England accelerating now. Personally on this pitch I'd bat on tomorrow morning and try to score 700+ and collapse India under sheer weight of runs. Declaring early isn't always the most positive option; you just have to score the runs again, often more slowly, in the second innings. However that goes against the modern fashion.
At least by batting again we can give our bowlers a few hours off. If we bat for 700 by lunch tomorrow we'd possibly spend the next 8 sessions in the field which would rather tire out the bowlers
That's the downside - and the plan certainly works better with a world class spinner. But batting on knackers the Indian bowlers too (as well as the humiliation of conceding 700+).
Longer term, as everyone agrees, what we need is more building in the right places. That is now beginning to happen, after the long drought of the Labour years.
Er, housebuilding is below pre-crash levels under Labour and way below the levels needed to keep pace with population growth.
"housebuilding is below pre-crash levels under Labour "
On planet Zog, possibly. Down here is the biggest housing boom I have seen in my lifetime.
The statistics are national rather than regional or local.
Would that be more complacent than the goverment that let 4 million people into the country and did sod all about housing and infrastructure ?
Mr. Brooke, Nice to see you back with us again. I hope the business matters are being resolved to your satisfaction.
On the subject of which you speak, I see in the papers today people are saying that the GP system has been brought to its knees and that chunks of the NHS are on the point of collapse. None of that can have anything to do with the millions of extra people that have come to live here. Good heavens, we have been told over and over again that mass immigration is good for the Country so all those extra people must have paid for all the extra doctors, nurses, ambulances, schools, roads, railways needed to support them.
Longer term, as everyone agrees, what we need is more building in the right places. That is now beginning to happen, after the long drought of the Labour years.
Er, housebuilding is below pre-crash levels under Labour and way below the levels needed to keep pace with population growth.
"housebuilding is below pre-crash levels under Labour "
On planet Zog, possibly. Down here is the biggest housing boom I have seen in my lifetime.
The statistics are national rather than regional or local.
The stats also don't reflect the bottlenecks on building. There is currently a shortage of bricks since our ever wise banks closed too many brick factories in the recession. Now you can't get them.
Would that be more complacent than the goverment that let 4 million people into the country and did sod all about housing and infrastructure ?
Mr. Brooke, Nice to see you back with us again. I hope the business matters are being resolved to your satisfaction.
On the subject of which you speak, I see in the papers today people are saying that the GP system has been brought to its knees and that chunks of the NHS are on the point of collapse. None of that can have anything to do with the millions of extra people that have come to live here. Good heavens, we have been told over and over again that mass immigration is good for the Country so all those extra people must have paid for all the extra doctors, nurses, ambulances, schools, roads, railways needed to support them.
Do I detect an air of incredulity at the non-stop bollocks fed to us by our political masters ?
Longer term, as everyone agrees, what we need is more building in the right places. That is now beginning to happen, after the long drought of the Labour years.
Er, housebuilding is below pre-crash levels under Labour and way below the levels needed to keep pace with population growth.
"housebuilding is below pre-crash levels under Labour "
On planet Zog, possibly. Down here is the biggest housing boom I have seen in my lifetime.
The statistics are national rather than regional or local.
Then those statistics can only make sense if housebuilding has ceased elsewhere in the country. Frankly I suggest they are complete b^llocks.
Would that be more complacent than the goverment that let 4 million people into the country and did sod all about housing and infrastructure ?
Mr. Brooke, Nice to see you back with us again. I hope the business matters are being resolved to your satisfaction.
On the subject of which you speak, I see in the papers today people are saying that the GP system has been brought to its knees and that chunks of the NHS are on the point of collapse. None of that can have anything to do with the millions of extra people that have come to live here. Good heavens, we have been told over and over again that mass immigration is good for the Country so all those extra people must have paid for all the extra doctors, nurses, ambulances, schools, roads, railways needed to support them.
Many of those extra people ARE doctors, nurses and other similarly trained personell!
Longer term, as everyone agrees, what we need is more building in the right places. That is now beginning to happen, after the long drought of the Labour years.
Er, housebuilding is below pre-crash levels under Labour and way below the levels needed to keep pace with population growth.
"housebuilding is below pre-crash levels under Labour "
On planet Zog, possibly. Down here is the biggest housing boom I have seen in my lifetime.
The statistics are national rather than regional or local.
Then those statistics can only make sense if housebuilding has ceased elsewhere in the country. Frankly I suggest they are complete b^llocks.
The new National Statistician will be most depressed that you place no faith in the output of his statisticians. Could it be that your locality is small and the rest of the country is big?
Longer term, as everyone agrees, what we need is more building in the right places. That is now beginning to happen, after the long drought of the Labour years.
Er, housebuilding is below pre-crash levels under Labour and way below the levels needed to keep pace with population growth.
"housebuilding is below pre-crash levels under Labour "
On planet Zog, possibly. Down here is the biggest housing boom I have seen in my lifetime.
The statistics are national rather than regional or local.
Then those statistics can only make sense if housebuilding has ceased elsewhere in the country. Frankly I suggest they are complete b^llocks.
The new National Statistician will be most depressed that you place no faith in the output of his statisticians. Could it be that your locality is small and the rest of the country is big?
Longer term, as everyone agrees, what we need is more building in the right places. That is now beginning to happen, after the long drought of the Labour years.
Er, housebuilding is below pre-crash levels under Labour and way below the levels needed to keep pace with population growth.
"housebuilding is below pre-crash levels under Labour "
On planet Zog, possibly. Down here is the biggest housing boom I have seen in my lifetime.
The statistics are national rather than regional or local.
Then those statistics can only make sense if housebuilding has ceased elsewhere in the country. Frankly I suggest they are complete b^llocks.
The new National Statistician will be most depressed that you place no faith in the output of his statisticians. Could it be that your locality is small and the rest of the country is big?
BobaFett still in bed you reckon?
I try not to spend too much time thinking about the sleeping habits of people I've never met.
Would that be more complacent than the goverment that let 4 million people into the country and did sod all about housing and infrastructure ?
Mr. Brooke, Nice to see you back with us again. I hope the business matters are being resolved to your satisfaction.
On the subject of which you speak, I see in the papers today people are saying that the GP system has been brought to its knees and that chunks of the NHS are on the point of collapse. None of that can have anything to do with the millions of extra people that have come to live here. Good heavens, we have been told over and over again that mass immigration is good for the Country so all those extra people must have paid for all the extra doctors, nurses, ambulances, schools, roads, railways needed to support them.
Many of those extra people ARE doctors, nurses and other similarly trained personell!
I suppose thousands of them are, enough to cope with the rise in population? It would seem not. If you add millions of extra people to the population then there must surely be a matching increase in services and infrastructure or else the existing levels of service will crumble. In some areas that expansion must be greater than the raw numbers would suggest because of language issues etc.. Are you suggesting those increases have been made?
Someone said: Down here is the biggest housing boom I have seen in my lifetime. The slums of tomorrow are being thrown up everywhere one looks. As for building enough new houses to keep up with population growth, forget it. With net immigration officially running at 200,000 a year and all the other causes of new households, it cannot be done.
It could be. Bring back "Super-Mac". He presided over the construction of 500,000 new homes/year when he was Housing Minister in the 1950s. They need to be better designed than they were then - but that's possible, especially if the rate was 'moderated' to only 350,000 or so per year.
Longer term, as everyone agrees, what we need is more building in the right places. That is now beginning to happen, after the long drought of the Labour years.
Er, housebuilding is below pre-crash levels under Labour and way below the levels needed to keep pace with population growth.
"housebuilding is below pre-crash levels under Labour "
On planet Zog, possibly. Down here is the biggest housing boom I have seen in my lifetime.
The statistics are national rather than regional or local.
Then those statistics can only make sense if housebuilding has ceased elsewhere in the country. Frankly I suggest they are complete b^llocks.
The new National Statistician will be most depressed that you place no faith in the output of his statisticians. Could it be that your locality is small and the rest of the country is big?
BobaFett still in bed you reckon?
I try not to spend too much time thinking about the sleeping habits of people I've never met.
What about the people you have met?
I do worry about just where JohnO is sleeping after a PB meet.
Would that be more complacent than the goverment that let 4 million people into the country and did sod all about housing and infrastructure ?
Mr. Brooke, Nice to see you back with us again. I hope the business matters are being resolved to your satisfaction.
On the subject of which you speak, I see in the papers today people are saying that the GP system has been brought to its knees and that chunks of the NHS are on the point of collapse. None of that can have anything to do with the millions of extra people that have come to live here. Good heavens, we have been told over and over again that mass immigration is good for the Country so all those extra people must have paid for all the extra doctors, nurses, ambulances, schools, roads, railways needed to support them.
Many of those extra people ARE doctors, nurses and other similarly trained personell!
Which simply says for 13 years we didn't train enough of our own people
Longer term, as everyone agrees, what we need is more building in the right places. That is now beginning to happen, after the long drought of the Labour years.
Er, housebuilding is below pre-crash levels under Labour and way below the levels needed to keep pace with population growth.
"housebuilding is below pre-crash levels under Labour "
On planet Zog, possibly. Down here is the biggest housing boom I have seen in my lifetime.
The statistics are national rather than regional or local.
Then those statistics can only make sense if housebuilding has ceased elsewhere in the country. Frankly I suggest they are complete b^llocks.
The new National Statistician will be most depressed that you place no faith in the output of his statisticians. Could it be that your locality is small and the rest of the country is big?
BobaFett still in bed you reckon?
I try not to spend too much time thinking about the sleeping habits of people I've never met.
What about the people you have met?
I do worry about just where JohnO is sleeping after a PB meet.
Usually a bench in Bournemouth train station.
He can bunk with ColinW's Mum if he misses the last train home.
Would that be more complacent than the goverment that let 4 million people into the country and did sod all about housing and infrastructure ?
Mr. Brooke, Nice to see you back with us again. I hope the business matters are being resolved to your satisfaction.
On the subject of which you speak, I see in the papers today people are saying that the GP system has been brought to its knees and that chunks of the NHS are on the point of collapse. None of that can have anything to do with the millions of extra people that have come to live here. Good heavens, we have been told over and over again that mass immigration is good for the Country so all those extra people must have paid for all the extra doctors, nurses, ambulances, schools, roads, railways needed to support them.
Many of those extra people ARE doctors, nurses and other similarly trained personell!
I suppose thousands of them are, enough to cope with the rise in population? It would seem not. If you add millions of extra people to the population then there must surely be a matching increase in services and infrastructure or else the existing levels of service will crumble. In some areas that expansion must be greater than the raw numbers would suggest because of language issues etc.. Are you suggesting those increases have been made?
Longer term, as everyone agrees, what we need is more building in the right places. That is now beginning to happen, after the long drought of the Labour years.
Er, housebuilding is below pre-crash levels under Labour and way below the levels needed to keep pace with population growth.
"housebuilding is below pre-crash levels under Labour "
On planet Zog, possibly. Down here is the biggest housing boom I have seen in my lifetime.
The statistics are national rather than regional or local.
Then those statistics can only make sense if housebuilding has ceased elsewhere in the country. Frankly I suggest they are complete b^llocks.
The new National Statistician will be most depressed that you place no faith in the output of his statisticians. Could it be that your locality is small and the rest of the country is big?
BobaFett still in bed you reckon?
I try not to spend too much time thinking about the sleeping habits of people I've never met.
What about the people you have met?
I do worry about just where JohnO is sleeping after a PB meet.
Usually a bench in Bournemouth train station.
He can bunk with ColinW's Mum if he misses the last train home.
Someone said: Down here is the biggest housing boom I have seen in my lifetime. The slums of tomorrow are being thrown up everywhere one looks. As for building enough new houses to keep up with population growth, forget it. With net immigration officially running at 200,000 a year and all the other causes of new households, it cannot be done.
It could be. Bring back "Super-Mac". He presided over the construction of 500,000 new homes/year when he was Housing Minister in the 1950s. They need to be better designed than they were then - but that's possible, especially if the rate was 'moderated' to only 350,000 or so per year.
300+ houses are proposed for our small (5k) town. Opposition posters are appearing in windows, there’s a petition being circulated, MP’, Councillors are being lobbied and an Action Group is being set up.
Longer term, as everyone agrees, what we need is more building in the right places. That is now beginning to happen, after the long drought of the Labour years.
Er, housebuilding is below pre-crash levels under Labour and way below the levels needed to keep pace with population growth.
"housebuilding is below pre-crash levels under Labour "
On planet Zog, possibly. Down here is the biggest housing boom I have seen in my lifetime.
The statistics are national rather than regional or local.
Then those statistics can only make sense if housebuilding has ceased elsewhere in the country. Frankly I suggest they are complete b^llocks.
The new National Statistician will be most depressed that you place no faith in the output of his statisticians. Could it be that your locality is small and the rest of the country is big?
BobaFett still in bed you reckon?
I try not to spend too much time thinking about the sleeping habits of people I've never met.
What about the people you have met?
I do worry about just where JohnO is sleeping after a PB meet.
Usually a bench in Bournemouth train station.
I have no such qualms about JohnO.
I have long since regarded him as Hersham's Ambassador Extraordinaire and High Plenipotentiary At Large .... to anywhere with a railway connection.
"They [Houses] need to be better designed than they were then [1950s] - but that's possible, especially if the rate was 'moderated' to only 350,000 or so per year."
Have you ever been on a modern house building site? Jerry build doesn't even begin to describe the wretched hovels the builders are throwing up and charging vast amounts of money for, and all quite legally in line with building regs too. I am amazed that the banks will give mortgages on them.
(P.S. Did MacMillan really manage 500,000 houses a year? Wasn't the peak in England in the 1950s was a tad less tan 300,000, could building in Scotland, Wales and NI gave made up the difference?)
Longer term, as everyone agrees, what we need is more building in the right places. That is now beginning to happen, after the long drought of the Labour years.
Er, housebuilding is below pre-crash levels under Labour and way below the levels needed to keep pace with population growth.
"housebuilding is below pre-crash levels under Labour "
On planet Zog, possibly. Down here is the biggest housing boom I have seen in my lifetime.
The statistics are national rather than regional or local.
Then those statistics can only make sense if housebuilding has ceased elsewhere in the country. Frankly I suggest they are complete b^llocks.
The new National Statistician will be most depressed that you place no faith in the output of his statisticians. Could it be that your locality is small and the rest of the country is big?
BobaFett still in bed you reckon?
I try not to spend too much time thinking about the sleeping habits of people I've never met.
What about the people you have met?
I do worry about just where JohnO is sleeping after a PB meet.
Usually a bench in Bournemouth train station.
He can bunk with ColinW's Mum if he misses the last train home.
Hhmmm ....
It reminds me of the Sergeant Wilson and Mrs Pike entanglement ....
"They [Houses] need to be better designed than they were then [1950s] - but that's possible, especially if the rate was 'moderated' to only 350,000 or so per year."
Have you ever been on a modern house building site? Jerry build doesn't even begin to describe the wretched hovels the builders are throwing up and charging vast amounts of money for, and all quite legally in line with building regs too. I am amazed that the banks will give mortgages on them.
(P.S. Did MacMillan really manage 500,000 houses a year? Wasn't the peak in England in the 1950s was a tad less tan 300,000, could building in Scotland, Wales and NI gave made up the difference?)
I take your point about spec built houses and Parker Morris council housing was spacious and built to a good standard. 50's housing and the inter war (Metroland) stuff was not that bad. But I do think you overstate your case. I do not think modern housing is jerry built. I am not sure the design is brilliant - at times naff - and the architecture is usually non existent.
Someone said: Down here is the biggest housing boom I have seen in my lifetime. The slums of tomorrow are being thrown up everywhere one looks. As for building enough new houses to keep up with population growth, forget it. With net immigration officially running at 200,000 a year and all the other causes of new households, it cannot be done.
It could be. Bring back "Super-Mac". He presided over the construction of 500,000 new homes/year when he was Housing Minister in the 1950s. They need to be better designed than they were then - but that's possible, especially if the rate was 'moderated' to only 350,000 or so per year.
300+ houses are proposed for our small (5k) town. Opposition posters are appearing in windows, there’s a petition being circulated, MP’, Councillors are being lobbied and an Action Group is being set up.
Just saying!
Its OK, Mr. Cole, as you will discover Cameron's pledge on localism will kick in. Remember how he promised that local communities will have a real say over development in their area. So in due course the local community will have its say and then, on the say so of a Government Inspector, the houses will be built. Cameron's pledges in action.
I just wish I had sufficient rich friends to go fracking in and around Whitney, or maybe a 5,000 home social housing project. I am bloody sure neither project would get permission and no government inspector would over turn the local council's decision.
I sometimes surprise myself over the depth of my disgust for Cameron.
Someone said: Down here is the biggest housing boom I have seen in my lifetime. The slums of tomorrow are being thrown up everywhere one looks. As for building enough new houses to keep up with population growth, forget it. With net immigration officially running at 200,000 a year and all the other causes of new households, it cannot be done.
It could be. Bring back "Super-Mac". He presided over the construction of 500,000 new homes/year when he was Housing Minister in the 1950s. They need to be better designed than they were then - but that's possible, especially if the rate was 'moderated' to only 350,000 or so per year.
300+ houses are proposed for our small (5k) town. Opposition posters are appearing in windows, there’s a petition being circulated, MP’, Councillors are being lobbied and an Action Group is being set up.
Just saying!
You make a good point. Today I was just glancing at the Oxfordshire Guardian in our library. Two housing projects were mentioned in the first 4 pages and both were being delayed in the planning process because of objections. And then people wonder why we are not building enough houses.
Warby J has today handed down his reasons for certain directions made by the High Court on 24 July in Mitchell MP v NGN and Rowland v Mitchell MP ([2014] EWHC 2615 (QB)). Both actions will be tried by a judge alone, without a jury. There will be a joint trial of certain preliminary issues, listed for 17 November 2014. This will include the meaning of the words complained of in both particulars of claim, the justification defences pleaded by both defendants in both actions, and the allegation that at all material times Mr Mitchell knew that the allegations complained of by PC Rowland were baseless. Mitchell MP v NGN has been fixed for trial in December 2014. There has, of course, been speculation that Rowland v Mitchell MP was to be settled.
"They [Houses] need to be better designed than they were then [1950s] - but that's possible, especially if the rate was 'moderated' to only 350,000 or so per year."
Have you ever been on a modern house building site? Jerry build doesn't even begin to describe the wretched hovels the builders are throwing up and charging vast amounts of money for, and all quite legally in line with building regs too. I am amazed that the banks will give mortgages on them.
(P.S. Did MacMillan really manage 500,000 houses a year? Wasn't the peak in England in the 1950s was a tad less tan 300,000, could building in Scotland, Wales and NI gave made up the difference?)
I take your point about spec built houses and Parker Morris council housing was spacious and built to a good standard. 50's housing and the inter war (Metroland) stuff was not that bad. But I do think you overstate your case. I do not think modern housing is jerry built. I am not sure the design is brilliant - at times naff - and the architecture is usually non existent.
Crumbs, Mr. Path, if you think that then take yourself down to your local building site, make friends with the site boss (pretending to be a buy to let landlord looking to buy off-plan is a good wheeze), and have a walk round. Having done that, if you think I am exaggerating then the beers are on me.
England accelerating now. Personally on this pitch I'd bat on tomorrow morning and try to score 700+ and collapse India under sheer weight of runs. Declaring early isn't always the most positive option; you just have to score the runs again, often more slowly, in the second innings. However that goes against the modern fashion.
At least by batting again we can give our bowlers a few hours off. If we bat for 700 by lunch tomorrow we'd possibly spend the next 8 sessions in the field which would rather tire out the bowlers
That was the argument used on Sky at lunchtime.
Sky have a vested interest in it not being a four-day test, though.
Longer term, as everyone agrees, what we need is more building in the right places. That is now beginning to happen, after the long drought of the Labour years.
Er, housebuilding is below pre-crash levels under Labour and way below the levels needed to keep pace with population growth.
"housebuilding is below pre-crash levels under Labour "
On planet Zog, possibly. Down here is the biggest housing boom I have seen in my lifetime.
The statistics are national rather than regional or local.
The stats also don't reflect the bottlenecks on building. There is currently a shortage of bricks since our ever wise banks closed too many brick factories in the recession. Now you can't get them.
“The industry is estimated to currently have a capacity in excess of 2bn bricks. “Given a more normal demand curve with the factories all running for a full year in 2014 the industry should be more than able to cope with prospective demand. “Working through Christmas and opening new kilns - allied to better liaison with the industry and better planning, will help ensure supply meets demand and also maintain stockpiles.” http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/business/brick-shortage-hitting-greater-manchester-6727351
Bricks and blocks are still probably the best thing to build houses with - but they are not the only option.
Based on a World Health Organisation report in today's Daily Telegraph:
How likely is Ebola to reach Britain? There has been a previous case in the UK, when in 1976 someone was accidentally infected in a laboratory, but survived. And up until a few weeks ago, the cases were mainly in remote areas affecting rural workers unlikely to take flights and spread the disease internationally. However, concern is now growing that this large outbreak is spreading beyond the rural areas of Guinea, Liberia and Sierra Leone - where it has been concentrated so far - and into the capital cities and beyond. A Liberian man died in Nigeria on July 24, having flown in to Lagos after a stopover in Togo. That the man died in Africa's largest city has deeply worried authorities. There have been no Ebola cases from people returning to the UK from Africa. Guinea is not a big tourist destination with only around 2,600 visits a year from the UK, mostly on business - but 117,000 Britons visit Nigeria each year. Travellers who may have been exposed to the Ebola virus in West Africa should seek urgent medical attention immediately if symptoms develop within 21 days of coming home. UK doctors who suspect Ebola can get expert advice from the Imported Fever Service. Public Health England says the risk of a traveller contracting Ebola is very low without direct contact with the blood or body fluids of an infected person or animal
Huh? ''The IMF today published its assessment of the state Britain’s economy, days after upgrading its growth forecast to 3.2% this year and 2.7% in 2015'' ''The overall picture of the recovery is that “prospects are promising” ''
Will the IMF care to confront all the NIMBYs standing in the way of building more homes?
Someone said: Down here is the biggest housing boom I have seen in my lifetime. The slums of tomorrow are being thrown up everywhere one looks. As for building enough new houses to keep up with population growth, forget it. With net immigration officially running at 200,000 a year and all the other causes of new households, it cannot be done.
It could be. Bring back "Super-Mac". He presided over the construction of 500,000 new homes/year when he was Housing Minister in the 1950s. They need to be better designed than they were then - but that's possible, especially if the rate was 'moderated' to only 350,000 or so per year.
300+ houses are proposed for our small (5k) town. Opposition posters are appearing in windows, there’s a petition being circulated, MP’, Councillors are being lobbied and an Action Group is being set up.
Just saying!
You make a good point. Today I was just glancing at the Oxfordshire Guardian in our library. Two housing projects were mentioned in the first 4 pages and both were being delayed in the planning process because of objections. And then people wonder why we are not building enough houses.
Then you have crazy developments in my part of Oxford. Over the past 3 years, about 40 new residences (mainly 'executive' apartments) have been added to my immediate vicinity (less than 100m from my front door) - and none of them have any parking and none of them have any parking rights (not even a visitor parking permit allocation.) Yes, there is a lot of rental demand in Oxford - but even renters expect to be able to park near their home. So not only are we not building the right quantity of houses (due, at least in part, to objections) but when homes are being built, they are often not the right sort of homes that the local communities actually need.
Someone said: Down here is the biggest housing boom I have seen in my lifetime. The slums of tomorrow are being thrown up everywhere one looks. As for building enough new houses to keep up with population growth, forget it. With net immigration officially running at 200,000 a year and all the other causes of new households, it cannot be done.
It could be. Bring back "Super-Mac". He presided over the construction of 500,000 new homes/year when he was Housing Minister in the 1950s. They need to be better designed than they were then - but that's possible, especially if the rate was 'moderated' to only 350,000 or so per year.
300+ houses are proposed for our small (5k) town. Opposition posters are appearing in windows, there’s a petition being circulated, MP’, Councillors are being lobbied and an Action Group is being set up.
Someone said: Down here is the biggest housing boom I have seen in my lifetime. The slums of tomorrow are being thrown up everywhere one looks. As for building enough new houses to keep up with population growth, forget it. With net immigration officially running at 200,000 a year and all the other causes of new households, it cannot be done.
It could be. Bring back "Super-Mac". He presided over the construction of 500,000 new homes/year when he was Housing Minister in the 1950s. They need to be better designed than they were then - but that's possible, especially if the rate was 'moderated' to only 350,000 or so per year.
300+ houses are proposed for our small (5k) town. Opposition posters are appearing in windows, there’s a petition being circulated, MP’, Councillors are being lobbied and an Action Group is being set up.
Just saying!
Its OK, Mr. Cole, as you will discover Cameron's pledge on localism will kick in. Remember how he promised that local communities will have a real say over development in their area. So in due course the local community will have its say and then, on the say so of a Government Inspector, the houses will be built. Cameron's pledges in action.
I just wish I had sufficient rich friends to go fracking in and around Whitney, or maybe a 5,000 home social housing project. I am bloody sure neither project would get permission and no government inspector would over turn the local council's decision.
I sometimes surprise myself over the depth of my disgust for Cameron.
Unfortunately it runs from top to bottom in the Tory party.
In Newark the local council in conjunction with a developer made an application in secret for the town to be granted Growth Point status. On the back of this a town of around 35,000 people is now expected to increase in size by at least 50% in the next decade. When it became public knowledge that the application had been accepted there was huge public outcry and the defence of the council was that it had been necessary to conduct the application in secret because of the sensitive commercial interests of the developer.
Lying Tory politicians are to be found at every level of government I am afraid.
Based on a World Health Organisation report in today's Daily Telegraph:
How likely is Ebola to reach Britain? There has been a previous case in the UK, when in 1976 someone was accidentally infected in a laboratory, but survived. And up until a few weeks ago, the cases were mainly in remote areas affecting rural workers unlikely to take flights and spread the disease internationally. However, concern is now growing that this large outbreak is spreading beyond the rural areas of Guinea, Liberia and Sierra Leone - where it has been concentrated so far - and into the capital cities and beyond. A Liberian man died in Nigeria on July 24, having flown in to Lagos after a stopover in Togo. That the man died in Africa's largest city has deeply worried authorities. There have been no Ebola cases from people returning to the UK from Africa. Guinea is not a big tourist destination with only around 2,600 visits a year from the UK, mostly on business - but 117,000 Britons visit Nigeria each year. Travellers who may have been exposed to the Ebola virus in West Africa should seek urgent medical attention immediately if symptoms develop within 21 days of coming home. UK doctors who suspect Ebola can get expert advice from the Imported Fever Service. Public Health England says the risk of a traveller contracting Ebola is very low without direct contact with the blood or body fluids of an infected person or animal
According to CNN, it also includes sweat and if someone sneezes near you. A disease almost purpose built for transmission via passenger aircraft.
Someone said: Down here is the biggest housing boom I have seen in my lifetime. The slums of tomorrow are being thrown up everywhere one looks. As for building enough new houses to keep up with population growth, forget it. With net immigration officially running at 200,000 a year and all the other causes of new households, it cannot be done.
It could be. Bring back "Super-Mac". He presided over the construction of 500,000 new homes/year when he was Housing Minister in the 1950s. They need to be better designed than they were then - but that's possible, especially if the rate was 'moderated' to only 350,000 or so per year.
300+ houses are proposed for our small (5k) town. Opposition posters are appearing in windows, there’s a petition being circulated, MP’, Councillors are being lobbied and an Action Group is being set up.
Just saying!
Its OK, Mr. Cole, as you will discover Cameron's pledge on localism will kick in. Remember how he promised that local communities will have a real say over development in their area. So in due course the local community will have its say and then, on the say so of a Government Inspector, the houses will be built. Cameron's pledges in action.
I just wish I had sufficient rich friends to go fracking in and around Whitney, or maybe a 5,000 home social housing project. I am bloody sure neither project would get permission and no government inspector would over turn the local council's decision.
I sometimes surprise myself over the depth of my disgust for Cameron.
Unfortunately it runs from top to bottom in the Tory party.
In Newark the local council in conjunction with a developer made an application in secret for the town to be granted Growth Point status. On the back of this a town of around 35,000 people is now expected to increase in size by at least 50% in the next decade. When it became public knowledge that the application had been accepted there was huge public outcry and the defence of the council was that it had been necessary to conduct the application in secret because of the sensitive commercial interests of the developer.
Lying Tory politicians are to be found at every level of government I am afraid.
Do you think the current level of housebuilding is sufficient or do you think that it's too low but that the extra houses should be built elsewhere?
@Flightpath Cameron could do the same for housing as he has done for fapping...I mean.fracking? At least he will not allow it in places of natural beauty....or come to that, wherever one of his MP's is in a marginal (Foreign energy oligarchs may apply for dispensation of course).
May I say how informative the Scottish Referendum threads have become on Pb,thanks largely to the Yes campaign contributors.I have adopted the position of my union,Unite,and taken a position of neutrality, as an united group of workers can bargain, but a divided group of workers has to beg.If I had a vote I would sway to Yes as I hate the English Tories too,and the Scottish ones as well,and I do not want to be ruled by them either. From a betting point of view I'm on Yes 40-45 with cover on 35-40 and have seen nothing to change that position although the debate is fascinating.
I'm fairly sure my last post a few weeks ago name checked the Book of Revelations. I, of course, did not have enough spiritual attitude to be able to cope with such theological scattergunning - hense my absence.
However, I am back - and since I am a good sportsman I will make you all aware that I have a very decent copy of the Tao Te Ching at my disposable.
Based on a World Health Organisation report in today's Daily Telegraph:
How likely is Ebola to reach Britain? There has been a previous case in the UK, when in 1976 someone was accidentally infected in a laboratory, but survived. And up until a few weeks ago, the cases were mainly in remote areas affecting rural workers unlikely to take flights and spread the disease internationally. However, concern is now growing that this large outbreak is spreading beyond the rural areas of Guinea, Liberia and Sierra Leone - where it has been concentrated so far - and into the capital cities and beyond. A Liberian man died in Nigeria on July 24, having flown in to Lagos after a stopover in Togo. That the man died in Africa's largest city has deeply worried authorities. There have been no Ebola cases from people returning to the UK from Africa. Guinea is not a big tourist destination with only around 2,600 visits a year from the UK, mostly on business - but 117,000 Britons visit Nigeria each year. Travellers who may have been exposed to the Ebola virus in West Africa should seek urgent medical attention immediately if symptoms develop within 21 days of coming home. UK doctors who suspect Ebola can get expert advice from the Imported Fever Service. Public Health England says the risk of a traveller contracting Ebola is very low without direct contact with the blood or body fluids of an infected person or animal
According to CNN, it also includes sweat and if someone sneezes near you. A disease almost purpose built for transmission via passenger aircraft.
If that's really the case, then we're all probably doomed!
There are two very simple right-wing solution to our artificially high housing costs. Abolish the green belt and a massive relaxation on planning laws. A presumption to let people build on their land what they want to, unless there is a very good reason not to - rather than a presumption that nothing can be done unless a government body says it is OK.
Someone said: Down here is the biggest housing boom I have seen in my lifetime. The slums of tomorrow are being thrown up everywhere one looks. As for building enough new houses to keep up with population growth, forget it. With net immigration officially running at 200,000 a year and all the other causes of new households, it cannot be done.
It could be. Bring back "Super-Mac". He presided over the construction of 500,000 new homes/year when he was Housing Minister in the 1950s. They need to be better designed than they were then - but that's possible, especially if the rate was 'moderated' to only 350,000 or so per year.
300+ houses are proposed for our small (5k) town. Opposition posters are appearing in windows, there’s a petition being circulated, MP’, Councillors are being lobbied and an Action Group is being set up.
Just saying!
Its OK, Mr. Cole, as you will discover Cameron's pledge on localism will kick in. Remember how he promised that local communities will have a real say over development in their area. So in due course the local community will have its say and then, on the say so of a Government Inspector, the houses will be built. Cameron's pledges in action.
I just wish I had sufficient rich friends to go fracking in and around Whitney, or maybe a 5,000 home social housing project. I am bloody sure neither project would get permission and no government inspector would over turn the local council's decision.
I sometimes surprise myself over the depth of my disgust for Cameron.
Unfortunately it runs from top to bottom in the Tory party.
In Newark the local council in conjunction with a developer made an application in secret for the town to be granted Growth Point status. On the back of this a town of around 35,000 people is now expected to increase in size by at least 50% in the next decade. When it became public knowledge that the application had been accepted there was huge public outcry and the defence of the council was that it had been necessary to conduct the application in secret because of the sensitive commercial interests of the developer.
Lying Tory politicians are to be found at every level of government I am afraid.
Do you think the current level of housebuilding is sufficient or do you think that it's too low but that the extra houses should be built elsewhere?
Good old, Mr. Neil, the rich developers friend. How about asking the alternative question, "How the feck can this sort of application, with all the inevitable effect on the environment, ever be held in secret? Who came up with the law that allowed that?"
Someone said: Down here is the biggest housing boom I have seen in my lifetime. The slums of tomorrow are being thrown up everywhere one looks. As for building enough new houses to keep up with population growth, forget it. With net immigration officially running at 200,000 a year and all the other causes of new households, it cannot be done.
It could be. Bring back "Super-Mac". He presided over the construction of 500,000 new homes/year when he was Housing Minister in the 1950s. They need to be better designed than they were then - but that's possible, especially if the rate was 'moderated' to only 350,000 or so per year.
300+ houses are proposed for our small (5k) town. Opposition posters are appearing in windows, there’s a petition being circulated, MP’, Councillors are being lobbied and an Action Group is being set up.
Just saying!
Nimbyism is a (if not the) major problem.
And what is the solution? The back yards that people get nimbyish about are also called "the countryside" and are generally regarded as an asset of the country as a whole. If you think we can no longer afford to have a countryside, that's a point of view, but disagreeing with it cannot be dismissed with imported insults (the English for "back yard" is "back garden").
Limiting factor on new building is materials - unless Ed has a guttering extrusion tool up his sleeve he can do naff all.
When I was back in Yorkshire about a decade ago, a builder wanted to build a sub-division of about 40 houses. He had the land lined up, and the designs (only a couple unfortunately) were OK. Then the planning folks got involved - there were problems with too many houses having double garages, lack of bicycle parking racks (!), and they wanted the builder to swap several homes for 'affordable homes', the effect of which would be to reduce the price of all the homes. Eventually the builder walked away as he couldn't make money with all the nonsense.
Similarly when the commercial development of Macarthur Glen near York was being planned, the developers had a knock down drag out fight with the planning folks as they wanted them to have fewer parking spaces and more bicycle spaces. You can't carry much home from a discount mall on a bicycle.
Materials is the least of the limiting factors. The planning folks simply don't get that developers need to make money on these schemes. Once there's enough infrastructure to satisfy the need - roads, water and sewage etc - they need to back off, once the homes or development meets current building code.
Based on a World Health Organisation report in today's Daily Telegraph:
How likely is Ebola to reach Britain? There has been a previous case in the UK, when in 1976 someone was accidentally infected in a laboratory, but survived. And up until a few weeks ago, the cases were mainly in remote areas affecting rural workers unlikely to take flights and spread the disease internationally. However, concern is now growing that this large outbreak is spreading beyond the rural areas of Guinea, Liberia and Sierra Leone - where it has been concentrated so far - and into the capital cities and beyond. A Liberian man died in Nigeria on July 24, having flown in to Lagos after a stopover in Togo. That the man died in Africa's largest city has deeply worried authorities. There have been no Ebola cases from people returning to the UK from Africa. Guinea is not a big tourist destination with only around 2,600 visits a year from the UK, mostly on business - but 117,000 Britons visit Nigeria each year. Travellers who may have been exposed to the Ebola virus in West Africa should seek urgent medical attention immediately if symptoms develop within 21 days of coming home. UK doctors who suspect Ebola can get expert advice from the Imported Fever Service. Public Health England says the risk of a traveller contracting Ebola is very low without direct contact with the blood or body fluids of an infected person or animal
According to CNN, it also includes sweat and if someone sneezes near you. A disease almost purpose built for transmission via passenger aircraft.
Ebola reaching London could be a sort of "black swan" event. Never mind being the TB capital of the world.
Do you think the current level of housebuilding is sufficient or do you think that it's too low but that the extra houses should be built elsewhere?
I think that housebuilding should be sustainable and that simply sticking extra estates onto the side of existing settlements is not the answer. Housebuilding should be for the benefit of the country not developers and as such where they build should be dictated by the community. Brownfield sites should be redeveloped first and then I would look seriously at new towns. Many of the existing settlements such as Newark have street plans and services which are entirely unsuited to large scale peripheral development.
Whatever happens it is completely unacceptable for local government to keep plans secret from the public until it is too late for them to do anything about it.
Someone said: Down here is the biggest housing boom I have seen in my lifetime. The slums of tomorrow are being thrown up everywhere one looks. As for building enough new houses to keep up with population growth, forget it. With net immigration officially running at 200,000 a year and all the other causes of new households, it cannot be done.
It could be. Bring back "Super-Mac". He presided over the construction of 500,000 new homes/year when he was Housing Minister in the 1950s. They need to be better designed than they were then - but that's possible, especially if the rate was 'moderated' to only 350,000 or so per year.
300+ houses are proposed for our small (5k) town. Opposition posters are appearing in windows, there’s a petition being circulated, MP’, Councillors are being lobbied and an Action Group is being set up.
Just saying!
Nimbyism is a (if not the) major problem.
And what is the solution? The back yards that people get nimbyish about are also called "the countryside" and are generally regarded as an asset of the country as a whole. If you think we can no longer afford to have a countryside, that's a point of view, but disagreeing with it cannot be dismissed with imported insults (the English for "back yard" is "back garden").
No. Only very rarely are houses built or proposed to be built in places they would 'ruin the countryside'. BTW there are of course hundreds of thousands of long term empty homes around.
Good old, Mr. Neil, the rich developers friend. How about asking the alternative question, "How the feck can this sort of application, with all the inevitable effect on the environment, ever be held in secret? Who came up with the law that allowed that?"
I asked the question I was interested in. I presume any proposed developments in a location granted Growth Point status remain subject to the usual planning process.
There are two very simple right-wing solution to our artificially high housing costs. Abolish the green belt and a massive relaxation on planning laws. A presumption to let people build on their land what they want to, unless there is a very good reason not to - rather than a presumption that nothing can be done unless a government body says it is OK.
If that causes a collapse in house prices, great.
Mr. Thompson, nice idea just some small niggles. When someone builds on a plot of land then there are implications for others, sewage for example - has to go somewhere and someone has to provide he means for it to do so - fresh water is another one, access and effects on traffic might be a third, unreasonable effects on the lives of people already living nearby. Gosh the list is nearly endless. Perhaps someone needs to adjudicate on a development to ensure its costs to the community do not outweigh its benefits to said community. We could call it the planning system, set down some regulations and guidelines and involve local councillors in making the decisions.
@JBriskin Chinese chicken curry with mushroom and peppers for me tonight.......but home made. I can never get fried rice to turn out well, I could do some pretty good rice cakes while trying though?
Do you think the current level of housebuilding is sufficient or do you think that it's too low but that the extra houses should be built elsewhere?
I think that housebuilding should be sustainable and that simply sticking extra estates onto the side of existing settlements is not the answer. Housebuilding should be for the benefit of the country not developers and as such where they build should be dictated by the community. Brownfield sites should be redeveloped first and then I would look seriously at new towns. Many of the existing settlements such as Newark have street plans and services which are entirely unsuited to large scale peripheral development.
Whatever happens it is completely unacceptable for local government to keep plans secret from the public until it is too late for them to do anything about it.
I take that to be a long-winded way of saying we need more homes .. somewhere else.
Why is it too late to do anything about a particular development in Newark? Does Growth Point status allow the planning process to be bypassed?
May I say how informative the Scottish Referendum threads have become on Pb,thanks largely to the Yes campaign contributors.I have adopted the position of my union,Unite,and taken a position of neutrality, as an united group of workers can bargain, but a divided group of workers has to beg.If I had a vote I would sway to Yes as I hate the English Tories too,and the Scottish ones as well,and I do not want to be ruled by them either. From a betting point of view I'm on Yes 40-45 with cover on 35-40 and have seen nothing to change that position although the debate is fascinating.
Funny that. I hate Scottish socialists who in recent times have doen more to ruin Britain than anything. I hope the rest of Scotland saves you from yourself.
Do you think the current level of housebuilding is sufficient or do you think that it's too low but that the extra houses should be built elsewhere?
I think that housebuilding should be sustainable and that simply sticking extra estates onto the side of existing settlements is not the answer. Housebuilding should be for the benefit of the country not developers and as such where they build should be dictated by the community. Brownfield sites should be redeveloped first and then I would look seriously at new towns. Many of the existing settlements such as Newark have street plans and services which are entirely unsuited to large scale peripheral development.
Whatever happens it is completely unacceptable for local government to keep plans secret from the public until it is too late for them to do anything about it.
I have no idea what 'sustainable' house building is. Obviously nobody is going to build a 500 home estate in Burnsall or Buckden.
House building should be for the benefit of the homeowner, and of course for the 'benefit' of the developer, who makes money by doing so, whether on new or brownfield sites.
I can't comment on your last statement about keeping stuff secret from the public as I know nothing about it.
Someone said: Down here is the biggest housing boom I have seen in my lifetime. The slums of tomorrow are being thrown up everywhere one looks. As for building enough new houses to keep up with population growth, forget it. With net immigration officially running at 200,000 a year and all the other causes of new households, it cannot be done.
It could be. Bring back "Super-Mac". He presided over the construction of 500,000 new homes/year when he was Housing Minister in the 1950s. They need to be better designed than they were then - but that's possible, especially if the rate was 'moderated' to only 350,000 or so per year.
300+ houses are proposed for our small (5k) town. Opposition posters are appearing in windows, there’s a petition being circulated, MP’, Councillors are being lobbied and an Action Group is being set up.
Just saying!
You make a good point. Today I was just glancing at the Oxfordshire Guardian in our library. Two housing projects were mentioned in the first 4 pages and both were being delayed in the planning process because of objections. And then people wonder why we are not building enough houses.
Coming back to my earlier post, I'm in two minds about the development in the community where I live. 300 or so house means at least 1000 people as a start, taking the population to about 6000. The development will fill in an area between a trunk road and a housing estate, which is currently agricultural BUT has footpaths which are popular with walkers, both with and without dogs. We'd need one-and-a-bit more doctors, probably another dentist (preferably NHS) and an enlargement of the pharmacy, although that can probably be managed. We've some empty shops, but a medium sized supermarket is being built ...... that was in process long before this plan saw the light of day. Road access to our town isn't too bad, although improvement's needed.. The development includes a school and a small industrial estate. So TBH I don't think I'm very against what's proposed, although I've got to keep my head down for a bit!
Mr Husrslama says - ''as you will discover Cameron's pledge on localism will kick in. Remember how he promised that local communities will have a real say over development in their area. So in due course the local community will have its say and then, on the say so of a Government Inspector, the houses will be built.''
''To give people more control over the development of their local area, we are: giving communities the power to set the priorities for local development through neighbourhood planning requiring local planning authorities to draw up clear, up-to-date Local Plans that conforms with the National Planning Policy Framework, meets local development needs and reflects local people’s views of how they wish their area to develop giving councils the power to raise money to support local infrastructure through the community infrastructure levy also giving communities the right to receive and spend a proportion of community infrastructure levy funds on the local facilities they want giving councils new powers to stop unwanted development on gardens (so-called ‘garden grabbing’) ''
My own community is writing up its own plan now. All the above might be seen as bureaucratic, but what real alternative is there in the real world.
Why is it too late to do anything about a particular development in Newark? Does Growth Point status allow the planning process to be bypassed?
No, of course not, it's Richard T getting a bit over-enthusiastic with his 'blame everything on the Tories' riff:
A New Growth Point is not a statutory designation, but rather the Government’s response to invitations from areas where there is a good case for accelerated, additional economic and housing growth, and where it can be shown to relieve pressure on high demand areas and tackle affordability issues. Acceptance of proposals by Government does not pre-empt scrutiny in the context of regional and local planning, but rather they are to be subject to robust testing and public consultation through these regional and local planning processes.
The applications was supported by all three political parties represented on the council and it all seems to have gone through the normal stages of interminable Strategic Plans and Public Consultations, as you would expect.
Do you think the current level of housebuilding is sufficient or do you think that it's too low but that the extra houses should be built elsewhere?
I think that housebuilding should be sustainable and that simply sticking extra estates onto the side of existing settlements is not the answer. Housebuilding should be for the benefit of the country not developers and as such where they build should be dictated by the community. Brownfield sites should be redeveloped first and then I would look seriously at new towns. Many of the existing settlements such as Newark have street plans and services which are entirely unsuited to large scale peripheral development.
Whatever happens it is completely unacceptable for local government to keep plans secret from the public until it is too late for them to do anything about it.
If you build houses on the "brownfield" sites, where are you going to build the shops, offices, warehouses and factories we need for the hundreds of thousands of jobs we still need to get rid of unemployment?
Mr Husrslama says - ''as you will discover Cameron's pledge on localism will kick in. Remember how he promised that local communities will have a real say over development in their area. So in due course the local community will have its say and then, on the say so of a Government Inspector, the houses will be built.''
''To give people more control over the development of their local area, we are: giving communities the power to set the priorities for local development through neighbourhood planning requiring local planning authorities to draw up clear, up-to-date Local Plans that conforms with the National Planning Policy Framework, meets local development needs and reflects local people’s views of how they wish their area to develop giving councils the power to raise money to support local infrastructure through the community infrastructure levy also giving communities the right to receive and spend a proportion of community infrastructure levy funds on the local facilities they want giving councils new powers to stop unwanted development on gardens (so-called ‘garden grabbing’) ''
My own community is writing up its own plan now. All the above might be seen as bureaucratic, but what real alternative is there in the real world.
Mr. Path, I know all about that nonsense. We have been through it locally. When the Local Council rejects an application at the end of the day the Government Inspector comes along and agrees to whatever the developer wants.
One of the real problems in new housing in the UK seems to be the pathological objections the planning folks seem to have to any new roads and cars in general.
Apols if already reported, but there's an unexpected poll (by YG) of Londoners only in the Standard to add to GIN's fun. Main figures are Lab 45 (+3 on June), Con 35 (nc), LD 8 (nc), UKIP 8 (-2), Oth 4 (nc). Other findings are that people think Boris is doing a good job (60-29, though was 64-27 in June) but feel he shouldn't stand for Parliament while still Mayor 43-37) and should resign as Mayor if he does (50-34). Housing and transport are thought the most important London issues for the Mator (58% and 55%) by a large margin.
One of the real problems in new housing in the UK seems to be the pathological objections the planning folks seem to have to any new roads and cars in general.
Build new roads, Mr. B.? Go and wash your mouth out with soap and water. A disgusting idea long laid to rest by that magnificent and sagacious Secretary of State for Transport (and the regions and other things that he could not pronounce let alone remember), the Right Honourable John Prescott.
As Mr Prescott pronounced new roads are evil, the encourage the use of motor vehicles and we shall build no more of them (I paraphrase slightly). Thus it is we have a new town, not just a new estate, being built outside Horsham, but not a single new road outside its boundaries, nor a single new tramway or railway or hospital or just about any other damn bit of infrastructure. The plan I understand is for upwards of thirty thousand new residents, that is about twenty thousand new motor cars on the roads, and estimated forty thousand new car journeys per day. But not a solitary new road.
P.S. Hope the doggie is well, we may need her come next May
One of the real problems in new housing in the UK seems to be the pathological objections the planning folks seem to have to any new roads and cars in general.
Build new roads, Mr. B.? Go and wash your mouth out with soap and water. A disgusting idea long laid to rest by that magnificent and sagacious Secretary of State for Transport (and the regions and other things that he could not pronounce let alone remember), the Right Honourable John Prescott.
As Mr Prescott pronounced new roads are evil, the encourage the use of motor vehicles and we shall build no more of them (I paraphrase slightly). Thus it is we have a new town, not just a new estate, being built outside Horsham, but not a single new road outside its boundaries, nor a single new tramway or railway or hospital or just about any other damn bit of infrastructure. The plan I understand is for upwards of thirty thousand new residents, that is about twenty thousand new motor cars on the roads, and estimated forty thousand new car journeys per day. But not a solitary new road.
P.S. Hope the doggie is well, we may need her come next May
I remember having a discussion with a Camden councillor who was very keen on green ideas, many of which were quite sensible (like insulating homes properly etc). He said to me that there was absolutely no need for anyone in Camden to have a car. So I asked him how a working mother with 3 children under 5 (as I then was) was supposed to do food shopping without a car or even just get around with the family, at which point he muttered a load of nonsense and retreated into generalities.
Too many politicians see it as their duty to tell people how to live rather than try and understand the realities of peoples lives and make life easier for them. It sometimes feels as if politicians are out to punish us for daring to try and make our lives better.
Inevitable - but I have found the way this has developed to be disconcerting to say the least.
Only two people know what happened in the incident at the heart of his decision. Yet others have presumed to know and have decided that they have the right to be judge and jury on it.
Comments
A Glasgow Kiss is not a pleasant experience and don't put vinegar on your deep fried Mars bar/Snickers etc..
"and the plan certainly works better with a world class spinner"
They should call up Richard Navabi then?
http://order-order.com/2014/07/28/ukip-steal-council-seat-in-milibands-doncaster-on-20-swing/
Still have ComRes (national and marginal) and YouWhatGov to go tho!
You win some, you lose some. Variation is the spice of life?
On the subject of which you speak, I see in the papers today people are saying that the GP system has been brought to its knees and that chunks of the NHS are on the point of collapse. None of that can have anything to do with the millions of extra people that have come to live here. Good heavens, we have been told over and over again that mass immigration is good for the Country so all those extra people must have paid for all the extra doctors, nurses, ambulances, schools, roads, railways needed to support them.
Michael Heaver (@Michael_Heaver)
28/07/2014 16:27
In Doncaster it is a matter of vote Tory, get Miliband.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/ed-balls-poses-with-a-pigeon-in-bizarre-twitter-picture-9633574.html
Oh bollocks.
You should know that from experience?
"England have declared "
War in Europe? Or is that still a month or so away?
Titters ....
Grin!!
I fear a Father Ted /Dougal moment coming on.
And OKC you should know better than leading a wretched Labour party up the garden path with promises of curtain making for Mrs Miliband.
Down here is the biggest housing boom I have seen in my lifetime. The slums of tomorrow are being thrown up everywhere one looks. As for building enough new houses to keep up with population growth, forget it. With net immigration officially running at 200,000 a year and all the other causes of new households, it cannot be done.
It could be. Bring back "Super-Mac". He presided over the construction of 500,000 new homes/year when he was Housing Minister in the 1950s.
They need to be better designed than they were then - but that's possible, especially if the rate was 'moderated' to only 350,000 or so per year.
I do worry about just where JohnO is sleeping after a PB meet.
Usually a bench in Bournemouth train station.
#Labourhorseshit
Just saying!
I have long since regarded him as Hersham's Ambassador Extraordinaire and High Plenipotentiary At Large .... to anywhere with a railway connection.
Have you ever been on a modern house building site? Jerry build doesn't even begin to describe the wretched hovels the builders are throwing up and charging vast amounts of money for, and all quite legally in line with building regs too. I am amazed that the banks will give mortgages on them.
(P.S. Did MacMillan really manage 500,000 houses a year? Wasn't the peak in England in the 1950s was a tad less tan 300,000, could building in Scotland, Wales and NI gave made up the difference?)
It reminds me of the Sergeant Wilson and Mrs Pike entanglement ....
I just wish I had sufficient rich friends to go fracking in and around Whitney, or maybe a 5,000 home social housing project. I am bloody sure neither project would get permission and no government inspector would over turn the local council's decision.
I sometimes surprise myself over the depth of my disgust for Cameron.
Thanks for the various tips re China and the comments re the EU, by the way - got sidetracked and am just catching up.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-28437677
Is any shortage down to banks?
http://www.expressandstar.com/news/2014/07/22/demand-for-bricks-means-dozens-of-new-jobs-as-moth-balled-plant-is-revived/
'Wienerberger owns the famous Baggeridge brand of bricks after buying the Sedgley-based company in 2006 for £89 million.
Following that deal most of the brick production at the Sedgley site was transferred to other factories and it was closed in 2009. The site is now due to be redeveloped for housing.'
https://wealth.barclays.com/en_gb/smartinvestor/investing-ideas/why-british-bricks-are-a-surprisingly-scarce-commodity.html
“The industry is estimated to currently have a capacity in excess of 2bn bricks.
“Given a more normal demand curve with the factories all running for a full year in 2014 the industry should be more than able to cope with prospective demand.
“Working through Christmas and opening new kilns - allied to better liaison with the industry and better planning, will help ensure supply meets demand and also maintain stockpiles.”
http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/business/brick-shortage-hitting-greater-manchester-6727351
Bricks and blocks are still probably the best thing to build houses with - but they are not the only option.
Based on a World Health Organisation report in today's Daily Telegraph:
How likely is Ebola to reach Britain?
There has been a previous case in the UK, when in 1976 someone was accidentally infected in a laboratory, but survived.
And up until a few weeks ago, the cases were mainly in remote areas affecting rural workers unlikely to take flights and spread the disease internationally.
However, concern is now growing that this large outbreak is spreading beyond the rural areas of Guinea, Liberia and Sierra Leone - where it has been concentrated so far - and into the capital cities and beyond.
A Liberian man died in Nigeria on July 24, having flown in to Lagos after a stopover in Togo. That the man died in Africa's largest city has deeply worried authorities.
There have been no Ebola cases from people returning to the UK from Africa.
Guinea is not a big tourist destination with only around 2,600 visits a year from the UK, mostly on business - but 117,000 Britons visit Nigeria each year.
Travellers who may have been exposed to the Ebola virus in West Africa should seek urgent medical attention immediately if symptoms develop within 21 days of coming home. UK doctors who suspect Ebola can get expert advice from the Imported Fever Service.
Public Health England says the risk of a traveller contracting Ebola is very low without direct contact with the blood or body fluids of an infected person or animal
Are you sure that is a pigeon he is holding, or did someone think it looked like a pigeon and you just piled in without thinking?
''The IMF today published its assessment of the state Britain’s economy, days after upgrading its growth forecast to 3.2% this year and 2.7% in 2015''
''The overall picture of the recovery is that “prospects are promising” ''
Will the IMF care to confront all the NIMBYs standing in the way of building more homes?
Something has to give - and quickly.
In Newark the local council in conjunction with a developer made an application in secret for the town to be granted Growth Point status. On the back of this a town of around 35,000 people is now expected to increase in size by at least 50% in the next decade. When it became public knowledge that the application had been accepted there was huge public outcry and the defence of the council was that it had been necessary to conduct the application in secret because of the sensitive commercial interests of the developer.
Lying Tory politicians are to be found at every level of government I am afraid.
Cameron could do the same for housing as he has done for fapping...I mean.fracking?
At least he will not allow it in places of natural beauty....or come to that, wherever one of his MP's is in a marginal (Foreign energy oligarchs may apply for dispensation of course).
Some one should confiscate the good Lord's pogo stick..
From a betting point of view I'm on Yes 40-45 with cover on 35-40 and have seen nothing to change that position although the debate is fascinating.
I'm fairly sure my last post a few weeks ago name checked the Book of Revelations. I, of course, did not have enough spiritual attitude to be able to cope with such theological scattergunning - hense my absence.
However, I am back - and since I am a good sportsman I will make you all aware that I have a very decent copy of the Tao Te Ching at my disposable.
That is all.
If that causes a collapse in house prices, great.
"I have a very decent copy of the Tao Te Ching at my disposable."
Order the braised duck breast with water chestnuts ,and a special fried rice (No. 42)
Superb, and very reasonable.
Similarly when the commercial development of Macarthur Glen near York was being planned, the developers had a knock down drag out fight with the planning folks as they wanted them to have fewer parking spaces and more bicycle spaces. You can't carry much home from a discount mall on a bicycle.
Materials is the least of the limiting factors. The planning folks simply don't get that developers need to make money on these schemes. Once there's enough infrastructure to satisfy the need - roads, water and sewage etc - they need to back off, once the homes or development meets current building code.
But of course - Food, Politics and Religion - Can one ever be safe.
While if others joined us for this potent post office hours discussion I feel I should continue.
In the spirit of dialogue - I shall suffice to say - that I like Chinese food.
Whatever happens it is completely unacceptable for local government to keep plans secret from the public until it is too late for them to do anything about it.
Only very rarely are houses built or proposed to be built in places they would 'ruin the countryside'.
BTW there are of course hundreds of thousands of long term empty homes around.
Chinese chicken curry with mushroom and peppers for me tonight.......but home made.
I can never get fried rice to turn out well, I could do some pretty good rice cakes while trying though?
Why is it too late to do anything about a particular development in Newark? Does Growth Point status allow the planning process to be bypassed?
I always go for boiled rice - healthy option innit.
As long as I don't drink myself to oblivion I should hopefully be able to manage a Chinese chicken curry ready meal - So Snap.
House building should be for the benefit of the homeowner, and of course for the 'benefit' of the developer, who makes money by doing so, whether on new or brownfield sites.
I can't comment on your last statement about keeping stuff secret from the public as I know nothing about it.
http://www.theguardian.com/housing-network/2013/nov/27/britain-future-homes-small-housing-standards
So TBH I don't think I'm very against what's proposed, although I've got to keep my head down for a bit!
''as you will discover Cameron's pledge on localism will kick in. Remember how he promised that local communities will have a real say over development in their area. So in due course the local community will have its say and then, on the say so of a Government Inspector, the houses will be built.''
Yes -- The Localism Act 2011
https://www.gov.uk/government/policies/giving-communities-more-power-in-planning-local-development
''To give people more control over the development of their local area, we are:
giving communities the power to set the priorities for local development through neighbourhood planning
requiring local planning authorities to draw up clear, up-to-date Local Plans that conforms with the National Planning Policy Framework, meets local development needs and reflects local people’s views of how they wish their area to develop
giving councils the power to raise money to support local infrastructure through the community infrastructure levy
also giving communities the right to receive and spend a proportion of community infrastructure levy funds on the local facilities they want
giving councils new powers to stop unwanted development on gardens (so-called ‘garden grabbing’) ''
My own community is writing up its own plan now. All the above might be seen as bureaucratic, but what real alternative is there in the real world.
A New Growth Point is not a statutory designation, but rather the
Government’s response to invitations from areas where there is a good
case for accelerated, additional economic and housing growth, and where
it can be shown to relieve pressure on high demand areas and tackle
affordability issues. Acceptance of proposals by Government does not
pre-empt scrutiny in the context of regional and local planning, but rather
they are to be subject to robust testing and public consultation through
these regional and local planning processes.
http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20100528142817/http:/www.gos.gov.uk/497296/docs/229865/Panel_Report.pdf
Para 3.13.
The applications was supported by all three political parties represented on the council and it all seems to have gone through the normal stages of interminable Strategic Plans and Public Consultations, as you would expect.
As Mr Prescott pronounced new roads are evil, the encourage the use of motor vehicles and we shall build no more of them (I paraphrase slightly). Thus it is we have a new town, not just a new estate, being built outside Horsham, but not a single new road outside its boundaries, nor a single new tramway or railway or hospital or just about any other damn bit of infrastructure. The plan I understand is for upwards of thirty thousand new residents, that is about twenty thousand new motor cars on the roads, and estimated forty thousand new car journeys per day. But not a solitary new road.
P.S. Hope the doggie is well, we may need her come next May
Too many politicians see it as their duty to tell people how to live rather than try and understand the realities of peoples lives and make life easier for them. It sometimes feels as if politicians are out to punish us for daring to try and make our lives better.
http://order-order.com/2014/07/28/breaking-david-ruffley-to-stand-down-at-election/#respond
I've started reading the Vespasian saga by Robert Fabbri, and the first few chapters are good.
How realistic is it?
Only two people know what happened in the incident at the heart of his decision. Yet others have presumed to know and have decided that they have the right to be judge and jury on it.
That is not good for justice or democracy.
Is that a big mover compared to the last ComRes poll (for IOS/Sunday Mirror) or big mover compared to last phone poll?