I'll be voting for Tom T, hope he manages to pull it out of the bag. Jenrick will be worse than Hague was IMO, speaks to the core voter but no one else.
I'll be voting for Tom T, hope he manages to pull it out of the bag. Jenrick will be worse than Hague was IMO, speaks to the core voter but no one else.
I'll be voting for Tom T, hope he manages to pull it out of the bag. Jenrick will be worse than Hague was IMO, speaks to the core voter but no one else.
A friend described Jenrick as the Tory Richard Burgon.
I'll be voting for Tom T, hope he manages to pull it out of the bag. Jenrick will be worse than Hague was IMO, speaks to the core voter but no one else.
A friend described Jenrick as the Tory Richard Burgon.
I'll be voting for Tom T, hope he manages to pull it out of the bag. Jenrick will be worse than Hague was IMO, speaks to the core voter but no one else.
A friend described Jenrick as the Tory Richard Burgon.
I'll be voting for Tom T, hope he manages to pull it out of the bag. Jenrick will be worse than Hague was IMO, speaks to the core voter but no one else.
A friend described Jenrick as the Tory Richard Burgon.
I'll be voting for Tom T, hope he manages to pull it out of the bag. Jenrick will be worse than Hague was IMO, speaks to the core voter but no one else.
A friend described Jenrick as the Tory Richard Burgon.
I'm not sure who that comparison insults more...
Well it doesn’t speak well of the admissions policy at St John’s College, Cambridge, both attended there.
I think it insults Burgon, he’s thick but he wasn’t nasty.
I still don't understand why Rishi didn't wait until November. We're about to get another 0.6% growth in Q2, Q3 has started very positively and we'd have had another rate cut by then. If it was a late November election we could have been at 4.75% interest rates and 1.7% YTD growth and another year of above inflation wage rises.
The July election has got to be one of the biggest missteps in the history of the Tory party.
Oliver Dowden showed Sunak the numbers coming off fixed term mortgages between now and November.
That made going in July logical.
Without knowing the context of the age profile that seems like a huge leap of logic. People coming off shorter fixed rate mortgages are going to be younger and have a lower propensity to vote Tory anyway. It seems like poor reasoning to me anyway. The upsides to waiting were much larger.
As I've been pointing out all week the only rational reason I have seen for pulling the election forward is the public sector pay awards which firstly removed any chance of more tax cuts and secondly may have triggered an issue when it becomes obvious that the figures no longer added up.
Not really, the government could have just ignored it on the grounds of affordability or something. 5.5% is high, 3.5% higher than inflation. Limit it to those earning less than £35k or something and everyone else gets 2.1% or whatever CPI is.
At a time of mass vacancies and full employment?
If you don't want to pay the required wage then abolish the job and save all the money not some of it, but if the job needs doing it needs paying for.
Then let them leave for the private sector.
But enough of them are leaving for it to be a problem. Or they're not signing up in the first place.
You're smart. You've had enough people point this out to you. You supposedly know how money works.
Apart from not liking the obvious consequence, why do you find this so hard to accept?
Because the state is too large and does too much. We need to cut the size of the state and having people leave voluntarily is probably the best way to achieve it.
Again - what does it do that can be outsourced to the private sector efficiently. And remember the maxim for the past 14 years has been to drive costs down anyway you can..
Planning.
Abolish every busybody trying to second-guess and authorise what anyone builds on their land and have a free for all where anyone who wants to build anything on their own damned land can.
There we go - jobs abolished.
You know my wife is a town planner? Every post you make tells me you haven't got a clue what they actually do...
Far too much that they shouldn't is what they do. And I'd have no objection if your wife were made redundant.
No planner should have any input into whether or not a house is built, that should be upto the would-be homeowner and the private market.
If you want to plan new town or improved functions that the town intends to build on the town's own land, then that's something a town planner can and should be doing, but no need to review other people's plans of what they intend to be doing on their land.
Are you suggesting that local authorities should compulsory purchase (very cheaply of course) all land that could be developed?
I need to double check this but I'm 100% sure that is exactly what happens in some countries - the land is bought, roads and utilities are put in and the land then sold plot by plot to developers of all sizes..
Surprised they named him as a 17 year old. Never heard of anyone with this first name apart from the character from the Jules Verne book.
He’s 18 on 7 August. The law applies to them now rather than when they committed the alleged offence. Judge said it was pointless not naming him now.
There also the fact that his name was readily available on Twitter (I came across it without even trying to look for it).
Why the authorities didn't come out and say in words of one syllable "He's not a Muslim" the moment the riots started kicking off I've no idea - I'd kind of presumed he must be, given the fact they didn't.
Instead of which we got a load of preachy "not everything you read on twitter is true", despite the fact that Twitter had got to the correct name in a matter of hours, despite the best efforts of somebody (I assume the Russians) to put a false name about.
How do you know he's not a Muslim? Or a Jew? Or a Christian? Or an atheist?
I'll be voting for Tom T, hope he manages to pull it out of the bag. Jenrick will be worse than Hague was IMO, speaks to the core voter but no one else.
A friend described Jenrick as the Tory Richard Burgon.
Burgon never looked likely to be leader, even in opposition. A Tory... Vance ?
I'll be voting for Tom T, hope he manages to pull it out of the bag. Jenrick will be worse than Hague was IMO, speaks to the core voter but no one else.
A friend described Jenrick as the Tory Richard Burgon.
I'm not sure who that comparison insults more...
Well it doesn’t speak well of the admissions policy at St John’s College, Cambridge, both attended there.
I think it insults Burgon, he’s thick but he wasn’t nasty.
He's what you get when you cross Richard Burgon with Lloyd Russell Moyle and add in the bastard lovechild of Nigel Farage and Laura Pidcock.
It's not as though Russia haas a shortage of assassins, and it costs us to house the specimens.
Indications of an imminent exchange of Russian spies & assassins for Western hostages held in Russia. Parties: US, Germany, Russia, Belarus. Candidates: Evan Gershkovich (US), Paul Whelan (US), Rico Krieger (Germany) Vladimir Kara-Murza (UK), others. https://x.com/igorsushko/status/1818727950826836178
Siri, show me what a political death wish looks like.
What's driven the change?
Picking up the pieces of the Braverman campaign?
I have heard rumours that Jenrick will campaign like Braverman but lead as a centrist (which is where he was prior to going batshit crazy over immigration.)
I'll be voting for Tom T, hope he manages to pull it out of the bag. Jenrick will be worse than Hague was IMO, speaks to the core voter but no one else.
A friend described Jenrick as the Tory Richard Burgon.
I'm not sure who that comparison insults more...
Well it doesn’t speak well of the admissions policy at St John’s College, Cambridge, both attended there.
I think it insults Burgon, he’s thick but he wasn’t nasty.
He's what you get when you cross Richard Burgon with Lloyd Russell Moyle and add in the bastard lovechild of Nigel Farage and Laura Pidcock.
We will have to stop you moonlighting in those genetics labs.
I'll be voting for Tom T, hope he manages to pull it out of the bag. Jenrick will be worse than Hague was IMO, speaks to the core voter but no one else.
A friend described Jenrick as the Tory Richard Burgon.
I'm not sure who that comparison insults more...
Well it doesn’t speak well of the admissions policy at St John’s College, Cambridge, both attended there.
I think it insults Burgon, he’s thick but he wasn’t nasty.
He's what you get when you cross Richard Burgon with Lloyd Russell Moyle and add in the bastard lovechild of Nigel Farage and Laura Pidcock.
I still don't understand why Rishi didn't wait until November. We're about to get another 0.6% growth in Q2, Q3 has started very positively and we'd have had another rate cut by then. If it was a late November election we could have been at 4.75% interest rates and 1.7% YTD growth and another year of above inflation wage rises.
The July election has got to be one of the biggest missteps in the history of the Tory party.
Oliver Dowden showed Sunak the numbers coming off fixed term mortgages between now and November.
That made going in July logical.
Without knowing the context of the age profile that seems like a huge leap of logic. People coming off shorter fixed rate mortgages are going to be younger and have a lower propensity to vote Tory anyway. It seems like poor reasoning to me anyway. The upsides to waiting were much larger.
As I've been pointing out all week the only rational reason I have seen for pulling the election forward is the public sector pay awards which firstly removed any chance of more tax cuts and secondly may have triggered an issue when it becomes obvious that the figures no longer added up.
Not really, the government could have just ignored it on the grounds of affordability or something. 5.5% is high, 3.5% higher than inflation. Limit it to those earning less than £35k or something and everyone else gets 2.1% or whatever CPI is.
At a time of mass vacancies and full employment?
If you don't want to pay the required wage then abolish the job and save all the money not some of it, but if the job needs doing it needs paying for.
Then let them leave for the private sector.
But enough of them are leaving for it to be a problem. Or they're not signing up in the first place.
You're smart. You've had enough people point this out to you. You supposedly know how money works.
Apart from not liking the obvious consequence, why do you find this so hard to accept?
Because the state is too large and does too much. We need to cut the size of the state and having people leave voluntarily is probably the best way to achieve it.
Again - what does it do that can be outsourced to the private sector efficiently. And remember the maxim for the past 14 years has been to drive costs down anyway you can..
Planning.
Abolish every busybody trying to second-guess and authorise what anyone builds on their land and have a free for all where anyone who wants to build anything on their own damned land can.
There we go - jobs abolished.
You know my wife is a town planner? Every post you make tells me you haven't got a clue what they actually do...
Far too much that they shouldn't is what they do. And I'd have no objection if your wife were made redundant.
No planner should have any input into whether or not a house is built, that should be upto the would-be homeowner and the private market.
If you want to plan new town or improved functions that the town intends to build on the town's own land, then that's something a town planner can and should be doing, but no need to review other people's plans of what they intend to be doing on their land.
Are you suggesting that local authorities should compulsory purchase (very cheaply of course) all land that could be developed?
I need to double check this but I'm 100% sure that is exactly what happens in some countries - the land is bought, roads and utilities are put in and the land then sold plot by plot to developers of all sizes..
Sounds like a good idea to me. And it would surely be pleasing to one of our PB obsessives who was going on at great length about all roadsand utilities being paid for at public expense.
I still don't understand why Rishi didn't wait until November. We're about to get another 0.6% growth in Q2, Q3 has started very positively and we'd have had another rate cut by then. If it was a late November election we could have been at 4.75% interest rates and 1.7% YTD growth and another year of above inflation wage rises.
The July election has got to be one of the biggest missteps in the history of the Tory party.
Oliver Dowden showed Sunak the numbers coming off fixed term mortgages between now and November.
That made going in July logical.
Without knowing the context of the age profile that seems like a huge leap of logic. People coming off shorter fixed rate mortgages are going to be younger and have a lower propensity to vote Tory anyway. It seems like poor reasoning to me anyway. The upsides to waiting were much larger.
As I've been pointing out all week the only rational reason I have seen for pulling the election forward is the public sector pay awards which firstly removed any chance of more tax cuts and secondly may have triggered an issue when it becomes obvious that the figures no longer added up.
Not really, the government could have just ignored it on the grounds of affordability or something. 5.5% is high, 3.5% higher than inflation. Limit it to those earning less than £35k or something and everyone else gets 2.1% or whatever CPI is.
At a time of mass vacancies and full employment?
If you don't want to pay the required wage then abolish the job and save all the money not some of it, but if the job needs doing it needs paying for.
Then let them leave for the private sector.
But enough of them are leaving for it to be a problem. Or they're not signing up in the first place.
You're smart. You've had enough people point this out to you. You supposedly know how money works.
Apart from not liking the obvious consequence, why do you find this so hard to accept?
Because the state is too large and does too much. We need to cut the size of the state and having people leave voluntarily is probably the best way to achieve it.
Again - what does it do that can be outsourced to the private sector efficiently. And remember the maxim for the past 14 years has been to drive costs down anyway you can..
Planning.
Abolish every busybody trying to second-guess and authorise what anyone builds on their land and have a free for all where anyone who wants to build anything on their own damned land can.
There we go - jobs abolished.
You know my wife is a town planner? Every post you make tells me you haven't got a clue what they actually do...
Far too much that they shouldn't is what they do. And I'd have no objection if your wife were made redundant.
No planner should have any input into whether or not a house is built, that should be upto the would-be homeowner and the private market.
If you want to plan new town or improved functions that the town intends to build on the town's own land, then that's something a town planner can and should be doing, but no need to review other people's plans of what they intend to be doing on their land.
Are you suggesting that local authorities should compulsory purchase (very cheaply of course) all land that could be developed?
I need to double check this but I'm 100% sure that is exactly what happens in some countries - the land is bought, roads and utilities are put in and the land then sold plot by plot to developers of all sizes..
Or they build the houses. Still happens in this far-distant country called Scotland.
Siri, show me what a political death wish looks like.
What's driven the change?
Picking up the pieces of the Braverman campaign?
I have heard rumours that Jenrick will campaign like Braverman but lead as a centrist (which is where he was prior to going batshit crazy over immigration.)
I still don't understand why Rishi didn't wait until November. We're about to get another 0.6% growth in Q2, Q3 has started very positively and we'd have had another rate cut by then. If it was a late November election we could have been at 4.75% interest rates and 1.7% YTD growth and another year of above inflation wage rises.
The July election has got to be one of the biggest missteps in the history of the Tory party.
Oliver Dowden showed Sunak the numbers coming off fixed term mortgages between now and November.
That made going in July logical.
Without knowing the context of the age profile that seems like a huge leap of logic. People coming off shorter fixed rate mortgages are going to be younger and have a lower propensity to vote Tory anyway. It seems like poor reasoning to me anyway. The upsides to waiting were much larger.
As I've been pointing out all week the only rational reason I have seen for pulling the election forward is the public sector pay awards which firstly removed any chance of more tax cuts and secondly may have triggered an issue when it becomes obvious that the figures no longer added up.
Not really, the government could have just ignored it on the grounds of affordability or something. 5.5% is high, 3.5% higher than inflation. Limit it to those earning less than £35k or something and everyone else gets 2.1% or whatever CPI is.
At a time of mass vacancies and full employment?
If you don't want to pay the required wage then abolish the job and save all the money not some of it, but if the job needs doing it needs paying for.
Then let them leave for the private sector.
But enough of them are leaving for it to be a problem. Or they're not signing up in the first place.
You're smart. You've had enough people point this out to you. You supposedly know how money works.
Apart from not liking the obvious consequence, why do you find this so hard to accept?
Because the state is too large and does too much. We need to cut the size of the state and having people leave voluntarily is probably the best way to achieve it.
Again - what does it do that can be outsourced to the private sector efficiently. And remember the maxim for the past 14 years has been to drive costs down anyway you can..
Planning.
Abolish every busybody trying to second-guess and authorise what anyone builds on their land and have a free for all where anyone who wants to build anything on their own damned land can.
There we go - jobs abolished.
You know my wife is a town planner? Every post you make tells me you haven't got a clue what they actually do...
Far too much that they shouldn't is what they do. And I'd have no objection if your wife were made redundant.
No planner should have any input into whether or not a house is built, that should be upto the would-be homeowner and the private market.
If you want to plan new town or improved functions that the town intends to build on the town's own land, then that's something a town planner can and should be doing, but no need to review other people's plans of what they intend to be doing on their land.
Are you suggesting that local authorities should compulsory purchase (very cheaply of course) all land that could be developed?
I need to double check this but I'm 100% sure that is exactly what happens in some countries - the land is bought, roads and utilities are put in and the land then sold plot by plot to developers of all sizes..
Or they build the houses. Still happens in this far-distant country called Scotland.
It doesn't happen though, that's the problem.
Hence why we have a chronic shortage.
Just let people build what they want, where they want. No need to second-guess it.
Surprised they named him as a 17 year old. Never heard of anyone with this first name apart from the character from the Jules Verne book.
He’s 18 on 7 August. The law applies to them now rather than when they committed the alleged offence. Judge said it was pointless not naming him now.
There also the fact that his name was readily available on Twitter (I came across it without even trying to look for it).
Why the authorities didn't come out and say in words of one syllable "He's not a Muslim" the moment the riots started kicking off I've no idea - I'd kind of presumed he must be, given the fact they didn't.
Instead of which we got a load of preachy "not everything you read on twitter is true", despite the fact that Twitter had got to the correct name in a matter of hours, despite the best efforts of somebody (I assume the Russians) to put a false name about.
How do you know he's not a Muslim? Or a Jew? Or a Christian? Or an atheist?
He's obviously a Zionist Islamist Crusader Communist Nazi
Surprised they named him as a 17 year old. Never heard of anyone with this first name apart from the character from the Jules Verne book.
He’s 18 on 7 August. The law applies to them now rather than when they committed the alleged offence. Judge said it was pointless not naming him now.
There also the fact that his name was readily available on Twitter (I came across it without even trying to look for it).
Why the authorities didn't come out and say in words of one syllable "He's not a Muslim" the moment the riots started kicking off I've no idea - I'd kind of presumed he must be, given the fact they didn't.
Instead of which we got a load of preachy "not everything you read on twitter is true", despite the fact that Twitter had got to the correct name in a matter of hours, despite the best efforts of somebody (I assume the Russians) to put a false name about.
It's impossible to say in words of one syllable "He's not a Muslim".
I still don't understand why Rishi didn't wait until November. We're about to get another 0.6% growth in Q2, Q3 has started very positively and we'd have had another rate cut by then. If it was a late November election we could have been at 4.75% interest rates and 1.7% YTD growth and another year of above inflation wage rises.
The July election has got to be one of the biggest missteps in the history of the Tory party.
Oliver Dowden showed Sunak the numbers coming off fixed term mortgages between now and November.
That made going in July logical.
Without knowing the context of the age profile that seems like a huge leap of logic. People coming off shorter fixed rate mortgages are going to be younger and have a lower propensity to vote Tory anyway. It seems like poor reasoning to me anyway. The upsides to waiting were much larger.
As I've been pointing out all week the only rational reason I have seen for pulling the election forward is the public sector pay awards which firstly removed any chance of more tax cuts and secondly may have triggered an issue when it becomes obvious that the figures no longer added up.
Not really, the government could have just ignored it on the grounds of affordability or something. 5.5% is high, 3.5% higher than inflation. Limit it to those earning less than £35k or something and everyone else gets 2.1% or whatever CPI is.
At a time of mass vacancies and full employment?
If you don't want to pay the required wage then abolish the job and save all the money not some of it, but if the job needs doing it needs paying for.
Then let them leave for the private sector.
But enough of them are leaving for it to be a problem. Or they're not signing up in the first place.
You're smart. You've had enough people point this out to you. You supposedly know how money works.
Apart from not liking the obvious consequence, why do you find this so hard to accept?
Because the state is too large and does too much. We need to cut the size of the state and having people leave voluntarily is probably the best way to achieve it.
Again - what does it do that can be outsourced to the private sector efficiently. And remember the maxim for the past 14 years has been to drive costs down anyway you can..
Planning.
Abolish every busybody trying to second-guess and authorise what anyone builds on their land and have a free for all where anyone who wants to build anything on their own damned land can.
There we go - jobs abolished.
You know my wife is a town planner? Every post you make tells me you haven't got a clue what they actually do...
Far too much that they shouldn't is what they do. And I'd have no objection if your wife were made redundant.
No planner should have any input into whether or not a house is built, that should be upto the would-be homeowner and the private market.
If you want to plan new town or improved functions that the town intends to build on the town's own land, then that's something a town planner can and should be doing, but no need to review other people's plans of what they intend to be doing on their land.
Are you suggesting that local authorities should compulsory purchase (very cheaply of course) all land that could be developed?
I need to double check this but I'm 100% sure that is exactly what happens in some countries - the land is bought, roads and utilities are put in and the land then sold plot by plot to developers of all sizes..
An interesting point is the potential profit for local authorities in doing this.
Currently, development gets the local authorities very little.
If they could buy land, lay it out with services and roads and then sell the plots - big profits are possible.
Suddenly councils discover the joys of an expanding local population....
Surprised they named him as a 17 year old. Never heard of anyone with this first name apart from the character from the Jules Verne book.
He’s 18 on 7 August. The law applies to them now rather than when they committed the alleged offence. Judge said it was pointless not naming him now.
There also the fact that his name was readily available on Twitter (I came across it without even trying to look for it).
Why the authorities didn't come out and say in words of one syllable "He's not a Muslim" the moment the riots started kicking off I've no idea - I'd kind of presumed he must be, given the fact they didn't.
Instead of which we got a load of preachy "not everything you read on twitter is true", despite the fact that Twitter had got to the correct name in a matter of hours, despite the best efforts of somebody (I assume the Russians) to put a false name about.
It's impossible to say in words of one syllable "He's not a Muslim".
P. B. Pedant
Hate to be uber-pedantic but:
Saying 'He's a Sikh'* or 'He's a Jew' would say somebody is not a Muslim and is made up of words of one syllable.
*An uber-uber-pedant might note it is possible to be both a Muslim and a Sikh, although unusual.
I'll be voting for Tom T, hope he manages to pull it out of the bag. Jenrick will be worse than Hague was IMO, speaks to the core voter but no one else.
A friend described Jenrick as the Tory Richard Burgon.
I'm not sure who that comparison insults more...
Well it doesn’t speak well of the admissions policy at St John’s College, Cambridge, both attended there.
I think it insults Burgon, he’s thick but he wasn’t nasty.
Had Jenrick painted over Dickie Burgon rather than Mickey Mouse he would have won the hearts of the nation.
I still don't understand why Rishi didn't wait until November. We're about to get another 0.6% growth in Q2, Q3 has started very positively and we'd have had another rate cut by then. If it was a late November election we could have been at 4.75% interest rates and 1.7% YTD growth and another year of above inflation wage rises.
The July election has got to be one of the biggest missteps in the history of the Tory party.
Oliver Dowden showed Sunak the numbers coming off fixed term mortgages between now and November.
That made going in July logical.
Without knowing the context of the age profile that seems like a huge leap of logic. People coming off shorter fixed rate mortgages are going to be younger and have a lower propensity to vote Tory anyway. It seems like poor reasoning to me anyway. The upsides to waiting were much larger.
As I've been pointing out all week the only rational reason I have seen for pulling the election forward is the public sector pay awards which firstly removed any chance of more tax cuts and secondly may have triggered an issue when it becomes obvious that the figures no longer added up.
Not really, the government could have just ignored it on the grounds of affordability or something. 5.5% is high, 3.5% higher than inflation. Limit it to those earning less than £35k or something and everyone else gets 2.1% or whatever CPI is.
At a time of mass vacancies and full employment?
If you don't want to pay the required wage then abolish the job and save all the money not some of it, but if the job needs doing it needs paying for.
Then let them leave for the private sector.
But enough of them are leaving for it to be a problem. Or they're not signing up in the first place.
You're smart. You've had enough people point this out to you. You supposedly know how money works.
Apart from not liking the obvious consequence, why do you find this so hard to accept?
Because the state is too large and does too much. We need to cut the size of the state and having people leave voluntarily is probably the best way to achieve it.
Again - what does it do that can be outsourced to the private sector efficiently. And remember the maxim for the past 14 years has been to drive costs down anyway you can..
Planning.
Abolish every busybody trying to second-guess and authorise what anyone builds on their land and have a free for all where anyone who wants to build anything on their own damned land can.
There we go - jobs abolished.
You know my wife is a town planner? Every post you make tells me you haven't got a clue what they actually do...
Far too much that they shouldn't is what they do. And I'd have no objection if your wife were made redundant.
No planner should have any input into whether or not a house is built, that should be upto the would-be homeowner and the private market.
If you want to plan new town or improved functions that the town intends to build on the town's own land, then that's something a town planner can and should be doing, but no need to review other people's plans of what they intend to be doing on their land.
Are you suggesting that local authorities should compulsory purchase (very cheaply of course) all land that could be developed?
I need to double check this but I'm 100% sure that is exactly what happens in some countries - the land is bought, roads and utilities are put in and the land then sold plot by plot to developers of all sizes..
An interesting point is the potential profit for local authorities in doing this.
Currently, development gets the local authorities very little.
If they could buy land, lay it out with services and roads and then sell the plots - big profits are possible.
Suddenly councils discover the joys of an expanding local population....
After all, the value of a piece of land depends on the right to build on it (ie planning permission) and the installation of services. Both of these benefits come from the community, in one way or another. The landowner, who builds a house, has very little to do with the increase in value of the land.
I still don't understand why Rishi didn't wait until November. We're about to get another 0.6% growth in Q2, Q3 has started very positively and we'd have had another rate cut by then. If it was a late November election we could have been at 4.75% interest rates and 1.7% YTD growth and another year of above inflation wage rises.
The July election has got to be one of the biggest missteps in the history of the Tory party.
Oliver Dowden showed Sunak the numbers coming off fixed term mortgages between now and November.
That made going in July logical.
Without knowing the context of the age profile that seems like a huge leap of logic. People coming off shorter fixed rate mortgages are going to be younger and have a lower propensity to vote Tory anyway. It seems like poor reasoning to me anyway. The upsides to waiting were much larger.
As I've been pointing out all week the only rational reason I have seen for pulling the election forward is the public sector pay awards which firstly removed any chance of more tax cuts and secondly may have triggered an issue when it becomes obvious that the figures no longer added up.
Not really, the government could have just ignored it on the grounds of affordability or something. 5.5% is high, 3.5% higher than inflation. Limit it to those earning less than £35k or something and everyone else gets 2.1% or whatever CPI is.
At a time of mass vacancies and full employment?
If you don't want to pay the required wage then abolish the job and save all the money not some of it, but if the job needs doing it needs paying for.
Then let them leave for the private sector.
But enough of them are leaving for it to be a problem. Or they're not signing up in the first place.
You're smart. You've had enough people point this out to you. You supposedly know how money works.
Apart from not liking the obvious consequence, why do you find this so hard to accept?
Because the state is too large and does too much. We need to cut the size of the state and having people leave voluntarily is probably the best way to achieve it.
Again - what does it do that can be outsourced to the private sector efficiently. And remember the maxim for the past 14 years has been to drive costs down anyway you can..
Planning.
Abolish every busybody trying to second-guess and authorise what anyone builds on their land and have a free for all where anyone who wants to build anything on their own damned land can.
There we go - jobs abolished.
You know my wife is a town planner? Every post you make tells me you haven't got a clue what they actually do...
Far too much that they shouldn't is what they do. And I'd have no objection if your wife were made redundant.
No planner should have any input into whether or not a house is built, that should be upto the would-be homeowner and the private market.
If you want to plan new town or improved functions that the town intends to build on the town's own land, then that's something a town planner can and should be doing, but no need to review other people's plans of what they intend to be doing on their land.
Are you suggesting that local authorities should compulsory purchase (very cheaply of course) all land that could be developed?
I need to double check this but I'm 100% sure that is exactly what happens in some countries - the land is bought, roads and utilities are put in and the land then sold plot by plot to developers of all sizes..
Just been reading about the museum Georgian garden at Royal Circus, Bath. The Circus was done like that - as was the New Town of Edinburgh. But both with strict planning policies applied.
I'll be voting for Tom T, hope he manages to pull it out of the bag. Jenrick will be worse than Hague was IMO, speaks to the core voter but no one else.
A friend described Jenrick as the Tory Richard Burgon.
I'm not sure who that comparison insults more...
Well it doesn’t speak well of the admissions policy at St John’s College, Cambridge, both attended there.
I think it insults Burgon, he’s thick but he wasn’t nasty.
Burgon not nasty?
Only if you think Jews Don't Count as David Baddiel says.
It's not as though Russia haas a shortage of assassins, and it costs us to house the specimens.
Indications of an imminent exchange of Russian spies & assassins for Western hostages held in Russia. Parties: US, Germany, Russia, Belarus. Candidates: Evan Gershkovich (US), Paul Whelan (US), Rico Krieger (Germany) Vladimir Kara-Murza (UK), others. https://x.com/igorsushko/status/1818727950826836178
I still don't understand why Rishi didn't wait until November. We're about to get another 0.6% growth in Q2, Q3 has started very positively and we'd have had another rate cut by then. If it was a late November election we could have been at 4.75% interest rates and 1.7% YTD growth and another year of above inflation wage rises.
The July election has got to be one of the biggest missteps in the history of the Tory party.
Oliver Dowden showed Sunak the numbers coming off fixed term mortgages between now and November.
That made going in July logical.
Without knowing the context of the age profile that seems like a huge leap of logic. People coming off shorter fixed rate mortgages are going to be younger and have a lower propensity to vote Tory anyway. It seems like poor reasoning to me anyway. The upsides to waiting were much larger.
As I've been pointing out all week the only rational reason I have seen for pulling the election forward is the public sector pay awards which firstly removed any chance of more tax cuts and secondly may have triggered an issue when it becomes obvious that the figures no longer added up.
Not really, the government could have just ignored it on the grounds of affordability or something. 5.5% is high, 3.5% higher than inflation. Limit it to those earning less than £35k or something and everyone else gets 2.1% or whatever CPI is.
At a time of mass vacancies and full employment?
If you don't want to pay the required wage then abolish the job and save all the money not some of it, but if the job needs doing it needs paying for.
Then let them leave for the private sector.
But enough of them are leaving for it to be a problem. Or they're not signing up in the first place.
You're smart. You've had enough people point this out to you. You supposedly know how money works.
Apart from not liking the obvious consequence, why do you find this so hard to accept?
Because the state is too large and does too much. We need to cut the size of the state and having people leave voluntarily is probably the best way to achieve it.
Again - what does it do that can be outsourced to the private sector efficiently. And remember the maxim for the past 14 years has been to drive costs down anyway you can..
Planning.
Abolish every busybody trying to second-guess and authorise what anyone builds on their land and have a free for all where anyone who wants to build anything on their own damned land can.
There we go - jobs abolished.
You know my wife is a town planner? Every post you make tells me you haven't got a clue what they actually do...
Far too much that they shouldn't is what they do. And I'd have no objection if your wife were made redundant.
No planner should have any input into whether or not a house is built, that should be upto the would-be homeowner and the private market.
If you want to plan new town or improved functions that the town intends to build on the town's own land, then that's something a town planner can and should be doing, but no need to review other people's plans of what they intend to be doing on their land.
Are you suggesting that local authorities should compulsory purchase (very cheaply of course) all land that could be developed?
I need to double check this but I'm 100% sure that is exactly what happens in some countries - the land is bought, roads and utilities are put in and the land then sold plot by plot to developers of all sizes..
An interesting point is the potential profit for local authorities in doing this.
Currently, development gets the local authorities very little.
If they could buy land, lay it out with services and roads and then sell the plots - big profits are possible.
Suddenly councils discover the joys of an expanding local population....
After all, the value of a piece of land depends on the right to build on it (ie planning permission) and the installation of services. Both of these benefits come from the community, in one way or another. The landowner, who builds a house, has very little to do with the increase in value of the land.
Abolish the planning permission requirement and the value of land in house prices could fall back to the 2-3% of the cost of land as it was pre-1948 rather than the 1/3rd or more of house prices it is today.
Jenrick was utterly ineffectual as housing minister, doing absolutely sod all for leaseholders affected by the cladding scandal (pretty much anyone living in a building more than 5 storeys high). Described as "no help at all" by 90% of leaseholders in a survey by the leasehold knowledge partnership.
He was involved in a highly controversial planning decision involving Richard Desmond, who made a subsatantial donation to the Conservatives two weeks after planning was approved.
He charged the taxpayer £100,000 in rent and council tax for his THIRD home. That's right. Third home. To quote the Times, "Travel expenses suggest that Jenrick rarely spends an entire weekend at the property..." ..."A government minister said last night: “It’s a bit odd to make the taxpayer fund your constituency home when you’ve got all that money. It doesn’t look good.”
He broke lockdown rules twice, travelling 150 miles to his his second home. Considering it was rule breaking that did for Boris, is Jenrick really a suitable candidate for leader?
Oh, and the thing he's most famous for? Having a mural of Mickey Mouse and Baloo from Jungle Book in a children's asylum centre painted over. Regardless for the reason (e.g. copyright), the man is mostly known by the general public for comic-book, cartoon-villain levels of cruelty. That is when they remember him at all.
So I put it to you. If Robert Jenrick is the answer, then what on earth is the question?
I still don't understand why Rishi didn't wait until November. We're about to get another 0.6% growth in Q2, Q3 has started very positively and we'd have had another rate cut by then. If it was a late November election we could have been at 4.75% interest rates and 1.7% YTD growth and another year of above inflation wage rises.
The July election has got to be one of the biggest missteps in the history of the Tory party.
Oliver Dowden showed Sunak the numbers coming off fixed term mortgages between now and November.
That made going in July logical.
Without knowing the context of the age profile that seems like a huge leap of logic. People coming off shorter fixed rate mortgages are going to be younger and have a lower propensity to vote Tory anyway. It seems like poor reasoning to me anyway. The upsides to waiting were much larger.
As I've been pointing out all week the only rational reason I have seen for pulling the election forward is the public sector pay awards which firstly removed any chance of more tax cuts and secondly may have triggered an issue when it becomes obvious that the figures no longer added up.
Not really, the government could have just ignored it on the grounds of affordability or something. 5.5% is high, 3.5% higher than inflation. Limit it to those earning less than £35k or something and everyone else gets 2.1% or whatever CPI is.
At a time of mass vacancies and full employment?
If you don't want to pay the required wage then abolish the job and save all the money not some of it, but if the job needs doing it needs paying for.
Then let them leave for the private sector.
But enough of them are leaving for it to be a problem. Or they're not signing up in the first place.
You're smart. You've had enough people point this out to you. You supposedly know how money works.
Apart from not liking the obvious consequence, why do you find this so hard to accept?
Because the state is too large and does too much. We need to cut the size of the state and having people leave voluntarily is probably the best way to achieve it.
Again - what does it do that can be outsourced to the private sector efficiently. And remember the maxim for the past 14 years has been to drive costs down anyway you can..
Planning.
Abolish every busybody trying to second-guess and authorise what anyone builds on their land and have a free for all where anyone who wants to build anything on their own damned land can.
There we go - jobs abolished.
You know my wife is a town planner? Every post you make tells me you haven't got a clue what they actually do...
Far too much that they shouldn't is what they do. And I'd have no objection if your wife were made redundant.
No planner should have any input into whether or not a house is built, that should be upto the would-be homeowner and the private market.
If you want to plan new town or improved functions that the town intends to build on the town's own land, then that's something a town planner can and should be doing, but no need to review other people's plans of what they intend to be doing on their land.
Are you suggesting that local authorities should compulsory purchase (very cheaply of course) all land that could be developed?
I need to double check this but I'm 100% sure that is exactly what happens in some countries - the land is bought, roads and utilities are put in and the land then sold plot by plot to developers of all sizes..
An interesting point is the potential profit for local authorities in doing this.
Currently, development gets the local authorities very little.
If they could buy land, lay it out with services and roads and then sell the plots - big profits are possible.
Suddenly councils discover the joys of an expanding local population....
After all, the value of a piece of land depends on the right to build on it (ie planning permission) and the installation of services. Both of these benefits come from the community, in one way or another. The landowner, who builds a house, has very little to do with the increase in value of the land.
Abolish the planning permission requirement and the value of land in house prices could fall back to the 2-3% of the cost of land as it was pre-1948 rather than the 1/3rd or more of house prices it is today.
No restrictions at all on what you can build where?
Surprised they named him as a 17 year old. Never heard of anyone with this first name apart from the character from the Jules Verne book.
He’s 18 on 7 August. The law applies to them now rather than when they committed the alleged offence. Judge said it was pointless not naming him now.
There also the fact that his name was readily available on Twitter (I came across it without even trying to look for it).
Why the authorities didn't come out and say in words of one syllable "He's not a Muslim" the moment the riots started kicking off I've no idea - I'd kind of presumed he must be, given the fact they didn't.
Instead of which we got a load of preachy "not everything you read on twitter is true", despite the fact that Twitter had got to the correct name in a matter of hours, despite the best efforts of somebody (I assume the Russians) to put a false name about.
It's impossible to say in words of one syllable "He's not a Muslim".
Jenrick was utterly ineffectual as housing minister, doing absolutely sod all for leaseholders affected by the cladding scandal (pretty much anyone living in a building more than 5 storeys high). Described as "no help at all" by 90% of leaseholders in a survey by the leasehold knowledge partnership.
He was involved in a highly controversial planning decision involving Richard Desmond, who made a subsatantial donation to the Conservatives two weeks after planning was approved.
He charged the taxpayer £100,000 in rent and council tax for his THIRD home. That's right. Third home. To quote the Times, "Travel expenses suggest that Jenrick rarely spends an entire weekend at the property..." ..."A government minister said last night: “It’s a bit odd to make the taxpayer fund your constituency home when you’ve got all that money. It doesn’t look good.”
He broke lockdown rules twice, travelling 150 miles to his his second home. Considering it was rule breaking that did for Boris, is Jenrick really a suitable candidate for leader?
Oh, and the thing he's most famous for? Having a mural of Mickey Mouse and Baloo from Jungle Book in a children's asylum centre painted over. Regardless for the reason (e.g. copyright), the man is mostly known by the general public for comic-book, cartoon-villain levels of cruelty. That is when they remember him at all.
So I put it to you. If Robert Jenrick is the answer, then what on earth is the question?
The 2 answers so far below are
1) because they want to commit political suicide (@ydoethur) 2) they wish to be known as the nasty party (me)
I still don't understand why Rishi didn't wait until November. We're about to get another 0.6% growth in Q2, Q3 has started very positively and we'd have had another rate cut by then. If it was a late November election we could have been at 4.75% interest rates and 1.7% YTD growth and another year of above inflation wage rises.
The July election has got to be one of the biggest missteps in the history of the Tory party.
Oliver Dowden showed Sunak the numbers coming off fixed term mortgages between now and November.
That made going in July logical.
Without knowing the context of the age profile that seems like a huge leap of logic. People coming off shorter fixed rate mortgages are going to be younger and have a lower propensity to vote Tory anyway. It seems like poor reasoning to me anyway. The upsides to waiting were much larger.
As I've been pointing out all week the only rational reason I have seen for pulling the election forward is the public sector pay awards which firstly removed any chance of more tax cuts and secondly may have triggered an issue when it becomes obvious that the figures no longer added up.
Not really, the government could have just ignored it on the grounds of affordability or something. 5.5% is high, 3.5% higher than inflation. Limit it to those earning less than £35k or something and everyone else gets 2.1% or whatever CPI is.
At a time of mass vacancies and full employment?
If you don't want to pay the required wage then abolish the job and save all the money not some of it, but if the job needs doing it needs paying for.
Then let them leave for the private sector.
But enough of them are leaving for it to be a problem. Or they're not signing up in the first place.
You're smart. You've had enough people point this out to you. You supposedly know how money works.
Apart from not liking the obvious consequence, why do you find this so hard to accept?
Because the state is too large and does too much. We need to cut the size of the state and having people leave voluntarily is probably the best way to achieve it.
Again - what does it do that can be outsourced to the private sector efficiently. And remember the maxim for the past 14 years has been to drive costs down anyway you can..
Planning.
Abolish every busybody trying to second-guess and authorise what anyone builds on their land and have a free for all where anyone who wants to build anything on their own damned land can.
There we go - jobs abolished.
You know my wife is a town planner? Every post you make tells me you haven't got a clue what they actually do...
Far too much that they shouldn't is what they do. And I'd have no objection if your wife were made redundant.
No planner should have any input into whether or not a house is built, that should be upto the would-be homeowner and the private market.
If you want to plan new town or improved functions that the town intends to build on the town's own land, then that's something a town planner can and should be doing, but no need to review other people's plans of what they intend to be doing on their land.
Are you suggesting that local authorities should compulsory purchase (very cheaply of course) all land that could be developed?
I need to double check this but I'm 100% sure that is exactly what happens in some countries - the land is bought, roads and utilities are put in and the land then sold plot by plot to developers of all sizes..
An interesting point is the potential profit for local authorities in doing this.
Currently, development gets the local authorities very little.
If they could buy land, lay it out with services and roads and then sell the plots - big profits are possible.
Suddenly councils discover the joys of an expanding local population....
After all, the value of a piece of land depends on the right to build on it (ie planning permission) and the installation of services. Both of these benefits come from the community, in one way or another. The landowner, who builds a house, has very little to do with the increase in value of the land.
Abolish the planning permission requirement and the value of land in house prices could fall back to the 2-3% of the cost of land as it was pre-1948 rather than the 1/3rd or more of house prices it is today.
No restrictions at all on what you can build where?
Outside of AONBs and so long as it meets building regulations, yeah.
People retort "what if a factory is built near you" - yeah, what of it? Good, we should be investing in factories and that's economic growth.
I still don't understand why Rishi didn't wait until November. We're about to get another 0.6% growth in Q2, Q3 has started very positively and we'd have had another rate cut by then. If it was a late November election we could have been at 4.75% interest rates and 1.7% YTD growth and another year of above inflation wage rises.
The July election has got to be one of the biggest missteps in the history of the Tory party.
Oliver Dowden showed Sunak the numbers coming off fixed term mortgages between now and November.
That made going in July logical.
Without knowing the context of the age profile that seems like a huge leap of logic. People coming off shorter fixed rate mortgages are going to be younger and have a lower propensity to vote Tory anyway. It seems like poor reasoning to me anyway. The upsides to waiting were much larger.
As I've been pointing out all week the only rational reason I have seen for pulling the election forward is the public sector pay awards which firstly removed any chance of more tax cuts and secondly may have triggered an issue when it becomes obvious that the figures no longer added up.
Not really, the government could have just ignored it on the grounds of affordability or something. 5.5% is high, 3.5% higher than inflation. Limit it to those earning less than £35k or something and everyone else gets 2.1% or whatever CPI is.
At a time of mass vacancies and full employment?
If you don't want to pay the required wage then abolish the job and save all the money not some of it, but if the job needs doing it needs paying for.
Then let them leave for the private sector.
But enough of them are leaving for it to be a problem. Or they're not signing up in the first place.
You're smart. You've had enough people point this out to you. You supposedly know how money works.
Apart from not liking the obvious consequence, why do you find this so hard to accept?
Because the state is too large and does too much. We need to cut the size of the state and having people leave voluntarily is probably the best way to achieve it.
Again - what does it do that can be outsourced to the private sector efficiently. And remember the maxim for the past 14 years has been to drive costs down anyway you can..
Planning.
Abolish every busybody trying to second-guess and authorise what anyone builds on their land and have a free for all where anyone who wants to build anything on their own damned land can.
There we go - jobs abolished.
You know my wife is a town planner? Every post you make tells me you haven't got a clue what they actually do...
Far too much that they shouldn't is what they do. And I'd have no objection if your wife were made redundant.
No planner should have any input into whether or not a house is built, that should be upto the would-be homeowner and the private market.
If you want to plan new town or improved functions that the town intends to build on the town's own land, then that's something a town planner can and should be doing, but no need to review other people's plans of what they intend to be doing on their land.
Are you suggesting that local authorities should compulsory purchase (very cheaply of course) all land that could be developed?
I need to double check this but I'm 100% sure that is exactly what happens in some countries - the land is bought, roads and utilities are put in and the land then sold plot by plot to developers of all sizes..
An interesting point is the potential profit for local authorities in doing this.
Currently, development gets the local authorities very little.
If they could buy land, lay it out with services and roads and then sell the plots - big profits are possible.
Suddenly councils discover the joys of an expanding local population....
Nah. Why make a profit for the council? How does that benefit the officers?
Funny how a local company ended up owning those fields that found themselves on the local development plan, isn't it? How did that happen?
Jenrick was utterly ineffectual as housing minister, doing absolutely sod all for leaseholders affected by the cladding scandal (pretty much anyone living in a building more than 5 storeys high). Described as "no help at all" by 90% of leaseholders in a survey by the leasehold knowledge partnership.
He was involved in a highly controversial planning decision involving Richard Desmond, who made a subsatantial donation to the Conservatives two weeks after planning was approved.
He charged the taxpayer £100,000 in rent and council tax for his THIRD home. That's right. Third home. To quote the Times, "Travel expenses suggest that Jenrick rarely spends an entire weekend at the property..." ..."A government minister said last night: “It’s a bit odd to make the taxpayer fund your constituency home when you’ve got all that money. It doesn’t look good.”
He broke lockdown rules twice, travelling 150 miles to his his second home. Considering it was rule breaking that did for Boris, is Jenrick really a suitable candidate for leader?
Oh, and the thing he's most famous for? Having a mural of Mickey Mouse and Baloo from Jungle Book in a children's asylum centre painted over. Regardless for the reason (e.g. copyright), the man is mostly known by the general public for comic-book, cartoon-villain levels of cruelty. That is when they remember him at all.
So I put it to you. If Robert Jenrick is the answer, then what on earth is the question?
I had been idly wondering which paint manufacturers or DIY chains are sponsoring his bid. But, in view of the above, perhaps not!
I still don't understand why Rishi didn't wait until November. We're about to get another 0.6% growth in Q2, Q3 has started very positively and we'd have had another rate cut by then. If it was a late November election we could have been at 4.75% interest rates and 1.7% YTD growth and another year of above inflation wage rises.
The July election has got to be one of the biggest missteps in the history of the Tory party.
Oliver Dowden showed Sunak the numbers coming off fixed term mortgages between now and November.
That made going in July logical.
Without knowing the context of the age profile that seems like a huge leap of logic. People coming off shorter fixed rate mortgages are going to be younger and have a lower propensity to vote Tory anyway. It seems like poor reasoning to me anyway. The upsides to waiting were much larger.
As I've been pointing out all week the only rational reason I have seen for pulling the election forward is the public sector pay awards which firstly removed any chance of more tax cuts and secondly may have triggered an issue when it becomes obvious that the figures no longer added up.
Not really, the government could have just ignored it on the grounds of affordability or something. 5.5% is high, 3.5% higher than inflation. Limit it to those earning less than £35k or something and everyone else gets 2.1% or whatever CPI is.
At a time of mass vacancies and full employment?
If you don't want to pay the required wage then abolish the job and save all the money not some of it, but if the job needs doing it needs paying for.
Then let them leave for the private sector.
But enough of them are leaving for it to be a problem. Or they're not signing up in the first place.
You're smart. You've had enough people point this out to you. You supposedly know how money works.
Apart from not liking the obvious consequence, why do you find this so hard to accept?
Because the state is too large and does too much. We need to cut the size of the state and having people leave voluntarily is probably the best way to achieve it.
Again - what does it do that can be outsourced to the private sector efficiently. And remember the maxim for the past 14 years has been to drive costs down anyway you can..
Planning.
Abolish every busybody trying to second-guess and authorise what anyone builds on their land and have a free for all where anyone who wants to build anything on their own damned land can.
There we go - jobs abolished.
You know my wife is a town planner? Every post you make tells me you haven't got a clue what they actually do...
Far too much that they shouldn't is what they do. And I'd have no objection if your wife were made redundant.
No planner should have any input into whether or not a house is built, that should be upto the would-be homeowner and the private market.
If you want to plan new town or improved functions that the town intends to build on the town's own land, then that's something a town planner can and should be doing, but no need to review other people's plans of what they intend to be doing on their land.
Are you suggesting that local authorities should compulsory purchase (very cheaply of course) all land that could be developed?
I need to double check this but I'm 100% sure that is exactly what happens in some countries - the land is bought, roads and utilities are put in and the land then sold plot by plot to developers of all sizes..
An interesting point is the potential profit for local authorities in doing this.
Currently, development gets the local authorities very little.
If they could buy land, lay it out with services and roads and then sell the plots - big profits are possible.
Suddenly councils discover the joys of an expanding local population....
After all, the value of a piece of land depends on the right to build on it (ie planning permission) and the installation of services. Both of these benefits come from the community, in one way or another. The landowner, who builds a house, has very little to do with the increase in value of the land.
Abolish the planning permission requirement and the value of land in house prices could fall back to the 2-3% of the cost of land as it was pre-1948 rather than the 1/3rd or more of house prices it is today.
You can't build in the middle of nowhere - the money you think would be saved on land costs (and it wouldn't be because any sale would have covenants to reclaim a lot of any uplift in value) would end up being spent getting the infrastucture in place instead..
Jenrick was utterly ineffectual as housing minister, doing absolutely sod all for leaseholders affected by the cladding scandal (pretty much anyone living in a building more than 5 storeys high). Described as "no help at all" by 90% of leaseholders in a survey by the leasehold knowledge partnership.
He was involved in a highly controversial planning decision involving Richard Desmond, who made a subsatantial donation to the Conservatives two weeks after planning was approved.
He charged the taxpayer £100,000 in rent and council tax for his THIRD home. That's right. Third home. To quote the Times, "Travel expenses suggest that Jenrick rarely spends an entire weekend at the property..." ..."A government minister said last night: “It’s a bit odd to make the taxpayer fund your constituency home when you’ve got all that money. It doesn’t look good.”
He broke lockdown rules twice, travelling 150 miles to his his second home. Considering it was rule breaking that did for Boris, is Jenrick really a suitable candidate for leader?
Oh, and the thing he's most famous for? Having a mural of Mickey Mouse and Baloo from Jungle Book in a children's asylum centre painted over. Regardless for the reason (e.g. copyright), the man is mostly known by the general public for comic-book, cartoon-villain levels of cruelty. That is when they remember him at all.
So I put it to you. If Robert Jenrick is the answer, then what on earth is the question?
What's the worst that can happen to the party now ?
I still don't understand why Rishi didn't wait until November. We're about to get another 0.6% growth in Q2, Q3 has started very positively and we'd have had another rate cut by then. If it was a late November election we could have been at 4.75% interest rates and 1.7% YTD growth and another year of above inflation wage rises.
The July election has got to be one of the biggest missteps in the history of the Tory party.
Oliver Dowden showed Sunak the numbers coming off fixed term mortgages between now and November.
That made going in July logical.
Without knowing the context of the age profile that seems like a huge leap of logic. People coming off shorter fixed rate mortgages are going to be younger and have a lower propensity to vote Tory anyway. It seems like poor reasoning to me anyway. The upsides to waiting were much larger.
As I've been pointing out all week the only rational reason I have seen for pulling the election forward is the public sector pay awards which firstly removed any chance of more tax cuts and secondly may have triggered an issue when it becomes obvious that the figures no longer added up.
Not really, the government could have just ignored it on the grounds of affordability or something. 5.5% is high, 3.5% higher than inflation. Limit it to those earning less than £35k or something and everyone else gets 2.1% or whatever CPI is.
At a time of mass vacancies and full employment?
If you don't want to pay the required wage then abolish the job and save all the money not some of it, but if the job needs doing it needs paying for.
Then let them leave for the private sector.
But enough of them are leaving for it to be a problem. Or they're not signing up in the first place.
You're smart. You've had enough people point this out to you. You supposedly know how money works.
Apart from not liking the obvious consequence, why do you find this so hard to accept?
Because the state is too large and does too much. We need to cut the size of the state and having people leave voluntarily is probably the best way to achieve it.
Again - what does it do that can be outsourced to the private sector efficiently. And remember the maxim for the past 14 years has been to drive costs down anyway you can..
Planning.
Abolish every busybody trying to second-guess and authorise what anyone builds on their land and have a free for all where anyone who wants to build anything on their own damned land can.
There we go - jobs abolished.
You know my wife is a town planner? Every post you make tells me you haven't got a clue what they actually do...
Far too much that they shouldn't is what they do. And I'd have no objection if your wife were made redundant.
No planner should have any input into whether or not a house is built, that should be upto the would-be homeowner and the private market.
If you want to plan new town or improved functions that the town intends to build on the town's own land, then that's something a town planner can and should be doing, but no need to review other people's plans of what they intend to be doing on their land.
Are you suggesting that local authorities should compulsory purchase (very cheaply of course) all land that could be developed?
I need to double check this but I'm 100% sure that is exactly what happens in some countries - the land is bought, roads and utilities are put in and the land then sold plot by plot to developers of all sizes..
An interesting point is the potential profit for local authorities in doing this.
Currently, development gets the local authorities very little.
If they could buy land, lay it out with services and roads and then sell the plots - big profits are possible.
Suddenly councils discover the joys of an expanding local population....
After all, the value of a piece of land depends on the right to build on it (ie planning permission) and the installation of services. Both of these benefits come from the community, in one way or another. The landowner, who builds a house, has very little to do with the increase in value of the land.
Abolish the planning permission requirement and the value of land in house prices could fall back to the 2-3% of the cost of land as it was pre-1948 rather than the 1/3rd or more of house prices it is today.
No restrictions at all on what you can build where?
Outside of AONBs and so long as it meets building regulations, yeah.
People retort "what if a factory is built near you" - yeah, what of it? Good, we should be investing in factories and that's economic growth.
What's the problem?
It would fundamentally and irrevocably change the landscape of Britain. Maybe that's ok; I happen to think it's not.
I still don't understand why Rishi didn't wait until November. We're about to get another 0.6% growth in Q2, Q3 has started very positively and we'd have had another rate cut by then. If it was a late November election we could have been at 4.75% interest rates and 1.7% YTD growth and another year of above inflation wage rises.
The July election has got to be one of the biggest missteps in the history of the Tory party.
Oliver Dowden showed Sunak the numbers coming off fixed term mortgages between now and November.
That made going in July logical.
Without knowing the context of the age profile that seems like a huge leap of logic. People coming off shorter fixed rate mortgages are going to be younger and have a lower propensity to vote Tory anyway. It seems like poor reasoning to me anyway. The upsides to waiting were much larger.
As I've been pointing out all week the only rational reason I have seen for pulling the election forward is the public sector pay awards which firstly removed any chance of more tax cuts and secondly may have triggered an issue when it becomes obvious that the figures no longer added up.
Not really, the government could have just ignored it on the grounds of affordability or something. 5.5% is high, 3.5% higher than inflation. Limit it to those earning less than £35k or something and everyone else gets 2.1% or whatever CPI is.
At a time of mass vacancies and full employment?
If you don't want to pay the required wage then abolish the job and save all the money not some of it, but if the job needs doing it needs paying for.
Then let them leave for the private sector.
But enough of them are leaving for it to be a problem. Or they're not signing up in the first place.
You're smart. You've had enough people point this out to you. You supposedly know how money works.
Apart from not liking the obvious consequence, why do you find this so hard to accept?
Because the state is too large and does too much. We need to cut the size of the state and having people leave voluntarily is probably the best way to achieve it.
Again - what does it do that can be outsourced to the private sector efficiently. And remember the maxim for the past 14 years has been to drive costs down anyway you can..
Planning.
Abolish every busybody trying to second-guess and authorise what anyone builds on their land and have a free for all where anyone who wants to build anything on their own damned land can.
There we go - jobs abolished.
You know my wife is a town planner? Every post you make tells me you haven't got a clue what they actually do...
Far too much that they shouldn't is what they do. And I'd have no objection if your wife were made redundant.
No planner should have any input into whether or not a house is built, that should be upto the would-be homeowner and the private market.
If you want to plan new town or improved functions that the town intends to build on the town's own land, then that's something a town planner can and should be doing, but no need to review other people's plans of what they intend to be doing on their land.
Are you suggesting that local authorities should compulsory purchase (very cheaply of course) all land that could be developed?
I need to double check this but I'm 100% sure that is exactly what happens in some countries - the land is bought, roads and utilities are put in and the land then sold plot by plot to developers of all sizes..
Just been reading about the museum Georgian garden at Royal Circus, Bath. The Circus was done like that - as was the New Town of Edinburgh. But both with strict planning policies applied.
Jenrick was utterly ineffectual as housing minister, doing absolutely sod all for leaseholders affected by the cladding scandal (pretty much anyone living in a building more than 5 storeys high). Described as "no help at all" by 90% of leaseholders in a survey by the leasehold knowledge partnership.
He was involved in a highly controversial planning decision involving Richard Desmond, who made a subsatantial donation to the Conservatives two weeks after planning was approved.
He charged the taxpayer £100,000 in rent and council tax for his THIRD home. That's right. Third home. To quote the Times, "Travel expenses suggest that Jenrick rarely spends an entire weekend at the property..." ..."A government minister said last night: “It’s a bit odd to make the taxpayer fund your constituency home when you’ve got all that money. It doesn’t look good.”
He broke lockdown rules twice, travelling 150 miles to his his second home. Considering it was rule breaking that did for Boris, is Jenrick really a suitable candidate for leader?
Oh, and the thing he's most famous for? Having a mural of Mickey Mouse and Baloo from Jungle Book in a children's asylum centre painted over. Regardless for the reason (e.g. copyright), the man is mostly known by the general public for comic-book, cartoon-villain levels of cruelty. That is when they remember him at all.
So I put it to you. If Robert Jenrick is the answer, then what on earth is the question?
What's the worst that can happen to the party now ?
The Liberals under Sir Herbert Samuel and Sir Archibald Sinclair offer some clue.
I still don't understand why Rishi didn't wait until November. We're about to get another 0.6% growth in Q2, Q3 has started very positively and we'd have had another rate cut by then. If it was a late November election we could have been at 4.75% interest rates and 1.7% YTD growth and another year of above inflation wage rises.
The July election has got to be one of the biggest missteps in the history of the Tory party.
Oliver Dowden showed Sunak the numbers coming off fixed term mortgages between now and November.
That made going in July logical.
Without knowing the context of the age profile that seems like a huge leap of logic. People coming off shorter fixed rate mortgages are going to be younger and have a lower propensity to vote Tory anyway. It seems like poor reasoning to me anyway. The upsides to waiting were much larger.
As I've been pointing out all week the only rational reason I have seen for pulling the election forward is the public sector pay awards which firstly removed any chance of more tax cuts and secondly may have triggered an issue when it becomes obvious that the figures no longer added up.
Not really, the government could have just ignored it on the grounds of affordability or something. 5.5% is high, 3.5% higher than inflation. Limit it to those earning less than £35k or something and everyone else gets 2.1% or whatever CPI is.
At a time of mass vacancies and full employment?
If you don't want to pay the required wage then abolish the job and save all the money not some of it, but if the job needs doing it needs paying for.
Then let them leave for the private sector.
But enough of them are leaving for it to be a problem. Or they're not signing up in the first place.
You're smart. You've had enough people point this out to you. You supposedly know how money works.
Apart from not liking the obvious consequence, why do you find this so hard to accept?
Because the state is too large and does too much. We need to cut the size of the state and having people leave voluntarily is probably the best way to achieve it.
Again - what does it do that can be outsourced to the private sector efficiently. And remember the maxim for the past 14 years has been to drive costs down anyway you can..
Planning.
Abolish every busybody trying to second-guess and authorise what anyone builds on their land and have a free for all where anyone who wants to build anything on their own damned land can.
There we go - jobs abolished.
You know my wife is a town planner? Every post you make tells me you haven't got a clue what they actually do...
Far too much that they shouldn't is what they do. And I'd have no objection if your wife were made redundant.
No planner should have any input into whether or not a house is built, that should be upto the would-be homeowner and the private market.
If you want to plan new town or improved functions that the town intends to build on the town's own land, then that's something a town planner can and should be doing, but no need to review other people's plans of what they intend to be doing on their land.
Are you suggesting that local authorities should compulsory purchase (very cheaply of course) all land that could be developed?
I need to double check this but I'm 100% sure that is exactly what happens in some countries - the land is bought, roads and utilities are put in and the land then sold plot by plot to developers of all sizes..
An interesting point is the potential profit for local authorities in doing this.
Currently, development gets the local authorities very little.
If they could buy land, lay it out with services and roads and then sell the plots - big profits are possible.
Suddenly councils discover the joys of an expanding local population....
After all, the value of a piece of land depends on the right to build on it (ie planning permission) and the installation of services. Both of these benefits come from the community, in one way or another. The landowner, who builds a house, has very little to do with the increase in value of the land.
Abolish the planning permission requirement and the value of land in house prices could fall back to the 2-3% of the cost of land as it was pre-1948 rather than the 1/3rd or more of house prices it is today.
No restrictions at all on what you can build where?
Outside of AONBs and so long as it meets building regulations, yeah.
People retort "what if a factory is built near you" - yeah, what of it? Good, we should be investing in factories and that's economic growth.
What's the problem?
It would fundamentally and irrevocably change the landscape of Britain. Maybe that's ok; I happen to think it's not.
Vide the arguments of the 1920s and 1930s over bungaloid cancer and ribbon sprawl.
I still don't understand why Rishi didn't wait until November. We're about to get another 0.6% growth in Q2, Q3 has started very positively and we'd have had another rate cut by then. If it was a late November election we could have been at 4.75% interest rates and 1.7% YTD growth and another year of above inflation wage rises.
The July election has got to be one of the biggest missteps in the history of the Tory party.
Oliver Dowden showed Sunak the numbers coming off fixed term mortgages between now and November.
That made going in July logical.
Without knowing the context of the age profile that seems like a huge leap of logic. People coming off shorter fixed rate mortgages are going to be younger and have a lower propensity to vote Tory anyway. It seems like poor reasoning to me anyway. The upsides to waiting were much larger.
As I've been pointing out all week the only rational reason I have seen for pulling the election forward is the public sector pay awards which firstly removed any chance of more tax cuts and secondly may have triggered an issue when it becomes obvious that the figures no longer added up.
Not really, the government could have just ignored it on the grounds of affordability or something. 5.5% is high, 3.5% higher than inflation. Limit it to those earning less than £35k or something and everyone else gets 2.1% or whatever CPI is.
At a time of mass vacancies and full employment?
If you don't want to pay the required wage then abolish the job and save all the money not some of it, but if the job needs doing it needs paying for.
Then let them leave for the private sector.
But enough of them are leaving for it to be a problem. Or they're not signing up in the first place.
You're smart. You've had enough people point this out to you. You supposedly know how money works.
Apart from not liking the obvious consequence, why do you find this so hard to accept?
Because the state is too large and does too much. We need to cut the size of the state and having people leave voluntarily is probably the best way to achieve it.
Again - what does it do that can be outsourced to the private sector efficiently. And remember the maxim for the past 14 years has been to drive costs down anyway you can..
Planning.
Abolish every busybody trying to second-guess and authorise what anyone builds on their land and have a free for all where anyone who wants to build anything on their own damned land can.
There we go - jobs abolished.
You know my wife is a town planner? Every post you make tells me you haven't got a clue what they actually do...
Far too much that they shouldn't is what they do. And I'd have no objection if your wife were made redundant.
No planner should have any input into whether or not a house is built, that should be upto the would-be homeowner and the private market.
If you want to plan new town or improved functions that the town intends to build on the town's own land, then that's something a town planner can and should be doing, but no need to review other people's plans of what they intend to be doing on their land.
Are you suggesting that local authorities should compulsory purchase (very cheaply of course) all land that could be developed?
I need to double check this but I'm 100% sure that is exactly what happens in some countries - the land is bought, roads and utilities are put in and the land then sold plot by plot to developers of all sizes..
An interesting point is the potential profit for local authorities in doing this.
Currently, development gets the local authorities very little.
If they could buy land, lay it out with services and roads and then sell the plots - big profits are possible.
Suddenly councils discover the joys of an expanding local population....
After all, the value of a piece of land depends on the right to build on it (ie planning permission) and the installation of services. Both of these benefits come from the community, in one way or another. The landowner, who builds a house, has very little to do with the increase in value of the land.
Abolish the planning permission requirement and the value of land in house prices could fall back to the 2-3% of the cost of land as it was pre-1948 rather than the 1/3rd or more of house prices it is today.
No restrictions at all on what you can build where?
Outside of AONBs and so long as it meets building regulations, yeah.
People retort "what if a factory is built near you" - yeah, what of it? Good, we should be investing in factories and that's economic growth.
What's the problem?
That you're an extreme outlier when it comes to what people want from a planning system ?
Jenrick was utterly ineffectual as housing minister, doing absolutely sod all for leaseholders affected by the cladding scandal (pretty much anyone living in a building more than 5 storeys high). Described as "no help at all" by 90% of leaseholders in a survey by the leasehold knowledge partnership.
He was involved in a highly controversial planning decision involving Richard Desmond, who made a subsatantial donation to the Conservatives two weeks after planning was approved.
He charged the taxpayer £100,000 in rent and council tax for his THIRD home. That's right. Third home. To quote the Times, "Travel expenses suggest that Jenrick rarely spends an entire weekend at the property..." ..."A government minister said last night: “It’s a bit odd to make the taxpayer fund your constituency home when you’ve got all that money. It doesn’t look good.”
He broke lockdown rules twice, travelling 150 miles to his his second home. Considering it was rule breaking that did for Boris, is Jenrick really a suitable candidate for leader?
Oh, and the thing he's most famous for? Having a mural of Mickey Mouse and Baloo from Jungle Book in a children's asylum centre painted over. Regardless for the reason (e.g. copyright), the man is mostly known by the general public for comic-book, cartoon-villain levels of cruelty. That is when they remember him at all.
So I put it to you. If Robert Jenrick is the answer, then what on earth is the question?
The question is ... who is the least bad candidate from the right of the party with enough MP support to make the run off?
I still don't understand why Rishi didn't wait until November. We're about to get another 0.6% growth in Q2, Q3 has started very positively and we'd have had another rate cut by then. If it was a late November election we could have been at 4.75% interest rates and 1.7% YTD growth and another year of above inflation wage rises.
The July election has got to be one of the biggest missteps in the history of the Tory party.
Oliver Dowden showed Sunak the numbers coming off fixed term mortgages between now and November.
That made going in July logical.
Without knowing the context of the age profile that seems like a huge leap of logic. People coming off shorter fixed rate mortgages are going to be younger and have a lower propensity to vote Tory anyway. It seems like poor reasoning to me anyway. The upsides to waiting were much larger.
As I've been pointing out all week the only rational reason I have seen for pulling the election forward is the public sector pay awards which firstly removed any chance of more tax cuts and secondly may have triggered an issue when it becomes obvious that the figures no longer added up.
Not really, the government could have just ignored it on the grounds of affordability or something. 5.5% is high, 3.5% higher than inflation. Limit it to those earning less than £35k or something and everyone else gets 2.1% or whatever CPI is.
At a time of mass vacancies and full employment?
If you don't want to pay the required wage then abolish the job and save all the money not some of it, but if the job needs doing it needs paying for.
Then let them leave for the private sector.
But enough of them are leaving for it to be a problem. Or they're not signing up in the first place.
You're smart. You've had enough people point this out to you. You supposedly know how money works.
Apart from not liking the obvious consequence, why do you find this so hard to accept?
Because the state is too large and does too much. We need to cut the size of the state and having people leave voluntarily is probably the best way to achieve it.
Again - what does it do that can be outsourced to the private sector efficiently. And remember the maxim for the past 14 years has been to drive costs down anyway you can..
Planning.
Abolish every busybody trying to second-guess and authorise what anyone builds on their land and have a free for all where anyone who wants to build anything on their own damned land can.
There we go - jobs abolished.
You know my wife is a town planner? Every post you make tells me you haven't got a clue what they actually do...
Far too much that they shouldn't is what they do. And I'd have no objection if your wife were made redundant.
No planner should have any input into whether or not a house is built, that should be upto the would-be homeowner and the private market.
If you want to plan new town or improved functions that the town intends to build on the town's own land, then that's something a town planner can and should be doing, but no need to review other people's plans of what they intend to be doing on their land.
Are you suggesting that local authorities should compulsory purchase (very cheaply of course) all land that could be developed?
I need to double check this but I'm 100% sure that is exactly what happens in some countries - the land is bought, roads and utilities are put in and the land then sold plot by plot to developers of all sizes..
An interesting point is the potential profit for local authorities in doing this.
Currently, development gets the local authorities very little.
If they could buy land, lay it out with services and roads and then sell the plots - big profits are possible.
Suddenly councils discover the joys of an expanding local population....
After all, the value of a piece of land depends on the right to build on it (ie planning permission) and the installation of services. Both of these benefits come from the community, in one way or another. The landowner, who builds a house, has very little to do with the increase in value of the land.
Abolish the planning permission requirement and the value of land in house prices could fall back to the 2-3% of the cost of land as it was pre-1948 rather than the 1/3rd or more of house prices it is today.
No restrictions at all on what you can build where?
Outside of AONBs and so long as it meets building regulations, yeah.
People retort "what if a factory is built near you" - yeah, what of it? Good, we should be investing in factories and that's economic growth.
What's the problem?
It's a very idiosyncratic category, which you might not intend.
I still don't understand why Rishi didn't wait until November. We're about to get another 0.6% growth in Q2, Q3 has started very positively and we'd have had another rate cut by then. If it was a late November election we could have been at 4.75% interest rates and 1.7% YTD growth and another year of above inflation wage rises.
The July election has got to be one of the biggest missteps in the history of the Tory party.
Oliver Dowden showed Sunak the numbers coming off fixed term mortgages between now and November.
That made going in July logical.
Without knowing the context of the age profile that seems like a huge leap of logic. People coming off shorter fixed rate mortgages are going to be younger and have a lower propensity to vote Tory anyway. It seems like poor reasoning to me anyway. The upsides to waiting were much larger.
As I've been pointing out all week the only rational reason I have seen for pulling the election forward is the public sector pay awards which firstly removed any chance of more tax cuts and secondly may have triggered an issue when it becomes obvious that the figures no longer added up.
Not really, the government could have just ignored it on the grounds of affordability or something. 5.5% is high, 3.5% higher than inflation. Limit it to those earning less than £35k or something and everyone else gets 2.1% or whatever CPI is.
At a time of mass vacancies and full employment?
If you don't want to pay the required wage then abolish the job and save all the money not some of it, but if the job needs doing it needs paying for.
Then let them leave for the private sector.
But enough of them are leaving for it to be a problem. Or they're not signing up in the first place.
You're smart. You've had enough people point this out to you. You supposedly know how money works.
Apart from not liking the obvious consequence, why do you find this so hard to accept?
Because the state is too large and does too much. We need to cut the size of the state and having people leave voluntarily is probably the best way to achieve it.
Again - what does it do that can be outsourced to the private sector efficiently. And remember the maxim for the past 14 years has been to drive costs down anyway you can..
Planning.
Abolish every busybody trying to second-guess and authorise what anyone builds on their land and have a free for all where anyone who wants to build anything on their own damned land can.
There we go - jobs abolished.
You know my wife is a town planner? Every post you make tells me you haven't got a clue what they actually do...
Far too much that they shouldn't is what they do. And I'd have no objection if your wife were made redundant.
No planner should have any input into whether or not a house is built, that should be upto the would-be homeowner and the private market.
If you want to plan new town or improved functions that the town intends to build on the town's own land, then that's something a town planner can and should be doing, but no need to review other people's plans of what they intend to be doing on their land.
Are you suggesting that local authorities should compulsory purchase (very cheaply of course) all land that could be developed?
I need to double check this but I'm 100% sure that is exactly what happens in some countries - the land is bought, roads and utilities are put in and the land then sold plot by plot to developers of all sizes..
An interesting point is the potential profit for local authorities in doing this.
Currently, development gets the local authorities very little.
If they could buy land, lay it out with services and roads and then sell the plots - big profits are possible.
Suddenly councils discover the joys of an expanding local population....
After all, the value of a piece of land depends on the right to build on it (ie planning permission) and the installation of services. Both of these benefits come from the community, in one way or another. The landowner, who builds a house, has very little to do with the increase in value of the land.
Abolish the planning permission requirement and the value of land in house prices could fall back to the 2-3% of the cost of land as it was pre-1948 rather than the 1/3rd or more of house prices it is today.
You can't build in the middle of nowhere - the money you think would be saved on land costs (and it wouldn't be because any sale would have covenants to reclaim a lot of any uplift in value) would end up being spent getting the infrastucture in place instead..
Irrelevant, the UK isn't big enough to have anywhere be classed as the middle of nowhere.
My in-laws live the Rocky Mountains over 200 miles from the nearest city and over a 2 hour drive from the nearest other inhabitated settlement. That's the middle of nowhere and it doesn't stop them getting stuff done, even when its minus 40 Celsius in the daytime.
I still don't understand why Rishi didn't wait until November. We're about to get another 0.6% growth in Q2, Q3 has started very positively and we'd have had another rate cut by then. If it was a late November election we could have been at 4.75% interest rates and 1.7% YTD growth and another year of above inflation wage rises.
The July election has got to be one of the biggest missteps in the history of the Tory party.
Oliver Dowden showed Sunak the numbers coming off fixed term mortgages between now and November.
That made going in July logical.
Without knowing the context of the age profile that seems like a huge leap of logic. People coming off shorter fixed rate mortgages are going to be younger and have a lower propensity to vote Tory anyway. It seems like poor reasoning to me anyway. The upsides to waiting were much larger.
As I've been pointing out all week the only rational reason I have seen for pulling the election forward is the public sector pay awards which firstly removed any chance of more tax cuts and secondly may have triggered an issue when it becomes obvious that the figures no longer added up.
Not really, the government could have just ignored it on the grounds of affordability or something. 5.5% is high, 3.5% higher than inflation. Limit it to those earning less than £35k or something and everyone else gets 2.1% or whatever CPI is.
At a time of mass vacancies and full employment?
If you don't want to pay the required wage then abolish the job and save all the money not some of it, but if the job needs doing it needs paying for.
Then let them leave for the private sector.
But enough of them are leaving for it to be a problem. Or they're not signing up in the first place.
You're smart. You've had enough people point this out to you. You supposedly know how money works.
Apart from not liking the obvious consequence, why do you find this so hard to accept?
Because the state is too large and does too much. We need to cut the size of the state and having people leave voluntarily is probably the best way to achieve it.
Again - what does it do that can be outsourced to the private sector efficiently. And remember the maxim for the past 14 years has been to drive costs down anyway you can..
Planning.
Abolish every busybody trying to second-guess and authorise what anyone builds on their land and have a free for all where anyone who wants to build anything on their own damned land can.
There we go - jobs abolished.
You know my wife is a town planner? Every post you make tells me you haven't got a clue what they actually do...
Far too much that they shouldn't is what they do. And I'd have no objection if your wife were made redundant.
No planner should have any input into whether or not a house is built, that should be upto the would-be homeowner and the private market.
If you want to plan new town or improved functions that the town intends to build on the town's own land, then that's something a town planner can and should be doing, but no need to review other people's plans of what they intend to be doing on their land.
Are you suggesting that local authorities should compulsory purchase (very cheaply of course) all land that could be developed?
I need to double check this but I'm 100% sure that is exactly what happens in some countries - the land is bought, roads and utilities are put in and the land then sold plot by plot to developers of all sizes..
An interesting point is the potential profit for local authorities in doing this.
Currently, development gets the local authorities very little.
If they could buy land, lay it out with services and roads and then sell the plots - big profits are possible.
Suddenly councils discover the joys of an expanding local population....
After all, the value of a piece of land depends on the right to build on it (ie planning permission) and the installation of services. Both of these benefits come from the community, in one way or another. The landowner, who builds a house, has very little to do with the increase in value of the land.
Abolish the planning permission requirement and the value of land in house prices could fall back to the 2-3% of the cost of land as it was pre-1948 rather than the 1/3rd or more of house prices it is today.
You can't build in the middle of nowhere - the money you think would be saved on land costs (and it wouldn't be because any sale would have covenants to reclaim a lot of any uplift in value) would end up being spent getting the infrastucture in place instead..
Irrelevant, the UK isn't big enough to have anywhere be classed as the middle of nowhere.
My in-laws live the Rocky Mountains over 200 miles from the nearest city and over a 2 hour drive from the nearest other inhabitated settlement. That's the middle of nowhere and it doesn't stop them getting stuff done, even when its minus 40 Celsius in the daytime.
Once again you've demonstrated that you don't understand how much Northern Powergrid (say) charge to lay an electric cable, or Yorkshire water to provide a water supply.
I still don't understand why Rishi didn't wait until November. We're about to get another 0.6% growth in Q2, Q3 has started very positively and we'd have had another rate cut by then. If it was a late November election we could have been at 4.75% interest rates and 1.7% YTD growth and another year of above inflation wage rises.
The July election has got to be one of the biggest missteps in the history of the Tory party.
Oliver Dowden showed Sunak the numbers coming off fixed term mortgages between now and November.
That made going in July logical.
Without knowing the context of the age profile that seems like a huge leap of logic. People coming off shorter fixed rate mortgages are going to be younger and have a lower propensity to vote Tory anyway. It seems like poor reasoning to me anyway. The upsides to waiting were much larger.
As I've been pointing out all week the only rational reason I have seen for pulling the election forward is the public sector pay awards which firstly removed any chance of more tax cuts and secondly may have triggered an issue when it becomes obvious that the figures no longer added up.
Not really, the government could have just ignored it on the grounds of affordability or something. 5.5% is high, 3.5% higher than inflation. Limit it to those earning less than £35k or something and everyone else gets 2.1% or whatever CPI is.
At a time of mass vacancies and full employment?
If you don't want to pay the required wage then abolish the job and save all the money not some of it, but if the job needs doing it needs paying for.
Then let them leave for the private sector.
But enough of them are leaving for it to be a problem. Or they're not signing up in the first place.
You're smart. You've had enough people point this out to you. You supposedly know how money works.
Apart from not liking the obvious consequence, why do you find this so hard to accept?
Because the state is too large and does too much. We need to cut the size of the state and having people leave voluntarily is probably the best way to achieve it.
Again - what does it do that can be outsourced to the private sector efficiently. And remember the maxim for the past 14 years has been to drive costs down anyway you can..
Planning.
Abolish every busybody trying to second-guess and authorise what anyone builds on their land and have a free for all where anyone who wants to build anything on their own damned land can.
There we go - jobs abolished.
You know my wife is a town planner? Every post you make tells me you haven't got a clue what they actually do...
Far too much that they shouldn't is what they do. And I'd have no objection if your wife were made redundant.
No planner should have any input into whether or not a house is built, that should be upto the would-be homeowner and the private market.
If you want to plan new town or improved functions that the town intends to build on the town's own land, then that's something a town planner can and should be doing, but no need to review other people's plans of what they intend to be doing on their land.
Are you suggesting that local authorities should compulsory purchase (very cheaply of course) all land that could be developed?
I need to double check this but I'm 100% sure that is exactly what happens in some countries - the land is bought, roads and utilities are put in and the land then sold plot by plot to developers of all sizes..
An interesting point is the potential profit for local authorities in doing this.
Currently, development gets the local authorities very little.
If they could buy land, lay it out with services and roads and then sell the plots - big profits are possible.
Suddenly councils discover the joys of an expanding local population....
After all, the value of a piece of land depends on the right to build on it (ie planning permission) and the installation of services. Both of these benefits come from the community, in one way or another. The landowner, who builds a house, has very little to do with the increase in value of the land.
Abolish the planning permission requirement and the value of land in house prices could fall back to the 2-3% of the cost of land as it was pre-1948 rather than the 1/3rd or more of house prices it is today.
No restrictions at all on what you can build where?
Outside of AONBs and so long as it meets building regulations, yeah.
People retort "what if a factory is built near you" - yeah, what of it? Good, we should be investing in factories and that's economic growth.
What's the problem?
It's a very idiosyncratic category, which you might not intend.
I still don't understand why Rishi didn't wait until November. We're about to get another 0.6% growth in Q2, Q3 has started very positively and we'd have had another rate cut by then. If it was a late November election we could have been at 4.75% interest rates and 1.7% YTD growth and another year of above inflation wage rises.
The July election has got to be one of the biggest missteps in the history of the Tory party.
Oliver Dowden showed Sunak the numbers coming off fixed term mortgages between now and November.
That made going in July logical.
Without knowing the context of the age profile that seems like a huge leap of logic. People coming off shorter fixed rate mortgages are going to be younger and have a lower propensity to vote Tory anyway. It seems like poor reasoning to me anyway. The upsides to waiting were much larger.
As I've been pointing out all week the only rational reason I have seen for pulling the election forward is the public sector pay awards which firstly removed any chance of more tax cuts and secondly may have triggered an issue when it becomes obvious that the figures no longer added up.
Not really, the government could have just ignored it on the grounds of affordability or something. 5.5% is high, 3.5% higher than inflation. Limit it to those earning less than £35k or something and everyone else gets 2.1% or whatever CPI is.
At a time of mass vacancies and full employment?
If you don't want to pay the required wage then abolish the job and save all the money not some of it, but if the job needs doing it needs paying for.
Then let them leave for the private sector.
But enough of them are leaving for it to be a problem. Or they're not signing up in the first place.
You're smart. You've had enough people point this out to you. You supposedly know how money works.
Apart from not liking the obvious consequence, why do you find this so hard to accept?
Because the state is too large and does too much. We need to cut the size of the state and having people leave voluntarily is probably the best way to achieve it.
Again - what does it do that can be outsourced to the private sector efficiently. And remember the maxim for the past 14 years has been to drive costs down anyway you can..
Planning.
Abolish every busybody trying to second-guess and authorise what anyone builds on their land and have a free for all where anyone who wants to build anything on their own damned land can.
There we go - jobs abolished.
You know my wife is a town planner? Every post you make tells me you haven't got a clue what they actually do...
Far too much that they shouldn't is what they do. And I'd have no objection if your wife were made redundant.
No planner should have any input into whether or not a house is built, that should be upto the would-be homeowner and the private market.
If you want to plan new town or improved functions that the town intends to build on the town's own land, then that's something a town planner can and should be doing, but no need to review other people's plans of what they intend to be doing on their land.
Are you suggesting that local authorities should compulsory purchase (very cheaply of course) all land that could be developed?
I need to double check this but I'm 100% sure that is exactly what happens in some countries - the land is bought, roads and utilities are put in and the land then sold plot by plot to developers of all sizes..
An interesting point is the potential profit for local authorities in doing this.
Currently, development gets the local authorities very little.
If they could buy land, lay it out with services and roads and then sell the plots - big profits are possible.
Suddenly councils discover the joys of an expanding local population....
After all, the value of a piece of land depends on the right to build on it (ie planning permission) and the installation of services. Both of these benefits come from the community, in one way or another. The landowner, who builds a house, has very little to do with the increase in value of the land.
Abolish the planning permission requirement and the value of land in house prices could fall back to the 2-3% of the cost of land as it was pre-1948 rather than the 1/3rd or more of house prices it is today.
No restrictions at all on what you can build where?
Outside of AONBs and so long as it meets building regulations, yeah.
People retort "what if a factory is built near you" - yeah, what of it? Good, we should be investing in factories and that's economic growth.
What's the problem?
It's a very idiosyncratic category, which you might not intend.
If people want to build in Snowdonia or the Peak District I have no objection to that.
Or anywhere else. Good luck to them.
People here claim "we all want growth" but propose getting rid of barriers to growth or actually getting stuff done "oh we can't do that, what if we get growth/a factory/places for people to live?"
I still don't understand why Rishi didn't wait until November. We're about to get another 0.6% growth in Q2, Q3 has started very positively and we'd have had another rate cut by then. If it was a late November election we could have been at 4.75% interest rates and 1.7% YTD growth and another year of above inflation wage rises.
The July election has got to be one of the biggest missteps in the history of the Tory party.
Oliver Dowden showed Sunak the numbers coming off fixed term mortgages between now and November.
That made going in July logical.
Without knowing the context of the age profile that seems like a huge leap of logic. People coming off shorter fixed rate mortgages are going to be younger and have a lower propensity to vote Tory anyway. It seems like poor reasoning to me anyway. The upsides to waiting were much larger.
As I've been pointing out all week the only rational reason I have seen for pulling the election forward is the public sector pay awards which firstly removed any chance of more tax cuts and secondly may have triggered an issue when it becomes obvious that the figures no longer added up.
Not really, the government could have just ignored it on the grounds of affordability or something. 5.5% is high, 3.5% higher than inflation. Limit it to those earning less than £35k or something and everyone else gets 2.1% or whatever CPI is.
At a time of mass vacancies and full employment?
If you don't want to pay the required wage then abolish the job and save all the money not some of it, but if the job needs doing it needs paying for.
Then let them leave for the private sector.
But enough of them are leaving for it to be a problem. Or they're not signing up in the first place.
You're smart. You've had enough people point this out to you. You supposedly know how money works.
Apart from not liking the obvious consequence, why do you find this so hard to accept?
Because the state is too large and does too much. We need to cut the size of the state and having people leave voluntarily is probably the best way to achieve it.
Again - what does it do that can be outsourced to the private sector efficiently. And remember the maxim for the past 14 years has been to drive costs down anyway you can..
Planning.
Abolish every busybody trying to second-guess and authorise what anyone builds on their land and have a free for all where anyone who wants to build anything on their own damned land can.
There we go - jobs abolished.
You know my wife is a town planner? Every post you make tells me you haven't got a clue what they actually do...
Far too much that they shouldn't is what they do. And I'd have no objection if your wife were made redundant.
No planner should have any input into whether or not a house is built, that should be upto the would-be homeowner and the private market.
If you want to plan new town or improved functions that the town intends to build on the town's own land, then that's something a town planner can and should be doing, but no need to review other people's plans of what they intend to be doing on their land.
Are you suggesting that local authorities should compulsory purchase (very cheaply of course) all land that could be developed?
I need to double check this but I'm 100% sure that is exactly what happens in some countries - the land is bought, roads and utilities are put in and the land then sold plot by plot to developers of all sizes..
An interesting point is the potential profit for local authorities in doing this.
Currently, development gets the local authorities very little.
If they could buy land, lay it out with services and roads and then sell the plots - big profits are possible.
Suddenly councils discover the joys of an expanding local population....
After all, the value of a piece of land depends on the right to build on it (ie planning permission) and the installation of services. Both of these benefits come from the community, in one way or another. The landowner, who builds a house, has very little to do with the increase in value of the land.
Abolish the planning permission requirement and the value of land in house prices could fall back to the 2-3% of the cost of land as it was pre-1948 rather than the 1/3rd or more of house prices it is today.
No restrictions at all on what you can build where?
Outside of AONBs and so long as it meets building regulations, yeah.
People retort "what if a factory is built near you" - yeah, what of it? Good, we should be investing in factories and that's economic growth.
What's the problem?
It's a very idiosyncratic category, which you might not intend.
I still don't understand why Rishi didn't wait until November. We're about to get another 0.6% growth in Q2, Q3 has started very positively and we'd have had another rate cut by then. If it was a late November election we could have been at 4.75% interest rates and 1.7% YTD growth and another year of above inflation wage rises.
The July election has got to be one of the biggest missteps in the history of the Tory party.
Oliver Dowden showed Sunak the numbers coming off fixed term mortgages between now and November.
That made going in July logical.
Without knowing the context of the age profile that seems like a huge leap of logic. People coming off shorter fixed rate mortgages are going to be younger and have a lower propensity to vote Tory anyway. It seems like poor reasoning to me anyway. The upsides to waiting were much larger.
As I've been pointing out all week the only rational reason I have seen for pulling the election forward is the public sector pay awards which firstly removed any chance of more tax cuts and secondly may have triggered an issue when it becomes obvious that the figures no longer added up.
Not really, the government could have just ignored it on the grounds of affordability or something. 5.5% is high, 3.5% higher than inflation. Limit it to those earning less than £35k or something and everyone else gets 2.1% or whatever CPI is.
At a time of mass vacancies and full employment?
If you don't want to pay the required wage then abolish the job and save all the money not some of it, but if the job needs doing it needs paying for.
Then let them leave for the private sector.
But enough of them are leaving for it to be a problem. Or they're not signing up in the first place.
You're smart. You've had enough people point this out to you. You supposedly know how money works.
Apart from not liking the obvious consequence, why do you find this so hard to accept?
Because the state is too large and does too much. We need to cut the size of the state and having people leave voluntarily is probably the best way to achieve it.
Again - what does it do that can be outsourced to the private sector efficiently. And remember the maxim for the past 14 years has been to drive costs down anyway you can..
Planning.
Abolish every busybody trying to second-guess and authorise what anyone builds on their land and have a free for all where anyone who wants to build anything on their own damned land can.
There we go - jobs abolished.
You know my wife is a town planner? Every post you make tells me you haven't got a clue what they actually do...
Far too much that they shouldn't is what they do. And I'd have no objection if your wife were made redundant.
No planner should have any input into whether or not a house is built, that should be upto the would-be homeowner and the private market.
If you want to plan new town or improved functions that the town intends to build on the town's own land, then that's something a town planner can and should be doing, but no need to review other people's plans of what they intend to be doing on their land.
Are you suggesting that local authorities should compulsory purchase (very cheaply of course) all land that could be developed?
I need to double check this but I'm 100% sure that is exactly what happens in some countries - the land is bought, roads and utilities are put in and the land then sold plot by plot to developers of all sizes..
An interesting point is the potential profit for local authorities in doing this.
Currently, development gets the local authorities very little.
If they could buy land, lay it out with services and roads and then sell the plots - big profits are possible.
Suddenly councils discover the joys of an expanding local population....
After all, the value of a piece of land depends on the right to build on it (ie planning permission) and the installation of services. Both of these benefits come from the community, in one way or another. The landowner, who builds a house, has very little to do with the increase in value of the land.
Abolish the planning permission requirement and the value of land in house prices could fall back to the 2-3% of the cost of land as it was pre-1948 rather than the 1/3rd or more of house prices it is today.
No restrictions at all on what you can build where?
Outside of AONBs and so long as it meets building regulations, yeah.
People retort "what if a factory is built near you" - yeah, what of it? Good, we should be investing in factories and that's economic growth.
What's the problem?
It's a very idiosyncratic category, which you might not intend.
If people want to build in Snowdonia or the Peak District I have no objection to that.
Or anywhere else. Good luck to them.
People here claim "we all want growth" but propose getting rid of barriers to growth or actually getting stuff done "oh we can't do that, what if we get growth/a factory/places for people to live?"
So what is the rationale for protecting AONBs such as the Malvern Hills and the Surrey Hills, for example?
If I can build a Gin Palace in my field outside Edale at will, why not on Box Hill?
I still don't understand why Rishi didn't wait until November. We're about to get another 0.6% growth in Q2, Q3 has started very positively and we'd have had another rate cut by then. If it was a late November election we could have been at 4.75% interest rates and 1.7% YTD growth and another year of above inflation wage rises.
The July election has got to be one of the biggest missteps in the history of the Tory party.
Oliver Dowden showed Sunak the numbers coming off fixed term mortgages between now and November.
That made going in July logical.
Without knowing the context of the age profile that seems like a huge leap of logic. People coming off shorter fixed rate mortgages are going to be younger and have a lower propensity to vote Tory anyway. It seems like poor reasoning to me anyway. The upsides to waiting were much larger.
As I've been pointing out all week the only rational reason I have seen for pulling the election forward is the public sector pay awards which firstly removed any chance of more tax cuts and secondly may have triggered an issue when it becomes obvious that the figures no longer added up.
Not really, the government could have just ignored it on the grounds of affordability or something. 5.5% is high, 3.5% higher than inflation. Limit it to those earning less than £35k or something and everyone else gets 2.1% or whatever CPI is.
At a time of mass vacancies and full employment?
If you don't want to pay the required wage then abolish the job and save all the money not some of it, but if the job needs doing it needs paying for.
Then let them leave for the private sector.
But enough of them are leaving for it to be a problem. Or they're not signing up in the first place.
You're smart. You've had enough people point this out to you. You supposedly know how money works.
Apart from not liking the obvious consequence, why do you find this so hard to accept?
Because the state is too large and does too much. We need to cut the size of the state and having people leave voluntarily is probably the best way to achieve it.
Again - what does it do that can be outsourced to the private sector efficiently. And remember the maxim for the past 14 years has been to drive costs down anyway you can..
Planning.
Abolish every busybody trying to second-guess and authorise what anyone builds on their land and have a free for all where anyone who wants to build anything on their own damned land can.
There we go - jobs abolished.
You know my wife is a town planner? Every post you make tells me you haven't got a clue what they actually do...
Far too much that they shouldn't is what they do. And I'd have no objection if your wife were made redundant.
No planner should have any input into whether or not a house is built, that should be upto the would-be homeowner and the private market.
If you want to plan new town or improved functions that the town intends to build on the town's own land, then that's something a town planner can and should be doing, but no need to review other people's plans of what they intend to be doing on their land.
Are you suggesting that local authorities should compulsory purchase (very cheaply of course) all land that could be developed?
I need to double check this but I'm 100% sure that is exactly what happens in some countries - the land is bought, roads and utilities are put in and the land then sold plot by plot to developers of all sizes..
Just been reading about the museum Georgian garden at Royal Circus, Bath. The Circus was done like that - as was the New Town of Edinburgh. But both with strict planning policies applied.
Siri, show me what a political death wish looks like.
What's driven the change?
Picking up the pieces of the Braverman campaign?
I have heard rumours that Jenrick will campaign like Braverman but lead as a centrist (which is where he was prior to going batshit crazy over immigration.)
Yep - he's planning to pull a Starmer. The immigration strop was part of the plan. Clever Robert Jenrick.
I still don't understand why Rishi didn't wait until November. We're about to get another 0.6% growth in Q2, Q3 has started very positively and we'd have had another rate cut by then. If it was a late November election we could have been at 4.75% interest rates and 1.7% YTD growth and another year of above inflation wage rises.
The July election has got to be one of the biggest missteps in the history of the Tory party.
Oliver Dowden showed Sunak the numbers coming off fixed term mortgages between now and November.
That made going in July logical.
Without knowing the context of the age profile that seems like a huge leap of logic. People coming off shorter fixed rate mortgages are going to be younger and have a lower propensity to vote Tory anyway. It seems like poor reasoning to me anyway. The upsides to waiting were much larger.
As I've been pointing out all week the only rational reason I have seen for pulling the election forward is the public sector pay awards which firstly removed any chance of more tax cuts and secondly may have triggered an issue when it becomes obvious that the figures no longer added up.
Not really, the government could have just ignored it on the grounds of affordability or something. 5.5% is high, 3.5% higher than inflation. Limit it to those earning less than £35k or something and everyone else gets 2.1% or whatever CPI is.
At a time of mass vacancies and full employment?
If you don't want to pay the required wage then abolish the job and save all the money not some of it, but if the job needs doing it needs paying for.
Then let them leave for the private sector.
But enough of them are leaving for it to be a problem. Or they're not signing up in the first place.
You're smart. You've had enough people point this out to you. You supposedly know how money works.
Apart from not liking the obvious consequence, why do you find this so hard to accept?
Because the state is too large and does too much. We need to cut the size of the state and having people leave voluntarily is probably the best way to achieve it.
Again - what does it do that can be outsourced to the private sector efficiently. And remember the maxim for the past 14 years has been to drive costs down anyway you can..
Planning.
Abolish every busybody trying to second-guess and authorise what anyone builds on their land and have a free for all where anyone who wants to build anything on their own damned land can.
There we go - jobs abolished.
You know my wife is a town planner? Every post you make tells me you haven't got a clue what they actually do...
Far too much that they shouldn't is what they do. And I'd have no objection if your wife were made redundant.
No planner should have any input into whether or not a house is built, that should be upto the would-be homeowner and the private market.
If you want to plan new town or improved functions that the town intends to build on the town's own land, then that's something a town planner can and should be doing, but no need to review other people's plans of what they intend to be doing on their land.
Are you suggesting that local authorities should compulsory purchase (very cheaply of course) all land that could be developed?
I need to double check this but I'm 100% sure that is exactly what happens in some countries - the land is bought, roads and utilities are put in and the land then sold plot by plot to developers of all sizes..
An interesting point is the potential profit for local authorities in doing this.
Currently, development gets the local authorities very little.
If they could buy land, lay it out with services and roads and then sell the plots - big profits are possible.
Suddenly councils discover the joys of an expanding local population....
After all, the value of a piece of land depends on the right to build on it (ie planning permission) and the installation of services. Both of these benefits come from the community, in one way or another. The landowner, who builds a house, has very little to do with the increase in value of the land.
Abolish the planning permission requirement and the value of land in house prices could fall back to the 2-3% of the cost of land as it was pre-1948 rather than the 1/3rd or more of house prices it is today.
You can't build in the middle of nowhere - the money you think would be saved on land costs (and it wouldn't be because any sale would have covenants to reclaim a lot of any uplift in value) would end up being spent getting the infrastucture in place instead..
Irrelevant, the UK isn't big enough to have anywhere be classed as the middle of nowhere.
My in-laws live the Rocky Mountains over 200 miles from the nearest city and over a 2 hour drive from the nearest other inhabitated settlement. That's the middle of nowhere and it doesn't stop them getting stuff done, even when its minus 40 Celsius in the daytime.
Once again you've demonstrated that you don't understand how much Northern Powergrid (say) charge to lay an electric cable, or Yorkshire water to provide a water supply.
Its irrelevant.
If people want to pay that charge, let them. If they don't, they won't. Their choice, free will.
Currently planning permission inflates the price of land by 0's. Drop those 0's off the price of land and people can afford to pay whatever fees they need to pay.
It will devalue the assets of those who own loads of land. Oh well. How Sad. Nevermind.
Siri, show me what a political death wish looks like.
What's driven the change?
Picking up the pieces of the Braverman campaign?
I have heard rumours that Jenrick will campaign like Braverman but lead as a centrist (which is where he was prior to going batshit crazy over immigration.)
Jenrick was utterly ineffectual as housing minister, doing absolutely sod all for leaseholders affected by the cladding scandal (pretty much anyone living in a building more than 5 storeys high). Described as "no help at all" by 90% of leaseholders in a survey by the leasehold knowledge partnership.
He was involved in a highly controversial planning decision involving Richard Desmond, who made a subsatantial donation to the Conservatives two weeks after planning was approved.
He charged the taxpayer £100,000 in rent and council tax for his THIRD home. That's right. Third home. To quote the Times, "Travel expenses suggest that Jenrick rarely spends an entire weekend at the property..." ..."A government minister said last night: “It’s a bit odd to make the taxpayer fund your constituency home when you’ve got all that money. It doesn’t look good.”
He broke lockdown rules twice, travelling 150 miles to his his second home. Considering it was rule breaking that did for Boris, is Jenrick really a suitable candidate for leader?
Oh, and the thing he's most famous for? Having a mural of Mickey Mouse and Baloo from Jungle Book in a children's asylum centre painted over. Regardless for the reason (e.g. copyright), the man is mostly known by the general public for comic-book, cartoon-villain levels of cruelty. That is when they remember him at all.
So I put it to you. If Robert Jenrick is the answer, then what on earth is the question?
The question is ... who is the least bad candidate from the right of the party with enough MP support to make the run off?
Honestly, in a forced choice, I would answer that question with Patel. She has at least held high office, and the whiff of scandal around her is less pungent than then one around Jenrick, who looks to me every bit like a man who one day decided he would cosplay Alan B'stard for a laugh, but then forgot to take the costume off and has been living the role ever since.
I still don't understand why Rishi didn't wait until November. We're about to get another 0.6% growth in Q2, Q3 has started very positively and we'd have had another rate cut by then. If it was a late November election we could have been at 4.75% interest rates and 1.7% YTD growth and another year of above inflation wage rises.
The July election has got to be one of the biggest missteps in the history of the Tory party.
Oliver Dowden showed Sunak the numbers coming off fixed term mortgages between now and November.
That made going in July logical.
Without knowing the context of the age profile that seems like a huge leap of logic. People coming off shorter fixed rate mortgages are going to be younger and have a lower propensity to vote Tory anyway. It seems like poor reasoning to me anyway. The upsides to waiting were much larger.
As I've been pointing out all week the only rational reason I have seen for pulling the election forward is the public sector pay awards which firstly removed any chance of more tax cuts and secondly may have triggered an issue when it becomes obvious that the figures no longer added up.
Not really, the government could have just ignored it on the grounds of affordability or something. 5.5% is high, 3.5% higher than inflation. Limit it to those earning less than £35k or something and everyone else gets 2.1% or whatever CPI is.
At a time of mass vacancies and full employment?
If you don't want to pay the required wage then abolish the job and save all the money not some of it, but if the job needs doing it needs paying for.
Then let them leave for the private sector.
But enough of them are leaving for it to be a problem. Or they're not signing up in the first place.
You're smart. You've had enough people point this out to you. You supposedly know how money works.
Apart from not liking the obvious consequence, why do you find this so hard to accept?
Because the state is too large and does too much. We need to cut the size of the state and having people leave voluntarily is probably the best way to achieve it.
Again - what does it do that can be outsourced to the private sector efficiently. And remember the maxim for the past 14 years has been to drive costs down anyway you can..
Planning.
Abolish every busybody trying to second-guess and authorise what anyone builds on their land and have a free for all where anyone who wants to build anything on their own damned land can.
There we go - jobs abolished.
You know my wife is a town planner? Every post you make tells me you haven't got a clue what they actually do...
Far too much that they shouldn't is what they do. And I'd have no objection if your wife were made redundant.
No planner should have any input into whether or not a house is built, that should be upto the would-be homeowner and the private market.
If you want to plan new town or improved functions that the town intends to build on the town's own land, then that's something a town planner can and should be doing, but no need to review other people's plans of what they intend to be doing on their land.
Are you suggesting that local authorities should compulsory purchase (very cheaply of course) all land that could be developed?
I need to double check this but I'm 100% sure that is exactly what happens in some countries - the land is bought, roads and utilities are put in and the land then sold plot by plot to developers of all sizes..
An interesting point is the potential profit for local authorities in doing this.
Currently, development gets the local authorities very little.
If they could buy land, lay it out with services and roads and then sell the plots - big profits are possible.
Suddenly councils discover the joys of an expanding local population....
After all, the value of a piece of land depends on the right to build on it (ie planning permission) and the installation of services. Both of these benefits come from the community, in one way or another. The landowner, who builds a house, has very little to do with the increase in value of the land.
The value of land in the south east can increase up to tenfold if planning permission for residential development is granted and a number of local councils are and have sold town centre headquarters buildings in order to gain the capital receipt available from having a site with potential for resi redevelopment.
Elsewhere, developers buy up land and only release it slowly to maintain the supply and demand balance in their favour. The reason we don't go down the @BartholomewRoberts route (rightly or wrongly) is too many groups have a vested interest in maintaining the current situation. A limited supply of new homes works for the developers, the builders, the local authorities, existing homeowners, the banks and building societies, land owners, specialist trades, the constuction industry and the Government all of whom benefit from high house prices driven by limited supply and seemingly unlimited demand.
Some may want to take on all these vested interests but no one ever has not even Margaret Thatcher at her zenith. As to how we have got to this position, that's another story.
Land Value Taxation, an idea whose time has finally come, could be a way forward twinned with easing of planning restrictions. If land which could be developed and isn't is punitively taxed there'll be an incentive for it to be developed - there's an analogy here with empty homes. An empty home is wasteful - so is empty land if it could be developed but isn't being developed.
No politician (Labour, Conservative, LD, Reform or even Green) will crash the housing market to build more houses - external events may reduce house price values but that's different. For too many people, the house they own is their only signifcant asset and effectively their pension pot releasing equlity when it is sold. Whether you like that or not it's a reality - again, how we got to this point is another story.
I still don't understand why Rishi didn't wait until November. We're about to get another 0.6% growth in Q2, Q3 has started very positively and we'd have had another rate cut by then. If it was a late November election we could have been at 4.75% interest rates and 1.7% YTD growth and another year of above inflation wage rises.
The July election has got to be one of the biggest missteps in the history of the Tory party.
Oliver Dowden showed Sunak the numbers coming off fixed term mortgages between now and November.
That made going in July logical.
Without knowing the context of the age profile that seems like a huge leap of logic. People coming off shorter fixed rate mortgages are going to be younger and have a lower propensity to vote Tory anyway. It seems like poor reasoning to me anyway. The upsides to waiting were much larger.
As I've been pointing out all week the only rational reason I have seen for pulling the election forward is the public sector pay awards which firstly removed any chance of more tax cuts and secondly may have triggered an issue when it becomes obvious that the figures no longer added up.
Not really, the government could have just ignored it on the grounds of affordability or something. 5.5% is high, 3.5% higher than inflation. Limit it to those earning less than £35k or something and everyone else gets 2.1% or whatever CPI is.
At a time of mass vacancies and full employment?
If you don't want to pay the required wage then abolish the job and save all the money not some of it, but if the job needs doing it needs paying for.
Then let them leave for the private sector.
But enough of them are leaving for it to be a problem. Or they're not signing up in the first place.
You're smart. You've had enough people point this out to you. You supposedly know how money works.
Apart from not liking the obvious consequence, why do you find this so hard to accept?
Because the state is too large and does too much. We need to cut the size of the state and having people leave voluntarily is probably the best way to achieve it.
Again - what does it do that can be outsourced to the private sector efficiently. And remember the maxim for the past 14 years has been to drive costs down anyway you can..
Planning.
Abolish every busybody trying to second-guess and authorise what anyone builds on their land and have a free for all where anyone who wants to build anything on their own damned land can.
There we go - jobs abolished.
You know my wife is a town planner? Every post you make tells me you haven't got a clue what they actually do...
Far too much that they shouldn't is what they do. And I'd have no objection if your wife were made redundant.
No planner should have any input into whether or not a house is built, that should be upto the would-be homeowner and the private market.
If you want to plan new town or improved functions that the town intends to build on the town's own land, then that's something a town planner can and should be doing, but no need to review other people's plans of what they intend to be doing on their land.
Are you suggesting that local authorities should compulsory purchase (very cheaply of course) all land that could be developed?
I need to double check this but I'm 100% sure that is exactly what happens in some countries - the land is bought, roads and utilities are put in and the land then sold plot by plot to developers of all sizes..
An interesting point is the potential profit for local authorities in doing this.
Currently, development gets the local authorities very little.
If they could buy land, lay it out with services and roads and then sell the plots - big profits are possible.
Suddenly councils discover the joys of an expanding local population....
After all, the value of a piece of land depends on the right to build on it (ie planning permission) and the installation of services. Both of these benefits come from the community, in one way or another. The landowner, who builds a house, has very little to do with the increase in value of the land.
Abolish the planning permission requirement and the value of land in house prices could fall back to the 2-3% of the cost of land as it was pre-1948 rather than the 1/3rd or more of house prices it is today.
You can't build in the middle of nowhere - the money you think would be saved on land costs (and it wouldn't be because any sale would have covenants to reclaim a lot of any uplift in value) would end up being spent getting the infrastucture in place instead..
Irrelevant, the UK isn't big enough to have anywhere be classed as the middle of nowhere.
My in-laws live the Rocky Mountains over 200 miles from the nearest city and over a 2 hour drive from the nearest other inhabitated settlement. That's the middle of nowhere and it doesn't stop them getting stuff done, even when its minus 40 Celsius in the daytime.
Once again you've demonstrated that you don't understand how much Northern Powergrid (say) charge to lay an electric cable, or Yorkshire water to provide a water supply.
I still don't understand why Rishi didn't wait until November. We're about to get another 0.6% growth in Q2, Q3 has started very positively and we'd have had another rate cut by then. If it was a late November election we could have been at 4.75% interest rates and 1.7% YTD growth and another year of above inflation wage rises.
The July election has got to be one of the biggest missteps in the history of the Tory party.
Oliver Dowden showed Sunak the numbers coming off fixed term mortgages between now and November.
That made going in July logical.
Without knowing the context of the age profile that seems like a huge leap of logic. People coming off shorter fixed rate mortgages are going to be younger and have a lower propensity to vote Tory anyway. It seems like poor reasoning to me anyway. The upsides to waiting were much larger.
As I've been pointing out all week the only rational reason I have seen for pulling the election forward is the public sector pay awards which firstly removed any chance of more tax cuts and secondly may have triggered an issue when it becomes obvious that the figures no longer added up.
Not really, the government could have just ignored it on the grounds of affordability or something. 5.5% is high, 3.5% higher than inflation. Limit it to those earning less than £35k or something and everyone else gets 2.1% or whatever CPI is.
At a time of mass vacancies and full employment?
If you don't want to pay the required wage then abolish the job and save all the money not some of it, but if the job needs doing it needs paying for.
Then let them leave for the private sector.
But enough of them are leaving for it to be a problem. Or they're not signing up in the first place.
You're smart. You've had enough people point this out to you. You supposedly know how money works.
Apart from not liking the obvious consequence, why do you find this so hard to accept?
Because the state is too large and does too much. We need to cut the size of the state and having people leave voluntarily is probably the best way to achieve it.
Again - what does it do that can be outsourced to the private sector efficiently. And remember the maxim for the past 14 years has been to drive costs down anyway you can..
Planning.
Abolish every busybody trying to second-guess and authorise what anyone builds on their land and have a free for all where anyone who wants to build anything on their own damned land can.
There we go - jobs abolished.
You know my wife is a town planner? Every post you make tells me you haven't got a clue what they actually do...
Far too much that they shouldn't is what they do. And I'd have no objection if your wife were made redundant.
No planner should have any input into whether or not a house is built, that should be upto the would-be homeowner and the private market.
If you want to plan new town or improved functions that the town intends to build on the town's own land, then that's something a town planner can and should be doing, but no need to review other people's plans of what they intend to be doing on their land.
Are you suggesting that local authorities should compulsory purchase (very cheaply of course) all land that could be developed?
I need to double check this but I'm 100% sure that is exactly what happens in some countries - the land is bought, roads and utilities are put in and the land then sold plot by plot to developers of all sizes..
Just been reading about the museum Georgian garden at Royal Circus, Bath. The Circus was done like that - as was the New Town of Edinburgh. But both with strict planning policies applied.
I still don't understand why Rishi didn't wait until November. We're about to get another 0.6% growth in Q2, Q3 has started very positively and we'd have had another rate cut by then. If it was a late November election we could have been at 4.75% interest rates and 1.7% YTD growth and another year of above inflation wage rises.
The July election has got to be one of the biggest missteps in the history of the Tory party.
Oliver Dowden showed Sunak the numbers coming off fixed term mortgages between now and November.
That made going in July logical.
Without knowing the context of the age profile that seems like a huge leap of logic. People coming off shorter fixed rate mortgages are going to be younger and have a lower propensity to vote Tory anyway. It seems like poor reasoning to me anyway. The upsides to waiting were much larger.
As I've been pointing out all week the only rational reason I have seen for pulling the election forward is the public sector pay awards which firstly removed any chance of more tax cuts and secondly may have triggered an issue when it becomes obvious that the figures no longer added up.
Not really, the government could have just ignored it on the grounds of affordability or something. 5.5% is high, 3.5% higher than inflation. Limit it to those earning less than £35k or something and everyone else gets 2.1% or whatever CPI is.
At a time of mass vacancies and full employment?
If you don't want to pay the required wage then abolish the job and save all the money not some of it, but if the job needs doing it needs paying for.
Then let them leave for the private sector.
But enough of them are leaving for it to be a problem. Or they're not signing up in the first place.
You're smart. You've had enough people point this out to you. You supposedly know how money works.
Apart from not liking the obvious consequence, why do you find this so hard to accept?
Because the state is too large and does too much. We need to cut the size of the state and having people leave voluntarily is probably the best way to achieve it.
Again - what does it do that can be outsourced to the private sector efficiently. And remember the maxim for the past 14 years has been to drive costs down anyway you can..
Planning.
Abolish every busybody trying to second-guess and authorise what anyone builds on their land and have a free for all where anyone who wants to build anything on their own damned land can.
There we go - jobs abolished.
You know my wife is a town planner? Every post you make tells me you haven't got a clue what they actually do...
Far too much that they shouldn't is what they do. And I'd have no objection if your wife were made redundant.
No planner should have any input into whether or not a house is built, that should be upto the would-be homeowner and the private market.
If you want to plan new town or improved functions that the town intends to build on the town's own land, then that's something a town planner can and should be doing, but no need to review other people's plans of what they intend to be doing on their land.
Are you suggesting that local authorities should compulsory purchase (very cheaply of course) all land that could be developed?
I need to double check this but I'm 100% sure that is exactly what happens in some countries - the land is bought, roads and utilities are put in and the land then sold plot by plot to developers of all sizes..
An interesting point is the potential profit for local authorities in doing this.
Currently, development gets the local authorities very little.
If they could buy land, lay it out with services and roads and then sell the plots - big profits are possible.
Suddenly councils discover the joys of an expanding local population....
After all, the value of a piece of land depends on the right to build on it (ie planning permission) and the installation of services. Both of these benefits come from the community, in one way or another. The landowner, who builds a house, has very little to do with the increase in value of the land.
The value of land in the south east can increase up to tenfold if planning permission for residential development is granted and a number of local councils are and have sold town centre headquarters buildings in order to gain the capital receipt available from having a site with potential for resi redevelopment.
Elsewhere, developers buy up land and only release it slowly to maintain the supply and demand balance in their favour. The reason we don't go down the @BartholomewRoberts route (rightly or wrongly) is too many groups have a vested interest in maintaining the current situation. A limited supply of new homes works for the developers, the builders, the local authorities, existing homeowners, the banks and building societies, land owners, specialist trades, the constuction industry and the Government all of whom benefit from high house prices driven by limited supply and seemingly unlimited demand.
Some may want to take on all these vested interests but no one ever has not even Margaret Thatcher at her zenith. As to how we have got to this position, that's another story.
Land Value Taxation, an idea whose time has finally come, could be a way forward twinned with easing of planning restrictions. If land which could be developed and isn't is punitively taxed there'll be an incentive for it to be developed - there's an analogy here with empty homes. An empty home is wasteful - so is empty land if it could be developed but isn't being developed.
No politician (Labour, Conservative, LD, Reform or even Green) will crash the housing market to build more houses - external events may reduce house price values but that's different. For too many people, the house they own is their only signifcant asset and effectively their pension pot releasing equlity when it is sold. Whether you like that or not it's a reality - again, how we got to this point is another story.
It is more dramatic than that. Land can easily increase in value 100-fold.
Consider just 12 building plots on an acre, costing 400-500k each.
I still don't understand why Rishi didn't wait until November. We're about to get another 0.6% growth in Q2, Q3 has started very positively and we'd have had another rate cut by then. If it was a late November election we could have been at 4.75% interest rates and 1.7% YTD growth and another year of above inflation wage rises.
The July election has got to be one of the biggest missteps in the history of the Tory party.
Oliver Dowden showed Sunak the numbers coming off fixed term mortgages between now and November.
That made going in July logical.
Without knowing the context of the age profile that seems like a huge leap of logic. People coming off shorter fixed rate mortgages are going to be younger and have a lower propensity to vote Tory anyway. It seems like poor reasoning to me anyway. The upsides to waiting were much larger.
As I've been pointing out all week the only rational reason I have seen for pulling the election forward is the public sector pay awards which firstly removed any chance of more tax cuts and secondly may have triggered an issue when it becomes obvious that the figures no longer added up.
Not really, the government could have just ignored it on the grounds of affordability or something. 5.5% is high, 3.5% higher than inflation. Limit it to those earning less than £35k or something and everyone else gets 2.1% or whatever CPI is.
At a time of mass vacancies and full employment?
If you don't want to pay the required wage then abolish the job and save all the money not some of it, but if the job needs doing it needs paying for.
Then let them leave for the private sector.
But enough of them are leaving for it to be a problem. Or they're not signing up in the first place.
You're smart. You've had enough people point this out to you. You supposedly know how money works.
Apart from not liking the obvious consequence, why do you find this so hard to accept?
Because the state is too large and does too much. We need to cut the size of the state and having people leave voluntarily is probably the best way to achieve it.
Again - what does it do that can be outsourced to the private sector efficiently. And remember the maxim for the past 14 years has been to drive costs down anyway you can..
Planning.
Abolish every busybody trying to second-guess and authorise what anyone builds on their land and have a free for all where anyone who wants to build anything on their own damned land can.
There we go - jobs abolished.
You know my wife is a town planner? Every post you make tells me you haven't got a clue what they actually do...
Far too much that they shouldn't is what they do. And I'd have no objection if your wife were made redundant.
No planner should have any input into whether or not a house is built, that should be upto the would-be homeowner and the private market.
If you want to plan new town or improved functions that the town intends to build on the town's own land, then that's something a town planner can and should be doing, but no need to review other people's plans of what they intend to be doing on their land.
Are you suggesting that local authorities should compulsory purchase (very cheaply of course) all land that could be developed?
I need to double check this but I'm 100% sure that is exactly what happens in some countries - the land is bought, roads and utilities are put in and the land then sold plot by plot to developers of all sizes..
Just been reading about the museum Georgian garden at Royal Circus, Bath. The Circus was done like that - as was the New Town of Edinburgh. But both with strict planning policies applied.
A friend's father made the mistake of selling the field behind his Cotswold house to a farmer, who then moved to pig farming ...
They're in what I think is a lovely spot - on a quiet lane, a short walk from the church, opposite a duck pond, and with a ford at the bottom of the lane. It's on one of my regular running/walking/cycling routes (when the ford allows...), and the stench from the pig farm is noticeable all too frequently. It's not terrible, but I wouldn't want to live that near.
I've always quite fancied building an earth-sheltered house... aka a hobbit hole. Perhaps going back to my civil engineering [passion.
I still don't understand why Rishi didn't wait until November. We're about to get another 0.6% growth in Q2, Q3 has started very positively and we'd have had another rate cut by then. If it was a late November election we could have been at 4.75% interest rates and 1.7% YTD growth and another year of above inflation wage rises.
The July election has got to be one of the biggest missteps in the history of the Tory party.
Oliver Dowden showed Sunak the numbers coming off fixed term mortgages between now and November.
That made going in July logical.
Without knowing the context of the age profile that seems like a huge leap of logic. People coming off shorter fixed rate mortgages are going to be younger and have a lower propensity to vote Tory anyway. It seems like poor reasoning to me anyway. The upsides to waiting were much larger.
As I've been pointing out all week the only rational reason I have seen for pulling the election forward is the public sector pay awards which firstly removed any chance of more tax cuts and secondly may have triggered an issue when it becomes obvious that the figures no longer added up.
Not really, the government could have just ignored it on the grounds of affordability or something. 5.5% is high, 3.5% higher than inflation. Limit it to those earning less than £35k or something and everyone else gets 2.1% or whatever CPI is.
At a time of mass vacancies and full employment?
If you don't want to pay the required wage then abolish the job and save all the money not some of it, but if the job needs doing it needs paying for.
Then let them leave for the private sector.
But enough of them are leaving for it to be a problem. Or they're not signing up in the first place.
You're smart. You've had enough people point this out to you. You supposedly know how money works.
Apart from not liking the obvious consequence, why do you find this so hard to accept?
Because the state is too large and does too much. We need to cut the size of the state and having people leave voluntarily is probably the best way to achieve it.
Again - what does it do that can be outsourced to the private sector efficiently. And remember the maxim for the past 14 years has been to drive costs down anyway you can..
Planning.
Abolish every busybody trying to second-guess and authorise what anyone builds on their land and have a free for all where anyone who wants to build anything on their own damned land can.
There we go - jobs abolished.
You know my wife is a town planner? Every post you make tells me you haven't got a clue what they actually do...
Far too much that they shouldn't is what they do. And I'd have no objection if your wife were made redundant.
No planner should have any input into whether or not a house is built, that should be upto the would-be homeowner and the private market.
If you want to plan new town or improved functions that the town intends to build on the town's own land, then that's something a town planner can and should be doing, but no need to review other people's plans of what they intend to be doing on their land.
Are you suggesting that local authorities should compulsory purchase (very cheaply of course) all land that could be developed?
I need to double check this but I'm 100% sure that is exactly what happens in some countries - the land is bought, roads and utilities are put in and the land then sold plot by plot to developers of all sizes..
Just been reading about the museum Georgian garden at Royal Circus, Bath. The Circus was done like that - as was the New Town of Edinburgh. But both with strict planning policies applied.
East Cambridgeshire ranks 16th by starts and 21st by completions according to my calculations out of 309 council areas, so it's one of the few pulling it's weight on housing.
I still don't understand why Rishi didn't wait until November. We're about to get another 0.6% growth in Q2, Q3 has started very positively and we'd have had another rate cut by then. If it was a late November election we could have been at 4.75% interest rates and 1.7% YTD growth and another year of above inflation wage rises.
The July election has got to be one of the biggest missteps in the history of the Tory party.
Oliver Dowden showed Sunak the numbers coming off fixed term mortgages between now and November.
That made going in July logical.
Without knowing the context of the age profile that seems like a huge leap of logic. People coming off shorter fixed rate mortgages are going to be younger and have a lower propensity to vote Tory anyway. It seems like poor reasoning to me anyway. The upsides to waiting were much larger.
As I've been pointing out all week the only rational reason I have seen for pulling the election forward is the public sector pay awards which firstly removed any chance of more tax cuts and secondly may have triggered an issue when it becomes obvious that the figures no longer added up.
Not really, the government could have just ignored it on the grounds of affordability or something. 5.5% is high, 3.5% higher than inflation. Limit it to those earning less than £35k or something and everyone else gets 2.1% or whatever CPI is.
At a time of mass vacancies and full employment?
If you don't want to pay the required wage then abolish the job and save all the money not some of it, but if the job needs doing it needs paying for.
Then let them leave for the private sector.
But enough of them are leaving for it to be a problem. Or they're not signing up in the first place.
You're smart. You've had enough people point this out to you. You supposedly know how money works.
Apart from not liking the obvious consequence, why do you find this so hard to accept?
Because the state is too large and does too much. We need to cut the size of the state and having people leave voluntarily is probably the best way to achieve it.
Again - what does it do that can be outsourced to the private sector efficiently. And remember the maxim for the past 14 years has been to drive costs down anyway you can..
Planning.
Abolish every busybody trying to second-guess and authorise what anyone builds on their land and have a free for all where anyone who wants to build anything on their own damned land can.
There we go - jobs abolished.
You know my wife is a town planner? Every post you make tells me you haven't got a clue what they actually do...
Far too much that they shouldn't is what they do. And I'd have no objection if your wife were made redundant.
No planner should have any input into whether or not a house is built, that should be upto the would-be homeowner and the private market.
If you want to plan new town or improved functions that the town intends to build on the town's own land, then that's something a town planner can and should be doing, but no need to review other people's plans of what they intend to be doing on their land.
Are you suggesting that local authorities should compulsory purchase (very cheaply of course) all land that could be developed?
I need to double check this but I'm 100% sure that is exactly what happens in some countries - the land is bought, roads and utilities are put in and the land then sold plot by plot to developers of all sizes..
An interesting point is the potential profit for local authorities in doing this.
Currently, development gets the local authorities very little.
If they could buy land, lay it out with services and roads and then sell the plots - big profits are possible.
Suddenly councils discover the joys of an expanding local population....
After all, the value of a piece of land depends on the right to build on it (ie planning permission) and the installation of services. Both of these benefits come from the community, in one way or another. The landowner, who builds a house, has very little to do with the increase in value of the land.
The value of land in the south east can increase up to tenfold if planning permission for residential development is granted and a number of local councils are and have sold town centre headquarters buildings in order to gain the capital receipt available from having a site with potential for resi redevelopment.
Elsewhere, developers buy up land and only release it slowly to maintain the supply and demand balance in their favour. The reason we don't go down the @BartholomewRoberts route (rightly or wrongly) is too many groups have a vested interest in maintaining the current situation. A limited supply of new homes works for the developers, the builders, the local authorities, existing homeowners, the banks and building societies, land owners, specialist trades, the constuction industry and the Government all of whom benefit from high house prices driven by limited supply and seemingly unlimited demand.
Some may want to take on all these vested interests but no one ever has not even Margaret Thatcher at her zenith. As to how we have got to this position, that's another story.
Land Value Taxation, an idea whose time has finally come, could be a way forward twinned with easing of planning restrictions. If land which could be developed and isn't is punitively taxed there'll be an incentive for it to be developed - there's an analogy here with empty homes. An empty home is wasteful - so is empty land if it could be developed but isn't being developed.
No politician (Labour, Conservative, LD, Reform or even Green) will crash the housing market to build more houses - external events may reduce house price values but that's different. For too many people, the house they own is their only signifcant asset and effectively their pension pot releasing equlity when it is sold. Whether you like that or not it's a reality - again, how we got to this point is another story.
It is more dramatic than that. Land can easily increase in value 100-fold.
Consider just 12 building plots on an acre, costing 400-500k each.
Exactly, its an absurd premium.
@eek keeps being coy about the costs of making connections, but those costs are for someone to actually do something productive and create something where it was not before. If its a cost worth paying, then its worth paying and should be paid - and if its not, its not and should not be. Free choice.
But artificially inflating land value 10-100x because of artificially refusing consent unless it is granted? That's not doing anything other than pad some people's asset values and prevent growth.
Eight months. I thought six was the top sentence from magistrates.
It's 6 months for one offence, 12 months for several.
Portsmouth Magistrates' Court heard on Friday that Layton Richards, 29, from Brownlow Close in Portsmouth, had been charged with 24 shoplifting offences.
Hampshire and Isle of Wight Constabulary said he had stolen the chocolate between 6 January and 18 April.
Richards targeted 19 shops across Hampshire, Dorset and West Sussex, and took £3,463.96 worth of produce and products.
Jenrick was utterly ineffectual as housing minister, doing absolutely sod all for leaseholders affected by the cladding scandal (pretty much anyone living in a building more than 5 storeys high). Described as "no help at all" by 90% of leaseholders in a survey by the leasehold knowledge partnership.
He was involved in a highly controversial planning decision involving Richard Desmond, who made a subsatantial donation to the Conservatives two weeks after planning was approved.
He charged the taxpayer £100,000 in rent and council tax for his THIRD home. That's right. Third home. To quote the Times, "Travel expenses suggest that Jenrick rarely spends an entire weekend at the property..." ..."A government minister said last night: “It’s a bit odd to make the taxpayer fund your constituency home when you’ve got all that money. It doesn’t look good.”
He broke lockdown rules twice, travelling 150 miles to his his second home. Considering it was rule breaking that did for Boris, is Jenrick really a suitable candidate for leader?
Oh, and the thing he's most famous for? Having a mural of Mickey Mouse and Baloo from Jungle Book in a children's asylum centre painted over. Regardless for the reason (e.g. copyright), the man is mostly known by the general public for comic-book, cartoon-villain levels of cruelty. That is when they remember him at all.
So I put it to you. If Robert Jenrick is the answer, then what on earth is the question?
The question is ... who is the least bad candidate from the right of the party with enough MP support to make the run off?
Jenrick was utterly ineffectual as housing minister, doing absolutely sod all for leaseholders affected by the cladding scandal (pretty much anyone living in a building more than 5 storeys high). Described as "no help at all" by 90% of leaseholders in a survey by the leasehold knowledge partnership.
He was involved in a highly controversial planning decision involving Richard Desmond, who made a subsatantial donation to the Conservatives two weeks after planning was approved.
He charged the taxpayer £100,000 in rent and council tax for his THIRD home. That's right. Third home. To quote the Times, "Travel expenses suggest that Jenrick rarely spends an entire weekend at the property..." ..."A government minister said last night: “It’s a bit odd to make the taxpayer fund your constituency home when you’ve got all that money. It doesn’t look good.”
He broke lockdown rules twice, travelling 150 miles to his his second home. Considering it was rule breaking that did for Boris, is Jenrick really a suitable candidate for leader?
Oh, and the thing he's most famous for? Having a mural of Mickey Mouse and Baloo from Jungle Book in a children's asylum centre painted over. Regardless for the reason (e.g. copyright), the man is mostly known by the general public for comic-book, cartoon-villain levels of cruelty. That is when they remember him at all.
So I put it to you. If Robert Jenrick is the answer, then what on earth is the question?
The question is ... who is the least bad candidate from the right of the party with enough MP support to make the run off?
Honestly, in a forced choice, I would answer that question with Patel. She has at least held high office, and the whiff of scandal around her is less pungent than then one around Jenrick, who looks to me every bit like a man who one day decided he would cosplay Alan B'stard for a laugh, but then forgot to take the costume off and has been living the role ever since.
Patel isn't bright enough though. Badenoch is temperamentally unsuited. Braverman has no MP support. Leaves Jenrick if it has to be a right winger. But perhaps it doesn't. That's an interesting unknown.
I still don't understand why Rishi didn't wait until November. We're about to get another 0.6% growth in Q2, Q3 has started very positively and we'd have had another rate cut by then. If it was a late November election we could have been at 4.75% interest rates and 1.7% YTD growth and another year of above inflation wage rises.
The July election has got to be one of the biggest missteps in the history of the Tory party.
Oliver Dowden showed Sunak the numbers coming off fixed term mortgages between now and November.
That made going in July logical.
Without knowing the context of the age profile that seems like a huge leap of logic. People coming off shorter fixed rate mortgages are going to be younger and have a lower propensity to vote Tory anyway. It seems like poor reasoning to me anyway. The upsides to waiting were much larger.
As I've been pointing out all week the only rational reason I have seen for pulling the election forward is the public sector pay awards which firstly removed any chance of more tax cuts and secondly may have triggered an issue when it becomes obvious that the figures no longer added up.
Not really, the government could have just ignored it on the grounds of affordability or something. 5.5% is high, 3.5% higher than inflation. Limit it to those earning less than £35k or something and everyone else gets 2.1% or whatever CPI is.
At a time of mass vacancies and full employment?
If you don't want to pay the required wage then abolish the job and save all the money not some of it, but if the job needs doing it needs paying for.
Then let them leave for the private sector.
But enough of them are leaving for it to be a problem. Or they're not signing up in the first place.
You're smart. You've had enough people point this out to you. You supposedly know how money works.
Apart from not liking the obvious consequence, why do you find this so hard to accept?
Because the state is too large and does too much. We need to cut the size of the state and having people leave voluntarily is probably the best way to achieve it.
Again - what does it do that can be outsourced to the private sector efficiently. And remember the maxim for the past 14 years has been to drive costs down anyway you can..
Planning.
Abolish every busybody trying to second-guess and authorise what anyone builds on their land and have a free for all where anyone who wants to build anything on their own damned land can.
There we go - jobs abolished.
You know my wife is a town planner? Every post you make tells me you haven't got a clue what they actually do...
Far too much that they shouldn't is what they do. And I'd have no objection if your wife were made redundant.
No planner should have any input into whether or not a house is built, that should be upto the would-be homeowner and the private market.
If you want to plan new town or improved functions that the town intends to build on the town's own land, then that's something a town planner can and should be doing, but no need to review other people's plans of what they intend to be doing on their land.
Are you suggesting that local authorities should compulsory purchase (very cheaply of course) all land that could be developed?
I need to double check this but I'm 100% sure that is exactly what happens in some countries - the land is bought, roads and utilities are put in and the land then sold plot by plot to developers of all sizes..
Just been reading about the museum Georgian garden at Royal Circus, Bath. The Circus was done like that - as was the New Town of Edinburgh. But both with strict planning policies applied.
I still don't understand why Rishi didn't wait until November. We're about to get another 0.6% growth in Q2, Q3 has started very positively and we'd have had another rate cut by then. If it was a late November election we could have been at 4.75% interest rates and 1.7% YTD growth and another year of above inflation wage rises.
The July election has got to be one of the biggest missteps in the history of the Tory party.
Oliver Dowden showed Sunak the numbers coming off fixed term mortgages between now and November.
That made going in July logical.
Without knowing the context of the age profile that seems like a huge leap of logic. People coming off shorter fixed rate mortgages are going to be younger and have a lower propensity to vote Tory anyway. It seems like poor reasoning to me anyway. The upsides to waiting were much larger.
As I've been pointing out all week the only rational reason I have seen for pulling the election forward is the public sector pay awards which firstly removed any chance of more tax cuts and secondly may have triggered an issue when it becomes obvious that the figures no longer added up.
Not really, the government could have just ignored it on the grounds of affordability or something. 5.5% is high, 3.5% higher than inflation. Limit it to those earning less than £35k or something and everyone else gets 2.1% or whatever CPI is.
At a time of mass vacancies and full employment?
If you don't want to pay the required wage then abolish the job and save all the money not some of it, but if the job needs doing it needs paying for.
Then let them leave for the private sector.
But enough of them are leaving for it to be a problem. Or they're not signing up in the first place.
You're smart. You've had enough people point this out to you. You supposedly know how money works.
Apart from not liking the obvious consequence, why do you find this so hard to accept?
Because the state is too large and does too much. We need to cut the size of the state and having people leave voluntarily is probably the best way to achieve it.
Again - what does it do that can be outsourced to the private sector efficiently. And remember the maxim for the past 14 years has been to drive costs down anyway you can..
Planning.
Abolish every busybody trying to second-guess and authorise what anyone builds on their land and have a free for all where anyone who wants to build anything on their own damned land can.
There we go - jobs abolished.
You know my wife is a town planner? Every post you make tells me you haven't got a clue what they actually do...
Far too much that they shouldn't is what they do. And I'd have no objection if your wife were made redundant.
No planner should have any input into whether or not a house is built, that should be upto the would-be homeowner and the private market.
If you want to plan new town or improved functions that the town intends to build on the town's own land, then that's something a town planner can and should be doing, but no need to review other people's plans of what they intend to be doing on their land.
Are you suggesting that local authorities should compulsory purchase (very cheaply of course) all land that could be developed?
I need to double check this but I'm 100% sure that is exactly what happens in some countries - the land is bought, roads and utilities are put in and the land then sold plot by plot to developers of all sizes..
Just been reading about the museum Georgian garden at Royal Circus, Bath. The Circus was done like that - as was the New Town of Edinburgh. But both with strict planning policies applied.
Thanks, I didn't know about this either. We are looking for a plot so I have registered with Dorset Council. What that might lead to, I have no idea.
I was just looking that development up, and came across this successful appeal for it. It included the following:
"Under Section 2A of the Self-Build and Custom Housebuilding Act 2015 (as amended by the Housing and Planning Act 2016), and associated secondary legislation, local planning authorities are under a duty to grant a sufficient number of suitable permissions to meet the demand for self- and custom-built housing within their area. This demand is to be measured by the number of new applicants entered on the local Self-Build Register in each base period; and that number must be matched by new suitable permissions granted within 3 years of the end of each relevant base period."
Though in the case of that particular development, the plots were fully serviced.
I still don't understand why Rishi didn't wait until November. We're about to get another 0.6% growth in Q2, Q3 has started very positively and we'd have had another rate cut by then. If it was a late November election we could have been at 4.75% interest rates and 1.7% YTD growth and another year of above inflation wage rises.
The July election has got to be one of the biggest missteps in the history of the Tory party.
Oliver Dowden showed Sunak the numbers coming off fixed term mortgages between now and November.
That made going in July logical.
Without knowing the context of the age profile that seems like a huge leap of logic. People coming off shorter fixed rate mortgages are going to be younger and have a lower propensity to vote Tory anyway. It seems like poor reasoning to me anyway. The upsides to waiting were much larger.
As I've been pointing out all week the only rational reason I have seen for pulling the election forward is the public sector pay awards which firstly removed any chance of more tax cuts and secondly may have triggered an issue when it becomes obvious that the figures no longer added up.
Not really, the government could have just ignored it on the grounds of affordability or something. 5.5% is high, 3.5% higher than inflation. Limit it to those earning less than £35k or something and everyone else gets 2.1% or whatever CPI is.
At a time of mass vacancies and full employment?
If you don't want to pay the required wage then abolish the job and save all the money not some of it, but if the job needs doing it needs paying for.
Then let them leave for the private sector.
But enough of them are leaving for it to be a problem. Or they're not signing up in the first place.
You're smart. You've had enough people point this out to you. You supposedly know how money works.
Apart from not liking the obvious consequence, why do you find this so hard to accept?
Because the state is too large and does too much. We need to cut the size of the state and having people leave voluntarily is probably the best way to achieve it.
Again - what does it do that can be outsourced to the private sector efficiently. And remember the maxim for the past 14 years has been to drive costs down anyway you can..
Planning.
Abolish every busybody trying to second-guess and authorise what anyone builds on their land and have a free for all where anyone who wants to build anything on their own damned land can.
There we go - jobs abolished.
You know my wife is a town planner? Every post you make tells me you haven't got a clue what they actually do...
Far too much that they shouldn't is what they do. And I'd have no objection if your wife were made redundant.
No planner should have any input into whether or not a house is built, that should be upto the would-be homeowner and the private market.
If you want to plan new town or improved functions that the town intends to build on the town's own land, then that's something a town planner can and should be doing, but no need to review other people's plans of what they intend to be doing on their land.
Are you suggesting that local authorities should compulsory purchase (very cheaply of course) all land that could be developed?
I need to double check this but I'm 100% sure that is exactly what happens in some countries - the land is bought, roads and utilities are put in and the land then sold plot by plot to developers of all sizes..
An interesting point is the potential profit for local authorities in doing this.
Currently, development gets the local authorities very little.
If they could buy land, lay it out with services and roads and then sell the plots - big profits are possible.
Suddenly councils discover the joys of an expanding local population....
After all, the value of a piece of land depends on the right to build on it (ie planning permission) and the installation of services. Both of these benefits come from the community, in one way or another. The landowner, who builds a house, has very little to do with the increase in value of the land.
The value of land in the south east can increase up to tenfold if planning permission for residential development is granted and a number of local councils are and have sold town centre headquarters buildings in order to gain the capital receipt available from having a site with potential for resi redevelopment.
Elsewhere, developers buy up land and only release it slowly to maintain the supply and demand balance in their favour. The reason we don't go down the @BartholomewRoberts route (rightly or wrongly) is too many groups have a vested interest in maintaining the current situation. A limited supply of new homes works for the developers, the builders, the local authorities, existing homeowners, the banks and building societies, land owners, specialist trades, the constuction industry and the Government all of whom benefit from high house prices driven by limited supply and seemingly unlimited demand.
Some may want to take on all these vested interests but no one ever has not even Margaret Thatcher at her zenith. As to how we have got to this position, that's another story.
Land Value Taxation, an idea whose time has finally come, could be a way forward twinned with easing of planning restrictions. If land which could be developed and isn't is punitively taxed there'll be an incentive for it to be developed - there's an analogy here with empty homes. An empty home is wasteful - so is empty land if it could be developed but isn't being developed.
No politician (Labour, Conservative, LD, Reform or even Green) will crash the housing market to build more houses - external events may reduce house price values but that's different. For too many people, the house they own is their only signifcant asset and effectively their pension pot releasing equlity when it is sold. Whether you like that or not it's a reality - again, how we got to this point is another story.
It is more dramatic than that. Land can easily increase in value 100-fold.
Consider just 12 building plots on an acre, costing 400-500k each.
I still don't understand why Rishi didn't wait until November. We're about to get another 0.6% growth in Q2, Q3 has started very positively and we'd have had another rate cut by then. If it was a late November election we could have been at 4.75% interest rates and 1.7% YTD growth and another year of above inflation wage rises.
The July election has got to be one of the biggest missteps in the history of the Tory party.
Oliver Dowden showed Sunak the numbers coming off fixed term mortgages between now and November.
That made going in July logical.
Without knowing the context of the age profile that seems like a huge leap of logic. People coming off shorter fixed rate mortgages are going to be younger and have a lower propensity to vote Tory anyway. It seems like poor reasoning to me anyway. The upsides to waiting were much larger.
As I've been pointing out all week the only rational reason I have seen for pulling the election forward is the public sector pay awards which firstly removed any chance of more tax cuts and secondly may have triggered an issue when it becomes obvious that the figures no longer added up.
Not really, the government could have just ignored it on the grounds of affordability or something. 5.5% is high, 3.5% higher than inflation. Limit it to those earning less than £35k or something and everyone else gets 2.1% or whatever CPI is.
At a time of mass vacancies and full employment?
If you don't want to pay the required wage then abolish the job and save all the money not some of it, but if the job needs doing it needs paying for.
Then let them leave for the private sector.
But enough of them are leaving for it to be a problem. Or they're not signing up in the first place.
You're smart. You've had enough people point this out to you. You supposedly know how money works.
Apart from not liking the obvious consequence, why do you find this so hard to accept?
Because the state is too large and does too much. We need to cut the size of the state and having people leave voluntarily is probably the best way to achieve it.
Again - what does it do that can be outsourced to the private sector efficiently. And remember the maxim for the past 14 years has been to drive costs down anyway you can..
Planning.
Abolish every busybody trying to second-guess and authorise what anyone builds on their land and have a free for all where anyone who wants to build anything on their own damned land can.
There we go - jobs abolished.
You know my wife is a town planner? Every post you make tells me you haven't got a clue what they actually do...
Far too much that they shouldn't is what they do. And I'd have no objection if your wife were made redundant.
No planner should have any input into whether or not a house is built, that should be upto the would-be homeowner and the private market.
If you want to plan new town or improved functions that the town intends to build on the town's own land, then that's something a town planner can and should be doing, but no need to review other people's plans of what they intend to be doing on their land.
Are you suggesting that local authorities should compulsory purchase (very cheaply of course) all land that could be developed?
I need to double check this but I'm 100% sure that is exactly what happens in some countries - the land is bought, roads and utilities are put in and the land then sold plot by plot to developers of all sizes..
Just been reading about the museum Georgian garden at Royal Circus, Bath. The Circus was done like that - as was the New Town of Edinburgh. But both with strict planning policies applied.
East Cambridgeshire ranks 16th by starts and 21st by completions according to my calculations out of 309 council areas, so it's one of the few pulling it's weight on housing.
May I ask where South Cambridgeshire is on that list? I'd expect it to be high, as it includes both us and Northstowe.
I still don't understand why Rishi didn't wait until November. We're about to get another 0.6% growth in Q2, Q3 has started very positively and we'd have had another rate cut by then. If it was a late November election we could have been at 4.75% interest rates and 1.7% YTD growth and another year of above inflation wage rises.
The July election has got to be one of the biggest missteps in the history of the Tory party.
Oliver Dowden showed Sunak the numbers coming off fixed term mortgages between now and November.
That made going in July logical.
Without knowing the context of the age profile that seems like a huge leap of logic. People coming off shorter fixed rate mortgages are going to be younger and have a lower propensity to vote Tory anyway. It seems like poor reasoning to me anyway. The upsides to waiting were much larger.
As I've been pointing out all week the only rational reason I have seen for pulling the election forward is the public sector pay awards which firstly removed any chance of more tax cuts and secondly may have triggered an issue when it becomes obvious that the figures no longer added up.
Not really, the government could have just ignored it on the grounds of affordability or something. 5.5% is high, 3.5% higher than inflation. Limit it to those earning less than £35k or something and everyone else gets 2.1% or whatever CPI is.
At a time of mass vacancies and full employment?
If you don't want to pay the required wage then abolish the job and save all the money not some of it, but if the job needs doing it needs paying for.
Then let them leave for the private sector.
But enough of them are leaving for it to be a problem. Or they're not signing up in the first place.
You're smart. You've had enough people point this out to you. You supposedly know how money works.
Apart from not liking the obvious consequence, why do you find this so hard to accept?
Because the state is too large and does too much. We need to cut the size of the state and having people leave voluntarily is probably the best way to achieve it.
Again - what does it do that can be outsourced to the private sector efficiently. And remember the maxim for the past 14 years has been to drive costs down anyway you can..
Planning.
Abolish every busybody trying to second-guess and authorise what anyone builds on their land and have a free for all where anyone who wants to build anything on their own damned land can.
There we go - jobs abolished.
You know my wife is a town planner? Every post you make tells me you haven't got a clue what they actually do...
Far too much that they shouldn't is what they do. And I'd have no objection if your wife were made redundant.
No planner should have any input into whether or not a house is built, that should be upto the would-be homeowner and the private market.
If you want to plan new town or improved functions that the town intends to build on the town's own land, then that's something a town planner can and should be doing, but no need to review other people's plans of what they intend to be doing on their land.
Are you suggesting that local authorities should compulsory purchase (very cheaply of course) all land that could be developed?
I need to double check this but I'm 100% sure that is exactly what happens in some countries - the land is bought, roads and utilities are put in and the land then sold plot by plot to developers of all sizes..
Just been reading about the museum Georgian garden at Royal Circus, Bath. The Circus was done like that - as was the New Town of Edinburgh. But both with strict planning policies applied.
I’ll say it before and I’ll say it again, if the Tories are going to rebuild it doesn’t harm them to protect their right flank from Reform in the first instance. And therefore choosing a candidate of the right is not the worst tactical move they could make.
I personally would be exceptionally unlikely to support or vote for them, but let’s not pretend that the Tories are going to snap back into competent centrism any time soon. There’s no candidate who can convincingly offer that.
Th Hartlipudlians choice (in order) 3 Remainers 3 Leavers
1. Patel (Bring back hanging-Leaver) 2. Jenrick (Rwanda paint over kiddies cartoons ) 3. Badenoch (Leaver Rwanda bring back the birch (probably) Hanging (unconfirmed) 4. Cleverly (Rwanda Leaver) 5 Tugendhat (Leave the ECHR Rwanda) 6. Stride (A big softie in the wrong Party)
Comments
Jenrick would be worse than Iain Duncan Smith.
Picking up the pieces of the Braverman campaign?
SKS could do a variation of painting over a children's mural every week for years.
I think it insults Burgon, he’s thick but he wasn’t nasty.
A Tory... Vance ?
It's not as though Russia haas a shortage of assassins, and it costs us to house the specimens.
Indications of an imminent exchange of Russian spies & assassins for Western hostages held in Russia.
Parties: US, Germany, Russia, Belarus.
Candidates: Evan Gershkovich (US), Paul Whelan (US), Rico Krieger (Germany)
Vladimir Kara-Murza (UK), others.
https://x.com/igorsushko/status/1818727950826836178
He's ... [a] bastard ...
Hence why we have a chronic shortage.
Just let people build what they want, where they want. No need to second-guess it.
P. B. Pedant
Currently, development gets the local authorities very little.
If they could buy land, lay it out with services and roads and then sell the plots - big profits are possible.
Suddenly councils discover the joys of an expanding local population....
Saying 'He's a Sikh'* or 'He's a Jew' would say somebody is not a Muslim and is made up of words of one syllable.
*An uber-uber-pedant might note it is possible to be both a Muslim and a Sikh, although unusual.
Does anyone have an approximate figure by which the -0.25% change in interest rates will change Govt expenditure over 12 months?
Only if you think Jews Don't Count as David Baddiel says.
Russia is releasing Wall Street Journal reporter Evan Gershkovich and former US Marine Paul Whelan in a major multi-country prisoner swap
https://x.com/davidwtaintor/status/1818976065185804521
Jenrick was utterly ineffectual as housing minister, doing absolutely sod all for leaseholders affected by the cladding scandal (pretty much anyone living in a building more than 5 storeys high). Described as "no help at all" by 90% of leaseholders in a survey by the leasehold knowledge partnership.
He was involved in a highly controversial planning decision involving Richard Desmond, who made a subsatantial donation to the Conservatives two weeks after planning was approved.
He charged the taxpayer £100,000 in rent and council tax for his THIRD home. That's right. Third home. To quote the Times, "Travel expenses suggest that Jenrick rarely spends an entire weekend at the property..." ..."A government minister said last night: “It’s a bit odd to make the taxpayer fund your constituency home when you’ve got all that money. It doesn’t look good.”
He broke lockdown rules twice, travelling 150 miles to his his second home. Considering it was rule breaking that did for Boris, is Jenrick really a suitable candidate for leader?
Oh, and the thing he's most famous for? Having a mural of Mickey Mouse and Baloo from Jungle Book in a children's asylum centre painted over. Regardless for the reason (e.g. copyright), the man is mostly known by the general public for comic-book, cartoon-villain levels of cruelty. That is when they remember him at all.
So I put it to you. If Robert Jenrick is the answer, then what on earth is the question?
1) because they want to commit political suicide (@ydoethur)
2) they wish to be known as the nasty party (me)
People retort "what if a factory is built near you" - yeah, what of it? Good, we should be investing in factories and that's economic growth.
What's the problem?
Funny how a local company ended up owning those fields that found themselves on the local development plan, isn't it? How did that happen?
Brown envelopes all round.
https://maps.app.goo.gl/xmZMMahb7BPMiHYx5
I was actually kinda interested, but they're a bit too near the pig farm for my liking (and nose). They've built some nice houses, though.
And I just came across this from the council, which I did not know about:
https://www.eastcambs.gov.uk/local-development-framework/register-interest-self-build-and-custom-housebuilding
You imply a build-what-you-want free for all across the whole Peak District and Snowdonia, for a start.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Area_of_Outstanding_Natural_Beauty
My in-laws live the Rocky Mountains over 200 miles from the nearest city and over a 2 hour drive from the nearest other inhabitated settlement. That's the middle of nowhere and it doesn't stop them getting stuff done, even when its minus 40 Celsius in the daytime.
If people want to build in Snowdonia or the Peak District I have no objection to that.
Or anywhere else. Good luck to them.
People here claim "we all want growth" but propose getting rid of barriers to growth or actually getting stuff done "oh we can't do that, what if we get growth/a factory/places for people to live?"
https://x.com/treesey/status/1818959738106695864
If I can build a Gin Palace in my field outside Edale at will, why not on Box Hill?
A friend's father made the mistake of selling the field behind his Cotswold house to a farmer, who then moved to pig farming ...
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cv2gxev3515o
Eight months. I thought six was the top sentence from magistrates.
If people want to pay that charge, let them. If they don't, they won't. Their choice, free will.
Currently planning permission inflates the price of land by 0's. Drop those 0's off the price of land and people can afford to pay whatever fees they need to pay.
It will devalue the assets of those who own loads of land. Oh well. How Sad. Nevermind.
https://www1.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2024/07/04/history-suggests-lawyer-starmer-was-always-going-to-win-this-election/
Stealing - bad.
Stealing Creme Eggs - mad.
Elsewhere, developers buy up land and only release it slowly to maintain the supply and demand balance in their favour. The reason we don't go down the @BartholomewRoberts route (rightly or wrongly) is too many groups have a vested interest in maintaining the current situation. A limited supply of new homes works for the developers, the builders, the local authorities, existing homeowners, the banks and building societies, land owners, specialist trades, the constuction industry and the Government all of whom benefit from high house prices driven by limited supply and seemingly unlimited demand.
Some may want to take on all these vested interests but no one ever has not even Margaret Thatcher at her zenith. As to how we have got to this position, that's another story.
Land Value Taxation, an idea whose time has finally come, could be a way forward twinned with easing of planning restrictions. If land which could be developed and isn't is punitively taxed there'll be an incentive for it to be developed - there's an analogy here with empty homes. An empty home is wasteful - so is empty land if it could be developed but isn't being developed.
No politician (Labour, Conservative, LD, Reform or even Green) will crash the housing market to build more houses - external events may reduce house price values but that's different. For too many people, the house they own is their only signifcant asset and effectively their pension pot releasing equlity when it is sold. Whether you like that or not it's a reality - again, how we got to this point is another story.
If they think Jenrick is the answer then god help the party.
I'll retire to Bedlam.
Consider just 12 building plots on an acre, costing 400-500k each.
I've always quite fancied building an earth-sheltered house... aka a hobbit hole. Perhaps going back to my civil engineering [passion.
@eek keeps being coy about the costs of making connections, but those costs are for someone to actually do something productive and create something where it was not before. If its a cost worth paying, then its worth paying and should be paid - and if its not, its not and should not be. Free choice.
But artificially inflating land value 10-100x because of artificially refusing consent unless it is granted? That's not doing anything other than pad some people's asset values and prevent growth.
Portsmouth Magistrates' Court heard on Friday that Layton Richards, 29, from Brownlow Close in Portsmouth, had been charged with 24 shoplifting offences.
Hampshire and Isle of Wight Constabulary said he had stolen the chocolate between 6 January and 18 April.
Richards targeted 19 shops across Hampshire, Dorset and West Sussex, and took £3,463.96 worth of produce and products.
However, Harris might save me overall as both results are due in early November.
It may lead to Scotland.
"Under Section 2A of the Self-Build and Custom Housebuilding Act 2015 (as amended by the Housing and Planning Act 2016), and associated secondary legislation, local planning authorities are under a duty to grant a sufficient number of suitable permissions to meet the demand for self- and custom-built housing within their area. This demand is to be measured by the number of new applicants entered on the local Self-Build Register in each base period; and that number must be matched by new suitable permissions granted within 3 years of the end of each relevant base period."
Though in the case of that particular development, the plots were fully serviced.
https://archive.welhat.gov.uk/media/21486/9-26-Land-at-St-Peter-s-Street-Caxton-3282234/pdf/9.26_Land_at_St_Peters_Street__Caxton_3282234.pdf?m=638096387316070000
He wont be leader by the next GE and she is not ready for prime time me thinks.
Let him take the flak for a couple of years or so.
I personally would be exceptionally unlikely to support or vote for them, but let’s not pretend that the Tories are going to snap back into competent centrism any time soon. There’s no candidate who can convincingly offer that.
1. Patel (Bring back hanging-Leaver)
2. Jenrick (Rwanda paint over kiddies cartoons )
3. Badenoch (Leaver Rwanda bring back the birch (probably) Hanging (unconfirmed)
4. Cleverly (Rwanda Leaver)
5 Tugendhat (Leave the ECHR Rwanda)
6. Stride (A big softie in the wrong Party)