Labour vote is soft as babyfood. See how much it has slipped in 2 weeks of campaigning. Some polls have them down 7 points. No one is enthusiastic about Starmer, it’s just anti Tory sentiment
So there’s a huge target of Labour Remainers waiting to be tempted by an eu offer from the Lib Dem’s. People like @Roger and many many others
Millions of them. Also lots of media people
And they don’t offer it?? This is the one chance they will get. They are dumb as rocks
I don't often agree with you Leon, but on this I do. I've said it before and I'll say it again. Everyone hates the Labour party in Bootle, and will never vote for them again.... except on General Election day.
John Major managed 30.7% in 1997. Blair 43.2%.
Is Sunak as bad as Major was in 1997? Maybe, maybe not. Is Starmer as good as Blair? No.
The Conservatives aren't going to win, but I'm far from convinced Labour will get the 120 seat gain they need to avoid a hung parliament.
Edit - And I'd love to be wrong, I really would - but history has taught me Labour almost always fail to meet the expected grade.
Sunak is far, far worse than Major.
Sunak is far worse than IDS.
Well I can't agree with that. I wasn't entirely comfortable with your coward remark either. Prime ministers get police protection for a reason. And Sunak wouldn't have needed it if he'd stayed in California.
Tonight on Channel 4 at 7.55pm, the Reform Party will release one of the most exciting Party Election Broadcasts ever produced.
I’m amazed it even got past compliance, but we did it.
You won’t want to miss this.
Does anyone know what "compliance" refers to in this context?
Farage seems to imply there is some official body vetting party election broadcasts before they are transmitted, with the power to exclude content or forbid broadcast.
Is there anything that could be presented as a shred of truth in that?
It would be the compliance function within the broadcaster itself.
It's not the producer of a TV programme that's ultimately responsible for compliance with Ofcom's Broadcasting Code, but the licensed broadcaster that puts it out.
So broadcasters will put bought in programmes through internal compliance to check they aren't going to run into trouble. Same for PPBs.
Farage is over-egging it, of course. Assuming it's not stuffed with nudity, salty language, and allegations of misconduct with goats, there's a lot of leeway.
In reference to an earlier comment, I've just been sent two tweets on Sunak and Sky TV by the youth. I can't find a link to them, but:
1. Sunak chatting intimately with a veteran at D-Day thingy. Caption: "You think you had it bad - I didn't have Sky TV" 2. Photo of Sunak's family pharmacy, with a satellite dish clearly circled on the flat above. Scurrilous, I know - but he's being laughed at.
Even if the photo is kosher, I don't think the Sunaks lived above the shop!
Didn't they live in a five-bedroomed detached house in a secluded leafy avenue?
Comments
The camera will pan in from Nigel's arrival at Heathrow, as the adoring hordes line the road to Buckingham Palace, and as a new "National Government of Stability" is formed. We all owe it to Firsr Citizen Nigel and Fatherland, to plsy a little of our part, and we will all stand to attention will a celebratory smoke and a pint, when he gets in.
And still we hear on here "everyone believes in growth" - bullshit do they!
Far too many people have a vested interest in preventing growth.
I'd have thought the modal Tory Peer would be younger than the modal Labour one as a result.
Seems an odd choice.
Personally I reckon the latter has a greater chance of picking up more seats. Ultimately I think the limit of their ambition is to be the third party again so they get more coverage going into the election after next.
But if it helps defer the madness of an elected Upper House, then I welcome it.
I've said it before and I'll say it again. Everyone hates the Labour party in Bootle, and will never vote for them again.... except on General Election day.
John Major managed 30.7% in 1997. Blair 43.2%.
Is Sunak as bad as Major was in 1997? Maybe, maybe not. Is Starmer as good as Blair? No.
The Conservatives aren't going to win, but I'm far from convinced Labour will get the 120 seat gain they need to avoid a hung parliament.
Edit - And I'd love to be wrong, I really would - but history has taught me Labour almost always fail to meet the expected grade.
Is Sunak as bad as Major was? No he's much, much worse.
What is increasingly clear is that there isn't a public mandate for "hard" brexit. But then again there never was - "The status quo, with maybe a few more opt-outs or concessions" would've won it had it been on offer in 2016.
Bringing up rejoin at this point would be like ripping off a scab that's barely crusted over yet. It's easy to forget, post-covid, just how febrile and ill-tempered the arguments were becoming on all sides.
What the UK needs now is a long-ish period of independence where we can work out our place in the world, and perhaps slowly move towards a closer alignment with the EU where we get the good stuff (free trade) without the federal superstate and corresponding democratic deficit attached.
They remind me of small town friends I used to have as a kid - in my small town. They always spoke of going to london or abroad and doing something big and amazing but when offers came they got all nervous and shifty and found a reason to say no
The Lib Dems are happy to be the small town solicitor for ever and don’t actually want to be the hot shot silk in the big city. They are happy in their minor role. And fair enough - they should just stop pretending otherwise
🔴 Lab 43% (-2)
🔵 Con 20% (NC)
⚪ Ref 14% (-1)
🟠 LD 11% (+1)
🟢 Green 6% (+1)
🟡 SNP 2% (-1)
⚫ Ind 2%
12-13 Jun
StokeRichmond-up-north if he had already announced he will off to America? That is what might have influenced the betting. It is moot now, of course. Probably.There simply is NOT enough brownfield land.
People need a place to live. That has to trump greenfield as a population.
Only way to avoid building on greenfield is to have a falling population, given our demographics. Falling by about ten million to reverse our current housing shortage. We don't.
MBWA
Vote for freedom of movement with the EU rather than ship in loads from third world cesspit countries .
It is short on self-respect. It is a little too much ...
"Dear Ursula, here I am bending over the sofa holding a sink plunger. Which end would you like to use?"
...
Britain is hampered by a planning regime that means we struggle to build either the infrastructure or housing the country needs.
...
The current planning regime acts as a major brake on economic growth. Labour will make the changes we need to forge ahead with new roads, railways, reservoirs, and other nationally significant infrastructure. We will set out new national policy statements, make major projects faster and cheaper by slashing red tape, and build support for developments by ensuring communities directly benefit. We will also update national planning policy to ensure the planning system meets the needs of a modern economy, making it easier to build laboratories, digital infrastructure, and gigafactories.
...
We will ensure our industrial strategy supports the development of the Artificial Intelligence (AI) sector, removes planning barriers to new datacentres.
...
We will immediately update the National Policy Planning Framework to undo damaging Conservative changes, including restoring mandatory housing targets...strengthen the presumption in favour of sustainable development.
...
Appoint 300 new planning officers
The best thing you can say about it is that recruiting more planning officers should at least mean that planning applications are processed more quickly.
I guess we'd have to wait and see a future Planning Bill to get the detail. I expect that it's a long way from what you want.
On the other hand, it might just be hysterics about the recent high level of non-EU migration no one has done more than Citizen Nigel to bring about.
He bears some responsibility for the current position of the party, but when the charge list is drawn up he will be a fair way down it.
I'd expect the locals to rally round. He'll probably outperform the Party as a whole. He has to be a back at 1.5.
Reform are the only wild card mixing it up - largely as they have nothing to lose. But I am definitely in the dislike column for Farage so can’t get excited by his next prank / racist dog whistle.
Sunak: Stop the Boats!
Farage: Spot the Boats!
https://www1.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2024/06/09/a-portillo-moment-for-a-new-generation/
Abolishing planning officers altogether by making planning automatic would be a far better policy. But looks like nobody is brave enough to embrace that approach unfortunately.
Looks like Labour at least understand the problem and are attempting a solution, even if its not enough its better than nothing.
I may have to lend them my vote.
Please ignore my previous post.
People need a home to live in.
Houses mean more than fields.
Sunsk is more of a slowly-developing character, Tony Hancock, or Frank Spencer.
It's the water firms responsibility to handle sewerage not housing developers. They need to do their own job, not pass the buck.
All developments should pay for is to connect to the network. Once it's in the network, it's not their responsibility anymore.
Have they yet tumbled to the trend of reducing energy intensity of GDP in real terms over time?
To a leftie like me, it's all a bit disappointing. However, my disappointment is heavily tempered by the fact that the agenda is so modest that it may well be achievable, which is rare in the world of manifestos. Under-promise and over-deliver is the guiding principle.
Even if net migration fell to zero today, we'd still have a shortage of millions of homes.
NARRATOR: It won't.
Farage seems to imply there is some official body vetting party election broadcasts before they are transmitted, with the power to exclude content or forbid broadcast.
Is there anything that could be presented as a shred of truth in that?
TSE, is there a header here?
...
Britain is hampered by a planning regime that means we struggle to build either the infrastructure or housing the country needs.
...
The current planning regime acts as a major brake on economic growth. Labour will make the changes we need to forge ahead with new roads, railways, reservoirs, and other nationally significant infrastructure. We will set out new national policy statements, make major projects faster and cheaper by slashing red tape, and build support for developments by ensuring communities directly benefit. We will also update national planning policy to ensure the planning system meets the needs of a modern economy, making it easier to build laboratories, digital infrastructure, and gigafactories.
...
We will ensure our industrial strategy supports the development of the Artificial Intelligence (AI) sector, removes planning barriers to new datacentres.
...
We will immediately update the National Policy Planning Framework to undo damaging Conservative changes, including restoring mandatory housing targets...strengthen the presumption in favour of sustainable development.
...
Appoint 300 new planning officers
300 planning officers is like the 6600 (?) extra teachers.
If that is England it is about 2/3 of a planning officer per local authority, which won't make much difference.
But I agree with you.
2. Therefore the LibDem approach this time is "do what we know wins seats", which is "50 local campaigns in the Blue Wall" rather than anything majoring on national/international policy. Even the sewage stuff is framed as "they're putting shit in OUR CONSTITUENCY's River Thames" rather than "they're putting shit in the nation's rivers"
3. Swinson tried the rejoin-heavy approach and her campaign was a disaster (though personally I'd argue that was for unrelated reasons)
4. Davey is naturally cautious
I do think there's something in what you're saying. Not all-out rejoin as the main message, but there is a real opportunity for a targeted message at the under-30s (via online advertising) who are very pro-Europe and aren't being offered anything right now. The tuition fees stuff is wearing off and if you're 21 then Starmer doesn't really offer you much. "Hey, university students, vote for us and we'll let you go and work in Europe again" would be a pretty powerful message.
If they haven't built enough they need to do their own job.
That's not an excuse to prevent construction any more than a shortage of construction is preventing population growth.
Absolutely urban level sewerage facilities are needed wherever they are needed.
"Money talks" needs a bridle, which is what the planning system is for - and we like it being controlled.
There are opportunities to do much - for example in London quite a lot of the Green Belt can be quite accurately called "brown field", and could be used. And there is a lot of opportunity for intensification of modern estates fairly close to Inner London which are near the end of their design life.
https://x.com/acgrayling/status/1801181835210187252
The 'green field' next to it has less than 10 species and actively nukes insects.
If we aren't going to worry about food imports, I know which one I'd build on.
When ITV was still nominally regional franchises, most of the companies farmed out compliance to Channel Television, which had the franchise for the 170,000 people living on the Channel Islands. The maximum fine for non-compliance was 5% of turnover, and needless to say 5% of Channel's turnover was a fair amount less than 5% of Granada's...
Edit: where I live, the council has over the years repeatedly identified large swathes of land for new housing, but made sure the sewerage issue was handed over to the water authority in advance.
Of course, they never say no, because more houses = more customers.
Running out of water from an aquifer and not having sufficient sewage capacity are things to worry about later.
https://www.ofcom.org.uk/tv-radio-and-on-demand/broadcast-standards/section-two-harm-offence/
Is Farage trying to say that he is amazed that his broadcast wasn't considered harmful or offensive when judged by the Ofcom regulations?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxford_University_Police
If you put Freedom of Movement and explained what that actually would mean front and centre as a change which would result from rejoining the Single Market. there would be a tornado of opposition from Conservatives, Reform and other places.
That's the thing - I'd like us to be able to work, live and study in Europe and there are all sorts of people who would like to retire to the Med or somewhere else with a bit of winter sunshine and who can blame them but that's not what Freedom of Movement means. It also drives a coach and horses through one of the primary arguments used by Leave in 2016 - the British Government will be able to say who we allow in to our country.
That's why no one can or will talk about it currently. It might be an option in a second Starmer administration, who knows?
Crunch time approaching in Midland and Nortwest, with 0 of 5 seats decided so far; Count 17 now ongoing, following exclusion of Aointu candidate (pro-life SF breakaway) redistribution of accumulated 56,633 votes. Quota = 11,325. Current state of play (source RTE)
LUKE 'MING' FLANAGAN, IND + 4072 in count 17 = 110533
NINA CARBERRY, FG + 597 =86865
MARIA WALSH, FG + 1466 = 86401
BARRY COWEN, FF + 627 =85592
MICHELLE GILDERNEW, SF + 20692 =74795
CIARAN MULLOOLY, II + 1168 = 73101
LISA CHAMBERS, FF + 873 =60537
SSI = Ming the Ind clearly elected, and certainly at least one FG and one FF, with strong possibility of 2nd seat for FG. So who gets the 5th & final seat? My less-than-fearless forecast is SF, with Ind for Ire rightwinger getting the booby prize as in Dublin.
Start with rejoining various programmes and agreements, then the Single Market, with a view to full Rejoin once the political will both here and on the continent is clear.
It's not secret or covert, it is in the manifesto.
It just seems a ridiculous bit of pseudo-Trump posturing. Is he suggesting that Ofcom was politically biased in drawing up the rules, or that Channel 4 is biased in applying them?
Is it known whether any party election broadcast in the UK has ever been found to be in breach of the rules, and not broadcast as submitted?
This is an analysis of the labour manifesto on planning. The changes are a bit subtle but will have an impact.
https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/labour-manifesto-what-does-mean-practitioners-from-day-harris-kc--qk8oe/
When you say things like 'we need to get rid of planning officers' I think you mean that you want to allocate land for development, with design codes, rather than a process of 'case by case' wrangling. But someone still has to allocate the land for development and write the design code and then enforce it.
1. Sunak chatting intimately with a veteran at D-Day thingy. Caption: "You think you had it bad - I didn't have Sky TV"
2. Photo of Sunak's family pharmacy, with a satellite dish clearly circled on the flat above.
Scurrilous, I know - but he's being laughed at.
It was simply instinct "this looks way too long".
But of course, it might not be –– and get longer!!
It's not the producer of a TV programme that's ultimately responsible for compliance with Ofcom's Broadcasting Code, but the licensed broadcaster that puts it out.
So broadcasters will put bought in programmes through internal compliance to check they aren't going to run into trouble. Same for PPBs.
Farage is over-egging it, of course. Assuming it's not stuffed with nudity, salty language, and allegations of misconduct with goats, there's a lot of leeway.