"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...
A bit closer than I was expecting. I was expecting a 7-2 or 6-3 vote.
This suggests that rates won't fall much further, especially as it's unlikely that CPI will fall below 2.5% in the short to medium term, given continuing relatively high pay settlements and further above inflation increases to the minimum wage. Probably one cut in 2026 to 3.5%.
Hang on. They won’t actually have the rights to the games, but they are prepared to pay that much for a programme which talks about them but cannot show them?
I do not understand people today. Especially kids. They watch cheap, crappy, YouTube videos of someone doing a thing or talking about watching a thing, instead of doing the thing or watching the thing themselves.
...and, counterintuitively, the pound went UP against USD.
Because the vote was tighter (To the high side) than expected.
There’s an argument to be made that rates are now more or less at the sweet spot for proper growth in the economy, if we got a few other things right and the President of the largest global economy wasn’t bonkers mental.
...and, counterintuitively, the pound went UP against USD.
As the market had already priced in a cut, but expected that cut to be less-narrowly voted for, and thus more likely further cuts in the future priced in too.
A 5-4 vote indicates lower likelihood of further cuts any time soon, so that needs pricing in.
Hang on. They won’t actually have the rights to the games, but they are prepared to pay that much for a programme which talks about them but cannot show them?
I do not understand people today. Especially kids. They watch cheap, crappy, YouTube videos of someone doing a thing or talking about watching a thing, instead of doing the thing or watching the thing themselves.
Netflix has 18m UK subscribers. Rest in Football podcast had 18m full views and downloads at Euro 24, clips of a Rashford interview reached 48m, and will have grown since then. About 7m listeners per standard month.
Netflix are paying for the chance to convert those listeners into subscribers, plus they can leverage their own user base to get more ad revenue from the podcasts. The end user is paying very little even on netflix, it is just about the size of the audience.
Now it looks like the 50,000 Russian dead since the beginning of October is being confirmed, and it could actually be up to 5,000 higher. These staggering losses are creating significant problems for the Russian strategic position: now it seems that the Russians are even facing a significant push back from both Kupiansk and Pokrovsk. The Kremlin demand for advances whatever the cost is creating an unsustainable body count. Even if Russia makes tiny progress the losses are so large that they cannot be sustainable.
I gather it's proving difficult to get EU consensus on the frozen assets. This seems like an acid test to me. If Europe fails to come through on using that £££ to support Ukraine it doesn't bode well for its resolve to prevent further Russian advances.
That's what comes of thinking there is such a place as "Europe", and that it somehow equates to the EU. Northern Europe, the Netherlands and Poland have done just fine, France, Germany and Italy have a chequered record, to be as polite as possible, Ireland and Austria are neutral, Spain doesn't care, Cyprus and Malta basically just want to launder Russian money in peace and the less said about Hungary the better.
It's just like the lie about the euro - one monetary policy was never going to be right for a couple of dozen countries, any more than one foreign policy is. Just as a convoy moves at the speed of its slowest member, you'll inevitably get lowest denominator policies that get the worst of both worlds.
In fact, given the constraints on the EU, we should perhaps be surprised that they've got as far as they have.
There are pros and cons to single currency areas. As for whether the EU will come through for Ukraine you might be correct (that they won't) but let's see. I'm not that optimistic myself. It does not, however, follow that if the EU didn't exist then 'Europe' as a more atomised collection of individual countries would be more likely to provide an effective defence of Ukraine against Russia. Quite the opposite, I'd have thought.
My reading is that the EU is struggling to act because it contains the likes of Hungary, which is led by a man who is on the opposite side. (And also because it is institutionally inert.) As individual nations, it might be rather easier to forge a coalition of the willing.
Why do you think it would be easier to forge a coalition of the willing outside of an organisation whose literal job is to do just that?
The issue here is that Belgium, where most of the Russian money is, doesn't want to play ball. What leverage would any other individual country including the UK have over Belgium in that case?
What leverage does anyone have over Belgium in this case? Negotiations between countries can happen within or outside supra-national organisations.
My point here is that, operating outside the EU, should the UK, Poland, the Nordics and the Baltics - say - want to band together to counter the Russian threat, they can do. But if the EU tries to forge a collective response, it needs to involve all members - including those who are on the other side. And including those with uinrelated axes to grind. So we get to a point where an agreement to do x can only happen once the goodwill of awkward members a, b and c has been bought. And this does not happen quickly, or in many cases, at all.
Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me..
A great example of how Gavin Newsom is as unsuitable as Kamala Harris was as a presidential candidate. He’s not going to out-Trump the president, no matter how hard he tries.
“Make America California Again” has little support in California any more, especially when there’s been precisely no houses rebuilt from January’s fires.
I don't much like Newsom, but he has the advantage over Trump that he is not senile, insane, stupid, nor malevolent.
Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me..
A great example of how Gavin Newsom is as unsuitable as Kamala Harris was as a presidential candidate. He’s not going to out-Trump the president, no matter how hard he tries.
“Make America California Again” has little support in California any more, especially when there’s been precisely no houses rebuilt from January’s fires.
I don't much like Newsom, but he has the advantage over Trump that he is not senile, insane, stupid, nor malevolent.
His problem is that he believes in nothing except achieving power, and that his record in California is terrible. He is, like Kamala Harris, another one of those politicians who has kept failing upwards.
Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me..
A great example of how Gavin Newsom is as unsuitable as Kamala Harris was as a presidential candidate. He’s not going to out-Trump the president, no matter how hard he tries.
“Make America California Again” has little support in California any more, especially when there’s been precisely no houses rebuilt from January’s fires.
I don't much like Newsom, but he has the advantage over Trump that he is not senile, insane, stupid, nor malevolent.
His problem is that he believes in nothing except achieving power, and that his record in California is terrible. He is, like Kamala Harris, another one of those politicians who has kept failing upwards.
He also won’t be running against Trump.
In a way, he will though, people will vote against Trump's party if they're sufficiently unhappy with Trump.
Thank God we have recognised little old ladies holding up handwritten signs expressing support for a group engaged in nonviolent direct action as the bloodthirsty murderers that they are. I for one sleep more soundly in my bed knowing these monsters are off the streets.
Off topic, but I thought it important to point out a tiny error in this claim: "No country in history where the TFR falls below 2.1 has ever increased that back over that figure."
In 2006 the US TFR increased to 2.108. In 2007, it increased again to 2.120.
Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me..
A great example of how Gavin Newsom is as unsuitable as Kamala Harris was as a presidential candidate. He’s not going to out-Trump the president, no matter how hard he tries.
“Make America California Again” has little support in California any more, especially when there’s been precisely no houses rebuilt from January’s fires.
I don't much like Newsom, but he has the advantage over Trump that he is not senile, insane, stupid, nor malevolent.
His problem is that he believes in nothing except achieving power, and that his record in California is terrible. He is, like Kamala Harris, another one of those politicians who has kept failing upwards.
He also won’t be running against Trump.
In a way, he will though, people will vote against Trump's party if they're sufficiently unhappy with Trump.
There's also the "what did you know about the senile ex-President's senility, and why did you not do anything about it?" question. You know, the question that some right-wing commentators are so keen on asking of Democrats.
It's really hard to see the Republicans installing a sufficiently clean pair of hands in time for 2028.
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.
If this is the same Teesworks stuff Private Eye has been covering for years then expect people to start caring shortly after the ITV drama (Post Office) or Netflix drama (Adolescence).
There is a free-to-read FT link in the Bluesky post btw.
It is the same stuff. The Tories covered it up. But there’s no longer any scope to do that.
Teeside has been mismanaged by Labour corruption for a century, just like the whole of the English and Welsh Red Wall (the late Graham Jenkins, and the late T Dan Smith to name but two). Surely Ben is simply trying to turn that juggernaut around.
"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...
I assume most such policies are more about trying to change the vibes rather than expecting a direct effect, but it doesn't seem at the moment that anywhere has managed to meaningfully boost it's birthrate in a sustained way through tax incentives and the like?
Off topic, but I thought it important to point out a tiny error in this claim: "No country in history where the TFR falls below 2.1 has ever increased that back over that figure."
In 2006 the US TFR increased to 2.108. In 2007, it increased again to 2.120.
My photo for the day illustrates what’s possible, and also the tremendous NIMBY pressure that will face councils at every step.
This is a building project literally in (well, behind) my backyard. They’re taking an old low rise building and adding a few storeys to it.
I think it looks nice and will fill in what was previously a rather large and incongruous gap in the roofline. And this is just the sort of dense urban milieu where we should be encouraging infill. All the neighbours are outraged and depressed by it and letters regularly go into the council.
Presumably you saw the planning application etc? From what I can see it wouldn’t be ideal for the extra storey to have a balcony which directly overlooks your garden? You might be fine with this - I probably wouldn’t (not that I have a garden!). Moving somewhere already overlooked is one thing. Becoming overlooked later-on is something else.
As long as these developments are designed properly there’s no reason to be upset as your neighbours evidently are.
I really don’t understand the overlooked thing in dense urban settings. I’m already overlooked in the garden by all my neighbours, and overlooked at the front by the houses opposite: we’re on a terraced street. The density is part of what makes it a friendly place. Why is being overlooked from the opposite direction a problem?
Don't try to apply logic to NIMBYism. You'll see people arguing passionately about destroying the character of a dilapidated car park on brownfield land, opposing grain stores in grain fields, suddenly becoming experts on rare bats and newts in their area, whilst, of course, always being in favour in principle of whatever is proposed, just not here.
Now it looks like the 50,000 Russian dead since the beginning of October is being confirmed, and it could actually be up to 5,000 higher. These staggering losses are creating significant problems for the Russian strategic position: now it seems that the Russians are even facing a significant push back from both Kupiansk and Pokrovsk. The Kremlin demand for advances whatever the cost is creating an unsustainable body count. Even if Russia makes tiny progress the losses are so large that they cannot be sustainable.
I gather it's proving difficult to get EU consensus on the frozen assets. This seems like an acid test to me. If Europe fails to come through on using that £££ to support Ukraine it doesn't bode well for its resolve to prevent further Russian advances.
That's what comes of thinking there is such a place as "Europe", and that it somehow equates to the EU. Northern Europe, the Netherlands and Poland have done just fine, France, Germany and Italy have a chequered record, to be as polite as possible, Ireland and Austria are neutral, Spain doesn't care, Cyprus and Malta basically just want to launder Russian money in peace and the less said about Hungary the better.
It's just like the lie about the euro - one monetary policy was never going to be right for a couple of dozen countries, any more than one foreign policy is. Just as a convoy moves at the speed of its slowest member, you'll inevitably get lowest denominator policies that get the worst of both worlds.
In fact, given the constraints on the EU, we should perhaps be surprised that they've got as far as they have.
There are pros and cons to single currency areas. As for whether the EU will come through for Ukraine you might be correct (that they won't) but let's see. I'm not that optimistic myself. It does not, however, follow that if the EU didn't exist then 'Europe' as a more atomised collection of individual countries would be more likely to provide an effective defence of Ukraine against Russia. Quite the opposite, I'd have thought.
My reading is that the EU is struggling to act because it contains the likes of Hungary, which is led by a man who is on the opposite side. (And also because it is institutionally inert.) As individual nations, it might be rather easier to forge a coalition of the willing.
Why do you think it would be easier to forge a coalition of the willing outside of an organisation whose literal job is to do just that?
The issue here is that Belgium, where most of the Russian money is, doesn't want to play ball. What leverage would any other individual country including the UK have over Belgium in that case?
What leverage does anyone have over Belgium in this case? Negotiations between countries can happen within or outside supra-national organisations.
My point here is that, operating outside the EU, should the UK, Poland, the Nordics and the Baltics - say - want to band together to counter the Russian threat, they can do. But if the EU tries to forge a collective response, it needs to involve all members - including those who are on the other side. And including those with uinrelated axes to grind. So we get to a point where an agreement to do x can only happen once the goodwill of awkward members a, b and c has been bought. And this does not happen quickly, or in many cases, at all.
Up to a point. The EU works (very hard) to get a consensus, which is what a coalition of the willing actually is. It remains to be seen whether the EU can get the value of these Russian assets to Ukraine including the bulk held in Belgium. But it will absolutely not happen without the EU. As I said above either the EU succeeds or no-one does, so we should hope for that outcome. So far the EU has had a fairly good track record on getting things done for Ukraine.
Off topic, but I thought it important to point out a tiny error in this claim: "No country in history where the TFR falls below 2.1 has ever increased that back over that figure."
In 2006 the US TFR increased to 2.108. In 2007, it increased again to 2.120.
Now it looks like the 50,000 Russian dead since the beginning of October is being confirmed, and it could actually be up to 5,000 higher. These staggering losses are creating significant problems for the Russian strategic position: now it seems that the Russians are even facing a significant push back from both Kupiansk and Pokrovsk. The Kremlin demand for advances whatever the cost is creating an unsustainable body count. Even if Russia makes tiny progress the losses are so large that they cannot be sustainable.
I gather it's proving difficult to get EU consensus on the frozen assets. This seems like an acid test to me. If Europe fails to come through on using that £££ to support Ukraine it doesn't bode well for its resolve to prevent further Russian advances.
That's what comes of thinking there is such a place as "Europe", and that it somehow equates to the EU. Northern Europe, the Netherlands and Poland have done just fine, France, Germany and Italy have a chequered record, to be as polite as possible, Ireland and Austria are neutral, Spain doesn't care, Cyprus and Malta basically just want to launder Russian money in peace and the less said about Hungary the better.
It's just like the lie about the euro - one monetary policy was never going to be right for a couple of dozen countries, any more than one foreign policy is. Just as a convoy moves at the speed of its slowest member, you'll inevitably get lowest denominator policies that get the worst of both worlds.
In fact, given the constraints on the EU, we should perhaps be surprised that they've got as far as they have.
There are pros and cons to single currency areas. As for whether the EU will come through for Ukraine you might be correct (that they won't) but let's see. I'm not that optimistic myself. It does not, however, follow that if the EU didn't exist then 'Europe' as a more atomised collection of individual countries would be more likely to provide an effective defence of Ukraine against Russia. Quite the opposite, I'd have thought.
My reading is that the EU is struggling to act because it contains the likes of Hungary, which is led by a man who is on the opposite side. (And also because it is institutionally inert.) As individual nations, it might be rather easier to forge a coalition of the willing.
Hungary etc, yes. And yes there is inertia in the EU. But on the big picture - is it better for the defence of Ukraine that we have the EU on the case rather than there being no such entity? - that is surely also a yes. That Putin would love to see the EU fracture and collapse is pretty strong evidence of its utility.
Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me..
A great example of how Gavin Newsom is as unsuitable as Kamala Harris was as a presidential candidate. He’s not going to out-Trump the president, no matter how hard he tries.
“Make America California Again” has little support in California any more, especially when there’s been precisely no houses rebuilt from January’s fires.
I don't much like Newsom, but he has the advantage over Trump that he is not senile, insane, stupid, nor malevolent.
Plus, he has that rare thing in politics - a winning sense of humour.
My photo for the day illustrates what’s possible, and also the tremendous NIMBY pressure that will face councils at every step.
This is a building project literally in (well, behind) my backyard. They’re taking an old low rise building and adding a few storeys to it.
I think it looks nice and will fill in what was previously a rather large and incongruous gap in the roofline. And this is just the sort of dense urban milieu where we should be encouraging infill. All the neighbours are outraged and depressed by it and letters regularly go into the council.
Presumably you saw the planning application etc? From what I can see it wouldn’t be ideal for the extra storey to have a balcony which directly overlooks your garden? You might be fine with this - I probably wouldn’t (not that I have a garden!). Moving somewhere already overlooked is one thing. Becoming overlooked later-on is something else.
As long as these developments are designed properly there’s no reason to be upset as your neighbours evidently are.
I really don’t understand the overlooked thing in dense urban settings. I’m already overlooked in the garden by all my neighbours, and overlooked at the front by the houses opposite: we’re on a terraced street. The density is part of what makes it a friendly place. Why is being overlooked from the opposite direction a problem?
Don't try to apply logic to NIMBYism. You'll see people arguing passionately about destroying the character of a dilapidated car park on brownfield land, opposing grain stores in grain fields, suddenly becoming experts on rare bats and newts in their area, whilst, of course, always being in favour in principle of whatever is proposed, just not here.
On in one case, a chap proposing to build a factory on an abandoned, rotting factory site in the North of England was resolutely opposed. And built the factory in Malaysia, instead.
Apparently the graffiti covered remains of collapsed walls were “valuable heritage”.
My photo for the day illustrates what’s possible, and also the tremendous NIMBY pressure that will face councils at every step.
This is a building project literally in (well, behind) my backyard. They’re taking an old low rise building and adding a few storeys to it.
I think it looks nice and will fill in what was previously a rather large and incongruous gap in the roofline. And this is just the sort of dense urban milieu where we should be encouraging infill. All the neighbours are outraged and depressed by it and letters regularly go into the council.
Presumably you saw the planning application etc? From what I can see it wouldn’t be ideal for the extra storey to have a balcony which directly overlooks your garden? You might be fine with this - I probably wouldn’t (not that I have a garden!). Moving somewhere already overlooked is one thing. Becoming overlooked later-on is something else.
As long as these developments are designed properly there’s no reason to be upset as your neighbours evidently are.
I really don’t understand the overlooked thing in dense urban settings. I’m already overlooked in the garden by all my neighbours, and overlooked at the front by the houses opposite: we’re on a terraced street. The density is part of what makes it a friendly place. Why is being overlooked from the opposite direction a problem?
Don't try to apply logic to NIMBYism. You'll see people arguing passionately about destroying the character of a dilapidated car park on brownfield land, opposing grain stores in grain fields, suddenly becoming experts on rare bats and newts in their area, whilst, of course, always being in favour in principle of whatever is proposed, just not here.
Human nature.
We tend not to assemble facts and use them to draw a conclusion. Most of the time, we start with a visceral response and then marshall facts to lead to that conclusion.
Now it looks like the 50,000 Russian dead since the beginning of October is being confirmed, and it could actually be up to 5,000 higher. These staggering losses are creating significant problems for the Russian strategic position: now it seems that the Russians are even facing a significant push back from both Kupiansk and Pokrovsk. The Kremlin demand for advances whatever the cost is creating an unsustainable body count. Even if Russia makes tiny progress the losses are so large that they cannot be sustainable.
I gather it's proving difficult to get EU consensus on the frozen assets. This seems like an acid test to me. If Europe fails to come through on using that £££ to support Ukraine it doesn't bode well for its resolve to prevent further Russian advances.
That's what comes of thinking there is such a place as "Europe", and that it somehow equates to the EU. Northern Europe, the Netherlands and Poland have done just fine, France, Germany and Italy have a chequered record, to be as polite as possible, Ireland and Austria are neutral, Spain doesn't care, Cyprus and Malta basically just want to launder Russian money in peace and the less said about Hungary the better.
It's just like the lie about the euro - one monetary policy was never going to be right for a couple of dozen countries, any more than one foreign policy is. Just as a convoy moves at the speed of its slowest member, you'll inevitably get lowest denominator policies that get the worst of both worlds.
In fact, given the constraints on the EU, we should perhaps be surprised that they've got as far as they have.
There are pros and cons to single currency areas. As for whether the EU will come through for Ukraine you might be correct (that they won't) but let's see. I'm not that optimistic myself. It does not, however, follow that if the EU didn't exist then 'Europe' as a more atomised collection of individual countries would be more likely to provide an effective defence of Ukraine against Russia. Quite the opposite, I'd have thought.
My reading is that the EU is struggling to act because it contains the likes of Hungary, which is led by a man who is on the opposite side. (And also because it is institutionally inert.) As individual nations, it might be rather easier to forge a coalition of the willing.
Why do you think it would be easier to forge a coalition of the willing outside of an organisation whose literal job is to do just that?
The issue here is that Belgium, where most of the Russian money is, doesn't want to play ball. What leverage would any other individual country including the UK have over Belgium in that case?
What leverage does anyone have over Belgium in this case? Negotiations between countries can happen within or outside supra-national organisations.
My point here is that, operating outside the EU, should the UK, Poland, the Nordics and the Baltics - say - want to band together to counter the Russian threat, they can do. But if the EU tries to forge a collective response, it needs to involve all members - including those who are on the other side. And including those with uinrelated axes to grind. So we get to a point where an agreement to do x can only happen once the goodwill of awkward members a, b and c has been bought. And this does not happen quickly, or in many cases, at all.
Up to a point. The EU works (very hard) to get a consensus, which is what a coalition of the willing actually is. It remains to be seen whether the EU can get the value of these Russian assets to Ukraine including the bulk held in Belgium. But it will absolutely not happen without the EU. As I said above either the EU succeeds or no-one does, so we should hope for that outcome. So far the EU has had a fairly good track record on getting things done for Ukraine.
The intelligent observer would suggest increasing the “bung” to Belgium until they suddenly say that it’s the bestest idea since ideas were invented.
Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me..
A great example of how Gavin Newsom is as unsuitable as Kamala Harris was as a presidential candidate. He’s not going to out-Trump the president, no matter how hard he tries.
“Make America California Again” has little support in California any more, especially when there’s been precisely no houses rebuilt from January’s fires.
I don't much like Newsom, but he has the advantage over Trump that he is not senile, insane, stupid, nor malevolent.
His problem is that he believes in nothing except achieving power, and that his record in California is terrible. He is, like Kamala Harris, another one of those politicians who has kept failing upwards.
He also won’t be running against Trump.
In a way, he will though, people will vote against Trump's party if they're sufficiently unhappy with Trump.
Yep. Trump won't be running but the idea he'll just bow out quietly and release his grip on the GOP is for the birds.
My photo for the day illustrates what’s possible, and also the tremendous NIMBY pressure that will face councils at every step.
This is a building project literally in (well, behind) my backyard. They’re taking an old low rise building and adding a few storeys to it.
I think it looks nice and will fill in what was previously a rather large and incongruous gap in the roofline. And this is just the sort of dense urban milieu where we should be encouraging infill. All the neighbours are outraged and depressed by it and letters regularly go into the council.
Presumably you saw the planning application etc? From what I can see it wouldn’t be ideal for the extra storey to have a balcony which directly overlooks your garden? You might be fine with this - I probably wouldn’t (not that I have a garden!). Moving somewhere already overlooked is one thing. Becoming overlooked later-on is something else.
As long as these developments are designed properly there’s no reason to be upset as your neighbours evidently are.
I really don’t understand the overlooked thing in dense urban settings. I’m already overlooked in the garden by all my neighbours, and overlooked at the front by the houses opposite: we’re on a terraced street. The density is part of what makes it a friendly place. Why is being overlooked from the opposite direction a problem?
Don't try to apply logic to NIMBYism. You'll see people arguing passionately about destroying the character of a dilapidated car park on brownfield land, opposing grain stores in grain fields, suddenly becoming experts on rare bats and newts in their area, whilst, of course, always being in favour in principle of whatever is proposed, just not here.
Human nature.
We tend not to assemble facts and use them to draw a conclusion. Most of the time, we start with a visceral response and then marshall facts to lead to that conclusion.
That is true, but we shouldn't incentivise that behaviour, which the planning system does for most of those who get involved in it. We put in place systems sometimes precisely to work against the worst excesses of human nature.
Which is not to say developers are not shits, they are, but the sorts of things people complain about, which then leads politicians to throw spanners into the works, is damaging and infuriating, especially when those same politicians then complain about the effects.
And of course there can be valid objections, but anyone who has interacted with the planning system for five minutes can spot instantly when people are just using the magic words to try to prevent something, and many policies actively enable that.
My photo for the day illustrates what’s possible, and also the tremendous NIMBY pressure that will face councils at every step.
This is a building project literally in (well, behind) my backyard. They’re taking an old low rise building and adding a few storeys to it.
I think it looks nice and will fill in what was previously a rather large and incongruous gap in the roofline. And this is just the sort of dense urban milieu where we should be encouraging infill. All the neighbours are outraged and depressed by it and letters regularly go into the council.
Presumably you saw the planning application etc? From what I can see it wouldn’t be ideal for the extra storey to have a balcony which directly overlooks your garden? You might be fine with this - I probably wouldn’t (not that I have a garden!). Moving somewhere already overlooked is one thing. Becoming overlooked later-on is something else.
As long as these developments are designed properly there’s no reason to be upset as your neighbours evidently are.
I really don’t understand the overlooked thing in dense urban settings. I’m already overlooked in the garden by all my neighbours, and overlooked at the front by the houses opposite: we’re on a terraced street. The density is part of what makes it a friendly place. Why is being overlooked from the opposite direction a problem?
Don't try to apply logic to NIMBYism. You'll see people arguing passionately about destroying the character of a dilapidated car park on brownfield land, opposing grain stores in grain fields, suddenly becoming experts on rare bats and newts in their area, whilst, of course, always being in favour in principle of whatever is proposed, just not here.
On in one case, a chap proposing to build a factory on an abandoned, rotting factory site in the North of England was resolutely opposed. And built the factory in Malaysia, instead.
Apparently the graffiti covered remains of collapsed walls were “valuable heritage”.
I like objecting to not enough affordable housing by preventing any housing being built at all myself.
And acting as though any field should be treated as if it was designated Green Belt (as well as acting as though everything in the Green Belt is a picture postcard of the Cotswolds or something).
Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me..
A great example of how Gavin Newsom is as unsuitable as Kamala Harris was as a presidential candidate. He’s not going to out-Trump the president, no matter how hard he tries.
“Make America California Again” has little support in California any more, especially when there’s been precisely no houses rebuilt from January’s fires.
I don't much like Newsom, but he has the advantage over Trump that he is not senile, insane, stupid, nor malevolent.
His problem is that he believes in nothing except achieving power, and that his record in California is terrible. He is, like Kamala Harris, another one of those politicians who has kept failing upwards.
He also won’t be running against Trump.
In a way, he will though, people will vote against Trump's party if they're sufficiently unhappy with Trump.
Yep. Trump won't be running but the idea he'll just bow out quietly and release his grip on the GOP is for the birds.
Indeed, the grip he managed to get on the party is impressive in a system which did not really have leaders in the same sense as here, and it soudns implausible they'll just move on from that, especially when a single word from him will destroy a candidate's chances - even assuming there's some moving on, a large chunk of the base will do whatever he tells them.
What a sad sack of potatoes this Starmer government have become.
I have no time for Palestine Action. It espouses violence contrary to my principles and is actually counterproductive to the Palestinian cause. I'm happy for members to be prosecuted when merited on normal laws.
Now it looks like the 50,000 Russian dead since the beginning of October is being confirmed, and it could actually be up to 5,000 higher. These staggering losses are creating significant problems for the Russian strategic position: now it seems that the Russians are even facing a significant push back from both Kupiansk and Pokrovsk. The Kremlin demand for advances whatever the cost is creating an unsustainable body count. Even if Russia makes tiny progress the losses are so large that they cannot be sustainable.
I gather it's proving difficult to get EU consensus on the frozen assets. This seems like an acid test to me. If Europe fails to come through on using that £££ to support Ukraine it doesn't bode well for its resolve to prevent further Russian advances.
That's what comes of thinking there is such a place as "Europe", and that it somehow equates to the EU. Northern Europe, the Netherlands and Poland have done just fine, France, Germany and Italy have a chequered record, to be as polite as possible, Ireland and Austria are neutral, Spain doesn't care, Cyprus and Malta basically just want to launder Russian money in peace and the less said about Hungary the better.
It's just like the lie about the euro - one monetary policy was never going to be right for a couple of dozen countries, any more than one foreign policy is. Just as a convoy moves at the speed of its slowest member, you'll inevitably get lowest denominator policies that get the worst of both worlds.
In fact, given the constraints on the EU, we should perhaps be surprised that they've got as far as they have.
There are pros and cons to single currency areas. As for whether the EU will come through for Ukraine you might be correct (that they won't) but let's see. I'm not that optimistic myself. It does not, however, follow that if the EU didn't exist then 'Europe' as a more atomised collection of individual countries would be more likely to provide an effective defence of Ukraine against Russia. Quite the opposite, I'd have thought.
My reading is that the EU is struggling to act because it contains the likes of Hungary, which is led by a man who is on the opposite side. (And also because it is institutionally inert.) As individual nations, it might be rather easier to forge a coalition of the willing.
Why do you think it would be easier to forge a coalition of the willing outside of an organisation whose literal job is to do just that?
The issue here is that Belgium, where most of the Russian money is, doesn't want to play ball. What leverage would any other individual country including the UK have over Belgium in that case?
What leverage does anyone have over Belgium in this case? Negotiations between countries can happen within or outside supra-national organisations.
My point here is that, operating outside the EU, should the UK, Poland, the Nordics and the Baltics - say - want to band together to counter the Russian threat, they can do. But if the EU tries to forge a collective response, it needs to involve all members - including those who are on the other side. And including those with uinrelated axes to grind. So we get to a point where an agreement to do x can only happen once the goodwill of awkward members a, b and c has been bought. And this does not happen quickly, or in many cases, at all.
Up to a point. The EU works (very hard) to get a consensus, which is what a coalition of the willing actually is. It remains to be seen whether the EU can get the value of these Russian assets to Ukraine including the bulk held in Belgium. But it will absolutely not happen without the EU. As I said above either the EU succeeds or no-one does, so we should hope for that outcome. So far the EU has had a fairly good track record on getting things done for Ukraine.
The intelligent observer would suggest increasing the “bung” to Belgium until they suddenly say that it’s the bestest idea since ideas were invented.
See Turkey and the Swedish accession to NATO.
Yep the EU works by horse trading. The Belgians are looking at the horses in the mouth, to mix some metaphors.
What a sad sack of potatoes this Starmer government have become.
I have no time for Palestine Action. It espouses violence contrary to my principles and is actually counterproductive to the Palestinian cause. I'm happy for members to be prosecuted when merited on normal laws.
A sane government would have thrown the book at
- damaging military aircraft. Which is also part of a pattern of attacking military stuff that *isn’t* involved with Israel/Palestine. But is involved with national security and Ukraine. - attacking police officers with hammers
And next to ignored (one bored PCSO standing there, looking very bored)
Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me..
A great example of how Gavin Newsom is as unsuitable as Kamala Harris was as a presidential candidate. He’s not going to out-Trump the president, no matter how hard he tries.
“Make America California Again” has little support in California any more, especially when there’s been precisely no houses rebuilt from January’s fires.
I don't much like Newsom, but he has the advantage over Trump that he is not senile, insane, stupid, nor malevolent.
His problem is that he believes in nothing except achieving power, and that his record in California is terrible. He is, like Kamala Harris, another one of those politicians who has kept failing upwards.
He also won’t be running against Trump.
In a way, he will though, people will vote against Trump's party if they're sufficiently unhappy with Trump.
Yep. Trump won't be running but the idea he'll just bow out quietly and release his grip on the GOP is for the birds.
Indeed, the grip he managed to get on the party is impressive in a system which did not really have leaders in the same sense as here, and it soudns implausible they'll just move on from that, especially when a single word from him will destroy a candidate's chances - even assuming there's some moving on, a large chunk of the base will do whatever he tells them.
Although with the caveat that 3 years is a long time anyway and with a situation as fundamentally absurd (as well as toxic and volatile and all the rest of it) as a person like this holding the World's highest elected office it's a veritable eternity. So the evergreen "but anything might happen, we just don't know" is truer than usual.
My photo for the day illustrates what’s possible, and also the tremendous NIMBY pressure that will face councils at every step.
This is a building project literally in (well, behind) my backyard. They’re taking an old low rise building and adding a few storeys to it.
I think it looks nice and will fill in what was previously a rather large and incongruous gap in the roofline. And this is just the sort of dense urban milieu where we should be encouraging infill. All the neighbours are outraged and depressed by it and letters regularly go into the council.
Presumably you saw the planning application etc? From what I can see it wouldn’t be ideal for the extra storey to have a balcony which directly overlooks your garden? You might be fine with this - I probably wouldn’t (not that I have a garden!). Moving somewhere already overlooked is one thing. Becoming overlooked later-on is something else.
As long as these developments are designed properly there’s no reason to be upset as your neighbours evidently are.
I really don’t understand the overlooked thing in dense urban settings. I’m already overlooked in the garden by all my neighbours, and overlooked at the front by the houses opposite: we’re on a terraced street. The density is part of what makes it a friendly place. Why is being overlooked from the opposite direction a problem?
Don't try to apply logic to NIMBYism. You'll see people arguing passionately about destroying the character of a dilapidated car park on brownfield land, opposing grain stores in grain fields, suddenly becoming experts on rare bats and newts in their area, whilst, of course, always being in favour in principle of whatever is proposed, just not here.
I think people's brain chemistry gets changed by their environment. People who live in cities become more comfortable living cheek by jowl, people who live in the countryside get used to solitude and find excessive interaction intrusive and even threatening. Like MelonB I am an urban dweller and of course my garden is massively overlooked and it doesn't bother me in the slightest. I'm lucky to have a garden at all. I will squeeze into the tiniest spot on the tube. I don't mind graffiti. I don't notice litter. I'm sure if I was used to a more solitary kind of living I would find a city like London quite alarming, but I like being surrounded by people.
Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me..
A great example of how Gavin Newsom is as unsuitable as Kamala Harris was as a presidential candidate. He’s not going to out-Trump the president, no matter how hard he tries.
“Make America California Again” has little support in California any more, especially when there’s been precisely no houses rebuilt from January’s fires.
I don't much like Newsom, but he has the advantage over Trump that he is not senile, insane, stupid, nor malevolent.
His problem is that he believes in nothing except achieving power, and that his record in California is terrible. He is, like Kamala Harris, another one of those politicians who has kept failing upwards.
He also won’t be running against Trump.
In a way, he will though, people will vote against Trump's party if they're sufficiently unhappy with Trump.
Yep. Trump won't be running but the idea he'll just bow out quietly and release his grip on the GOP is for the birds.
Indeed, the grip he managed to get on the party is impressive in a system which did not really have leaders in the same sense as here, and it soudns implausible they'll just move on from that, especially when a single word from him will destroy a candidate's chances - even assuming there's some moving on, a large chunk of the base will do whatever he tells them.
Especially since Trump seems to believe that only his personal power protects him from prosecution. Hence wanting a third term.
Once again, after Jan 6, he should have been prosecuted over trying to force Pence to set asside the election results and install him as president. Pence would have told the truth - get that guys hand on a BIble and he will tell the truth.
But apparently just prosecuting him for that, inside of a week, would be Not The Process. So it took 4 years to not collect enough evidence to prosecute.
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.
Hi TSE, I have no wish to be banned but as a long standing female poster on this site from the early days who was once a young lassie who has spent her whole life trying to make sure I was safe in the work place and elsewhere and who has recently found the hill I am prepared to die on that crosses political lines when it comes to defending women only safe spaces, why can't we talk about something that has had such a huge and traumatic impact on so young women in so many communities and is currently just about one of the the biggest political stories right across the UK?! Are we saying on this site we simple ignore this huge scandal and the current implications for political parties and how they all deal with it?!
Because of the online safety act and possible consequences for those that run the site, including OGH. If you want to discuss it do it on X, then its on Musk...
Any yet I can read about this issue in every paper in the media every day and watch indepth discussions on our 24/7 news channels everyday?! So I ask again, and I say this as someone who has been posting on this site for 20 years now and who would never post anything that would ever put this site at risk because I have too much respect for OGH and the amazing cross party site he created, but I have got to say as a female poster I am left feeling deeply uncomfortable that we cannot discuss a serious issue that affected young very vulnerable women at a time when we women are literally fighting to defend our hard fought for equality rights and the need to have safe women only spaces. I find it so hard to see this site literally trying to shut this discussion down despite the huge political implications right now. Just leaving this point out there, and if TSE bans me so be it..
The issue isn’t you or other sensible people discussing it. But there are a small number of people who cross the line on this topic in particular both degrading the quality of the site and putting OGH at risk.
As all too often happens a few people ruin it for everyone
Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me..
A great example of how Gavin Newsom is as unsuitable as Kamala Harris was as a presidential candidate. He’s not going to out-Trump the president, no matter how hard he tries.
“Make America California Again” has little support in California any more, especially when there’s been precisely no houses rebuilt from January’s fires.
I don't much like Newsom, but he has the advantage over Trump that he is not senile, insane, stupid, nor malevolent.
His problem is that he believes in nothing except achieving power, and that his record in California is terrible. He is, like Kamala Harris, another one of those politicians who has kept failing upwards.
He also won’t be running against Trump.
A Trump supporter complains about someone else believing in nothing except achieving power!
I hadn't noticed the results of the UNISON general secretary election had been announced, despite being in it. It wasn't even close, the incumbent who said basically nothing in their election statement lost handily to the candidate who mentioned about 8 times that Starmer was awful, and made sure to bring up Israel as well, won easily. In fairness, she did at least say a few things in her statement.
Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me..
A great example of how Gavin Newsom is as unsuitable as Kamala Harris was as a presidential candidate. He’s not going to out-Trump the president, no matter how hard he tries.
“Make America California Again” has little support in California any more, especially when there’s been precisely no houses rebuilt from January’s fires.
I don't much like Newsom, but he has the advantage over Trump that he is not senile, insane, stupid, nor malevolent.
His problem is that he believes in nothing except achieving power, and that his record in California is terrible. He is, like Kamala Harris, another one of those politicians who has kept failing upwards.
He also won’t be running against Trump.
A Trump supporter complains about someone else believing in nothing except achieving power!
Trump believes in more than achieving power.
He believes in abusing that power to satisfy petty vengeance.
My photo for the day illustrates what’s possible, and also the tremendous NIMBY pressure that will face councils at every step.
This is a building project literally in (well, behind) my backyard. They’re taking an old low rise building and adding a few storeys to it.
I think it looks nice and will fill in what was previously a rather large and incongruous gap in the roofline. And this is just the sort of dense urban milieu where we should be encouraging infill. All the neighbours are outraged and depressed by it and letters regularly go into the council.
Presumably you saw the planning application etc? From what I can see it wouldn’t be ideal for the extra storey to have a balcony which directly overlooks your garden? You might be fine with this - I probably wouldn’t (not that I have a garden!). Moving somewhere already overlooked is one thing. Becoming overlooked later-on is something else.
As long as these developments are designed properly there’s no reason to be upset as your neighbours evidently are.
I really don’t understand the overlooked thing in dense urban settings. I’m already overlooked in the garden by all my neighbours, and overlooked at the front by the houses opposite: we’re on a terraced street. The density is part of what makes it a friendly place. Why is being overlooked from the opposite direction a problem?
Don't try to apply logic to NIMBYism. You'll see people arguing passionately about destroying the character of a dilapidated car park on brownfield land, opposing grain stores in grain fields, suddenly becoming experts on rare bats and newts in their area, whilst, of course, always being in favour in principle of whatever is proposed, just not here.
I think people's brain chemistry gets changed by their environment. People who live in cities become more comfortable living cheek by jowl, people who live in the countryside get used to solitude and find excessive interaction intrusive and even threatening. Like MelonB I am an urban dweller and of course my garden is massively overlooked and it doesn't bother me in the slightest. I'm lucky to have a garden at all. I will squeeze into the tiniest spot on the tube. I don't mind graffiti. I don't notice litter. I'm sure if I was used to a more solitary kind of living I would find a city like London quite alarming, but I like being surrounded by people.
I fear even that is a bit generous to people. The sheer irrationality I've seen from locals never ceases to astonish me. I nearly fell out of my chair in shock when a parish council actually supported several dozen new homes in their village, in part as they wanted to sustain the viability of local amenities and younger people being able to live there, most unusual. Much more typical was the council which outright stated they thought young people living in the village as against its character, though that was unusually blunt.
I hadn't noticed the results of the UNISON general secretary election had been announced, despite being in it. It wasn't even close, the incumbent who said basically nothing in their election statement lost handily to the candidate who mentioned about 8 times that Starmer was awful, and made sure to bring up Israel as well, won easily. In fairness, she did at least say a few things in her statement.
Turnout was quite low too.
I’m not sure if turnout is good in Union leadership elections or not but it wasn’t here.
My photo for the day illustrates what’s possible, and also the tremendous NIMBY pressure that will face councils at every step.
This is a building project literally in (well, behind) my backyard. They’re taking an old low rise building and adding a few storeys to it.
I think it looks nice and will fill in what was previously a rather large and incongruous gap in the roofline. And this is just the sort of dense urban milieu where we should be encouraging infill. All the neighbours are outraged and depressed by it and letters regularly go into the council.
Presumably you saw the planning application etc? From what I can see it wouldn’t be ideal for the extra storey to have a balcony which directly overlooks your garden? You might be fine with this - I probably wouldn’t (not that I have a garden!). Moving somewhere already overlooked is one thing. Becoming overlooked later-on is something else.
As long as these developments are designed properly there’s no reason to be upset as your neighbours evidently are.
I really don’t understand the overlooked thing in dense urban settings. I’m already overlooked in the garden by all my neighbours, and overlooked at the front by the houses opposite: we’re on a terraced street. The density is part of what makes it a friendly place. Why is being overlooked from the opposite direction a problem?
Don't try to apply logic to NIMBYism. You'll see people arguing passionately about destroying the character of a dilapidated car park on brownfield land, opposing grain stores in grain fields, suddenly becoming experts on rare bats and newts in their area, whilst, of course, always being in favour in principle of whatever is proposed, just not here.
I think people's brain chemistry gets changed by their environment. People who live in cities become more comfortable living cheek by jowl, people who live in the countryside get used to solitude and find excessive interaction intrusive and even threatening. Like MelonB I am an urban dweller and of course my garden is massively overlooked and it doesn't bother me in the slightest. I'm lucky to have a garden at all. I will squeeze into the tiniest spot on the tube. I don't mind graffiti. I don't notice litter. I'm sure if I was used to a more solitary kind of living I would find a city like London quite alarming, but I like being surrounded by people.
That said, the good burghers of Brockley are on the whole champion NIMBYs too, as my local case study shows.
I don’t blame them - they’re engaging (usually) in rational economic behaviour if they see a threat to the value or saleability of their property - though I disagree, if anything densification should boost the desirability of the area, especially when it replaces ugly underused buildings. The issue is the planning rules which positively encourage objections.
An end of year analysis of his predictions from Rob Ford. Humble, well informed and worth a look. A reminder that there are few racing certainties in predicting, especially about the future.
What a sad sack of potatoes this Starmer government have become.
I have no time for Palestine Action. It espouses violence contrary to my principles and is actually counterproductive to the Palestinian cause. I'm happy for members to be prosecuted when merited on normal laws.
Whenever a new law/offence is proposed there really should be more of a question of whether it is needed, as politicians seem very quick to want something new, rather than explore why what look like sufficient rules already on the books are not working.
My photo for the day illustrates what’s possible, and also the tremendous NIMBY pressure that will face councils at every step.
This is a building project literally in (well, behind) my backyard. They’re taking an old low rise building and adding a few storeys to it.
I think it looks nice and will fill in what was previously a rather large and incongruous gap in the roofline. And this is just the sort of dense urban milieu where we should be encouraging infill. All the neighbours are outraged and depressed by it and letters regularly go into the council.
Presumably you saw the planning application etc? From what I can see it wouldn’t be ideal for the extra storey to have a balcony which directly overlooks your garden? You might be fine with this - I probably wouldn’t (not that I have a garden!). Moving somewhere already overlooked is one thing. Becoming overlooked later-on is something else.
As long as these developments are designed properly there’s no reason to be upset as your neighbours evidently are.
I really don’t understand the overlooked thing in dense urban settings. I’m already overlooked in the garden by all my neighbours, and overlooked at the front by the houses opposite: we’re on a terraced street. The density is part of what makes it a friendly place. Why is being overlooked from the opposite direction a problem?
Don't try to apply logic to NIMBYism. You'll see people arguing passionately about destroying the character of a dilapidated car park on brownfield land, opposing grain stores in grain fields, suddenly becoming experts on rare bats and newts in their area, whilst, of course, always being in favour in principle of whatever is proposed, just not here.
I think people's brain chemistry gets changed by their environment. People who live in cities become more comfortable living cheek by jowl, people who live in the countryside get used to solitude and find excessive interaction intrusive and even threatening. Like MelonB I am an urban dweller and of course my garden is massively overlooked and it doesn't bother me in the slightest. I'm lucky to have a garden at all. I will squeeze into the tiniest spot on the tube. I don't mind graffiti. I don't notice litter. I'm sure if I was used to a more solitary kind of living I would find a city like London quite alarming, but I like being surrounded by people.
That said, the good burghers of Brockley are on the whole champion NIMBYs too, as my local case study shows.
I don’t blame them - they’re engaging (usually) in rational economic behaviour if they see a threat to the value or saleability of their property - though I disagree, if anything densification should boost the desirability of the area, especially when it replaces ugly underused buildings. The issue is the planning rules which positively encourage objections.
Indeed.
Until we change the rules to tell curtain twitching busybodies to mind their own f***ing business and that its nothing to do with them what their neighbours do, we will never solve this issue.
My photo for the day illustrates what’s possible, and also the tremendous NIMBY pressure that will face councils at every step.
This is a building project literally in (well, behind) my backyard. They’re taking an old low rise building and adding a few storeys to it.
I think it looks nice and will fill in what was previously a rather large and incongruous gap in the roofline. And this is just the sort of dense urban milieu where we should be encouraging infill. All the neighbours are outraged and depressed by it and letters regularly go into the council.
Presumably you saw the planning application etc? From what I can see it wouldn’t be ideal for the extra storey to have a balcony which directly overlooks your garden? You might be fine with this - I probably wouldn’t (not that I have a garden!). Moving somewhere already overlooked is one thing. Becoming overlooked later-on is something else.
As long as these developments are designed properly there’s no reason to be upset as your neighbours evidently are.
I really don’t understand the overlooked thing in dense urban settings. I’m already overlooked in the garden by all my neighbours, and overlooked at the front by the houses opposite: we’re on a terraced street. The density is part of what makes it a friendly place. Why is being overlooked from the opposite direction a problem?
Don't try to apply logic to NIMBYism. You'll see people arguing passionately about destroying the character of a dilapidated car park on brownfield land, opposing grain stores in grain fields, suddenly becoming experts on rare bats and newts in their area, whilst, of course, always being in favour in principle of whatever is proposed, just not here.
I think people's brain chemistry gets changed by their environment. People who live in cities become more comfortable living cheek by jowl, people who live in the countryside get used to solitude and find excessive interaction intrusive and even threatening. Like MelonB I am an urban dweller and of course my garden is massively overlooked and it doesn't bother me in the slightest. I'm lucky to have a garden at all. I will squeeze into the tiniest spot on the tube. I don't mind graffiti. I don't notice litter. I'm sure if I was used to a more solitary kind of living I would find a city like London quite alarming, but I like being surrounded by people.
I get nervous if I don’t have at least a couple of million people around me. Visiting Tokyo was great.
My photo for the day illustrates what’s possible, and also the tremendous NIMBY pressure that will face councils at every step.
This is a building project literally in (well, behind) my backyard. They’re taking an old low rise building and adding a few storeys to it.
I think it looks nice and will fill in what was previously a rather large and incongruous gap in the roofline. And this is just the sort of dense urban milieu where we should be encouraging infill. All the neighbours are outraged and depressed by it and letters regularly go into the council.
Presumably you saw the planning application etc? From what I can see it wouldn’t be ideal for the extra storey to have a balcony which directly overlooks your garden? You might be fine with this - I probably wouldn’t (not that I have a garden!). Moving somewhere already overlooked is one thing. Becoming overlooked later-on is something else.
As long as these developments are designed properly there’s no reason to be upset as your neighbours evidently are.
I really don’t understand the overlooked thing in dense urban settings. I’m already overlooked in the garden by all my neighbours, and overlooked at the front by the houses opposite: we’re on a terraced street. The density is part of what makes it a friendly place. Why is being overlooked from the opposite direction a problem?
Don't try to apply logic to NIMBYism. You'll see people arguing passionately about destroying the character of a dilapidated car park on brownfield land, opposing grain stores in grain fields, suddenly becoming experts on rare bats and newts in their area, whilst, of course, always being in favour in principle of whatever is proposed, just not here.
I think people's brain chemistry gets changed by their environment. People who live in cities become more comfortable living cheek by jowl, people who live in the countryside get used to solitude and find excessive interaction intrusive and even threatening. Like MelonB I am an urban dweller and of course my garden is massively overlooked and it doesn't bother me in the slightest. I'm lucky to have a garden at all. I will squeeze into the tiniest spot on the tube. I don't mind graffiti. I don't notice litter. I'm sure if I was used to a more solitary kind of living I would find a city like London quite alarming, but I like being surrounded by people.
You get more privacy in a third floor flat than you do in a Barratt box with a 6ft garden.
Perhaps what's needed is two levels of density - detached/semi-detached family homes with decent gardens, storage - 20-40 hectare.
Otherwise tenements at 100-400 per hectare. What's crazy is building that kind of density with detached housing.
My photo for the day illustrates what’s possible, and also the tremendous NIMBY pressure that will face councils at every step.
This is a building project literally in (well, behind) my backyard. They’re taking an old low rise building and adding a few storeys to it.
I think it looks nice and will fill in what was previously a rather large and incongruous gap in the roofline. And this is just the sort of dense urban milieu where we should be encouraging infill. All the neighbours are outraged and depressed by it and letters regularly go into the council.
Presumably you saw the planning application etc? From what I can see it wouldn’t be ideal for the extra storey to have a balcony which directly overlooks your garden? You might be fine with this - I probably wouldn’t (not that I have a garden!). Moving somewhere already overlooked is one thing. Becoming overlooked later-on is something else.
As long as these developments are designed properly there’s no reason to be upset as your neighbours evidently are.
I really don’t understand the overlooked thing in dense urban settings. I’m already overlooked in the garden by all my neighbours, and overlooked at the front by the houses opposite: we’re on a terraced street. The density is part of what makes it a friendly place. Why is being overlooked from the opposite direction a problem?
Don't try to apply logic to NIMBYism. You'll see people arguing passionately about destroying the character of a dilapidated car park on brownfield land, opposing grain stores in grain fields, suddenly becoming experts on rare bats and newts in their area, whilst, of course, always being in favour in principle of whatever is proposed, just not here.
I think people's brain chemistry gets changed by their environment. People who live in cities become more comfortable living cheek by jowl, people who live in the countryside get used to solitude and find excessive interaction intrusive and even threatening. Like MelonB I am an urban dweller and of course my garden is massively overlooked and it doesn't bother me in the slightest. I'm lucky to have a garden at all. I will squeeze into the tiniest spot on the tube. I don't mind graffiti. I don't notice litter. I'm sure if I was used to a more solitary kind of living I would find a city like London quite alarming, but I like being surrounded by people.
That said, the good burghers of Brockley are on the whole champion NIMBYs too, as my local case study shows.
I don’t blame them - they’re engaging (usually) in rational economic behaviour if they see a threat to the value or saleability of their property - though I disagree, if anything densification should boost the desirability of the area, especially when it replaces ugly underused buildings. The issue is the planning rules which positively encourage objections.
I didn't know you were another SE London local! Here in SE14 we have the Telegraph Hill Society to police each minor planning request in the conservation area. There's plenty of space for more densification round here, although we do need infrastructure upgrades to go with it, like the Bakerloo Line extension.
Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me..
A great example of how Gavin Newsom is as unsuitable as Kamala Harris was as a presidential candidate. He’s not going to out-Trump the president, no matter how hard he tries.
“Make America California Again” has little support in California any more, especially when there’s been precisely no houses rebuilt from January’s fires.
I don't much like Newsom, but he has the advantage over Trump that he is not senile, insane, stupid, nor malevolent.
His problem is that he believes in nothing except achieving power, and that his record in California is terrible. He is, like Kamala Harris, another one of those politicians who has kept failing upwards.
He also won’t be running against Trump.
In a way, he will though, people will vote against Trump's party if they're sufficiently unhappy with Trump.
Yep. Trump won't be running but the idea he'll just bow out quietly and release his grip on the GOP is for the birds.
Indeed, the grip he managed to get on the party is impressive in a system which did not really have leaders in the same sense as here, and it soudns implausible they'll just move on from that, especially when a single word from him will destroy a candidate's chances - even assuming there's some moving on, a large chunk of the base will do whatever he tells them.
Especially since Trump seems to believe that only his personal power protects him from prosecution. Hence wanting a third term.
Once again, after Jan 6, he should have been prosecuted over trying to force Pence to set asside the election results and install him as president. Pence would have told the truth - get that guys hand on a BIble and he will tell the truth.
But apparently just prosecuting him for that, inside of a week, would be Not The Process. So it took 4 years to not collect enough evidence to prosecute.
FFS.
If you can’t see the dangers in rushing that prosecution…
Odds on Kylie Minogue getting her first UK christmas number 1 ave come way in since yesterday, now around 1/2 on after being 13/8 and 3/1 earlier in the week. Main challenger is Wham, going for their 3rd Christmas number 1 in a row with the same song. Kylie's song X-M-A-S is through Amazon and was on strictly come dancing at the weekend
Probably no value in the market now ...
A quick glance at the Betfair forum finds them regretting there is no liquidity in this market this year. Are the days of the Christmas Number One over? Possibly two Wham! wins on the basis of Spotify Christmas playlists have put people off. It looks like Kylie has been selling actual records.
Older PBers will remember when Kylie & Jason were robbed by a record industry stitch-up for Cliff.
I hadn't noticed the results of the UNISON general secretary election had been announced, despite being in it. It wasn't even close, the incumbent who said basically nothing in their election statement lost handily to the candidate who mentioned about 8 times that Starmer was awful, and made sure to bring up Israel as well, won easily. In fairness, she did at least say a few things in her statement.
Turnout was quite low too.
I’m not sure if turnout is good in Union leadership elections or not but it wasn’t here.
Looks like that last few had turnouts of around 130-140k, which is pretty low, so whilst this one was even lower at around 100k, in percentage terms it is not a massive difference.
My photo for the day illustrates what’s possible, and also the tremendous NIMBY pressure that will face councils at every step.
This is a building project literally in (well, behind) my backyard. They’re taking an old low rise building and adding a few storeys to it.
I think it looks nice and will fill in what was previously a rather large and incongruous gap in the roofline. And this is just the sort of dense urban milieu where we should be encouraging infill. All the neighbours are outraged and depressed by it and letters regularly go into the council.
Presumably you saw the planning application etc? From what I can see it wouldn’t be ideal for the extra storey to have a balcony which directly overlooks your garden? You might be fine with this - I probably wouldn’t (not that I have a garden!). Moving somewhere already overlooked is one thing. Becoming overlooked later-on is something else.
As long as these developments are designed properly there’s no reason to be upset as your neighbours evidently are.
I really don’t understand the overlooked thing in dense urban settings. I’m already overlooked in the garden by all my neighbours, and overlooked at the front by the houses opposite: we’re on a terraced street. The density is part of what makes it a friendly place. Why is being overlooked from the opposite direction a problem?
Don't try to apply logic to NIMBYism. You'll see people arguing passionately about destroying the character of a dilapidated car park on brownfield land, opposing grain stores in grain fields, suddenly becoming experts on rare bats and newts in their area, whilst, of course, always being in favour in principle of whatever is proposed, just not here.
I think people's brain chemistry gets changed by their environment. People who live in cities become more comfortable living cheek by jowl, people who live in the countryside get used to solitude and find excessive interaction intrusive and even threatening. Like MelonB I am an urban dweller and of course my garden is massively overlooked and it doesn't bother me in the slightest. I'm lucky to have a garden at all. I will squeeze into the tiniest spot on the tube. I don't mind graffiti. I don't notice litter. I'm sure if I was used to a more solitary kind of living I would find a city like London quite alarming, but I like being surrounded by people.
I fear even that is a bit generous to people. The sheer irrationality I've seen from locals never ceases to astonish me. I nearly fell out of my chair in shock when a parish council actually supported several dozen new homes in their village, in part as they wanted to sustain the viability of local amenities and younger people being able to live there, most unusual. Much more typical was the council which outright stated they thought young people living in the village as against its character, though that was unusually blunt.
I can forgive a lot of things but this kind of antagonism towards young people really enrages me. It's a symptom of a sick society.
My photo for the day illustrates what’s possible, and also the tremendous NIMBY pressure that will face councils at every step.
This is a building project literally in (well, behind) my backyard. They’re taking an old low rise building and adding a few storeys to it.
I think it looks nice and will fill in what was previously a rather large and incongruous gap in the roofline. And this is just the sort of dense urban milieu where we should be encouraging infill. All the neighbours are outraged and depressed by it and letters regularly go into the council.
Presumably you saw the planning application etc? From what I can see it wouldn’t be ideal for the extra storey to have a balcony which directly overlooks your garden? You might be fine with this - I probably wouldn’t (not that I have a garden!). Moving somewhere already overlooked is one thing. Becoming overlooked later-on is something else.
As long as these developments are designed properly there’s no reason to be upset as your neighbours evidently are.
I really don’t understand the overlooked thing in dense urban settings. I’m already overlooked in the garden by all my neighbours, and overlooked at the front by the houses opposite: we’re on a terraced street. The density is part of what makes it a friendly place. Why is being overlooked from the opposite direction a problem?
Don't try to apply logic to NIMBYism. You'll see people arguing passionately about destroying the character of a dilapidated car park on brownfield land, opposing grain stores in grain fields, suddenly becoming experts on rare bats and newts in their area, whilst, of course, always being in favour in principle of whatever is proposed, just not here.
I think people's brain chemistry gets changed by their environment. People who live in cities become more comfortable living cheek by jowl, people who live in the countryside get used to solitude and find excessive interaction intrusive and even threatening. Like MelonB I am an urban dweller and of course my garden is massively overlooked and it doesn't bother me in the slightest. I'm lucky to have a garden at all. I will squeeze into the tiniest spot on the tube. I don't mind graffiti. I don't notice litter. I'm sure if I was used to a more solitary kind of living I would find a city like London quite alarming, but I like being surrounded by people.
That said, the good burghers of Brockley are on the whole champion NIMBYs too, as my local case study shows.
I don’t blame them - they’re engaging (usually) in rational economic behaviour if they see a threat to the value or saleability of their property - though I disagree, if anything densification should boost the desirability of the area, especially when it replaces ugly underused buildings. The issue is the planning rules which positively encourage objections.
I've never understood the vitriol that NIMBYs get. It's perfectly rational behaviour from private actors - and deeply authoritarian to impose the state's will on those individuals.
Like anything else, get the incentives in the right place and the problem disappears. The switch to renewables would have happened with much more support in rural areas if there was a YIMBY bonus - get people actively bidding for pylons and turbines. Massive discounts on energy or council tax.
My photo for the day illustrates what’s possible, and also the tremendous NIMBY pressure that will face councils at every step.
This is a building project literally in (well, behind) my backyard. They’re taking an old low rise building and adding a few storeys to it.
I think it looks nice and will fill in what was previously a rather large and incongruous gap in the roofline. And this is just the sort of dense urban milieu where we should be encouraging infill. All the neighbours are outraged and depressed by it and letters regularly go into the council.
Presumably you saw the planning application etc? From what I can see it wouldn’t be ideal for the extra storey to have a balcony which directly overlooks your garden? You might be fine with this - I probably wouldn’t (not that I have a garden!). Moving somewhere already overlooked is one thing. Becoming overlooked later-on is something else.
As long as these developments are designed properly there’s no reason to be upset as your neighbours evidently are.
I really don’t understand the overlooked thing in dense urban settings. I’m already overlooked in the garden by all my neighbours, and overlooked at the front by the houses opposite: we’re on a terraced street. The density is part of what makes it a friendly place. Why is being overlooked from the opposite direction a problem?
Don't try to apply logic to NIMBYism. You'll see people arguing passionately about destroying the character of a dilapidated car park on brownfield land, opposing grain stores in grain fields, suddenly becoming experts on rare bats and newts in their area, whilst, of course, always being in favour in principle of whatever is proposed, just not here.
I think people's brain chemistry gets changed by their environment. People who live in cities become more comfortable living cheek by jowl, people who live in the countryside get used to solitude and find excessive interaction intrusive and even threatening. Like MelonB I am an urban dweller and of course my garden is massively overlooked and it doesn't bother me in the slightest. I'm lucky to have a garden at all. I will squeeze into the tiniest spot on the tube. I don't mind graffiti. I don't notice litter. I'm sure if I was used to a more solitary kind of living I would find a city like London quite alarming, but I like being surrounded by people.
That said, the good burghers of Brockley are on the whole champion NIMBYs too, as my local case study shows.
I don’t blame them - they’re engaging (usually) in rational economic behaviour if they see a threat to the value or saleability of their property - though I disagree, if anything densification should boost the desirability of the area, especially when it replaces ugly underused buildings. The issue is the planning rules which positively encourage objections.
Yes when people are using a system to their advantage but to the detriment of wider society it's better to change the system than criticise the people. Private schools are another good example of this.
My photo for the day illustrates what’s possible, and also the tremendous NIMBY pressure that will face councils at every step.
This is a building project literally in (well, behind) my backyard. They’re taking an old low rise building and adding a few storeys to it.
I think it looks nice and will fill in what was previously a rather large and incongruous gap in the roofline. And this is just the sort of dense urban milieu where we should be encouraging infill. All the neighbours are outraged and depressed by it and letters regularly go into the council.
Presumably you saw the planning application etc? From what I can see it wouldn’t be ideal for the extra storey to have a balcony which directly overlooks your garden? You might be fine with this - I probably wouldn’t (not that I have a garden!). Moving somewhere already overlooked is one thing. Becoming overlooked later-on is something else.
As long as these developments are designed properly there’s no reason to be upset as your neighbours evidently are.
I really don’t understand the overlooked thing in dense urban settings. I’m already overlooked in the garden by all my neighbours, and overlooked at the front by the houses opposite: we’re on a terraced street. The density is part of what makes it a friendly place. Why is being overlooked from the opposite direction a problem?
Don't try to apply logic to NIMBYism. You'll see people arguing passionately about destroying the character of a dilapidated car park on brownfield land, opposing grain stores in grain fields, suddenly becoming experts on rare bats and newts in their area, whilst, of course, always being in favour in principle of whatever is proposed, just not here.
I think people's brain chemistry gets changed by their environment. People who live in cities become more comfortable living cheek by jowl, people who live in the countryside get used to solitude and find excessive interaction intrusive and even threatening. Like MelonB I am an urban dweller and of course my garden is massively overlooked and it doesn't bother me in the slightest. I'm lucky to have a garden at all. I will squeeze into the tiniest spot on the tube. I don't mind graffiti. I don't notice litter. I'm sure if I was used to a more solitary kind of living I would find a city like London quite alarming, but I like being surrounded by people.
That said, the good burghers of Brockley are on the whole champion NIMBYs too, as my local case study shows.
I don’t blame them - they’re engaging (usually) in rational economic behaviour if they see a threat to the value or saleability of their property - though I disagree, if anything densification should boost the desirability of the area, especially when it replaces ugly underused buildings. The issue is the planning rules which positively encourage objections.
I didn't know you were another SE London local! Here in SE14 we have the Telegraph Hill Society to police each minor planning request in the conservation area. There's plenty of space for more densification round here, although we do need infrastructure upgrades to go with it, like the Bakerloo Line extension.
I’m the same SE London local as my previous incarnation. I decided to do a SeanT this week and re-spawn under a new name after being recognised by a PB-reading client.
What a sad sack of potatoes this Starmer government have become.
I have no time for Palestine Action. It espouses violence contrary to my principles and is actually counterproductive to the Palestinian cause. I'm happy for members to be prosecuted when merited on normal laws.
And what could they do that might assist the Paletinian cause?
We knew that. That's why it's a deal not an agreement, and is effectively a stop gap until he has his heart attack or gets bogged down by the US system.
Even the Rule of Law and the Geneva Conventions mean little or nothing to Trump.
Though TBF to Trump, that's been a significant part of US policy for nearly a century. That's why they wibble about following UNCLOS, whilst not having signed up to it, and in practise doing what they want.
My photo for the day illustrates what’s possible, and also the tremendous NIMBY pressure that will face councils at every step.
This is a building project literally in (well, behind) my backyard. They’re taking an old low rise building and adding a few storeys to it.
I think it looks nice and will fill in what was previously a rather large and incongruous gap in the roofline. And this is just the sort of dense urban milieu where we should be encouraging infill. All the neighbours are outraged and depressed by it and letters regularly go into the council.
Presumably you saw the planning application etc? From what I can see it wouldn’t be ideal for the extra storey to have a balcony which directly overlooks your garden? You might be fine with this - I probably wouldn’t (not that I have a garden!). Moving somewhere already overlooked is one thing. Becoming overlooked later-on is something else.
As long as these developments are designed properly there’s no reason to be upset as your neighbours evidently are.
I really don’t understand the overlooked thing in dense urban settings. I’m already overlooked in the garden by all my neighbours, and overlooked at the front by the houses opposite: we’re on a terraced street. The density is part of what makes it a friendly place. Why is being overlooked from the opposite direction a problem?
Don't try to apply logic to NIMBYism. You'll see people arguing passionately about destroying the character of a dilapidated car park on brownfield land, opposing grain stores in grain fields, suddenly becoming experts on rare bats and newts in their area, whilst, of course, always being in favour in principle of whatever is proposed, just not here.
I think people's brain chemistry gets changed by their environment. People who live in cities become more comfortable living cheek by jowl, people who live in the countryside get used to solitude and find excessive interaction intrusive and even threatening. Like MelonB I am an urban dweller and of course my garden is massively overlooked and it doesn't bother me in the slightest. I'm lucky to have a garden at all. I will squeeze into the tiniest spot on the tube. I don't mind graffiti. I don't notice litter. I'm sure if I was used to a more solitary kind of living I would find a city like London quite alarming, but I like being surrounded by people.
Well I am very happy living densely - but I would happily bring in the death penalty for graffiti. I'll pull the lever myself. Density is only pleasant if the environment is pleasant - graffiti makes everyone's life worse.
My photo for the day illustrates what’s possible, and also the tremendous NIMBY pressure that will face councils at every step.
This is a building project literally in (well, behind) my backyard. They’re taking an old low rise building and adding a few storeys to it.
I think it looks nice and will fill in what was previously a rather large and incongruous gap in the roofline. And this is just the sort of dense urban milieu where we should be encouraging infill. All the neighbours are outraged and depressed by it and letters regularly go into the council.
Presumably you saw the planning application etc? From what I can see it wouldn’t be ideal for the extra storey to have a balcony which directly overlooks your garden? You might be fine with this - I probably wouldn’t (not that I have a garden!). Moving somewhere already overlooked is one thing. Becoming overlooked later-on is something else.
As long as these developments are designed properly there’s no reason to be upset as your neighbours evidently are.
I really don’t understand the overlooked thing in dense urban settings. I’m already overlooked in the garden by all my neighbours, and overlooked at the front by the houses opposite: we’re on a terraced street. The density is part of what makes it a friendly place. Why is being overlooked from the opposite direction a problem?
Don't try to apply logic to NIMBYism. You'll see people arguing passionately about destroying the character of a dilapidated car park on brownfield land, opposing grain stores in grain fields, suddenly becoming experts on rare bats and newts in their area, whilst, of course, always being in favour in principle of whatever is proposed, just not here.
I think people's brain chemistry gets changed by their environment. People who live in cities become more comfortable living cheek by jowl, people who live in the countryside get used to solitude and find excessive interaction intrusive and even threatening. Like MelonB I am an urban dweller and of course my garden is massively overlooked and it doesn't bother me in the slightest. I'm lucky to have a garden at all. I will squeeze into the tiniest spot on the tube. I don't mind graffiti. I don't notice litter. I'm sure if I was used to a more solitary kind of living I would find a city like London quite alarming, but I like being surrounded by people.
I fear even that is a bit generous to people. The sheer irrationality I've seen from locals never ceases to astonish me. I nearly fell out of my chair in shock when a parish council actually supported several dozen new homes in their village, in part as they wanted to sustain the viability of local amenities and younger people being able to live there, most unusual. Much more typical was the council which outright stated they thought young people living in the village as against its character, though that was unusually blunt.
I can forgive a lot of things but this kind of antagonism towards young people really enrages me. It's a symptom of a sick society.
I'm not generally super sympathetic towards the younger generations, but I feel like it really must suck in a lot of ways. No freedom to wander anymore, the relentlessness of social media addiction, future housing costs and an entirely unsustainable social care burden to be on their shoulders, on top of much else.
Sydney police arrest five jihadis going to the vigil for the victims of the Bondi massacre. This is the new reality for western society, the vipers are in the nest.
My photo for the day illustrates what’s possible, and also the tremendous NIMBY pressure that will face councils at every step.
This is a building project literally in (well, behind) my backyard. They’re taking an old low rise building and adding a few storeys to it.
I think it looks nice and will fill in what was previously a rather large and incongruous gap in the roofline. And this is just the sort of dense urban milieu where we should be encouraging infill. All the neighbours are outraged and depressed by it and letters regularly go into the council.
Presumably you saw the planning application etc? From what I can see it wouldn’t be ideal for the extra storey to have a balcony which directly overlooks your garden? You might be fine with this - I probably wouldn’t (not that I have a garden!). Moving somewhere already overlooked is one thing. Becoming overlooked later-on is something else.
As long as these developments are designed properly there’s no reason to be upset as your neighbours evidently are.
I really don’t understand the overlooked thing in dense urban settings. I’m already overlooked in the garden by all my neighbours, and overlooked at the front by the houses opposite: we’re on a terraced street. The density is part of what makes it a friendly place. Why is being overlooked from the opposite direction a problem?
Don't try to apply logic to NIMBYism. You'll see people arguing passionately about destroying the character of a dilapidated car park on brownfield land, opposing grain stores in grain fields, suddenly becoming experts on rare bats and newts in their area, whilst, of course, always being in favour in principle of whatever is proposed, just not here.
I think people's brain chemistry gets changed by their environment. People who live in cities become more comfortable living cheek by jowl, people who live in the countryside get used to solitude and find excessive interaction intrusive and even threatening. Like MelonB I am an urban dweller and of course my garden is massively overlooked and it doesn't bother me in the slightest. I'm lucky to have a garden at all. I will squeeze into the tiniest spot on the tube. I don't mind graffiti. I don't notice litter. I'm sure if I was used to a more solitary kind of living I would find a city like London quite alarming, but I like being surrounded by people.
I fear even that is a bit generous to people. The sheer irrationality I've seen from locals never ceases to astonish me. I nearly fell out of my chair in shock when a parish council actually supported several dozen new homes in their village, in part as they wanted to sustain the viability of local amenities and younger people being able to live there, most unusual. Much more typical was the council which outright stated they thought young people living in the village as against its character, though that was unusually blunt.
I can forgive a lot of things but this kind of antagonism towards young people really enrages me. It's a symptom of a sick society.
I'm not generally super sympathetic towards the younger generations, but I feel like it really must suck in a lot of ways. No freedom to wander anymore, the relentlessness of social media addiction, future housing costs and an entirely unsustainable social care burden to be on their shoulders, on top of much else.
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.
Hi TSE, I have no wish to be banned but as a long standing female poster on this site from the early days who was once a young lassie who has spent her whole life trying to make sure I was safe in the work place and elsewhere and who has recently found the hill I am prepared to die on that crosses political lines when it comes to defending women only safe spaces, why can't we talk about something that has had such a huge and traumatic impact on so young women in so many communities and is currently just about one of the the biggest political stories right across the UK?! Are we saying on this site we simple ignore this huge scandal and the current implications for political parties and how they all deal with it?!
Because of the online safety act and possible consequences for those that run the site, including OGH. If you want to discuss it do it on X, then its on Musk...
Any yet I can read about this issue in every paper in the media every day and watch indepth discussions on our 24/7 news channels everyday?! So I ask again, and I say this as someone who has been posting on this site for 20 years now and who would never post anything that would ever put this site at risk because I have too much respect for OGH and the amazing cross party site he created, but I have got to say as a female poster I am left feeling deeply uncomfortable that we cannot discuss a serious issue that affected young very vulnerable women at a time when we women are literally fighting to defend our hard fought for equality rights and the need to have safe women only spaces. I find it so hard to see this site literally trying to shut this discussion down despite the huge political implications right now. Just leaving this point out there, and if TSE bans me so be it..
The issue isn’t you or other sensible people discussing it. But there are a small number of people who cross the line on this topic in particular both degrading the quality of the site and putting OGH at risk.
As all too often happens a few people ruin it for everyone
And further, large media organisations have large legal departments. So they can handle the load of vexatious complaints.
As has been recently demonstrated, various online groups have managed to weaponise the legal process - by using the right formulations in their complaints, they can pretty much force the police to take heavy handed actions. Which then incur legal expense.
My photo for the day illustrates what’s possible, and also the tremendous NIMBY pressure that will face councils at every step.
This is a building project literally in (well, behind) my backyard. They’re taking an old low rise building and adding a few storeys to it.
I think it looks nice and will fill in what was previously a rather large and incongruous gap in the roofline. And this is just the sort of dense urban milieu where we should be encouraging infill. All the neighbours are outraged and depressed by it and letters regularly go into the council.
Presumably you saw the planning application etc? From what I can see it wouldn’t be ideal for the extra storey to have a balcony which directly overlooks your garden? You might be fine with this - I probably wouldn’t (not that I have a garden!). Moving somewhere already overlooked is one thing. Becoming overlooked later-on is something else.
As long as these developments are designed properly there’s no reason to be upset as your neighbours evidently are.
I really don’t understand the overlooked thing in dense urban settings. I’m already overlooked in the garden by all my neighbours, and overlooked at the front by the houses opposite: we’re on a terraced street. The density is part of what makes it a friendly place. Why is being overlooked from the opposite direction a problem?
Don't try to apply logic to NIMBYism. You'll see people arguing passionately about destroying the character of a dilapidated car park on brownfield land, opposing grain stores in grain fields, suddenly becoming experts on rare bats and newts in their area, whilst, of course, always being in favour in principle of whatever is proposed, just not here.
I think people's brain chemistry gets changed by their environment. People who live in cities become more comfortable living cheek by jowl, people who live in the countryside get used to solitude and find excessive interaction intrusive and even threatening. Like MelonB I am an urban dweller and of course my garden is massively overlooked and it doesn't bother me in the slightest. I'm lucky to have a garden at all. I will squeeze into the tiniest spot on the tube. I don't mind graffiti. I don't notice litter. I'm sure if I was used to a more solitary kind of living I would find a city like London quite alarming, but I like being surrounded by people.
You get more privacy in a third floor flat than you do in a Barratt box with a 6ft garden.
Perhaps what's needed is two levels of density - detached/semi-detached family homes with decent gardens, storage - 20-40 hectare.
Otherwise tenements at 100-400 per hectare. What's crazy is building that kind of density with detached housing.
The simple solution is to allow people to build whatever they want, wherever they want it, then let them choose.
Want a flat? Build that, live in that.
Want a house? Build that, live in that.
You prefer a flat, good for you. I prefer a house. We should all get to choose whatever we want, not whatever others should have.
My photo for the day illustrates what’s possible, and also the tremendous NIMBY pressure that will face councils at every step.
This is a building project literally in (well, behind) my backyard. They’re taking an old low rise building and adding a few storeys to it.
I think it looks nice and will fill in what was previously a rather large and incongruous gap in the roofline. And this is just the sort of dense urban milieu where we should be encouraging infill. All the neighbours are outraged and depressed by it and letters regularly go into the council.
Presumably you saw the planning application etc? From what I can see it wouldn’t be ideal for the extra storey to have a balcony which directly overlooks your garden? You might be fine with this - I probably wouldn’t (not that I have a garden!). Moving somewhere already overlooked is one thing. Becoming overlooked later-on is something else.
As long as these developments are designed properly there’s no reason to be upset as your neighbours evidently are.
I really don’t understand the overlooked thing in dense urban settings. I’m already overlooked in the garden by all my neighbours, and overlooked at the front by the houses opposite: we’re on a terraced street. The density is part of what makes it a friendly place. Why is being overlooked from the opposite direction a problem?
Don't try to apply logic to NIMBYism. You'll see people arguing passionately about destroying the character of a dilapidated car park on brownfield land, opposing grain stores in grain fields, suddenly becoming experts on rare bats and newts in their area, whilst, of course, always being in favour in principle of whatever is proposed, just not here.
I think people's brain chemistry gets changed by their environment. People who live in cities become more comfortable living cheek by jowl, people who live in the countryside get used to solitude and find excessive interaction intrusive and even threatening. Like MelonB I am an urban dweller and of course my garden is massively overlooked and it doesn't bother me in the slightest. I'm lucky to have a garden at all. I will squeeze into the tiniest spot on the tube. I don't mind graffiti. I don't notice litter. I'm sure if I was used to a more solitary kind of living I would find a city like London quite alarming, but I like being surrounded by people.
I fear even that is a bit generous to people. The sheer irrationality I've seen from locals never ceases to astonish me. I nearly fell out of my chair in shock when a parish council actually supported several dozen new homes in their village, in part as they wanted to sustain the viability of local amenities and younger people being able to live there, most unusual. Much more typical was the council which outright stated they thought young people living in the village as against its character, though that was unusually blunt.
I can forgive a lot of things but this kind of antagonism towards young people really enrages me. It's a symptom of a sick society.
I'd bet good money the parish councillors in my example were also the kind who lament not having enough grandchildren, or not having much contact with them if they do.
My photo for the day illustrates what’s possible, and also the tremendous NIMBY pressure that will face councils at every step.
This is a building project literally in (well, behind) my backyard. They’re taking an old low rise building and adding a few storeys to it.
I think it looks nice and will fill in what was previously a rather large and incongruous gap in the roofline. And this is just the sort of dense urban milieu where we should be encouraging infill. All the neighbours are outraged and depressed by it and letters regularly go into the council.
Presumably you saw the planning application etc? From what I can see it wouldn’t be ideal for the extra storey to have a balcony which directly overlooks your garden? You might be fine with this - I probably wouldn’t (not that I have a garden!). Moving somewhere already overlooked is one thing. Becoming overlooked later-on is something else.
As long as these developments are designed properly there’s no reason to be upset as your neighbours evidently are.
I really don’t understand the overlooked thing in dense urban settings. I’m already overlooked in the garden by all my neighbours, and overlooked at the front by the houses opposite: we’re on a terraced street. The density is part of what makes it a friendly place. Why is being overlooked from the opposite direction a problem?
Don't try to apply logic to NIMBYism. You'll see people arguing passionately about destroying the character of a dilapidated car park on brownfield land, opposing grain stores in grain fields, suddenly becoming experts on rare bats and newts in their area, whilst, of course, always being in favour in principle of whatever is proposed, just not here.
I think people's brain chemistry gets changed by their environment. People who live in cities become more comfortable living cheek by jowl, people who live in the countryside get used to solitude and find excessive interaction intrusive and even threatening. Like MelonB I am an urban dweller and of course my garden is massively overlooked and it doesn't bother me in the slightest. I'm lucky to have a garden at all. I will squeeze into the tiniest spot on the tube. I don't mind graffiti. I don't notice litter. I'm sure if I was used to a more solitary kind of living I would find a city like London quite alarming, but I like being surrounded by people.
I fear even that is a bit generous to people. The sheer irrationality I've seen from locals never ceases to astonish me. I nearly fell out of my chair in shock when a parish council actually supported several dozen new homes in their village, in part as they wanted to sustain the viability of local amenities and younger people being able to live there, most unusual. Much more typical was the council which outright stated they thought young people living in the village as against its character, though that was unusually blunt.
I can forgive a lot of things but this kind of antagonism towards young people really enrages me. It's a symptom of a sick society.
I'm not generally super sympathetic towards the younger generations, but I feel like it really must suck in a lot of ways. No freedom to wander anymore, the relentlessness of social media addiction, future housing costs and an entirely unsustainable social care burden to be on their shoulders, on top of much else.
You're assuming they are going to feed us.
I'm just hoping society can hold off any potential collapse for another, say, 50 years, then I'm good.
My photo for the day illustrates what’s possible, and also the tremendous NIMBY pressure that will face councils at every step.
This is a building project literally in (well, behind) my backyard. They’re taking an old low rise building and adding a few storeys to it.
I think it looks nice and will fill in what was previously a rather large and incongruous gap in the roofline. And this is just the sort of dense urban milieu where we should be encouraging infill. All the neighbours are outraged and depressed by it and letters regularly go into the council.
Presumably you saw the planning application etc? From what I can see it wouldn’t be ideal for the extra storey to have a balcony which directly overlooks your garden? You might be fine with this - I probably wouldn’t (not that I have a garden!). Moving somewhere already overlooked is one thing. Becoming overlooked later-on is something else.
As long as these developments are designed properly there’s no reason to be upset as your neighbours evidently are.
I really don’t understand the overlooked thing in dense urban settings. I’m already overlooked in the garden by all my neighbours, and overlooked at the front by the houses opposite: we’re on a terraced street. The density is part of what makes it a friendly place. Why is being overlooked from the opposite direction a problem?
Don't try to apply logic to NIMBYism. You'll see people arguing passionately about destroying the character of a dilapidated car park on brownfield land, opposing grain stores in grain fields, suddenly becoming experts on rare bats and newts in their area, whilst, of course, always being in favour in principle of whatever is proposed, just not here.
I think people's brain chemistry gets changed by their environment. People who live in cities become more comfortable living cheek by jowl, people who live in the countryside get used to solitude and find excessive interaction intrusive and even threatening. Like MelonB I am an urban dweller and of course my garden is massively overlooked and it doesn't bother me in the slightest. I'm lucky to have a garden at all. I will squeeze into the tiniest spot on the tube. I don't mind graffiti. I don't notice litter. I'm sure if I was used to a more solitary kind of living I would find a city like London quite alarming, but I like being surrounded by people.
That said, the good burghers of Brockley are on the whole champion NIMBYs too, as my local case study shows.
I don’t blame them - they’re engaging (usually) in rational economic behaviour if they see a threat to the value or saleability of their property - though I disagree, if anything densification should boost the desirability of the area, especially when it replaces ugly underused buildings. The issue is the planning rules which positively encourage objections.
I've never understood the vitriol that NIMBYs get. It's perfectly rational behaviour from private actors - and deeply authoritarian to impose the state's will on those individuals.
Like anything else, get the incentives in the right place and the problem disappears. The switch to renewables would have happened with much more support in rural areas if there was a YIMBY bonus - get people actively bidding for pylons and turbines. Massive discounts on energy or council tax.
If you'd actually dealt with them, the level of FuckYouIveGotMine involved can be staggering.
My photo for the day illustrates what’s possible, and also the tremendous NIMBY pressure that will face councils at every step.
This is a building project literally in (well, behind) my backyard. They’re taking an old low rise building and adding a few storeys to it.
I think it looks nice and will fill in what was previously a rather large and incongruous gap in the roofline. And this is just the sort of dense urban milieu where we should be encouraging infill. All the neighbours are outraged and depressed by it and letters regularly go into the council.
Presumably you saw the planning application etc? From what I can see it wouldn’t be ideal for the extra storey to have a balcony which directly overlooks your garden? You might be fine with this - I probably wouldn’t (not that I have a garden!). Moving somewhere already overlooked is one thing. Becoming overlooked later-on is something else.
As long as these developments are designed properly there’s no reason to be upset as your neighbours evidently are.
I really don’t understand the overlooked thing in dense urban settings. I’m already overlooked in the garden by all my neighbours, and overlooked at the front by the houses opposite: we’re on a terraced street. The density is part of what makes it a friendly place. Why is being overlooked from the opposite direction a problem?
Don't try to apply logic to NIMBYism. You'll see people arguing passionately about destroying the character of a dilapidated car park on brownfield land, opposing grain stores in grain fields, suddenly becoming experts on rare bats and newts in their area, whilst, of course, always being in favour in principle of whatever is proposed, just not here.
I think people's brain chemistry gets changed by their environment. People who live in cities become more comfortable living cheek by jowl, people who live in the countryside get used to solitude and find excessive interaction intrusive and even threatening. Like MelonB I am an urban dweller and of course my garden is massively overlooked and it doesn't bother me in the slightest. I'm lucky to have a garden at all. I will squeeze into the tiniest spot on the tube. I don't mind graffiti. I don't notice litter. I'm sure if I was used to a more solitary kind of living I would find a city like London quite alarming, but I like being surrounded by people.
That said, the good burghers of Brockley are on the whole champion NIMBYs too, as my local case study shows.
I don’t blame them - they’re engaging (usually) in rational economic behaviour if they see a threat to the value or saleability of their property - though I disagree, if anything densification should boost the desirability of the area, especially when it replaces ugly underused buildings. The issue is the planning rules which positively encourage objections.
I've never understood the vitriol that NIMBYs get. It's perfectly rational behaviour from private actors - and deeply authoritarian to impose the state's will on those individuals.
Like anything else, get the incentives in the right place and the problem disappears. The switch to renewables would have happened with much more support in rural areas if there was a YIMBY bonus - get people actively bidding for pylons and turbines. Massive discounts on energy or council tax.
Most of the active anti renewables protests in North Yorkshire are about the repurposing of good farmland for solar panels. The Yorkshire Green pylon upgrade and extension project seemed to barely raised a murmur.
My photo for the day illustrates what’s possible, and also the tremendous NIMBY pressure that will face councils at every step.
This is a building project literally in (well, behind) my backyard. They’re taking an old low rise building and adding a few storeys to it.
I think it looks nice and will fill in what was previously a rather large and incongruous gap in the roofline. And this is just the sort of dense urban milieu where we should be encouraging infill. All the neighbours are outraged and depressed by it and letters regularly go into the council.
Presumably you saw the planning application etc? From what I can see it wouldn’t be ideal for the extra storey to have a balcony which directly overlooks your garden? You might be fine with this - I probably wouldn’t (not that I have a garden!). Moving somewhere already overlooked is one thing. Becoming overlooked later-on is something else.
As long as these developments are designed properly there’s no reason to be upset as your neighbours evidently are.
I really don’t understand the overlooked thing in dense urban settings. I’m already overlooked in the garden by all my neighbours, and overlooked at the front by the houses opposite: we’re on a terraced street. The density is part of what makes it a friendly place. Why is being overlooked from the opposite direction a problem?
Don't try to apply logic to NIMBYism. You'll see people arguing passionately about destroying the character of a dilapidated car park on brownfield land, opposing grain stores in grain fields, suddenly becoming experts on rare bats and newts in their area, whilst, of course, always being in favour in principle of whatever is proposed, just not here.
I think people's brain chemistry gets changed by their environment. People who live in cities become more comfortable living cheek by jowl, people who live in the countryside get used to solitude and find excessive interaction intrusive and even threatening. Like MelonB I am an urban dweller and of course my garden is massively overlooked and it doesn't bother me in the slightest. I'm lucky to have a garden at all. I will squeeze into the tiniest spot on the tube. I don't mind graffiti. I don't notice litter. I'm sure if I was used to a more solitary kind of living I would find a city like London quite alarming, but I like being surrounded by people.
Well I am very happy living densely - but I would happily bring in the death penalty for graffiti. I'll pull the lever myself. Density is only pleasant if the environment is pleasant - graffiti makes everyone's life worse.
And the sign said "The words of the prophets are Written on the subway walls, tenement halls And whispered in the sound of silence"
Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me..
A great example of how Gavin Newsom is as unsuitable as Kamala Harris was as a presidential candidate. He’s not going to out-Trump the president, no matter how hard he tries.
“Make America California Again” has little support in California any more, especially when there’s been precisely no houses rebuilt from January’s fires.
I don't much like Newsom, but he has the advantage over Trump that he is not senile, insane, stupid, nor malevolent.
His problem is that he believes in nothing except achieving power, and that his record in California is terrible. He is, like Kamala Harris, another one of those politicians who has kept failing upwards.
He also won’t be running against Trump.
In a way, he will though, people will vote against Trump's party if they're sufficiently unhappy with Trump.
Yep. Trump won't be running but the idea he'll just bow out quietly and release his grip on the GOP is for the birds.
Indeed, the grip he managed to get on the party is impressive in a system which did not really have leaders in the same sense as here, and it soudns implausible they'll just move on from that, especially when a single word from him will destroy a candidate's chances - even assuming there's some moving on, a large chunk of the base will do whatever he tells them.
Especially since Trump seems to believe that only his personal power protects him from prosecution. Hence wanting a third term.
Once again, after Jan 6, he should have been prosecuted over trying to force Pence to set asside the election results and install him as president. Pence would have told the truth - get that guys hand on a BIble and he will tell the truth.
But apparently just prosecuting him for that, inside of a week, would be Not The Process. So it took 4 years to not collect enough evidence to prosecute.
FFS.
If you can’t see the dangers in rushing that prosecution…
OK, take 6 months.
Look, I get that for a number of lawyers, taking less than 100,000 pages of "evidence" to prosecute a serious case, may cause erectile disfunction.
But the courts aren't there to provide a playground for lawyers.
Trump committed a fairly simple crime. He tried to overthrow the government and do an auto-coup. Instead of trying to find every crime he committed, prosecute him for the obvious, simple, public one.
My photo for the day illustrates what’s possible, and also the tremendous NIMBY pressure that will face councils at every step.
This is a building project literally in (well, behind) my backyard. They’re taking an old low rise building and adding a few storeys to it.
I think it looks nice and will fill in what was previously a rather large and incongruous gap in the roofline. And this is just the sort of dense urban milieu where we should be encouraging infill. All the neighbours are outraged and depressed by it and letters regularly go into the council.
Presumably you saw the planning application etc? From what I can see it wouldn’t be ideal for the extra storey to have a balcony which directly overlooks your garden? You might be fine with this - I probably wouldn’t (not that I have a garden!). Moving somewhere already overlooked is one thing. Becoming overlooked later-on is something else.
As long as these developments are designed properly there’s no reason to be upset as your neighbours evidently are.
I really don’t understand the overlooked thing in dense urban settings. I’m already overlooked in the garden by all my neighbours, and overlooked at the front by the houses opposite: we’re on a terraced street. The density is part of what makes it a friendly place. Why is being overlooked from the opposite direction a problem?
Don't try to apply logic to NIMBYism. You'll see people arguing passionately about destroying the character of a dilapidated car park on brownfield land, opposing grain stores in grain fields, suddenly becoming experts on rare bats and newts in their area, whilst, of course, always being in favour in principle of whatever is proposed, just not here.
I think people's brain chemistry gets changed by their environment. People who live in cities become more comfortable living cheek by jowl, people who live in the countryside get used to solitude and find excessive interaction intrusive and even threatening. Like MelonB I am an urban dweller and of course my garden is massively overlooked and it doesn't bother me in the slightest. I'm lucky to have a garden at all. I will squeeze into the tiniest spot on the tube. I don't mind graffiti. I don't notice litter. I'm sure if I was used to a more solitary kind of living I would find a city like London quite alarming, but I like being surrounded by people.
That said, the good burghers of Brockley are on the whole champion NIMBYs too, as my local case study shows.
I don’t blame them - they’re engaging (usually) in rational economic behaviour if they see a threat to the value or saleability of their property - though I disagree, if anything densification should boost the desirability of the area, especially when it replaces ugly underused buildings. The issue is the planning rules which positively encourage objections.
I've never understood the vitriol that NIMBYs get. It's perfectly rational behaviour from private actors - and deeply authoritarian to impose the state's will on those individuals.
Like anything else, get the incentives in the right place and the problem disappears. The switch to renewables would have happened with much more support in rural areas if there was a YIMBY bonus - get people actively bidding for pylons and turbines. Massive discounts on energy or council tax.
If you'd actually dealt with them, the level of FuckYouIveGotMine involved can be staggering.
The premise is also a little off to me, since most NIMBYs are not having something 'imposed' on them, at least not in any direct way - it's something nearby that they don't like, but does not actually have anything meaningful to do with their own property or rights. An extension down the road, a dozen homes on the other side of the village, a McDonalds wanting to open in a town centre, etc.
Sure, if there's a whopping great incinerator proposed a mile away that's going to have some wide impacts that will upset a lot of people, but it's authoritarian to say somebody a quarter mile away at the other end of an estate can be reasonably and safely ignored if someone at the other end wants to put in an outbuilding which is 1.5ft too high to be permitted development? Come off it.
What a sad sack of potatoes this Starmer government have become.
I have no time for Palestine Action. It espouses violence contrary to my principles and is actually counterproductive to the Palestinian cause. I'm happy for members to be prosecuted when merited on normal laws.
And what could they do that might assist the Paletinian cause?
Not vandalise military hardware going to Ukraine, not vandalise govt property and businesses.
Sydney police arrest five jihadis going to the vigil for the victims of the Bondi massacre. This is the new reality for western society, the vipers are in the nest.
The Munich massacre was in 1972. How exactly is this a “new reality”?
Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me..
A great example of how Gavin Newsom is as unsuitable as Kamala Harris was as a presidential candidate. He’s not going to out-Trump the president, no matter how hard he tries.
“Make America California Again” has little support in California any more, especially when there’s been precisely no houses rebuilt from January’s fires.
I don't much like Newsom, but he has the advantage over Trump that he is not senile, insane, stupid, nor malevolent.
His problem is that he believes in nothing except achieving power, and that his record in California is terrible. He is, like Kamala Harris, another one of those politicians who has kept failing upwards.
He also won’t be running against Trump.
In a way, he will though, people will vote against Trump's party if they're sufficiently unhappy with Trump.
Yep. Trump won't be running but the idea he'll just bow out quietly and release his grip on the GOP is for the birds.
Indeed, the grip he managed to get on the party is impressive in a system which did not really have leaders in the same sense as here, and it soudns implausible they'll just move on from that, especially when a single word from him will destroy a candidate's chances - even assuming there's some moving on, a large chunk of the base will do whatever he tells them.
Especially since Trump seems to believe that only his personal power protects him from prosecution. Hence wanting a third term.
Once again, after Jan 6, he should have been prosecuted over trying to force Pence to set asside the election results and install him as president. Pence would have told the truth - get that guys hand on a BIble and he will tell the truth.
But apparently just prosecuting him for that, inside of a week, would be Not The Process. So it took 4 years to not collect enough evidence to prosecute.
FFS.
If you can’t see the dangers in rushing that prosecution…
OK, take 6 months.
Look, I get that for a number of lawyers, taking less than 100,000 pages of "evidence" to prosecute a serious case, may cause erectile disfunction.
But the courts aren't there to provide a playground for lawyers.
Trump committed a fairly simple crime. He tried to overthrow the government and do an auto-coup. Instead of trying to find every crime he committed, prosecute him for the obvious, simple, public one.
2 weeks ago I did a HC trial where all the evidence, including that of the accused, was heard in a day. It can be done. I agree, the kitchen sink approach to prosecution is very rarely the best.
Sydney police arrest five jihadis going to the vigil for the victims of the Bondi massacre. This is the new reality for western society, the vipers are in the nest.
There are extremists of all sorts to be dealt with of course, but passive support for such jihadis is probably more widespread then people would like to think.
Comments
Tax on thingy.
https://youtu.be/QmFYHmGkfxw
This suggests that rates won't fall much further, especially as it's unlikely that CPI will fall below 2.5% in the short to medium term, given continuing relatively high pay settlements and further above inflation increases to the minimum wage. Probably one cut in 2026 to 3.5%.
EDIT: actually looks like the market is now assuming fewer cuts in future due to the closeness of the vote. So my initial supposition was wrong.
The planks always were going to vote high, Huw Pill not a great shock either - but Lombardelli's vote sticks out a bit.
I do not understand people today. Especially kids. They watch cheap, crappy, YouTube videos of someone doing a thing or talking about watching a thing, instead of doing the thing or watching the thing themselves.
A 5-4 vote indicates lower likelihood of further cuts any time soon, so that needs pricing in.
https://x.com/maks_nafo_fella/status/2001604041319563514
Our economics team have been predicting it to fall to target earlier than consensus, so it seems they’re right, for now.
Netflix are paying for the chance to convert those listeners into subscribers, plus they can leverage their own user base to get more ad revenue from the podcasts. The end user is paying very little even on netflix, it is just about the size of the audience.
The response by a number of serving officers was incredulous - “If we have these powers, we have to use them!”
Frankly, I find this mentality insane. Too much Alistair Crowley* and not enough quiet decency.
*"Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law"
My point here is that, operating outside the EU, should the UK, Poland, the Nordics and the Baltics - say - want to band together to counter the Russian threat, they can do. But if the EU tries to forge a collective response, it needs to involve all members - including those who are on the other side. And including those with uinrelated axes to grind. So we get to a point where an agreement to do x can only happen once the goodwill of awkward members a, b and c has been bought. And this does not happen quickly, or in many cases, at all.
He also won’t be running against Trump.
"No country in history where the TFR falls below 2.1 has ever increased that back over that figure."
In 2006 the US TFR increased to 2.108.
In 2007, it increased again to 2.120.
Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_the_United_States
Before that, it had been as low as 1.73 in 1976.
It is, granted, a tiny exception, but nonetheless worth study for those worried about demographic declines
About time all parties suffer challenge in their heartlands though.
It's really hard to see the Republicans installing a sufficiently clean pair of hands in time for 2028.
“The Bavkground” by Saki (1910) https://www.eastoftheweb.com/short-stories/UBooks/Bac.shtml
Apparently the graffiti covered remains of collapsed walls were “valuable heritage”.
We tend not to assemble facts and use them to draw a conclusion. Most of the time, we start with a visceral response and then marshall facts to lead to that conclusion.
See Turkey and the Swedish accession to NATO.
Which is not to say developers are not shits, they are, but the sorts of things people complain about, which then leads politicians to throw spanners into the works, is damaging and infuriating, especially when those same politicians then complain about the effects.
And of course there can be valid objections, but anyone who has interacted with the planning system for five minutes can spot instantly when people are just using the magic words to try to prevent something, and many policies actively enable that.
And acting as though any field should be treated as if it was designated Green Belt (as well as acting as though everything in the Green Belt is a picture postcard of the Cotswolds or something).
Oh well, at least Root got his century over there.
- damaging military aircraft. Which is also part of a pattern of attacking military stuff that *isn’t* involved with Israel/Palestine. But is involved with national security and Ukraine.
- attacking police officers with hammers
And next to ignored (one bored PCSO standing there, looking very bored)
- little old ladies holding up signs
One is not like the other.
Once again, after Jan 6, he should have been prosecuted over trying to force Pence to set asside the election results and install him as president. Pence would have told the truth - get that guys hand on a BIble and he will tell the truth.
But apparently just prosecuting him for that, inside of a week, would be Not The Process. So it took 4 years to not collect enough evidence to prosecute.
FFS.
As all too often happens a few people ruin it for everyone
He believes in abusing that power to satisfy petty vengeance.
I’m not sure if turnout is good in Union leadership elections or not but it wasn’t here.
I don’t blame them - they’re engaging (usually) in rational economic behaviour if they see a threat to the value or saleability of their property - though I disagree, if anything densification should boost the desirability of the area, especially when it replaces ugly underused buildings. The issue is the planning rules which positively encourage objections.
https://swingometer.substack.com/p/my-2025-predictions-reviewed?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=1186392&post_id=180436039&utm_campaign=email-post-title&isFreemail=true&r=1mnpci&triedRedirect=true&utm_medium=email
Until we change the rules to tell curtain twitching busybodies to mind their own f***ing business and that its nothing to do with them what their neighbours do, we will never solve this issue.
Perhaps what's needed is two levels of density - detached/semi-detached family homes with decent gardens, storage - 20-40 hectare.
Otherwise tenements at 100-400 per hectare. What's crazy is building that kind of density with detached housing.
Older PBers will remember when Kylie & Jason were robbed by a record industry stitch-up for Cliff.
Brains Trust: Does the Mayor of London have the power to ban a protest?
(Context: For my sins, I've just run into a Planet Normal podcast, and they are DEMANDING that Sadiq Khan ban protests they don't like.)
Like anything else, get the incentives in the right place and the problem disappears. The switch to renewables would have happened with much more support in rural areas if there was a YIMBY bonus - get people actively bidding for pylons and turbines. Massive discounts on energy or council tax.
Even the Rule of Law and the Geneva Conventions mean little or nothing to Trump.
Though TBF to Trump, that's been a significant part of US policy for nearly a century. That's why they wibble about following UNCLOS, whilst not having signed up to it, and in practise doing what they want.
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/covid-19-personal-protective-equipment-use-for-aerosol-generating-procedures
Updated so no longer about Covid.
As has been recently demonstrated, various online groups have managed to weaponise the legal process - by using the right formulations in their complaints, they can pretty much force the police to take heavy handed actions. Which then incur legal expense.
Want a flat? Build that, live in that.
Want a house? Build that, live in that.
You prefer a flat, good for you. I prefer a house. We should all get to choose whatever we want, not whatever others should have.
Now he opposes using €210 billion in frozen Russian assets for Ukraine and calls victory a "fairy tale" and asset seizure "theft"
https://x.com/EuromaidanPress/status/2001444301528563995
Written on the subway walls, tenement halls
And whispered in the sound of silence"
Look, I get that for a number of lawyers, taking less than 100,000 pages of "evidence" to prosecute a serious case, may cause erectile disfunction.
But the courts aren't there to provide a playground for lawyers.
Trump committed a fairly simple crime. He tried to overthrow the government and do an auto-coup. Instead of trying to find every crime he committed, prosecute him for the obvious, simple, public one.
Sure, if there's a whopping great incinerator proposed a mile away that's going to have some wide impacts that will upset a lot of people, but it's authoritarian to say somebody a quarter mile away at the other end of an estate can be reasonably and safely ignored if someone at the other end wants to put in an outbuilding which is 1.5ft too high to be permitted development? Come off it.
Or twatting coppers with hammers
Or supporting either openly, or tacitly, Hamas
To start.