They used to weigh Labour votes in Wales – politicalbetting.com

System · December 18

They used to weigh Labour votes in Wales – politicalbetting.com

Yesterday saw a YouGov poll published a Wales only poll which is utterly staggering, we should be prepared for the possibility of one of the Conservatives or Labour could finish fifth or lower in next year’s Senedd election, it would make a mockery of Kemi Badenoch’s improved ratings.

Read the full story here

Benpointer · December 18

First... like Plaid Cymru?

Nigelb · December 18

Interesting article on the Labour new housing policy.
My guess is that it gets well and truly crippled, but if it were actually delivered to its potential, it could be transformative.
The excerpt points out the necessity for accompanying transport investment.

https://www.samdumitriu.com/p/labour-are-finally-taking-the-housing
..To be clear, this isn’t a policy for sprawl. New developments must exceed minimum density standards of 40dph (dwelling per hectare) for all stations and 50dph for the best connected stations. There is an expectation that in urban areas even higher densities will be reached.

It is hard to overstate how big this is. The Government could easily exceed its 1.5 million home target for the Parliament just by building near stations in London and the South East. And that doesn’t even adjust for the higher densities sought in urban areas. If it survives consultation, and you best believe there will be an almighty fight, it will be the single most powerful pro-supply move in post-war Britain.

This is radical by British standards, but there is precedent. New Zealand’s most expensive cities have built at a clip since successive governments brought in measures to create a similar ‘default yes’ to densification near city centres and busy transport corridors. One study suggested that over six years the policy cut Auckland’s rents by nearly a third. If the same happened in the capital, the average Londoner would save £9,000 each year.

California, one of the few places with a housing crisis as bad as our own, is trying something similar. They have just passed SB79, a major reform that will permit up to nine-storey development near bus, tube, and train stations.

There will be challenges. Building near train stations will mean busier trains. ..

TheScreamingEagles · December 18

Every day shows more cheating by the Aussies, this series is tainted.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/cricket/videos/cm21rpmellzo

Benpointer · December 18

FPT:

Scott_xP said:
@politico.com‬

EXCLUSIVE: The Trump administration is asking U.S. oil companies if they’re interested in returning to Venezuela once Maduro is toppled, per sources familiar with the discussions.

So far, the answer is a hard “no.”

https://bsky.app/profile/politico.com/post/3ma7miulufk2i

"FAILED DEMOCRAT OIL COMPANIES!"

Nigelb · December 18

TheScreamingEagles said:
Every day shows more cheating by the Aussies, this series is tainted.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/cricket/videos/cm21rpmellzo

It's possible that he believed he'd caught it.
There have been more glaring examples.

ydoethur · December 18

TheScreamingEagles said:
Every day shows more cheating by the Aussies, this series is tainted.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/cricket/videos/cm21rpmellzo

Stokes must have wished he’d kept his mouth shut yesterday!

But yes, this is amateur hour by the umpire.

Foss · December 18

Taz said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:
Beachy Head Woman may be ‘local girl from Eastbourne’, say scientists
DNA advances show Roman-era skeleton, once hailed as first black Briton, came from southern England
https://www.theguardian.com/science/2025/dec/17/beachy-head-woman-may-be-local-girl-from-eastbourne-say-scientists
Oops !!

For some weird reason the BBC are still using the old artists impression as the lead image rather than the new one.

Eabhal · December 18

Nigelb said:
Interesting article on the Labour new housing policy.
My guess is that it gets well and truly crippled, but if it were actually delivered to its potential, it could be transformative.
The excerpt points out the necessity for accompanying transport investment.

https://www.samdumitriu.com/p/labour-are-finally-taking-the-housing
..To be clear, this isn’t a policy for sprawl. New developments must exceed minimum density standards of 40dph (dwelling per hectare) for all stations and 50dph for the best connected stations. There is an expectation that in urban areas even higher densities will be reached.

It is hard to overstate how big this is. The Government could easily exceed its 1.5 million home target for the Parliament just by building near stations in London and the South East. And that doesn’t even adjust for the higher densities sought in urban areas. If it survives consultation, and you best believe there will be an almighty fight, it will be the single most powerful pro-supply move in post-war Britain.

This is radical by British standards, but there is precedent. New Zealand’s most expensive cities have built at a clip since successive governments brought in measures to create a similar ‘default yes’ to densification near city centres and busy transport corridors. One study suggested that over six years the policy cut Auckland’s rents by nearly a third. If the same happened in the capital, the average Londoner would save £9,000 each year.

California, one of the few places with a housing crisis as bad as our own, is trying something similar. They have just passed SB79, a major reform that will permit up to nine-storey development near bus, tube, and train stations.

There will be challenges. Building near train stations will mean busier trains. ..

Good news for those of us stuck in traffic caused by low density housing sprawl with no public transport provision - looking at you Midlothian Council, bunch of freeloading carbrain numpties.

Will our developers go for this? Entirely against the ethos of maximising their land values by building as inefficiently as possible. We might have to make building sprawl harder.

Benpointer · December 18

Nigelb said:

TheScreamingEagles said:
Every day shows more cheating by the Aussies, this series is tainted.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/cricket/videos/cm21rpmellzo
It's possible that he believed he'd caught it.
There have been more glaring examples.

It's not the catch / non-catch that's the issue, it's the air-swipe on the second ball which somehow triggered snicko, even though it looked like you could drive a bus between bat and ball.

Benpointer · December 18

Those "computer-generated images of how xxxxx may have looked" are bloody ridiculous aren't they.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/ce86jzgxxy4o

Nigelb · December 18

Benpointer said:

Nigelb said:

TheScreamingEagles said:
Every day shows more cheating by the Aussies, this series is tainted.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/cricket/videos/cm21rpmellzo
It's possible that he believed he'd caught it.
There have been more glaring examples.
It's not the catch / non-catch that's the issue, it's the air-swipe on the second ball which somehow triggered snicko, even though it looked like you could drive a bus between bat and ball.

Yes, but equally you can't rule out plain incompetence.

We've been outplayed so comprehensively that there's no real motive. And it's no secret that the Australian review systems are shit.

ydoethur · December 18

Benpointer said:

Nigelb said:

TheScreamingEagles said:
Every day shows more cheating by the Aussies, this series is tainted.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/cricket/videos/cm21rpmellzo
It's possible that he believed he'd caught it.
There have been more glaring examples.
It's not the catch / non-catch that's the issue, it's the air-swipe on the second ball which somehow triggered snicko, even though it looked like you could drive a bus between bat and ball.

Although let’s be fair, Smith would’ve found some other incredibly stupid way to screw it all up.

Nigelb · December 18

Eabhal said:

Nigelb said:
Interesting article on the Labour new housing policy.
My guess is that it gets well and truly crippled, but if it were actually delivered to its potential, it could be transformative.
The excerpt points out the necessity for accompanying transport investment.

https://www.samdumitriu.com/p/labour-are-finally-taking-the-housing
..To be clear, this isn’t a policy for sprawl. New developments must exceed minimum density standards of 40dph (dwelling per hectare) for all stations and 50dph for the best connected stations. There is an expectation that in urban areas even higher densities will be reached.

It is hard to overstate how big this is. The Government could easily exceed its 1.5 million home target for the Parliament just by building near stations in London and the South East. And that doesn’t even adjust for the higher densities sought in urban areas. If it survives consultation, and you best believe there will be an almighty fight, it will be the single most powerful pro-supply move in post-war Britain.

This is radical by British standards, but there is precedent. New Zealand’s most expensive cities have built at a clip since successive governments brought in measures to create a similar ‘default yes’ to densification near city centres and busy transport corridors. One study suggested that over six years the policy cut Auckland’s rents by nearly a third. If the same happened in the capital, the average Londoner would save £9,000 each year.

California, one of the few places with a housing crisis as bad as our own, is trying something similar. They have just passed SB79, a major reform that will permit up to nine-storey development near bus, tube, and train stations.

There will be challenges. Building near train stations will mean busier trains. ..
Good news for those of us stuck in traffic caused by low density housing sprawl with no public transport provision - looking at you Midlothian Council, bunch of freeloading carbrain numpties.

Will our developers go for this? Entirely against the ethos of maximising their land values by building as inefficiently as possible. We might have to make building sprawl harder.

An energetic government would do so via arm twisting
Or give local authorities CPO powers and the funding to do it themselves.

Given how long it's taken them to get this far, we do not have an energetic government.

Carnyx · December 18

Benpointer said:
Those "computer-generated images of how xxxxx may have looked" are bloody ridiculous aren't they.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/ce86jzgxxy4o

I really wouldn't be so sure. It's an established methodology; the computer generated stuff isn't AI so much as a modernised version of the old plasticine and measurements methods.

DecrepiterJohnL · December 18

Eabhal said:

Nigelb said:
Interesting article on the Labour new housing policy.
My guess is that it gets well and truly crippled, but if it were actually delivered to its potential, it could be transformative.
The excerpt points out the necessity for accompanying transport investment.

https://www.samdumitriu.com/p/labour-are-finally-taking-the-housing
..To be clear, this isn’t a policy for sprawl. New developments must exceed minimum density standards of 40dph (dwelling per hectare) for all stations and 50dph for the best connected stations. There is an expectation that in urban areas even higher densities will be reached.

It is hard to overstate how big this is. The Government could easily exceed its 1.5 million home target for the Parliament just by building near stations in London and the South East. And that doesn’t even adjust for the higher densities sought in urban areas. If it survives consultation, and you best believe there will be an almighty fight, it will be the single most powerful pro-supply move in post-war Britain.

This is radical by British standards, but there is precedent. New Zealand’s most expensive cities have built at a clip since successive governments brought in measures to create a similar ‘default yes’ to densification near city centres and busy transport corridors. One study suggested that over six years the policy cut Auckland’s rents by nearly a third. If the same happened in the capital, the average Londoner would save £9,000 each year.

California, one of the few places with a housing crisis as bad as our own, is trying something similar. They have just passed SB79, a major reform that will permit up to nine-storey development near bus, tube, and train stations.

There will be challenges. Building near train stations will mean busier trains. ..
Good news for those of us stuck in traffic caused by low density housing sprawl with no public transport provision - looking at you Midlothian Council, bunch of freeloading carbrain numpties.

Will our developers go for this? Entirely against the ethos of maximising their land values by building as inefficiently as possible. We might have to make building sprawl harder.

High density and no (more) public transport on the other hand raises the question of where to park cars.

Nigelb · December 18

Carnyx said:

Benpointer said:
Those "computer-generated images of how xxxxx may have looked" are bloody ridiculous aren't they.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/ce86jzgxxy4o

I really wouldn't be so sure. It's an established methodology; the computer generated stuff isn't AI so much as a modernised version of the old plasticine and measurements methods.

Still a lot of guesswork involved.

Dopermean · December 18

ydoethur said:

Benpointer said:

Nigelb said:

TheScreamingEagles said:
Every day shows more cheating by the Aussies, this series is tainted.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/cricket/videos/cm21rpmellzo
It's possible that he believed he'd caught it.
There have been more glaring examples.
It's not the catch / non-catch that's the issue, it's the air-swipe on the second ball which somehow triggered snicko, even though it looked like you could drive a bus between bat and ball.
Although let’s be fair, Smith would’ve found some other incredibly stupid way to screw it all up.

I've never trusted snicko, much preferred hotspot.

None of which excuses a poor batting and bowling performance. If the Ashes are to remain the "be all and end all" for English cricket then the squad have to play warm-up games in Australian conditions.

Ratters · December 18

Nigelb said:
Interesting article on the Labour new housing policy.
My guess is that it gets well and truly crippled, but if it were actually delivered to its potential, it could be transformative.
The excerpt points out the necessity for accompanying transport investment.

https://www.samdumitriu.com/p/labour-are-finally-taking-the-housing
..To be clear, this isn’t a policy for sprawl. New developments must exceed minimum density standards of 40dph (dwelling per hectare) for all stations and 50dph for the best connected stations. There is an expectation that in urban areas even higher densities will be reached.

It is hard to overstate how big this is. The Government could easily exceed its 1.5 million home target for the Parliament just by building near stations in London and the South East. And that doesn’t even adjust for the higher densities sought in urban areas. If it survives consultation, and you best believe there will be an almighty fight, it will be the single most powerful pro-supply move in post-war Britain.

This is radical by British standards, but there is precedent. New Zealand’s most expensive cities have built at a clip since successive governments brought in measures to create a similar ‘default yes’ to densification near city centres and busy transport corridors. One study suggested that over six years the policy cut Auckland’s rents by nearly a third. If the same happened in the capital, the average Londoner would save £9,000 each year.

California, one of the few places with a housing crisis as bad as our own, is trying something similar. They have just passed SB79, a major reform that will permit up to nine-storey development near bus, tube, and train stations.

There will be challenges. Building near train stations will mean busier trains. ..

"Building near train stations will mean busier train"

I always find arguments like this a little bizarre.

There may be some truth for some individual stations, but aggregate demand for infrastructure, whether trains or roads, is driven by the size of the population. Not whether or not young people need to move back in with their parents (current position for many) or if they can afford to rent or buy somewhere of their own.

Increasing housing supply doesn't increase the net demand for infrastructure, it just improves the likelihood that more people can afford their own place to rent or preferably buy.

Building up near railway stations is a no-brainer. In London and the south east (at least) you'll find easy demand for such properties.

Eabhal · December 18

DecrepiterJohnL said:

Eabhal said:

Nigelb said:
Interesting article on the Labour new housing policy.
My guess is that it gets well and truly crippled, but if it were actually delivered to its potential, it could be transformative.
The excerpt points out the necessity for accompanying transport investment.

https://www.samdumitriu.com/p/labour-are-finally-taking-the-housing
..To be clear, this isn’t a policy for sprawl. New developments must exceed minimum density standards of 40dph (dwelling per hectare) for all stations and 50dph for the best connected stations. There is an expectation that in urban areas even higher densities will be reached.

It is hard to overstate how big this is. The Government could easily exceed its 1.5 million home target for the Parliament just by building near stations in London and the South East. And that doesn’t even adjust for the higher densities sought in urban areas. If it survives consultation, and you best believe there will be an almighty fight, it will be the single most powerful pro-supply move in post-war Britain.

This is radical by British standards, but there is precedent. New Zealand’s most expensive cities have built at a clip since successive governments brought in measures to create a similar ‘default yes’ to densification near city centres and busy transport corridors. One study suggested that over six years the policy cut Auckland’s rents by nearly a third. If the same happened in the capital, the average Londoner would save £9,000 each year.

California, one of the few places with a housing crisis as bad as our own, is trying something similar. They have just passed SB79, a major reform that will permit up to nine-storey development near bus, tube, and train stations.

There will be challenges. Building near train stations will mean busier trains. ..
Good news for those of us stuck in traffic caused by low density housing sprawl with no public transport provision - looking at you Midlothian Council, bunch of freeloading carbrain numpties.

Will our developers go for this? Entirely against the ethos of maximising their land values by building as inefficiently as possible. We might have to make building sprawl harder.
High density and no (more) public transport on the other hand raises the question of where to park cars.

Ah, the Winchburgh Station saga. Permission granted in 2012, no one's bothered to fund it, massive congestion in the west of the city.

TheScreamingEagles · December 18

Dopermean said:

ydoethur said:

Benpointer said:

Nigelb said:

TheScreamingEagles said:
Every day shows more cheating by the Aussies, this series is tainted.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/cricket/videos/cm21rpmellzo
It's possible that he believed he'd caught it.
There have been more glaring examples.
It's not the catch / non-catch that's the issue, it's the air-swipe on the second ball which somehow triggered snicko, even though it looked like you could drive a bus between bat and ball.
Although let’s be fair, Smith would’ve found some other incredibly stupid way to screw it all up.
I've never trusted snicko, much preferred hotspot.

None of which excuses a poor batting and bowling performance. If the Ashes are to remain the "be all and end all" for English cricket then the squad have to play warm-up games in Australian conditions.

Hotspot is rubbish in hot climates.

Benpointer · December 18

Carnyx said:

Benpointer said:
Those "computer-generated images of how xxxxx may have looked" are bloody ridiculous aren't they.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/ce86jzgxxy4o

I really wouldn't be so sure. It's an established methodology; the computer generated stuff isn't AI so much as a modernised version of the old plasticine and measurements methods.

I may be being unfair to the people who do this work but anything they come up with can never be checked so how do we know if the resultant images are any better than a random face?

I suppose a test might be to give, say, five top facial image makers the same basic information: skull shape, DNA, etc. and let them independently create their images. If they all look quite similar then, fair enough I'd find that convincing.

ydoethur · December 18

Nigelb said:

Carnyx said:

Benpointer said:
Those "computer-generated images of how xxxxx may have looked" are bloody ridiculous aren't they.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/ce86jzgxxy4o

I really wouldn't be so sure. It's an established methodology; the computer generated stuff isn't AI so much as a modernised version of the old plasticine and measurements methods.
Still a lot of guesswork involved.

Bit like an Aussie umpire’s use of snickometer.

Benpointer · December 18

DecrepiterJohnL said:

Eabhal said:

Nigelb said:
Interesting article on the Labour new housing policy.
My guess is that it gets well and truly crippled, but if it were actually delivered to its potential, it could be transformative.
The excerpt points out the necessity for accompanying transport investment.

https://www.samdumitriu.com/p/labour-are-finally-taking-the-housing
..To be clear, this isn’t a policy for sprawl. New developments must exceed minimum density standards of 40dph (dwelling per hectare) for all stations and 50dph for the best connected stations. There is an expectation that in urban areas even higher densities will be reached.

It is hard to overstate how big this is. The Government could easily exceed its 1.5 million home target for the Parliament just by building near stations in London and the South East. And that doesn’t even adjust for the higher densities sought in urban areas. If it survives consultation, and you best believe there will be an almighty fight, it will be the single most powerful pro-supply move in post-war Britain.

This is radical by British standards, but there is precedent. New Zealand’s most expensive cities have built at a clip since successive governments brought in measures to create a similar ‘default yes’ to densification near city centres and busy transport corridors. One study suggested that over six years the policy cut Auckland’s rents by nearly a third. If the same happened in the capital, the average Londoner would save £9,000 each year.

California, one of the few places with a housing crisis as bad as our own, is trying something similar. They have just passed SB79, a major reform that will permit up to nine-storey development near bus, tube, and train stations.

There will be challenges. Building near train stations will mean busier trains. ..
Good news for those of us stuck in traffic caused by low density housing sprawl with no public transport provision - looking at you Midlothian Council, bunch of freeloading carbrain numpties.

Will our developers go for this? Entirely against the ethos of maximising their land values by building as inefficiently as possible. We might have to make building sprawl harder.
High density and no (more) public transport on the other hand raises the question of where to park cars.

Aren't these developments meant to be within walking distance of the station?

IanB2 · December 18

This thread is very confusing; is our cricket team supposed to be the Tories or Labour, in the lead?

MarqueeMark · December 18

Benpointer said:
Those "computer-generated images of how xxxxx may have looked" are bloody ridiculous aren't they.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/ce86jzgxxy4o

I'd have said Indigenous Australian on the basis of that image.

Which would take a bit of explaining away!

ydoethur · December 18

TheScreamingEagles said:

Dopermean said:

ydoethur said:

Benpointer said:

Nigelb said:

TheScreamingEagles said:
Every day shows more cheating by the Aussies, this series is tainted.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/cricket/videos/cm21rpmellzo
It's possible that he believed he'd caught it.
There have been more glaring examples.
It's not the catch / non-catch that's the issue, it's the air-swipe on the second ball which somehow triggered snicko, even though it looked like you could drive a bus between bat and ball.
Although let’s be fair, Smith would’ve found some other incredibly stupid way to screw it all up.
I've never trusted snicko, much preferred hotspot.

None of which excuses a poor batting and bowling performance. If the Ashes are to remain the "be all and end all" for English cricket then the squad have to play warm-up games in Australian conditions.
Hotspot is rubbish

FTFY

ydoethur · December 18

IanB2 said:
This thread is very confusing; is our cricket team supposed to be the Tories or Labour, in the lead?

Our cricket team is not in the lead, and if they finish fifth in the Ashes they’ve been undeservingly lucky.

rkrkrk · December 18

Nigelb said:
Interesting article on the Labour new housing policy.
My guess is that it gets well and truly crippled, but if it were actually delivered to its potential, it could be transformative.
The excerpt points out the necessity for accompanying transport investment.

https://www.samdumitriu.com/p/labour-are-finally-taking-the-housing
..To be clear, this isn’t a policy for sprawl. New developments must exceed minimum density standards of 40dph (dwelling per hectare) for all stations and 50dph for the best connected stations. There is an expectation that in urban areas even higher densities will be reached.

It is hard to overstate how big this is. The Government could easily exceed its 1.5 million home target for the Parliament just by building near stations in London and the South East. And that doesn’t even adjust for the higher densities sought in urban areas. If it survives consultation, and you best believe there will be an almighty fight, it will be the single most powerful pro-supply move in post-war Britain.

This is radical by British standards, but there is precedent. New Zealand’s most expensive cities have built at a clip since successive governments brought in measures to create a similar ‘default yes’ to densification near city centres and busy transport corridors. One study suggested that over six years the policy cut Auckland’s rents by nearly a third. If the same happened in the capital, the average Londoner would save £9,000 each year.

California, one of the few places with a housing crisis as bad as our own, is trying something similar. They have just passed SB79, a major reform that will permit up to nine-storey development near bus, tube, and train stations.

There will be challenges. Building near train stations will mean busier trains. ..

This is what modern Labour govt should be for. Fingers crossed they can push this through. I expect big opposition to exempting small sites from biodiversity net gain. The guardian are likely to hate the fact that instead of affordable homes on site, developers can pay councils for them somewhere else.

Benpointer · December 18

MarqueeMark said:

Benpointer said:
Those "computer-generated images of how xxxxx may have looked" are bloody ridiculous aren't they.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/ce86jzgxxy4o

I'd have said Indigenous Australian on the basis of that image.

Which would take a bit of explaining away!

Call for Thor Heyerdhal and a big canoe!

algarkirk · December 18

Benpointer said:

Carnyx said:

Benpointer said:
Those "computer-generated images of how xxxxx may have looked" are bloody ridiculous aren't they.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/ce86jzgxxy4o

I really wouldn't be so sure. It's an established methodology; the computer generated stuff isn't AI so much as a modernised version of the old plasticine and measurements methods.
I may be being unfair to the people who do this work but anything they come up with can never be checked so how do we know if the resultant images are any better than a random face?

I suppose a test might be to give, say, five top facial image makers the same basic information: skull shape, DNA, etc. and let them independently create their images. If they all look quite similar then, fair enough I'd find that convincing.

A Celtic/Romano/British skeleton that may have originated in Mongolia, Zambia. the moon or Argentina is news. But then as now, coming from Eastbourne is not news unless accompanied by a picture, preferably one fairly easy on the eye.

Top marks to the Guardian

https://www.theguardian.com/science/2025/dec/17/beachy-head-woman-may-be-local-girl-from-eastbourne-say-scientists

rkrkrk · December 18

rkrkrk said:

Nigelb said:
Interesting article on the Labour new housing policy.
My guess is that it gets well and truly crippled, but if it were actually delivered to its potential, it could be transformative.
The excerpt points out the necessity for accompanying transport investment.

https://www.samdumitriu.com/p/labour-are-finally-taking-the-housing
..To be clear, this isn’t a policy for sprawl. New developments must exceed minimum density standards of 40dph (dwelling per hectare) for all stations and 50dph for the best connected stations. There is an expectation that in urban areas even higher densities will be reached.

It is hard to overstate how big this is. The Government could easily exceed its 1.5 million home target for the Parliament just by building near stations in London and the South East. And that doesn’t even adjust for the higher densities sought in urban areas. If it survives consultation, and you best believe there will be an almighty fight, it will be the single most powerful pro-supply move in post-war Britain.

This is radical by British standards, but there is precedent. New Zealand’s most expensive cities have built at a clip since successive governments brought in measures to create a similar ‘default yes’ to densification near city centres and busy transport corridors. One study suggested that over six years the policy cut Auckland’s rents by nearly a third. If the same happened in the capital, the average Londoner would save £9,000 each year.

California, one of the few places with a housing crisis as bad as our own, is trying something similar. They have just passed SB79, a major reform that will permit up to nine-storey development near bus, tube, and train stations.

There will be challenges. Building near train stations will mean busier trains. ..
This is what modern Labour govt should be for. Fingers crossed they can push this through. I expect big opposition to exempting small sites from biodiversity net gain. The guardian are likely to hate the fact that instead of affordable homes on site, developers can pay councils for them somewhere else.

Also the granny flat changes are huge. Maybe the biggest thing we can do for social care (and for elderly themselves) is help the elderly live near their children.

Sean_F · December 18

rkrkrk said:

Nigelb said:
Interesting article on the Labour new housing policy.
My guess is that it gets well and truly crippled, but if it were actually delivered to its potential, it could be transformative.
The excerpt points out the necessity for accompanying transport investment.

https://www.samdumitriu.com/p/labour-are-finally-taking-the-housing
..To be clear, this isn’t a policy for sprawl. New developments must exceed minimum density standards of 40dph (dwelling per hectare) for all stations and 50dph for the best connected stations. There is an expectation that in urban areas even higher densities will be reached.

It is hard to overstate how big this is. The Government could easily exceed its 1.5 million home target for the Parliament just by building near stations in London and the South East. And that doesn’t even adjust for the higher densities sought in urban areas. If it survives consultation, and you best believe there will be an almighty fight, it will be the single most powerful pro-supply move in post-war Britain.

This is radical by British standards, but there is precedent. New Zealand’s most expensive cities have built at a clip since successive governments brought in measures to create a similar ‘default yes’ to densification near city centres and busy transport corridors. One study suggested that over six years the policy cut Auckland’s rents by nearly a third. If the same happened in the capital, the average Londoner would save £9,000 each year.

California, one of the few places with a housing crisis as bad as our own, is trying something similar. They have just passed SB79, a major reform that will permit up to nine-storey development near bus, tube, and train stations.

There will be challenges. Building near train stations will mean busier trains. ..
This is what modern Labour govt should be for. Fingers crossed they can push this through. I expect big opposition to exempting small sites from biodiversity net gain. The guardian are likely to hate the fact that instead of affordable homes on site, developers can pay councils for them somewhere else.

Good for them - if they deliver.

Sean_F · December 18

On topic, the problem is Plaid are even worse than Labour.

ydoethur · December 18

Back on topic:

Any result which does not have Welsh Labour first is a very good result for Wales and possibly a very good result for Welsh Labour given how tired and inept they have become.

Stuartinromford · December 18

TheScreamingEagles said:

Dopermean said:

ydoethur said:

Benpointer said:

Nigelb said:

TheScreamingEagles said:
Every day shows more cheating by the Aussies, this series is tainted.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/cricket/videos/cm21rpmellzo
It's possible that he believed he'd caught it.
There have been more glaring examples.
It's not the catch / non-catch that's the issue, it's the air-swipe on the second ball which somehow triggered snicko, even though it looked like you could drive a bus between bat and ball.
Although let’s be fair, Smith would’ve found some other incredibly stupid way to screw it all up.
I've never trusted snicko, much preferred hotspot.

None of which excuses a poor batting and bowling performance. If the Ashes are to remain the "be all and end all" for English cricket then the squad have to play warm-up games in Australian conditions.
Hotspot is rubbish in hot climates.

Are you suggesting that it's not appropriate to play Test Cricket in Australia?

Furthermore, are you suggesting that would be a bad thing?

bondegezou · December 18

Benpointer said:

Carnyx said:

Benpointer said:
Those "computer-generated images of how xxxxx may have looked" are bloody ridiculous aren't they.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/ce86jzgxxy4o

I really wouldn't be so sure. It's an established methodology; the computer generated stuff isn't AI so much as a modernised version of the old plasticine and measurements methods.
I may be being unfair to the people who do this work but anything they come up with can never be checked so how do we know if the resultant images are any better than a random face?

I suppose a test might be to give, say, five top facial image makers the same basic information: skull shape, DNA, etc. and let them independently create their images. If they all look quite similar then, fair enough I'd find that convincing.

You can give them the skull of someone recently deceased and then see if their reconstructions match pictures of the person. Indeed, this is what happens because there isn’t a big marker in reconstructing archaeological discoveries, but the police do find human remains and want to know what the person looked like. In some cases, the identity of the remains is later identified and we can check how closely the reconstruction matches.

Eabhal · December 18

Benpointer said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

Eabhal said:

Nigelb said:
Interesting article on the Labour new housing policy.
My guess is that it gets well and truly crippled, but if it were actually delivered to its potential, it could be transformative.
The excerpt points out the necessity for accompanying transport investment.

https://www.samdumitriu.com/p/labour-are-finally-taking-the-housing
..To be clear, this isn’t a policy for sprawl. New developments must exceed minimum density standards of 40dph (dwelling per hectare) for all stations and 50dph for the best connected stations. There is an expectation that in urban areas even higher densities will be reached.

It is hard to overstate how big this is. The Government could easily exceed its 1.5 million home target for the Parliament just by building near stations in London and the South East. And that doesn’t even adjust for the higher densities sought in urban areas. If it survives consultation, and you best believe there will be an almighty fight, it will be the single most powerful pro-supply move in post-war Britain.

This is radical by British standards, but there is precedent. New Zealand’s most expensive cities have built at a clip since successive governments brought in measures to create a similar ‘default yes’ to densification near city centres and busy transport corridors. One study suggested that over six years the policy cut Auckland’s rents by nearly a third. If the same happened in the capital, the average Londoner would save £9,000 each year.

California, one of the few places with a housing crisis as bad as our own, is trying something similar. They have just passed SB79, a major reform that will permit up to nine-storey development near bus, tube, and train stations.

There will be challenges. Building near train stations will mean busier trains. ..
Good news for those of us stuck in traffic caused by low density housing sprawl with no public transport provision - looking at you Midlothian Council, bunch of freeloading carbrain numpties.

Will our developers go for this? Entirely against the ethos of maximising their land values by building as inefficiently as possible. We might have to make building sprawl harder.
High density and no (more) public transport on the other hand raises the question of where to park cars.
Aren't these developments meant to be within walking distance of the station?

If it's matched with decent cycling infrastructure the radius can be up to 2 miles.* That's a very large area, particularly if you have reasonable population density - in Edinburgh that's 100,000 to 200,000 people (Midlothian 20-30,000).

*I think that's the max on multi-modal commutes. 1 mile is probably more reasonable.

Benpointer · December 18

Sean_F said:
On topic, the problem is Plaid are even worse than Labour.

33 posts in: the first one on topic.

That's what I love about PB. I hope @TSE doesn't get disheartened when some of his thread headers land on stony ground.

MarqueeMark · December 18

ydoethur said:

Nigelb said:

Carnyx said:

Benpointer said:
Those "computer-generated images of how xxxxx may have looked" are bloody ridiculous aren't they.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/ce86jzgxxy4o

I really wouldn't be so sure. It's an established methodology; the computer generated stuff isn't AI so much as a modernised version of the old plasticine and measurements methods.
Still a lot of guesswork involved.
Bit like an Aussie umpire’s use of snickometer.

There's no guess. "Will my decision assist Australia?"

Benpointer · December 18

Stuartinromford said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Dopermean said:

ydoethur said:

Benpointer said:

Nigelb said:

TheScreamingEagles said:
Every day shows more cheating by the Aussies, this series is tainted.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/cricket/videos/cm21rpmellzo
It's possible that he believed he'd caught it.
There have been more glaring examples.
It's not the catch / non-catch that's the issue, it's the air-swipe on the second ball which somehow triggered snicko, even though it looked like you could drive a bus between bat and ball.
Although let’s be fair, Smith would’ve found some other incredibly stupid way to screw it all up.
I've never trusted snicko, much preferred hotspot.

None of which excuses a poor batting and bowling performance. If the Ashes are to remain the "be all and end all" for English cricket then the squad have to play warm-up games in Australian conditions.
Hotspot is rubbish in hot climates.
Are you suggesting that it's not appropriate to play Test Cricket in Australia?

Furthermore, are you suggesting that would be a bad thing?

Tbf England have already made that a policy choice.

Benpointer · December 18

Eabhal said:

Benpointer said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

Eabhal said:

Nigelb said:
Interesting article on the Labour new housing policy.
My guess is that it gets well and truly crippled, but if it were actually delivered to its potential, it could be transformative.
The excerpt points out the necessity for accompanying transport investment.

https://www.samdumitriu.com/p/labour-are-finally-taking-the-housing
..To be clear, this isn’t a policy for sprawl. New developments must exceed minimum density standards of 40dph (dwelling per hectare) for all stations and 50dph for the best connected stations. There is an expectation that in urban areas even higher densities will be reached.

It is hard to overstate how big this is. The Government could easily exceed its 1.5 million home target for the Parliament just by building near stations in London and the South East. And that doesn’t even adjust for the higher densities sought in urban areas. If it survives consultation, and you best believe there will be an almighty fight, it will be the single most powerful pro-supply move in post-war Britain.

This is radical by British standards, but there is precedent. New Zealand’s most expensive cities have built at a clip since successive governments brought in measures to create a similar ‘default yes’ to densification near city centres and busy transport corridors. One study suggested that over six years the policy cut Auckland’s rents by nearly a third. If the same happened in the capital, the average Londoner would save £9,000 each year.

California, one of the few places with a housing crisis as bad as our own, is trying something similar. They have just passed SB79, a major reform that will permit up to nine-storey development near bus, tube, and train stations.

There will be challenges. Building near train stations will mean busier trains. ..
Good news for those of us stuck in traffic caused by low density housing sprawl with no public transport provision - looking at you Midlothian Council, bunch of freeloading carbrain numpties.

Will our developers go for this? Entirely against the ethos of maximising their land values by building as inefficiently as possible. We might have to make building sprawl harder.
High density and no (more) public transport on the other hand raises the question of where to park cars.
Aren't these developments meant to be within walking distance of the station?
If it's matched with decent cycling infrastructure the radius can be up to 2 miles.* That's a very large area, particularly if you have reasonable population density - in Edinburgh that's 100,000 to 200,000 people (Midlothian 20-30,000).

*I think that's the max on multi-modal commutes. 1 mile is probably more reasonable.

Indeed, my point was in response to @DecrepiterJohnL's concerns about inadequate car parking.

algarkirk · December 18

rkrkrk said:

rkrkrk said:

Nigelb said:
Interesting article on the Labour new housing policy.
My guess is that it gets well and truly crippled, but if it were actually delivered to its potential, it could be transformative.
The excerpt points out the necessity for accompanying transport investment.

https://www.samdumitriu.com/p/labour-are-finally-taking-the-housing
..To be clear, this isn’t a policy for sprawl. New developments must exceed minimum density standards of 40dph (dwelling per hectare) for all stations and 50dph for the best connected stations. There is an expectation that in urban areas even higher densities will be reached.

It is hard to overstate how big this is. The Government could easily exceed its 1.5 million home target for the Parliament just by building near stations in London and the South East. And that doesn’t even adjust for the higher densities sought in urban areas. If it survives consultation, and you best believe there will be an almighty fight, it will be the single most powerful pro-supply move in post-war Britain.

This is radical by British standards, but there is precedent. New Zealand’s most expensive cities have built at a clip since successive governments brought in measures to create a similar ‘default yes’ to densification near city centres and busy transport corridors. One study suggested that over six years the policy cut Auckland’s rents by nearly a third. If the same happened in the capital, the average Londoner would save £9,000 each year.

California, one of the few places with a housing crisis as bad as our own, is trying something similar. They have just passed SB79, a major reform that will permit up to nine-storey development near bus, tube, and train stations.

There will be challenges. Building near train stations will mean busier trains. ..
This is what modern Labour govt should be for. Fingers crossed they can push this through. I expect big opposition to exempting small sites from biodiversity net gain. The guardian are likely to hate the fact that instead of affordable homes on site, developers can pay councils for them somewhere else.
Also the granny flat changes are huge. Maybe the biggest thing we can do for social care (and for elderly themselves) is help the elderly live near their children.

Regent's Park, Hyde Park, Green Park and St James's Park are all close enough to stations, including eponymous ones, that I expect we'll shall see many thousands of well designed social housing units springing up pretty soon.

And all the villages where no new houses have been built since 1400 will suddenly discover the upside to Dr Beeching closing their station in 1965.

fitalass · December 18

They used to weigh the Scottish Labour vote in Scotland 28 years ago too, its why Gordon Brown pushed for devolution in Scotland and Wales, he hoped to create two Labour fiefdoms what ever the political party was in Government at Westminster. Sadly they created in fact three devolved Parliaments that were never fit for purpose or ever going to have a governing administration that was ever going to be anywhere near as accountable as the the Government at Westminster with a Parliament and second chamber and a Speaker of the House of Commons that had the powers to hold them to account. Holyrood right now is a complete joke and not fit for purporse after 18 years with the SNP in charge.

But that is down to the last Labour Government in charge at Westminster who originally delivered devolution. The sad thing is that I may not have voted for it, but I really wanted it to work and I still do. But when you create a devolved Parliament where the governing party and their FM and their Cabinet Ministers behaviour are totally unaccountable and untouchable no matter how badly they behave, you turn that administration into a banana republic. And the London political journalists should take a good long hard look at what they have ignored in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland while they threw genuine and well deserved indepth scrutiny at the governments at Westminster in the last 28 years. Talk about two tier journalistic reporting!!

There is absolutely no genuine safe guards in our devolved governments and that includes the very ineffectual local media and TV news. Up here in Scotland if there is a big Westminster government scandal it gets wall to wall coverage, but when it comes to Holyrood, tumble weed or no coverage at all.....

Ratters · December 18

In some quite amusing news:

"China is set to impose a value-added tax (VAT) on condoms and other contraceptives for the first time in three decades, as the country tries to boost its birthrate and modernise its tax laws.

From 1 January, condoms and contraceptives will be subject to a 13% VAT rate – a tax from which the goods have been exempt since China introduced nationwide VAT in 1993."

Can you imagine the conversations between couples? Condoms increased in price by a few pennies per condom, better go ahead and have more children who will cost many thousands...

MattW · December 18

Eabhal said:

Benpointer said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

Eabhal said:

Nigelb said:
Interesting article on the Labour new housing policy.
My guess is that it gets well and truly crippled, but if it were actually delivered to its potential, it could be transformative.
The excerpt points out the necessity for accompanying transport investment.

https://www.samdumitriu.com/p/labour-are-finally-taking-the-housing
..To be clear, this isn’t a policy for sprawl. New developments must exceed minimum density standards of 40dph (dwelling per hectare) for all stations and 50dph for the best connected stations. There is an expectation that in urban areas even higher densities will be reached.

It is hard to overstate how big this is. The Government could easily exceed its 1.5 million home target for the Parliament just by building near stations in London and the South East. And that doesn’t even adjust for the higher densities sought in urban areas. If it survives consultation, and you best believe there will be an almighty fight, it will be the single most powerful pro-supply move in post-war Britain.

This is radical by British standards, but there is precedent. New Zealand’s most expensive cities have built at a clip since successive governments brought in measures to create a similar ‘default yes’ to densification near city centres and busy transport corridors. One study suggested that over six years the policy cut Auckland’s rents by nearly a third. If the same happened in the capital, the average Londoner would save £9,000 each year.

California, one of the few places with a housing crisis as bad as our own, is trying something similar. They have just passed SB79, a major reform that will permit up to nine-storey development near bus, tube, and train stations.

There will be challenges. Building near train stations will mean busier trains. ..
Good news for those of us stuck in traffic caused by low density housing sprawl with no public transport provision - looking at you Midlothian Council, bunch of freeloading carbrain numpties.

Will our developers go for this? Entirely against the ethos of maximising their land values by building as inefficiently as possible. We might have to make building sprawl harder.
High density and no (more) public transport on the other hand raises the question of where to park cars.
Aren't these developments meant to be within walking distance of the station?
If it's matched with decent cycling infrastructure the radius can be up to 2 miles.* That's a very large area, particularly if you have reasonable population density - in Edinburgh that's 100,000 to 200,000 people (Midlothian 20-30,000).

*I think that's the max on multi-modal commutes. 1 mile is probably more reasonable.

2 miles is about 10-11 minutes at average London cycling speed (ie the TFL assumption for their default calculations), so that sounds a little short. I'd say 3 miles, or for suburbs it may become easier just to cycle in.

The statutory walking distance to school is I think 2 miles. That is the I think distance before you get help with transport. That's England, and I'm open to correction by experts.

Foss · December 18

MarqueeMark said:

Benpointer said:
Those "computer-generated images of how xxxxx may have looked" are bloody ridiculous aren't they.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/ce86jzgxxy4o

I'd have said Indigenous Australian on the basis of that image.

Which would take a bit of explaining away!

The new one looks like she’s about to give you a side quest to go and kill a load of bandits.

Nigelb · December 18

Benpointer said:

Stuartinromford said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Dopermean said:

ydoethur said:

Benpointer said:

Nigelb said:

TheScreamingEagles said:
Every day shows more cheating by the Aussies, this series is tainted.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/cricket/videos/cm21rpmellzo
It's possible that he believed he'd caught it.
There have been more glaring examples.
It's not the catch / non-catch that's the issue, it's the air-swipe on the second ball which somehow triggered snicko, even though it looked like you could drive a bus between bat and ball.
Although let’s be fair, Smith would’ve found some other incredibly stupid way to screw it all up.
I've never trusted snicko, much preferred hotspot.

None of which excuses a poor batting and bowling performance. If the Ashes are to remain the "be all and end all" for English cricket then the squad have to play warm-up games in Australian conditions.
Hotspot is rubbish in hot climates.
Are you suggesting that it's not appropriate to play Test Cricket in Australia?

Furthermore, are you suggesting that would be a bad thing?
Tbf England have already made that a policy choice.

Yes, we're deliberately fielded a team a couple of levels below test standard.

ydoethur · December 18

Sean_F said:
On topic, the problem is Plaid are even worse than Labour.

I don’t think that’s actually true. Politically speaking Plaid are a very broad church and it is misleading to pigeonhole them in the way you could labour as a left-wing party.

But much more to the point as they have not been in government for many years they will be noticeably less – shall we say – captured by the interests that inevitably go with government money. Turfing such parties out is ann essential part of democracy even if the replacements are not the best.

Stuartinromford · December 18

Sean_F said:
On topic, the problem is Plaid are even worse than Labour.

That's the problem with the rise of NOTA parties, whether on the left or the right.

It's perfectly understandable that people are a bit miffed with the state of the nation after decades of the old parties in charge. (I'm not sure that we are entitled to be more than a bit miffed- we may no longer be winning top prize in the lottery of life, but we have still got a pretty solid luxury hamper, or a gift voucher for a restaurant we actually want to eat at.)

But most of the solutions put forward by these parties don't stand up to scrutiny. They're not really meant to, because these parties aren't really in it to win it- not on a national level. So it doesn't matter what the policies are. That's certainly true for the Greens and Nats. Realistically, it's where the Lib Dems are right now. And I would (more tentatively) put Reform in the same category.

And the problem with being a NOTA party? What happens when you win and become an AOTA party?

Morris_Dancer · December 18

...

Trying to delete an account with a certain organisation.

Due to changes since my last login I can't login (apps required, no smartphone).

The close account form won't submit.

The contact us form won't go through.

Other forms of contact require login.

Trying through TwX. We'll see how that goes. I'm less than delighted so far.

ydoethur · December 18

Ratters said:
In some quite amusing news:

"China is set to impose a value-added tax (VAT) on condoms and other contraceptives for the first time in three decades, as the country tries to boost its birthrate and modernise its tax laws.

From 1 January, condoms and contraceptives will be subject to a 13% VAT rate – a tax from which the goods have been exempt since China introduced nationwide VAT in 1993."

Can you imagine the conversations between couples? Condoms increased in price by a few pennies per condom, better go ahead and have more children who will cost many thousands...

It’s not a hard decision.

AnneJGP · December 18

Nigelb said:
Interesting article on the Labour new housing policy.
My guess is that it gets well and truly crippled, but if it were actually delivered to its potential, it could be transformative.
The excerpt points out the necessity for accompanying transport investment.

https://www.samdumitriu.com/p/labour-are-finally-taking-the-housing
..To be clear, this isn’t a policy for sprawl. New developments must exceed minimum density standards of 40dph (dwelling per hectare) for all stations and 50dph for the best connected stations. There is an expectation that in urban areas even higher densities will be reached.

It is hard to overstate how big this is. The Government could easily exceed its 1.5 million home target for the Parliament just by building near stations in London and the South East. And that doesn’t even adjust for the higher densities sought in urban areas. If it survives consultation, and you best believe there will be an almighty fight, it will be the single most powerful pro-supply move in post-war Britain.

This is radical by British standards, but there is precedent. New Zealand’s most expensive cities have built at a clip since successive governments brought in measures to create a similar ‘default yes’ to densification near city centres and busy transport corridors. One study suggested that over six years the policy cut Auckland’s rents by nearly a third. If the same happened in the capital, the average Londoner would save £9,000 each year.

California, one of the few places with a housing crisis as bad as our own, is trying something similar. They have just passed SB79, a major reform that will permit up to nine-storey development near bus, tube, and train stations.

There will be challenges. Building near train stations will mean busier trains. ..

Building miles away from transport means more cars.

Taz · December 18

Ratters said:

Nigelb said:
Interesting article on the Labour new housing policy.
My guess is that it gets well and truly crippled, but if it were actually delivered to its potential, it could be transformative.
The excerpt points out the necessity for accompanying transport investment.

https://www.samdumitriu.com/p/labour-are-finally-taking-the-housing
..To be clear, this isn’t a policy for sprawl. New developments must exceed minimum density standards of 40dph (dwelling per hectare) for all stations and 50dph for the best connected stations. There is an expectation that in urban areas even higher densities will be reached.

It is hard to overstate how big this is. The Government could easily exceed its 1.5 million home target for the Parliament just by building near stations in London and the South East. And that doesn’t even adjust for the higher densities sought in urban areas. If it survives consultation, and you best believe there will be an almighty fight, it will be the single most powerful pro-supply move in post-war Britain.

This is radical by British standards, but there is precedent. New Zealand’s most expensive cities have built at a clip since successive governments brought in measures to create a similar ‘default yes’ to densification near city centres and busy transport corridors. One study suggested that over six years the policy cut Auckland’s rents by nearly a third. If the same happened in the capital, the average Londoner would save £9,000 each year.

California, one of the few places with a housing crisis as bad as our own, is trying something similar. They have just passed SB79, a major reform that will permit up to nine-storey development near bus, tube, and train stations.

There will be challenges. Building near train stations will mean busier trains. ..
"Building near train stations will mean busier train"

I always find arguments like this a little bizarre.

There may be some truth for some individual stations, but aggregate demand for infrastructure, whether trains or roads, is driven by the size of the population. Not whether or not young people need to move back in with their parents (current position for many) or if they can afford to rent or buy somewhere of their own.

Increasing housing supply doesn't increase the net demand for infrastructure, it just improves the likelihood that more people can afford their own place to rent or preferably buy.

Building up near railway stations is a no-brainer. In London and the south east (at least) you'll find easy demand for such properties.

Yet only in the last week we have had a development on a car bark at Barnet station rejected because NIMbYs. It was recommended for approval to the council.

https://www.housingtoday.co.uk/news/barnet-council-rejects-nearly-1800-new-homes-across-two-schemes/5139733.article

Nigelb · December 18

Political analysis of the week.
(Truncated for brevity.)

https://x.com/CAgovernor/status/2001479563222954403
Trump tonight:

Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me..

DecrepiterJohnL · December 18

Benpointer said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

Eabhal said:

Nigelb said:
Interesting article on the Labour new housing policy.
My guess is that it gets well and truly crippled, but if it were actually delivered to its potential, it could be transformative.
The excerpt points out the necessity for accompanying transport investment.

https://www.samdumitriu.com/p/labour-are-finally-taking-the-housing
..To be clear, this isn’t a policy for sprawl. New developments must exceed minimum density standards of 40dph (dwelling per hectare) for all stations and 50dph for the best connected stations. There is an expectation that in urban areas even higher densities will be reached.

It is hard to overstate how big this is. The Government could easily exceed its 1.5 million home target for the Parliament just by building near stations in London and the South East. And that doesn’t even adjust for the higher densities sought in urban areas. If it survives consultation, and you best believe there will be an almighty fight, it will be the single most powerful pro-supply move in post-war Britain.

This is radical by British standards, but there is precedent. New Zealand’s most expensive cities have built at a clip since successive governments brought in measures to create a similar ‘default yes’ to densification near city centres and busy transport corridors. One study suggested that over six years the policy cut Auckland’s rents by nearly a third. If the same happened in the capital, the average Londoner would save £9,000 each year.

California, one of the few places with a housing crisis as bad as our own, is trying something similar. They have just passed SB79, a major reform that will permit up to nine-storey development near bus, tube, and train stations.

There will be challenges. Building near train stations will mean busier trains. ..
Good news for those of us stuck in traffic caused by low density housing sprawl with no public transport provision - looking at you Midlothian Council, bunch of freeloading carbrain numpties.

Will our developers go for this? Entirely against the ethos of maximising their land values by building as inefficiently as possible. We might have to make building sprawl harder.
High density and no (more) public transport on the other hand raises the question of where to park cars.
Aren't these developments meant to be within walking distance of the station?

Yes but who goes shopping by train? There are lots of new flats round here with more on the way, but we have great bus and tube links. From other parts of the country, one hears horror stories of one bus every two days. I've been in favour (on pb) of building near railways for longer than it has been government policy, but it needs to be part of a package and in the medium to long term, we need new towns to revive the regions.

Taz · December 18

ydoethur said:

Ratters said:
In some quite amusing news:

"China is set to impose a value-added tax (VAT) on condoms and other contraceptives for the first time in three decades, as the country tries to boost its birthrate and modernise its tax laws.

From 1 January, condoms and contraceptives will be subject to a 13% VAT rate – a tax from which the goods have been exempt since China introduced nationwide VAT in 1993."

Can you imagine the conversations between couples? Condoms increased in price by a few pennies per condom, better go ahead and have more children who will cost many thousands...
It’s not a hard decision.

Maybe they will just give them a swill and reuse them ?

Ratters · December 18

Taz said:

Ratters said:

Nigelb said:
Interesting article on the Labour new housing policy.
My guess is that it gets well and truly crippled, but if it were actually delivered to its potential, it could be transformative.
The excerpt points out the necessity for accompanying transport investment.

https://www.samdumitriu.com/p/labour-are-finally-taking-the-housing
..To be clear, this isn’t a policy for sprawl. New developments must exceed minimum density standards of 40dph (dwelling per hectare) for all stations and 50dph for the best connected stations. There is an expectation that in urban areas even higher densities will be reached.

It is hard to overstate how big this is. The Government could easily exceed its 1.5 million home target for the Parliament just by building near stations in London and the South East. And that doesn’t even adjust for the higher densities sought in urban areas. If it survives consultation, and you best believe there will be an almighty fight, it will be the single most powerful pro-supply move in post-war Britain.

This is radical by British standards, but there is precedent. New Zealand’s most expensive cities have built at a clip since successive governments brought in measures to create a similar ‘default yes’ to densification near city centres and busy transport corridors. One study suggested that over six years the policy cut Auckland’s rents by nearly a third. If the same happened in the capital, the average Londoner would save £9,000 each year.

California, one of the few places with a housing crisis as bad as our own, is trying something similar. They have just passed SB79, a major reform that will permit up to nine-storey development near bus, tube, and train stations.

There will be challenges. Building near train stations will mean busier trains. ..
"Building near train stations will mean busier train"

I always find arguments like this a little bizarre.

There may be some truth for some individual stations, but aggregate demand for infrastructure, whether trains or roads, is driven by the size of the population. Not whether or not young people need to move back in with their parents (current position for many) or if they can afford to rent or buy somewhere of their own.

Increasing housing supply doesn't increase the net demand for infrastructure, it just improves the likelihood that more people can afford their own place to rent or preferably buy.

Building up near railway stations is a no-brainer. In London and the south east (at least) you'll find easy demand for such properties.
Yet only in the last week we have had a development on a car bark at Barnet station rejected because NIMbYs. It was recommended for approval to the council.

https://www.housingtoday.co.uk/news/barnet-council-rejects-nearly-1800-new-homes-across-two-schemes/5139733.article

Exactly that type of scheme we need more of.

Any way for the Labour central government to overrule the council?

stodge · December 18

Morning all

They used to weigh Conservative votes in Surrey.

Sunil_Prasannan · December 18

Taz said:

Ratters said:

Nigelb said:
Interesting article on the Labour new housing policy.
My guess is that it gets well and truly crippled, but if it were actually delivered to its potential, it could be transformative.
The excerpt points out the necessity for accompanying transport investment.

https://www.samdumitriu.com/p/labour-are-finally-taking-the-housing
..To be clear, this isn’t a policy for sprawl. New developments must exceed minimum density standards of 40dph (dwelling per hectare) for all stations and 50dph for the best connected stations. There is an expectation that in urban areas even higher densities will be reached.

It is hard to overstate how big this is. The Government could easily exceed its 1.5 million home target for the Parliament just by building near stations in London and the South East. And that doesn’t even adjust for the higher densities sought in urban areas. If it survives consultation, and you best believe there will be an almighty fight, it will be the single most powerful pro-supply move in post-war Britain.

This is radical by British standards, but there is precedent. New Zealand’s most expensive cities have built at a clip since successive governments brought in measures to create a similar ‘default yes’ to densification near city centres and busy transport corridors. One study suggested that over six years the policy cut Auckland’s rents by nearly a third. If the same happened in the capital, the average Londoner would save £9,000 each year.

California, one of the few places with a housing crisis as bad as our own, is trying something similar. They have just passed SB79, a major reform that will permit up to nine-storey development near bus, tube, and train stations.

There will be challenges. Building near train stations will mean busier trains. ..
"Building near train stations will mean busier train"

I always find arguments like this a little bizarre.

There may be some truth for some individual stations, but aggregate demand for infrastructure, whether trains or roads, is driven by the size of the population. Not whether or not young people need to move back in with their parents (current position for many) or if they can afford to rent or buy somewhere of their own.

Increasing housing supply doesn't increase the net demand for infrastructure, it just improves the likelihood that more people can afford their own place to rent or preferably buy.

Building up near railway stations is a no-brainer. In London and the south east (at least) you'll find easy demand for such properties.
Yet only in the last week we have had a development on a car bark at Barnet station rejected because NIMbYs. It was recommended for approval to the council.

https://www.housingtoday.co.uk/news/barnet-council-rejects-nearly-1800-new-homes-across-two-schemes/5139733.article

New blocks of flats in Ilford North right next to Barkingside tube, and a big development in Ilford South not far from Goodmayes Elizabeth line.

stodge · December 18

Stuartinromford said:

Sean_F said:
On topic, the problem is Plaid are even worse than Labour.
That's the problem with the rise of NOTA parties, whether on the left or the right.

It's perfectly understandable that people are a bit miffed with the state of the nation after decades of the old parties in charge. (I'm not sure that we are entitled to be more than a bit miffed- we may no longer be winning top prize in the lottery of life, but we have still got a pretty solid luxury hamper, or a gift voucher for a restaurant we actually want to eat at.)

But most of the solutions put forward by these parties don't stand up to scrutiny. They're not really meant to, because these parties aren't really in it to win it- not on a national level. So it doesn't matter what the policies are. That's certainly true for the Greens and Nats. Realistically, it's where the Lib Dems are right now. And I would (more tentatively) put Reform in the same category.

And the problem with being a NOTA party? What happens when you win and become an AOTA party?

Ask the LDs who found out the hard way. To what extent can the tail wag the dog? Both the LDs and the Conservatives need to figure out whether they want to be tail or simply yap away in futile opposition.

PJH · December 18

DecrepiterJohnL said:

Benpointer said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

Eabhal said:

Nigelb said:
Interesting article on the Labour new housing policy.
My guess is that it gets well and truly crippled, but if it were actually delivered to its potential, it could be transformative.
The excerpt points out the necessity for accompanying transport investment.

https://www.samdumitriu.com/p/labour-are-finally-taking-the-housing
..To be clear, this isn’t a policy for sprawl. New developments must exceed minimum density standards of 40dph (dwelling per hectare) for all stations and 50dph for the best connected stations. There is an expectation that in urban areas even higher densities will be reached.

It is hard to overstate how big this is. The Government could easily exceed its 1.5 million home target for the Parliament just by building near stations in London and the South East. And that doesn’t even adjust for the higher densities sought in urban areas. If it survives consultation, and you best believe there will be an almighty fight, it will be the single most powerful pro-supply move in post-war Britain.

This is radical by British standards, but there is precedent. New Zealand’s most expensive cities have built at a clip since successive governments brought in measures to create a similar ‘default yes’ to densification near city centres and busy transport corridors. One study suggested that over six years the policy cut Auckland’s rents by nearly a third. If the same happened in the capital, the average Londoner would save £9,000 each year.

California, one of the few places with a housing crisis as bad as our own, is trying something similar. They have just passed SB79, a major reform that will permit up to nine-storey development near bus, tube, and train stations.

There will be challenges. Building near train stations will mean busier trains. ..
Good news for those of us stuck in traffic caused by low density housing sprawl with no public transport provision - looking at you Midlothian Council, bunch of freeloading carbrain numpties.

Will our developers go for this? Entirely against the ethos of maximising their land values by building as inefficiently as possible. We might have to make building sprawl harder.
High density and no (more) public transport on the other hand raises the question of where to park cars.
Aren't these developments meant to be within walking distance of the station?
Yes but who goes shopping by train? There are lots of new flats round here with more on the way, but we have great bus and tube links. From other parts of the country, one hears horror stories of one bus every two days. I've been in favour (on pb) of building near railways for longer than it has been government policy, but it needs to be part of a package and in the medium to long term, we need new towns to revive the regions.

If you mean the weekly food shop, then nobody, but in the sorts of density envisaged there will be a large supermarket within walking distance. As in fact there is where I am - I managed without a car for nearly a year and did all my food shopping that way. Maybe I had one delivery for a bulk purchase of beer and wine.

If you mean shopping as in somewhere like Westfield at Stratford then I always go by train.

Edit: I agree with your point that it needs to be a frequent and integrated service like in London - but in the wider SE it can be. Other cities may need more investment to catch up (and Labour needs to give mayors/councils the powers to do that).

Taz · December 18

Sunil_Prasannan said:

Taz said:

Ratters said:

Nigelb said:
Interesting article on the Labour new housing policy.
My guess is that it gets well and truly crippled, but if it were actually delivered to its potential, it could be transformative.
The excerpt points out the necessity for accompanying transport investment.

https://www.samdumitriu.com/p/labour-are-finally-taking-the-housing
..To be clear, this isn’t a policy for sprawl. New developments must exceed minimum density standards of 40dph (dwelling per hectare) for all stations and 50dph for the best connected stations. There is an expectation that in urban areas even higher densities will be reached.

It is hard to overstate how big this is. The Government could easily exceed its 1.5 million home target for the Parliament just by building near stations in London and the South East. And that doesn’t even adjust for the higher densities sought in urban areas. If it survives consultation, and you best believe there will be an almighty fight, it will be the single most powerful pro-supply move in post-war Britain.

This is radical by British standards, but there is precedent. New Zealand’s most expensive cities have built at a clip since successive governments brought in measures to create a similar ‘default yes’ to densification near city centres and busy transport corridors. One study suggested that over six years the policy cut Auckland’s rents by nearly a third. If the same happened in the capital, the average Londoner would save £9,000 each year.

California, one of the few places with a housing crisis as bad as our own, is trying something similar. They have just passed SB79, a major reform that will permit up to nine-storey development near bus, tube, and train stations.

There will be challenges. Building near train stations will mean busier trains. ..
"Building near train stations will mean busier train"

I always find arguments like this a little bizarre.

There may be some truth for some individual stations, but aggregate demand for infrastructure, whether trains or roads, is driven by the size of the population. Not whether or not young people need to move back in with their parents (current position for many) or if they can afford to rent or buy somewhere of their own.

Increasing housing supply doesn't increase the net demand for infrastructure, it just improves the likelihood that more people can afford their own place to rent or preferably buy.

Building up near railway stations is a no-brainer. In London and the south east (at least) you'll find easy demand for such properties.
Yet only in the last week we have had a development on a car bark at Barnet station rejected because NIMbYs. It was recommended for approval to the council.

https://www.housingtoday.co.uk/news/barnet-council-rejects-nearly-1800-new-homes-across-two-schemes/5139733.article
New blocks of flats in Ilford North right next to Barkingside tube, and a big development in Ilford South not far from Goodmayes Elizabeth line.

Yes, it’s good to see some councils grasp the nettle

In Barnet there was heavy lobbying from the local Barnet society and other groups

Dura_Ace · December 18

Morris_Dancer said:
...

Trying to delete an account with a certain organisation.

Due to changes since my last login I can't login (apps required, no smartphone).

The close account form won't submit.

The contact us form won't go through.

Other forms of contact require login.

Trying through TwX. We'll see how that goes. I'm less than delighted so far.

Use a cloud based smartphone emulator.

Or just a get a fucking phone like a normal person. I dunno.

PJH · December 18

PJH said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

Benpointer said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

Eabhal said:

Nigelb said:
Interesting article on the Labour new housing policy.
My guess is that it gets well and truly crippled, but if it were actually delivered to its potential, it could be transformative.
The excerpt points out the necessity for accompanying transport investment.

https://www.samdumitriu.com/p/labour-are-finally-taking-the-housing
..To be clear, this isn’t a policy for sprawl. New developments must exceed minimum density standards of 40dph (dwelling per hectare) for all stations and 50dph for the best connected stations. There is an expectation that in urban areas even higher densities will be reached.

It is hard to overstate how big this is. The Government could easily exceed its 1.5 million home target for the Parliament just by building near stations in London and the South East. And that doesn’t even adjust for the higher densities sought in urban areas. If it survives consultation, and you best believe there will be an almighty fight, it will be the single most powerful pro-supply move in post-war Britain.

This is radical by British standards, but there is precedent. New Zealand’s most expensive cities have built at a clip since successive governments brought in measures to create a similar ‘default yes’ to densification near city centres and busy transport corridors. One study suggested that over six years the policy cut Auckland’s rents by nearly a third. If the same happened in the capital, the average Londoner would save £9,000 each year.

California, one of the few places with a housing crisis as bad as our own, is trying something similar. They have just passed SB79, a major reform that will permit up to nine-storey development near bus, tube, and train stations.

There will be challenges. Building near train stations will mean busier trains. ..
Good news for those of us stuck in traffic caused by low density housing sprawl with no public transport provision - looking at you Midlothian Council, bunch of freeloading carbrain numpties.

Will our developers go for this? Entirely against the ethos of maximising their land values by building as inefficiently as possible. We might have to make building sprawl harder.
High density and no (more) public transport on the other hand raises the question of where to park cars.
Aren't these developments meant to be within walking distance of the station?
Yes but who goes shopping by train? There are lots of new flats round here with more on the way, but we have great bus and tube links. From other parts of the country, one hears horror stories of one bus every two days. I've been in favour (on pb) of building near railways for longer than it has been government policy, but it needs to be part of a package and in the medium to long term, we need new towns to revive the regions.
If you mean the weekly food shop, then nobody, but in the sorts of density envisaged there will be a large supermarket within walking distance. As in fact there is where I am - I managed without a car for nearly a year and did all my food shopping that way. Maybe I had one delivery for a bulk purchase of beer and wine.

If you mean shopping as in somewhere like Westfield at Stratford then I always go by train.

Deleted - Vanilla weirdness

Big_G_NorthWales · December 18

fitalass said:
They used to weigh the Scottish Labour vote in Scotland 28 years ago too, its why Gordon Brown pushed for devolution in Scotland and Wales, he hoped to create two Labour fiefdoms what ever the political party was in Government at Westminster. Sadly they created in fact three devolved Parliaments that were never fit for purpose or ever going to have a governing administration that was ever going to be anywhere near as accountable as the the Government at Westminster with a Parliament and second chamber and a Speaker of the House of Commons that had the powers to hold them to account. Holyrood right now is a complete joke and not fit for purporse after 18 years with the SNP in charge.

But that is down to the last Labour Government in charge at Westminster who originally delivered devolution. The sad thing is that I may not have voted for it, but I really wanted it to work and I still do. But when you create a devolved Parliament where the governing party and their FM and their Cabinet Ministers behaviour are totally unaccountable and untouchable no matter how badly they behave, you turn that administration into a banana republic. And the London political journalists should take a good long hard look at what they have ignored in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland while they threw genuine and well deserved indepth scrutiny at the governments at Westminster in the last 28 years. Talk about two tier journalistic reporting!!

There is absolutely no genuine safe guards in our devolved governments and that includes the very ineffectual local media and TV news. Up here in Scotland if there is a big Westminster government scandal it gets wall to wall coverage, but when it comes to Holyrood, tumble weed or no coverage at all.....

Very much agree with this

I do want the Senedd to succeed, but Labour's has had long enough and like in Scotland are facing a real crisis in Wales and deservedly so

I am prepared to give Plaid a chance, much as I would with the SNP if I still lived in Scotland.

It should also be noted just how irrelevant the Lib Dems are in Wales

I remember the time they were so active in local government here but no more

stodge · December 18

Taz said:

Ratters said:

Nigelb said:
Interesting article on the Labour new housing policy.
My guess is that it gets well and truly crippled, but if it were actually delivered to its potential, it could be transformative.
The excerpt points out the necessity for accompanying transport investment.

https://www.samdumitriu.com/p/labour-are-finally-taking-the-housing
..To be clear, this isn’t a policy for sprawl. New developments must exceed minimum density standards of 40dph (dwelling per hectare) for all stations and 50dph for the best connected stations. There is an expectation that in urban areas even higher densities will be reached.

It is hard to overstate how big this is. The Government could easily exceed its 1.5 million home target for the Parliament just by building near stations in London and the South East. And that doesn’t even adjust for the higher densities sought in urban areas. If it survives consultation, and you best believe there will be an almighty fight, it will be the single most powerful pro-supply move in post-war Britain.

This is radical by British standards, but there is precedent. New Zealand’s most expensive cities have built at a clip since successive governments brought in measures to create a similar ‘default yes’ to densification near city centres and busy transport corridors. One study suggested that over six years the policy cut Auckland’s rents by nearly a third. If the same happened in the capital, the average Londoner would save £9,000 each year.

California, one of the few places with a housing crisis as bad as our own, is trying something similar. They have just passed SB79, a major reform that will permit up to nine-storey development near bus, tube, and train stations.

There will be challenges. Building near train stations will mean busier trains. ..
"Building near train stations will mean busier train"

I always find arguments like this a little bizarre.

There may be some truth for some individual stations, but aggregate demand for infrastructure, whether trains or roads, is driven by the size of the population. Not whether or not young people need to move back in with their parents (current position for many) or if they can afford to rent or buy somewhere of their own.

Increasing housing supply doesn't increase the net demand for infrastructure, it just improves the likelihood that more people can afford their own place to rent or preferably buy.

Building up near railway stations is a no-brainer. In London and the south east (at least) you'll find easy demand for such properties.
Yet only in the last week we have had a development on a car bark at Barnet station rejected because NIMbYs. It was recommended for approval to the council.

https://www.housingtoday.co.uk/news/barnet-council-rejects-nearly-1800-new-homes-across-two-schemes/5139733.article

Just so I’m clear. You would agree any application irrespective of whether it contravened the guidelines on density and height laid out in the Local Plan of which any developer would be fully aware.

Let’s also drive a stake through the heart of the “we have to build” argument. Most of these no doubt well appointed little boxes will be far out of the reach of the people who need housing - those on housing waiting lists, families in one room, those people. If you want to solve the housing crisis and improve the quality of life for tens if not hundreds of thousands of families, build new houses and flats and sell them to local councils for £1 per unit and then let the council allocate them to the people who need them.

Big_G_NorthWales · December 18

rkrkrk said:

rkrkrk said:

Nigelb said:
Interesting article on the Labour new housing policy.
My guess is that it gets well and truly crippled, but if it were actually delivered to its potential, it could be transformative.
The excerpt points out the necessity for accompanying transport investment.

https://www.samdumitriu.com/p/labour-are-finally-taking-the-housing
..To be clear, this isn’t a policy for sprawl. New developments must exceed minimum density standards of 40dph (dwelling per hectare) for all stations and 50dph for the best connected stations. There is an expectation that in urban areas even higher densities will be reached.

It is hard to overstate how big this is. The Government could easily exceed its 1.5 million home target for the Parliament just by building near stations in London and the South East. And that doesn’t even adjust for the higher densities sought in urban areas. If it survives consultation, and you best believe there will be an almighty fight, it will be the single most powerful pro-supply move in post-war Britain.

This is radical by British standards, but there is precedent. New Zealand’s most expensive cities have built at a clip since successive governments brought in measures to create a similar ‘default yes’ to densification near city centres and busy transport corridors. One study suggested that over six years the policy cut Auckland’s rents by nearly a third. If the same happened in the capital, the average Londoner would save £9,000 each year.

California, one of the few places with a housing crisis as bad as our own, is trying something similar. They have just passed SB79, a major reform that will permit up to nine-storey development near bus, tube, and train stations.

There will be challenges. Building near train stations will mean busier trains. ..
This is what modern Labour govt should be for. Fingers crossed they can push this through. I expect big opposition to exempting small sites from biodiversity net gain. The guardian are likely to hate the fact that instead of affordable homes on site, developers can pay councils for them somewhere else.
Also the granny flat changes are huge. Maybe the biggest thing we can do for social care (and for elderly themselves) is help the elderly live near their children.

We already do and it is something we very much value

DecrepiterJohnL · December 18

SPotY tonight btw so if you want to check your betting books and how to vote...

ydoethur · December 18

Taz said:

ydoethur said:

Ratters said:
In some quite amusing news:

"China is set to impose a value-added tax (VAT) on condoms and other contraceptives for the first time in three decades, as the country tries to boost its birthrate and modernise its tax laws.

From 1 January, condoms and contraceptives will be subject to a 13% VAT rate – a tax from which the goods have been exempt since China introduced nationwide VAT in 1993."

Can you imagine the conversations between couples? Condoms increased in price by a few pennies per condom, better go ahead and have more children who will cost many thousands...
It’s not a hard decision.
Maybe they will just give them a swill and reuse them ?

It's painful to see men do that.

Big_G_NorthWales · December 18

Sean_F said:
On topic, the problem is Plaid are even worse than Labour.

That's not possible

MarqueeMark · December 18

Stuartinromford said:

Sean_F said:
On topic, the problem is Plaid are even worse than Labour.
That's the problem with the rise of NOTA parties, whether on the left or the right.

It's perfectly understandable that people are a bit miffed with the state of the nation after decades of the old parties in charge. (I'm not sure that we are entitled to be more than a bit miffed- we may no longer be winning top prize in the lottery of life, but we have still got a pretty solid luxury hamper, or a gift voucher for a restaurant we actually want to eat at.)

But most of the solutions put forward by these parties don't stand up to scrutiny. They're not really meant to, because these parties aren't really in it to win it- not on a national level. So it doesn't matter what the policies are. That's certainly true for the Greens and Nats. Realistically, it's where the Lib Dems are right now. And I would (more tentatively) put Reform in the same category.

And the problem with being a NOTA party? What happens when you win and become an AOTA party?

You count the minutes before the voters kick you in the goolies...

Eabhal · December 18

DecrepiterJohnL said:

Benpointer said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

Eabhal said:

Nigelb said:
Interesting article on the Labour new housing policy.
My guess is that it gets well and truly crippled, but if it were actually delivered to its potential, it could be transformative.
The excerpt points out the necessity for accompanying transport investment.

https://www.samdumitriu.com/p/labour-are-finally-taking-the-housing
..To be clear, this isn’t a policy for sprawl. New developments must exceed minimum density standards of 40dph (dwelling per hectare) for all stations and 50dph for the best connected stations. There is an expectation that in urban areas even higher densities will be reached.

It is hard to overstate how big this is. The Government could easily exceed its 1.5 million home target for the Parliament just by building near stations in London and the South East. And that doesn’t even adjust for the higher densities sought in urban areas. If it survives consultation, and you best believe there will be an almighty fight, it will be the single most powerful pro-supply move in post-war Britain.

This is radical by British standards, but there is precedent. New Zealand’s most expensive cities have built at a clip since successive governments brought in measures to create a similar ‘default yes’ to densification near city centres and busy transport corridors. One study suggested that over six years the policy cut Auckland’s rents by nearly a third. If the same happened in the capital, the average Londoner would save £9,000 each year.

California, one of the few places with a housing crisis as bad as our own, is trying something similar. They have just passed SB79, a major reform that will permit up to nine-storey development near bus, tube, and train stations.

There will be challenges. Building near train stations will mean busier trains. ..
Good news for those of us stuck in traffic caused by low density housing sprawl with no public transport provision - looking at you Midlothian Council, bunch of freeloading carbrain numpties.

Will our developers go for this? Entirely against the ethos of maximising their land values by building as inefficiently as possible. We might have to make building sprawl harder.
High density and no (more) public transport on the other hand raises the question of where to park cars.
Aren't these developments meant to be within walking distance of the station?
Yes but who goes shopping by train? There are lots of new flats round here with more on the way, but we have great bus and tube links. From other parts of the country, one hears horror stories of one bus every two days. I've been in favour (on pb) of building near railways for longer than it has been government policy, but it needs to be part of a package and in the medium to long term, we need new towns to revive the regions.

This is the theory behind 15-minute cities. If you build density around that train station, you generate the economic critical mass required for a High Street to develop around it.

That means that you can get 100,000 people (or more) who don't need to jump in a car to grab some food. It's also much cheaper to provide public services like schools and GP practices. Public transport requires density to work too - that's why we gave buses every 10 minutes in Edinburgh but not in Midlothian.

This isn't a crazy idea. This is how the economically productive parts of the UK operate already. Economies of scale were described by Adam Smith, and the Romans and Greeks probably had a good understanding of it too.

Unfortunately it's not in the private interests of developers, so you end up with these enormous estates miles away from anything.

ydoethur · December 18

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Sean_F said:
On topic, the problem is Plaid are even worse than Labour.
That's not possible

Well, hang on BigG. Welsh Labour haven't offered to shoot immigrants or cancel elections or take bribes for pardons. So it's possible to be worse than Labour, as Trump is amply demonstrating.

But I don't think Plaid will stoop to those depths. Rhun ap Iorwerth may not be everyone's cup of tea but he's no fool and he's actually pretty passionate about Wales and the Welsh people. He will want to at least try to get it right.

With RefUk, on the other hand...

Taz · December 18

stodge said:

Taz said:

Ratters said:

Nigelb said:
Interesting article on the Labour new housing policy.
My guess is that it gets well and truly crippled, but if it were actually delivered to its potential, it could be transformative.
The excerpt points out the necessity for accompanying transport investment.

https://www.samdumitriu.com/p/labour-are-finally-taking-the-housing
..To be clear, this isn’t a policy for sprawl. New developments must exceed minimum density standards of 40dph (dwelling per hectare) for all stations and 50dph for the best connected stations. There is an expectation that in urban areas even higher densities will be reached.

It is hard to overstate how big this is. The Government could easily exceed its 1.5 million home target for the Parliament just by building near stations in London and the South East. And that doesn’t even adjust for the higher densities sought in urban areas. If it survives consultation, and you best believe there will be an almighty fight, it will be the single most powerful pro-supply move in post-war Britain.

This is radical by British standards, but there is precedent. New Zealand’s most expensive cities have built at a clip since successive governments brought in measures to create a similar ‘default yes’ to densification near city centres and busy transport corridors. One study suggested that over six years the policy cut Auckland’s rents by nearly a third. If the same happened in the capital, the average Londoner would save £9,000 each year.

California, one of the few places with a housing crisis as bad as our own, is trying something similar. They have just passed SB79, a major reform that will permit up to nine-storey development near bus, tube, and train stations.

There will be challenges. Building near train stations will mean busier trains. ..
"Building near train stations will mean busier train"

I always find arguments like this a little bizarre.

There may be some truth for some individual stations, but aggregate demand for infrastructure, whether trains or roads, is driven by the size of the population. Not whether or not young people need to move back in with their parents (current position for many) or if they can afford to rent or buy somewhere of their own.

Increasing housing supply doesn't increase the net demand for infrastructure, it just improves the likelihood that more people can afford their own place to rent or preferably buy.

Building up near railway stations is a no-brainer. In London and the south east (at least) you'll find easy demand for such properties.
Yet only in the last week we have had a development on a car bark at Barnet station rejected because NIMbYs. It was recommended for approval to the council.

https://www.housingtoday.co.uk/news/barnet-council-rejects-nearly-1800-new-homes-across-two-schemes/5139733.article
Just so I’m clear. You would agree any application irrespective of whether it contravened the guidelines on density and height laid out in the Local Plan of which any developer would be fully aware.

Let’s also drive a stake through the heart of the “we have to build” argument. Most of these no doubt well appointed little boxes will be far out of the reach of the people who need housing - those on housing waiting lists, families in one room, those people. If you want to solve the housing crisis and improve the quality of life for tens if not hundreds of thousands of families, build new houses and flats and sell them to local councils for £1 per unit and then let the council allocate them to the people who need them.

In this case yes as it was recommended for approval by the planning authorities at the council.

The one development being on an old car park adjacent to the station.

So who is going to build houses and sell them to the council for a nominal amount to transfer the title ?

People needing homes in Barnet won’t be helped by this rejection.

You can do both. Increase council and private provision

Big_G_NorthWales · December 18

ydoethur said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Sean_F said:
On topic, the problem is Plaid are even worse than Labour.
That's not possible
Well, hang on BigG. Welsh Labour haven't offered to shoot immigrants or cancel elections or take bribes for pardons. So it's possible to be worse than Labour, as Trump is amply demonstrating.

But I don't think Plaid will stoop to those depths. Rhun ap Iorwerth may not be everyone's cup of tea but he's no fool and he's actually pretty passionate about Wales and the Welsh people. He will want to at least try to get it right.

With RefUk, on the other hand...

I agree and have absolutely no support for Reform either here in Wales or the UK

I expect Plaid to govern with some lose arrangement with other parties, but just seeing labour out of office in Wales will be a very happy day

Fairliered · December 18

DecrepiterJohnL said:

Eabhal said:

Nigelb said:
Interesting article on the Labour new housing policy.
My guess is that it gets well and truly crippled, but if it were actually delivered to its potential, it could be transformative.
The excerpt points out the necessity for accompanying transport investment.

https://www.samdumitriu.com/p/labour-are-finally-taking-the-housing
..To be clear, this isn’t a policy for sprawl. New developments must exceed minimum density standards of 40dph (dwelling per hectare) for all stations and 50dph for the best connected stations. There is an expectation that in urban areas even higher densities will be reached.

It is hard to overstate how big this is. The Government could easily exceed its 1.5 million home target for the Parliament just by building near stations in London and the South East. And that doesn’t even adjust for the higher densities sought in urban areas. If it survives consultation, and you best believe there will be an almighty fight, it will be the single most powerful pro-supply move in post-war Britain.

This is radical by British standards, but there is precedent. New Zealand’s most expensive cities have built at a clip since successive governments brought in measures to create a similar ‘default yes’ to densification near city centres and busy transport corridors. One study suggested that over six years the policy cut Auckland’s rents by nearly a third. If the same happened in the capital, the average Londoner would save £9,000 each year.

California, one of the few places with a housing crisis as bad as our own, is trying something similar. They have just passed SB79, a major reform that will permit up to nine-storey development near bus, tube, and train stations.

There will be challenges. Building near train stations will mean busier trains. ..
Good news for those of us stuck in traffic caused by low density housing sprawl with no public transport provision - looking at you Midlothian Council, bunch of freeloading carbrain numpties.

Will our developers go for this? Entirely against the ethos of maximising their land values by building as inefficiently as possible. We might have to make building sprawl harder.
High density and no (more) public transport on the other hand raises the question of where to park cars.

The combination of private developers and private transport companies doesn’t work. Regulation of both is essential.

ydoethur · December 18

Nigelb said:
Political analysis of the week.
(Truncated for brevity.)

https://x.com/CAgovernor/status/2001479563222954403
Trump tonight:

Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me.. THANK YOU FOR YOUR ATTENTION TO THIS MATTER!

FTFY

Battlebus · December 18

Eabhal said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

Benpointer said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

Eabhal said:

Nigelb said:
Interesting article on the Labour new housing policy.
My guess is that it gets well and truly crippled, but if it were actually delivered to its potential, it could be transformative.
The excerpt points out the necessity for accompanying transport investment.

https://www.samdumitriu.com/p/labour-are-finally-taking-the-housing
..To be clear, this isn’t a policy for sprawl. New developments must exceed minimum density standards of 40dph (dwelling per hectare) for all stations and 50dph for the best connected stations. There is an expectation that in urban areas even higher densities will be reached.

It is hard to overstate how big this is. The Government could easily exceed its 1.5 million home target for the Parliament just by building near stations in London and the South East. And that doesn’t even adjust for the higher densities sought in urban areas. If it survives consultation, and you best believe there will be an almighty fight, it will be the single most powerful pro-supply move in post-war Britain.

This is radical by British standards, but there is precedent. New Zealand’s most expensive cities have built at a clip since successive governments brought in measures to create a similar ‘default yes’ to densification near city centres and busy transport corridors. One study suggested that over six years the policy cut Auckland’s rents by nearly a third. If the same happened in the capital, the average Londoner would save £9,000 each year.

California, one of the few places with a housing crisis as bad as our own, is trying something similar. They have just passed SB79, a major reform that will permit up to nine-storey development near bus, tube, and train stations.

There will be challenges. Building near train stations will mean busier trains. ..
Good news for those of us stuck in traffic caused by low density housing sprawl with no public transport provision - looking at you Midlothian Council, bunch of freeloading carbrain numpties.

Will our developers go for this? Entirely against the ethos of maximising their land values by building as inefficiently as possible. We might have to make building sprawl harder.
High density and no (more) public transport on the other hand raises the question of where to park cars.
Aren't these developments meant to be within walking distance of the station?
Yes but who goes shopping by train? There are lots of new flats round here with more on the way, but we have great bus and tube links. From other parts of the country, one hears horror stories of one bus every two days. I've been in favour (on pb) of building near railways for longer than it has been government policy, but it needs to be part of a package and in the medium to long term, we need new towns to revive the regions.
This is the theory behind 15-minute cities. If you build density around that train station, you generate the economic critical mass required for a High Street to develop around it.

That means that you can get 100,000 people (or more) who don't need to jump in a car to grab some food. It's also much cheaper to provide public services like schools and GP practices. Public transport requires density to work too - that's why we gave buses every 10 minutes in Edinburgh but not in Midlothian.

This isn't a crazy idea. This is how the economically productive parts of the UK operate already. Economies of scale were described by Adam Smith, and the Romans and Greeks probably had a good understanding of it too.

Unfortunately it's not in the private interests of developers, so you end up with these enormous estates miles away from anything.

Down here in the South, there are a lot of homes being built but not the facilities like schools and doctors to go with it. There seems to be some sort of belief "if you build it, they will come" - or the s106 monies are being redirected to something else.

ozymandias · December 18

The problem with high density schemes, which in an urban environment necessitates apartment blocks is this:

Service charges.

They can in themselves be a small mortgage payment each month.

It’s all very well having huge apartment blocks as they have been building around Tottenham Hale station for a few years now, but 30 storey buildings will need quite a bit of maintenance and care.
.
I’m not against this proposal but without reform of leasehold tenures and associated governance of management companies there may end up being alot of buyer remorse.

Alanbrooke · December 18

Nigelb said:
Political analysis of the week.
(Truncated for brevity.)

https://x.com/CAgovernor/status/2001479563222954403
Trump tonight:

Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me..

Yes Trump's a narcissist and its people like you with your non-stop infatuation of posting everything he does that gives him all the attention he so craves. You might as well just vote for him and be done with it.

TheScreamingEagles · December 18

WHICH BIT OF THE NO DISCUSSION OF THE GROOMING STORY DO PBers NOT UNDERSTAND?

THE SPAM TRAP HAS BEEN UPDATED, DON’T MOAN IF YOU FIND YOURSELVES BANNED.

Scott_xP · December 18

Nigelb said:
Political analysis of the week.
(Truncated for brevity.)

https://x.com/CAgovernor/status/2001479563222954403
Trump tonight:

Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me..

@SkyNews

Analysis | Some reckon Trump's losing his marbles a bit - and this speech might help their case

https://x.com/SkyNews/status/2001579735445311737?s=20

@brianstelter.bsky.social‬

Scooplet: The White House wanted tonight's prime time address to double as a PowerPoint presentation. Trump's comms team shared a set of slides with the major TV networks shortly before the speech. But only one, Fox News, opted to show them on screen.

https://bsky.app/profile/brianstelter.bsky.social/post/3maac3ec2n22p

@chadbourn.bsky.social‬

Trump’s twenty-minute address of grievances and lies sounded like the last gasp of a dying presidency.

https://bsky.app/profile/chadbourn.bsky.social/post/3maatvnhqtk2j

Northern_Al · December 18

TheScreamingEagles said:
WHICH BIT OF THE NO DISCUSSION OF THE GROOMING STORY DO PBers NOT UNDERSTAND?

THE SPAM TRAP HAS BEEN UPDATED, DON’T MOAN IF YOU FIND YOURSELVES BANNED.

Thank you for your attention to this matter!

Alanbrooke · December 18

Battlebus said:

Eabhal said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

Benpointer said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

Eabhal said:

Nigelb said:
Interesting article on the Labour new housing policy.
My guess is that it gets well and truly crippled, but if it were actually delivered to its potential, it could be transformative.
The excerpt points out the necessity for accompanying transport investment.

https://www.samdumitriu.com/p/labour-are-finally-taking-the-housing
..To be clear, this isn’t a policy for sprawl. New developments must exceed minimum density standards of 40dph (dwelling per hectare) for all stations and 50dph for the best connected stations. There is an expectation that in urban areas even higher densities will be reached.

It is hard to overstate how big this is. The Government could easily exceed its 1.5 million home target for the Parliament just by building near stations in London and the South East. And that doesn’t even adjust for the higher densities sought in urban areas. If it survives consultation, and you best believe there will be an almighty fight, it will be the single most powerful pro-supply move in post-war Britain.

This is radical by British standards, but there is precedent. New Zealand’s most expensive cities have built at a clip since successive governments brought in measures to create a similar ‘default yes’ to densification near city centres and busy transport corridors. One study suggested that over six years the policy cut Auckland’s rents by nearly a third. If the same happened in the capital, the average Londoner would save £9,000 each year.

California, one of the few places with a housing crisis as bad as our own, is trying something similar. They have just passed SB79, a major reform that will permit up to nine-storey development near bus, tube, and train stations.

There will be challenges. Building near train stations will mean busier trains. ..
Good news for those of us stuck in traffic caused by low density housing sprawl with no public transport provision - looking at you Midlothian Council, bunch of freeloading carbrain numpties.

Will our developers go for this? Entirely against the ethos of maximising their land values by building as inefficiently as possible. We might have to make building sprawl harder.
High density and no (more) public transport on the other hand raises the question of where to park cars.
Aren't these developments meant to be within walking distance of the station?
Yes but who goes shopping by train? There are lots of new flats round here with more on the way, but we have great bus and tube links. From other parts of the country, one hears horror stories of one bus every two days. I've been in favour (on pb) of building near railways for longer than it has been government policy, but it needs to be part of a package and in the medium to long term, we need new towns to revive the regions.
This is the theory behind 15-minute cities. If you build density around that train station, you generate the economic critical mass required for a High Street to develop around it.

That means that you can get 100,000 people (or more) who don't need to jump in a car to grab some food. It's also much cheaper to provide public services like schools and GP practices. Public transport requires density to work too - that's why we gave buses every 10 minutes in Edinburgh but not in Midlothian.

This isn't a crazy idea. This is how the economically productive parts of the UK operate already. Economies of scale were described by Adam Smith, and the Romans and Greeks probably had a good understanding of it too.

Unfortunately it's not in the private interests of developers, so you end up with these enormous estates miles away from anything.
Down here in the South, there are a lot of homes being built but not the facilities like schools and doctors to go with it. There seems to be some sort of belief "if you build it, they will come" - or the s106 monies are being redirected to something else.

Given youre having no kids theres no need to worry about the schools. Retirement homes is more your worry.

Nigelb · December 18

Alanbrooke said:

Nigelb said:
Political analysis of the week.
(Truncated for brevity.)

https://x.com/CAgovernor/status/2001479563222954403
Trump tonight:

Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me..
Yes Trump's a narcissist and its people like you with your non-stop infatuation of posting everything he does that gives him all the attention he so craves. You might as well just vote for him and be done with it.

I'm grateful for your infatuation, Alan.

Burgessian · December 18

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Sean_F said:
On topic, the problem is Plaid are even worse than Labour.
That's not possible

There is a time-honoured political precept - "Things can always get worse". Plaid and Reform are just the boys and boyos to prove the point.

Stuartinromford · December 18

Taz said:

stodge said:

Taz said:

Ratters said:

Nigelb said:
Interesting article on the Labour new housing policy.
My guess is that it gets well and truly crippled, but if it were actually delivered to its potential, it could be transformative.
The excerpt points out the necessity for accompanying transport investment.

https://www.samdumitriu.com/p/labour-are-finally-taking-the-housing
..To be clear, this isn’t a policy for sprawl. New developments must exceed minimum density standards of 40dph (dwelling per hectare) for all stations and 50dph for the best connected stations. There is an expectation that in urban areas even higher densities will be reached.

It is hard to overstate how big this is. The Government could easily exceed its 1.5 million home target for the Parliament just by building near stations in London and the South East. And that doesn’t even adjust for the higher densities sought in urban areas. If it survives consultation, and you best believe there will be an almighty fight, it will be the single most powerful pro-supply move in post-war Britain.

This is radical by British standards, but there is precedent. New Zealand’s most expensive cities have built at a clip since successive governments brought in measures to create a similar ‘default yes’ to densification near city centres and busy transport corridors. One study suggested that over six years the policy cut Auckland’s rents by nearly a third. If the same happened in the capital, the average Londoner would save £9,000 each year.

California, one of the few places with a housing crisis as bad as our own, is trying something similar. They have just passed SB79, a major reform that will permit up to nine-storey development near bus, tube, and train stations.

There will be challenges. Building near train stations will mean busier trains. ..
"Building near train stations will mean busier train"

I always find arguments like this a little bizarre.

There may be some truth for some individual stations, but aggregate demand for infrastructure, whether trains or roads, is driven by the size of the population. Not whether or not young people need to move back in with their parents (current position for many) or if they can afford to rent or buy somewhere of their own.

Increasing housing supply doesn't increase the net demand for infrastructure, it just improves the likelihood that more people can afford their own place to rent or preferably buy.

Building up near railway stations is a no-brainer. In London and the south east (at least) you'll find easy demand for such properties.
Yet only in the last week we have had a development on a car bark at Barnet station rejected because NIMbYs. It was recommended for approval to the council.

https://www.housingtoday.co.uk/news/barnet-council-rejects-nearly-1800-new-homes-across-two-schemes/5139733.article
Just so I’m clear. You would agree any application irrespective of whether it contravened the guidelines on density and height laid out in the Local Plan of which any developer would be fully aware.

Let’s also drive a stake through the heart of the “we have to build” argument. Most of these no doubt well appointed little boxes will be far out of the reach of the people who need housing - those on housing waiting lists, families in one room, those people. If you want to solve the housing crisis and improve the quality of life for tens if not hundreds of thousands of families, build new houses and flats and sell them to local councils for £1 per unit and then let the council allocate them to the people who need them.
In this case yes as it was recommended for approval by the planning authorities at the council.

The one development being on an old car park adjacent to the station.

So who is going to build houses and sell them to the council for a nominal amount to transfer the title ?

People needing homes in Barnet won’t be helped by this rejection.

You can do both. Increase council and private provision

That's the Will Of The People for you.

The councillors who turned down these schemes were almost certainly accurately representing what their voters think. What probably happens now is that either Sadiq calls in the application and approves it, or (more likely) it goes to appeal and gets approved by unelected judges.

Some more delay, some more cost, but everyone's concience is clear.

(I imagine that the 800 m/ten minute walk rule will open up a lot of development land in Havering- we've got the District line, the Lizzie Line and a green belt that was frozen in place decades ago. I also imagine that the current residents really aren't going to be happy about that.)

Fairliered · December 18

ydoethur said:
Back on topic:

Any result which does not have Welsh Labour first is a very good result for Wales and possibly a very good result for Welsh Labour given how tired and inept they have become.

If Labour lose control in Wales they may be out of power for a generation. The lobbying organisations will cosy up to whoever wins and Labour will find that they have less influence in the media and with NGOs. In Scotland, Labour’s only remaining area of influence is in the still overwhelmingly pro union media. I don’t know what the Welsh media position is; can anyone advise? Also, voters will realise that other parties are actually capable of running an administration, although it will be up to the winning parties to prove they are capable and not partisan or divisive. The SNP did this from 2007 to 2014, before deteriorating. Can Plaid or Reform do the same?

Alanbrooke · December 18

Nigelb said:

Alanbrooke said:

Nigelb said:
Political analysis of the week.
(Truncated for brevity.)

https://x.com/CAgovernor/status/2001479563222954403
Trump tonight:

Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me..
Yes Trump's a narcissist and its people like you with your non-stop infatuation of posting everything he does that gives him all the attention he so craves. You might as well just vote for him and be done with it.
I'm grateful for your infatuation, Alan.

Well its always the same Trump Trump Trump. I get bored shi6tless with Trump nonsense what about the rest of the world or even the UK ?

FF43 · December 18

Ben Houchen might be a wrong-un shock?

Auditors have identified a catalogue of financial reporting errors at the public body run by England’s only Conservative metro mayor, the latest setback to Lord Ben Houchen and his Tees Valley Combined Authority.

EY confirmed that it would be unable to sign off on the 2024-25 accounts at TVCA as a result, saying the errors included “material misstatements” that were evident simply from reading the document.

Loans made by TVCA without proper accounting include to Teesside Airport whose financing is so opaque no-one knows what's going on. Meanwhile certain developers are doing well out of the heavily indebted Authority.

https://bsky.app/profile/jenwilliamsft.bsky.social/post/3maau7zwai226

Theuniondivvie · December 18

Burgessian said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Sean_F said:
On topic, the problem is Plaid are even worse than Labour.
That's not possible
There is a time-honoured political precept - "Things can always get worse". Plaid and Reform are just the boys and boyos to prove the point.

The wise Scottish voter has always been well aware of that precept when it comes to the SCons.

I woder if this comment will disappear like my previous ones on the general subject?

Scott_xP · December 18

FF43 said:
Ben Houchen might be a wrong-un shock?

Auditors have identified a catalogue of financial reporting errors at the public body run by England’s only Conservative metro mayor, the latest setback to Lord Ben Houchen and his Tees Valley Combined Authority.

EY confirmed that it would be unable to sign off on the 2024-25 accounts at TVCA as a result, saying the errors included “material misstatements” that were evident simply from reading the document.

Loans made by TVCA without proper accounting include to Teesside Airport whose financing is do opaque no-one knows what's going on. Meanwhile certain developers are doing well out of the heavily indebted Authority.

https://bsky.app/profile/jenwilliamsft.bsky.social/post/3maau7zwai226

@tpgroberts.bsky.social‬

Do you know how bad your accounts have to be for an auditor to say that last bit publicly?

https://bsky.app/profile/tpgroberts.bsky.social/post/3maav7ixaoc2u

Fairliered · December 18

Morris_Dancer said:
...

Trying to delete an account with a certain organisation.

Due to changes since my last login I can't login (apps required, no smartphone).

The close account form won't submit.

The contact us form won't go through.

Other forms of contact require login.

Trying through TwX. We'll see how that goes. I'm less than delighted so far.

Are you referring to PB? If so, post endlessly about AI and TSE will close your account for you.

ydoethur · December 18

Fairliered said:

ydoethur said:
Back on topic:

Any result which does not have Welsh Labour first is a very good result for Wales and possibly a very good result for Welsh Labour given how tired and inept they have become.
If Labour lose control in Wales they may be out of power for a generation. The lobbying organisations will cosy up to whoever wins and Labour will find that they have less influence in the media and with NGOs. In Scotland, Labour’s only remaining area of influence is in the still overwhelmingly pro union media. I don’t know what the Welsh media position is; can anyone advise? Also, voters will realise that other parties are actually capable of running an administration, although it will be up to the winning parties to prove they are capable and not partisan or divisive. The SNP did this from 2007 to 2014, before deteriorating. Can Plaid or Reform do the same?

If they drop as far as that it's hard to see a way back for them in a century, never mind a generation.

The Welsh media is minimal because of the small market. The only major news organisation is essentially BBC Wales. That does tend to slant pro-Labour being based in Cardiff and drawn muchly from the Valleys, but it's not a law of physics - many of its staff are Welsh-speaking by policy and therefore tacitly or overtly sympathise with Plaid. Rhun ap Iorwerth himself worked for the BBC for years before entering politics (and very good he was too). Guto Harri worked for them before joining Massive Johnson in Downing Street.

Eabhal · December 18

ozymandias said:
The problem with high density schemes, which in an urban environment necessitates apartment blocks is this:

Service charges.

They can in themselves be a small mortgage payment each month.

It’s all very well having huge apartment blocks as they have been building around Tottenham Hale station for a few years now, but 30 storey buildings will need quite a bit of maintenance and care.
.
I’m not against this proposal but without reform of leasehold tenures and associated governance of management companies there may end up being alot of buyer remorse.

I think most of us think the classic Victorian tenement works quite well for most of the UK. 8-12 flats. England needs to bin it's leasehold system though, no doubt.

Stuartinromford · December 18

FF43 said:
Ben Houchen might be a wrong-un shock?

Auditors have identified a catalogue of financial reporting errors at the public body run by England’s only Conservative metro mayor, the latest setback to Lord Ben Houchen and his Tees Valley Combined Authority.

EY confirmed that it would be unable to sign off on the 2024-25 accounts at TVCA as a result, saying the errors included “material misstatements” that were evident simply from reading the document.

Loans made by TVCA without proper accounting include to Teesside Airport whose financing is do opaque no-one knows what's going on. Meanwhile certain developers are doing well out of the heavily indebted Authority.

https://bsky.app/profile/jenwilliamsft.bsky.social/post/3maau7zwai226

In terms of actually running things, is Benny H the most powerful Conservative politician left? I guess some of the shire counties are bigger, but they are basically social care delivery mechanisms, so I'm not sure they count.

Scott_xP · December 18

@elenicourea

Exc: The UK-US pharma deal announced this month still has no underlying text beyond some headline terms

Ministers warn that our deals with Donald Trump are "built on sand"

https://x.com/elenicourea/status/2001590467180253536?s=20

Carnyx · December 18

Eabhal said:

ozymandias said:
The problem with high density schemes, which in an urban environment necessitates apartment blocks is this:

Service charges.

They can in themselves be a small mortgage payment each month.

It’s all very well having huge apartment blocks as they have been building around Tottenham Hale station for a few years now, but 30 storey buildings will need quite a bit of maintenance and care.
.
I’m not against this proposal but without reform of leasehold tenures and associated governance of management companies there may end up being alot of buyer remorse.
I think most of us think the classic Victorian tenement works quite well for most of the UK. 8-12 flats. England needs to bin it's leasehold system though, no doubt.

And allowing Big Housebuilder plc to build all over the local parks, open spaces, allotments, etc. would negate much of the benefit of the tenement system. It was for a reason that the Victorians and Edwardians built/maintained plenty of parks in, e.g., south side Edinburgh.

Nigelb · December 18

Alanbrooke said:

Nigelb said:

Alanbrooke said:

Nigelb said:
Political analysis of the week.
(Truncated for brevity.)

https://x.com/CAgovernor/status/2001479563222954403
Trump tonight:

Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me..
Yes Trump's a narcissist and its people like you with your non-stop infatuation of posting everything he does that gives him all the attention he so craves. You might as well just vote for him and be done with it.
I'm grateful for your infatuation, Alan.
Well its always the same Trump Trump Trump. I get bored shi6tless with Trump nonsense what about the rest of the world or even the UK ?

You should email the White House.

Fairliered · December 18

Eabhal said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

Benpointer said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

Eabhal said:

Nigelb said:
Interesting article on the Labour new housing policy.
My guess is that it gets well and truly crippled, but if it were actually delivered to its potential, it could be transformative.
The excerpt points out the necessity for accompanying transport investment.

https://www.samdumitriu.com/p/labour-are-finally-taking-the-housing
..To be clear, this isn’t a policy for sprawl. New developments must exceed minimum density standards of 40dph (dwelling per hectare) for all stations and 50dph for the best connected stations. There is an expectation that in urban areas even higher densities will be reached.

It is hard to overstate how big this is. The Government could easily exceed its 1.5 million home target for the Parliament just by building near stations in London and the South East. And that doesn’t even adjust for the higher densities sought in urban areas. If it survives consultation, and you best believe there will be an almighty fight, it will be the single most powerful pro-supply move in post-war Britain.

This is radical by British standards, but there is precedent. New Zealand’s most expensive cities have built at a clip since successive governments brought in measures to create a similar ‘default yes’ to densification near city centres and busy transport corridors. One study suggested that over six years the policy cut Auckland’s rents by nearly a third. If the same happened in the capital, the average Londoner would save £9,000 each year.

California, one of the few places with a housing crisis as bad as our own, is trying something similar. They have just passed SB79, a major reform that will permit up to nine-storey development near bus, tube, and train stations.

There will be challenges. Building near train stations will mean busier trains. ..
Good news for those of us stuck in traffic caused by low density housing sprawl with no public transport provision - looking at you Midlothian Council, bunch of freeloading carbrain numpties.

Will our developers go for this? Entirely against the ethos of maximising their land values by building as inefficiently as possible. We might have to make building sprawl harder.
High density and no (more) public transport on the other hand raises the question of where to park cars.
Aren't these developments meant to be within walking distance of the station?
Yes but who goes shopping by train? There are lots of new flats round here with more on the way, but we have great bus and tube links. From other parts of the country, one hears horror stories of one bus every two days. I've been in favour (on pb) of building near railways for longer than it has been government policy, but it needs to be part of a package and in the medium to long term, we need new towns to revive the regions.
This is the theory behind 15-minute cities. If you build density around that train station, you generate the economic critical mass required for a High Street to develop around it.

That means that you can get 100,000 people (or more) who don't need to jump in a car to grab some food. It's also much cheaper to provide public services like schools and GP practices. Public transport requires density to work too - that's why we gave buses every 10 minutes in Edinburgh but not in Midlothian.

This isn't a crazy idea. This is how the economically productive parts of the UK operate already. Economies of scale were described by Adam Smith, and the Romans and Greeks probably had a good understanding of it too.

Unfortunately it's not in the private interests of developers, so you end up with these enormous estates miles away from anything.

100 years ago, the Metropolitan and Southern Railways built stations before the local housing was constructed. An example is Albany Park. We should do it again.

They used to weigh Labour votes in Wales – politicalbetting.com

Comments

WHICH BIT OF THE NO DISCUSSION OF THE GROOMING STORY DO PBers NOT UNDERSTAND?THE SPAM TRAP HAS BEEN UPDATED, DON’T MOAN IF YOU FIND YOURSELVES BANNED.

WHICH BIT OF THE NO DISCUSSION OF THE GROOMING STORY DO PBers NOT UNDERSTAND?THE SPAM TRAP HAS BEEN UPDATED, DON’T MOAN IF YOU FIND YOURSELVES BANNED.

WHICH BIT OF THE NO DISCUSSION OF THE GROOMING STORY DO PBers NOT UNDERSTAND?

THE SPAM TRAP HAS BEEN UPDATED, DON’T MOAN IF YOU FIND YOURSELVES BANNED.

WHICH BIT OF THE NO DISCUSSION OF THE GROOMING STORY DO PBers NOT UNDERSTAND?

THE SPAM TRAP HAS BEEN UPDATED, DON’T MOAN IF YOU FIND YOURSELVES BANNED.