Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

Options

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Charting the Populus “Monday effect” – the day the LAB lead

13»

Comments

  • Options
    RobDRobD Posts: 59,022

    New ComRes phone poll coming up for the Indy. One big mover. Out at 10pm

    According to the wiki list, Comres haven't done a Scotland-wide Indy poll. Is that true?
  • Options
    RobDRobD Posts: 59,022
    RobD said:

    New ComRes phone poll coming up for the Indy. One big mover. Out at 10pm

    According to the wiki list, Comres haven't done a Scotland-wide Indy poll. Is that true?
    Holy crap I'm an idiot. Indy as in The Independent newspaper.
  • Options
    GIN1138GIN1138 Posts: 20,943
    Last two ComRes polls:

    ComRes/Independent on Sunday (O) Con 31% Lab 34% Lib-Dem 9%

    ComRes/Independent (P) Con 30% Lab 32% Lib-Dem 7%
  • Options
    corporealcorporeal Posts: 2,549
    Ishmael_X said:

    corporeal said:

    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").

    There is a lot of empty space, really a lot. You can get a lot of house-building done without even really scratching the surface of the countryside.

    (Also, some new garden cities would be useful.
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-26600689 etc)
  • Options
    ArtistArtist Posts: 1,883
    Lib Dems from 7% to 11% then.
  • Options
    PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 76,028
    Tim_B said:

    TGOHF said:

    Limiting factor on new building is materials - unless Ed has a guttering extrusion tool up his sleeve he can do naff all.

    Then the planning folks got involved - there were problems with too many houses having double garages, lack of bicycle parking racks
    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.
    Lol any decent bike you keep in the house.

  • Options
    GIN1138GIN1138 Posts: 20,943

    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.

    OK. I'll include this in #MegaPollingMonday

    Looks quite good for Lab.

  • Options
    HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 117,214
    DrSpym Ruffley has done the decent thing
  • Options
    HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 117,214
    One Direction's Zayn Malik latest to get in trouble over Middle East, his 'Free Palestine' tweet provokes a furious response from Israelis
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2708410/One-Direction-star-Zayn-Malik-bombarded-death-threats-outraged-Israelis-posting-FreePalestine-message-Twitter.html
  • Options
    HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 117,214
    New CNN/ORC poll shows Romney would now beat Obama 52% to 44%
    (However less good news for Mitt is that Hillary beats him 55% to 42%)
    http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2014/07/27/cnn-poll-romney-tops-obama-but-loses-to-clinton/
  • Options
    HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 117,214
    GOP national primary figures from same poll

    Christie 13
    Paul 12
    Huckabee 12
    Perry 11
    Ryan 11
  • Options
    AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 23,771

    Neil said:

    Neil said:


    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.
    If you check you can see that brick factories can reopen.
    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.
    brick factories can reopen but not enough of them have. There's currently about a 3 month waiting list. Go figure.
  • Options
    Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453
    Independence could shrink the Scottish economy by £8 billion through creating a trade barrier with England, Alistair Darling has claimed.

    The Better Together leader cited academic research which suggested leaving the Union could trigger a contraction of up to 5.5 per cent in Scotland's economy.

    The claim came as new polling laid bare the challenge the independence camp faces in convincing voters they would be richer after a Yes vote.

    Twice as many Scots believe they would be £500 worse off after independence than better off, a new Panelbase survey found.

    In the same poll far more voters said the whole country would be worse off after independence, while 17 per cent of respondents would consider leaving Scotland after a Yes vote – the equivalent of 700,000 people.
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/scottish-independence/10996595/Independence-could-shrink-Scottish-economy-by-8-billion.html
  • Options
    NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 21,380
    GIN1138 said:

    Last two ComRes polls:

    ComRes/Independent on Sunday (O) Con 31% Lab 34% Lib-Dem 9%

    ComRes/Independent (P) Con 30% Lab 32% Lib-Dem 7%

    Not obvious that any of those would move hugely. My guess is they have UKIP down and everyone up.
  • Options
    Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 31,048
    edited July 2014

    Neil said:



    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?

    Given the number of empty shops on our highstreets these days, I am certain that will not be a problem. The issue for shops is not lack of property but the destruction of the highstreet with out of town shopping and supermarkets.

    Besides, in case you missed it, places like Newark are being expanded purely as dormitory towns for cities like Nottingham and London. Those brownfield sites are certainly not being used for new businesses.
  • Options
    dr_spyndr_spyn Posts: 11,291
    edited July 2014
    HYUFD said:

    DrSpym Ruffley has done the decent thing

    Perhaps he doesn't cope with pressure very well.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2458175/ANDREW-PIERCE-My-miracle-MP-David-Ruffley-fell-train.html
  • Options
    DecrepitJohnLDecrepitJohnL Posts: 13,300

    dr_spyn said:
    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.

    That is not good for justice or democracy.
    He accepted a police caution which by definition means he admitted it (whatever "it" is). Doubtless the pb lawyers will be along later with more informed comment.
  • Options
    Wulfrun_PhilWulfrun_Phil Posts: 4,639
    corporeal said:

    Ishmael_X said:

    corporeal said:

    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").

    There is a lot of empty space, really a lot. You can get a lot of house-building done without even really scratching the surface of the countryside.

    (Also, some new garden cities would be useful.
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-26600689 etc)
    There will remain a lot of empty space on current policies. Successive governments have failed to take action to penalise owners of derelict land who seem content to use it as land banks and speculate on it accumulating in value, all the while blighting the wider neighbourhood, rather than invest to bring such derelict land back into productive use. Unless things change, developers will always look first to develop greenfield land and put pressure on the countryside.
  • Options
    Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 31,048

    Neil said:

    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.



    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.
    No it wasn't. I have the letters from the councillors explaining why they felt it necessary to conduct the application in secret. Moreover the council has long been run by the Cabinet system which excluded the other parties from the decision process.

    The document you quote is irrelevant given that the application for Growth point status was made long before that update to the Local Plan was published. I should know since, as a member of the Civic Trust planning committee I was one of the Consultees on the local plan.
  • Options
    TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 21,633

    corporeal said:

    Ishmael_X said:

    corporeal said:

    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").

    There is a lot of empty space, really a lot. You can get a lot of house-building done without even really scratching the surface of the countryside.

    (Also, some new garden cities would be useful.
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-26600689 etc)
    There will remain a lot of empty space on current policies. Successive governments have failed to take action to penalise owners of derelict land who seem content to use it as land banks and speculate on it accumulating in value, all the while blighting the wider neighbourhood, rather than invest to bring such derelict land back into productive use. Unless things change, developers will always look first to develop greenfield land and put pressure on the countryside.
    Their land - they should be free to leave it empty. Bloody socialists.
  • Options
    GrandioseGrandiose Posts: 2,323
    dr_spyn said:

    HYUFD said:

    DrSpym Ruffley has done the decent thing

    Perhaps he doesn't cope with pressure very well.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2458175/ANDREW-PIERCE-My-miracle-MP-David-Ruffley-fell-train.html
    A bit flippant, dr_spyn. Ruffley was suffering from depression at the time and there's no suggestion of that now. I think OxfordSimon had it almost spot on.



    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.

    That is not good for justice or democracy.

  • Options
    oxfordsimonoxfordsimon Posts: 5,831

    dr_spyn said:
    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.

    That is not good for justice or democracy.
    He accepted a police caution which by definition means he admitted it (whatever "it" is). Doubtless the pb lawyers will be along later with more informed comment.
    Indeed he did - but the fact that a caution was deemed the most appropriate course of action by the officers involved says something.

    I am not condoning violence of any sort - far from it. But the way those involved in the campaign to get him to stand down seem to have an absolutist view about assault - rather than seeking to look at the full circumstances.

    We have other politicians who have been convicted in the courts of various offences and stayed in place. We have Prescott who punched someone in the street.

    I am just uncomfortable at the level of bandwagon-jumping on this one - particular when the Church got involved.
  • Options
    Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 31,048
    Neil said:

    Neil said:



    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?

    Nope. You can build them in the same area just don't do it by clamping new estates onto the side of towns. An increase of 50% in the size of a town in a decade is simply not sustainable.

    The issue is that a Growth Point designation acts as such a large weight on one side of the planning balance that it is almost impossible to counter it. Long before we even got to the planning process we were being told that there would be no point in the process where we would be able to actually argue against the building of 15,000 new houses, only have an input into how they were built.
  • Options
    Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 31,048
    TGOHF said:

    corporeal said:

    Ishmael_X said:

    corporeal said:

    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").

    There is a lot of empty space, really a lot. You can get a lot of house-building done without even really scratching the surface of the countryside.

    (Also, some new garden cities would be useful.
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-26600689 etc)
    There will remain a lot of empty space on current policies. Successive governments have failed to take action to penalise owners of derelict land who seem content to use it as land banks and speculate on it accumulating in value, all the while blighting the wider neighbourhood, rather than invest to bring such derelict land back into productive use. Unless things change, developers will always look first to develop greenfield land and put pressure on the countryside.
    Their land - they should be free to leave it empty. Bloody socialists.
    I assume you apply the same principle to preventing any compulsory purchase of land for any government project?
  • Options
    PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 76,028

    New ComRes phone poll coming up for the Indy. One big mover. Out at 10pm

    UKIP would be my guess seeing as noone has a clue how to weight for them.
  • Options
    MikeKMikeK Posts: 9,053
    "There are two sides to every issue: one side is right and the other is wrong, but the middle is always evil." - Ayn Rand #quote

    She must have had a premonition about the L/Dems.
  • Options
    PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 76,028
    Pulpstar said:

    New ComRes phone poll coming up for the Indy. One big mover. Out at 10pm

    UKIP would be my guess seeing as noone has a clue how to weight for them.
    Or actually that is more the online polls..

    Hmm - Still UKIP or Lib Dems would be my guess
  • Options
    PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 76,028
    LD 11 (+4) calling it now.
  • Options
    GeoffMGeoffM Posts: 6,071

    dr_spyn said:
    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.

    That is not good for justice or democracy.
    He accepted a police caution which by definition means he admitted it (whatever "it" is). Doubtless the pb lawyers will be along later with more informed comment.
    Indeed he did - but the fact that a caution was deemed the most appropriate course of action by the officers involved says something.

    I am not condoning violence of any sort - far from it. But the way those involved in the campaign to get him to stand down seem to have an absolutist view about assault - rather than seeking to look at the full circumstances.

    We have other politicians who have been convicted in the courts of various offences and stayed in place. We have Prescott who punched someone in the street.

    I am just uncomfortable at the level of bandwagon-jumping on this one - particular when the Church got involved.
    Take a Like for your whole approach to this.
    Very sensible, level headed and refreshingly lacking any tedious mob instinct.
  • Options
    HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 117,214
    drspyn Yes, seems he has had a lot of problems
  • Options
    oxfordsimonoxfordsimon Posts: 5,831
    GeoffM said:

    dr_spyn said:
    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.

    That is not good for justice or democracy.
    He accepted a police caution which by definition means he admitted it (whatever "it" is). Doubtless the pb lawyers will be along later with more informed comment.
    Indeed he did - but the fact that a caution was deemed the most appropriate course of action by the officers involved says something.

    I am not condoning violence of any sort - far from it. But the way those involved in the campaign to get him to stand down seem to have an absolutist view about assault - rather than seeking to look at the full circumstances.

    We have other politicians who have been convicted in the courts of various offences and stayed in place. We have Prescott who punched someone in the street.

    I am just uncomfortable at the level of bandwagon-jumping on this one - particular when the Church got involved.
    Take a Like for your whole approach to this.
    Very sensible, level headed and refreshingly lacking any tedious mob instinct.
    Thanks

    Part of my concern over this issue comes from the way that violence (within the domestic setting) is talked of only in terms of male perpetrators and female victims. Whilst this does make up the majority of the cases, there are other permutations. And the focus on female victims makes it even harder for men who do suffer at the hands of their partners to come forward to seek the help and support they deserve.

    Until those who campaign on this subject treat all victims as worthy of their attention, they will be contributing to the problem rather than providing proper support.
  • Options
    TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 21,633

    TGOHF said:

    corporeal said:

    Ishmael_X said:

    corporeal said:

    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").

    There is a lot of empty space, really a lot. You can get a lot of house-building done without even really scratching the surface of the countryside.

    (Also, some new garden cities would be useful.
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-26600689 etc)
    There will remain a lot of empty space on current policies. Successive governments have failed to take action to penalise owners of derelict land who seem content to use it as land banks and speculate on it accumulating in value, all the while blighting the wider neighbourhood, rather than invest to bring such derelict land back into productive use. Unless things change, developers will always look first to develop greenfield land and put pressure on the countryside.
    Their land - they should be free to leave it empty. Bloody socialists.
    I assume you apply the same principle to preventing any compulsory purchase of land for any government project?
    People who receive a fair price don't usually complain about compulsory purchases.
  • Options
    hunchmanhunchman Posts: 2,591
    rcs1000 - from last night, yes Martin Armstrong is now out of prison having been released on September 2nd 2011:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_A._Armstrong

    And thanks goodness for that too. He was still sending out updates as 'America's #1 Political Prisoner' as he liked to call himself after over 11 years inside. And ironically if he admitted guilt (when in all likelihood he wasn't guilty - I think Republic New York Corporation which was the holding company for Republic New York Bank as part of the HSBC group was to blame) then he would have served a maximum of 6 or 7 years instead of the eventual 11 - what a crazy legal system and crazy world.
  • Options
    Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 31,048
    TGOHF said:

    TGOHF said:

    corporeal said:

    Ishmael_X said:

    corporeal said:

    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").

    There is a lot of empty space, really a lot. You can get a lot of house-building done without even really scratching the surface of the countryside.

    (Also, some new garden cities would be useful.
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-26600689 etc)
    There will remain a lot of empty space on current policies. Successive governments have failed to take action to penalise owners of derelict land who seem content to use it as land banks and speculate on it accumulating in value, all the while blighting the wider neighbourhood, rather than invest to bring such derelict land back into productive use. Unless things change, developers will always look first to develop greenfield land and put pressure on the countryside.
    Their land - they should be free to leave it empty. Bloody socialists.
    I assume you apply the same principle to preventing any compulsory purchase of land for any government project?
    People who receive a fair price don't usually complain about compulsory purchases.
    Actually yes lots of them do.
  • Options
    hunchmanhunchman Posts: 2,591

    TGOHF said:

    TGOHF said:

    corporeal said:

    Ishmael_X said:

    corporeal said:

    Someone said:
    ......

    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").

    There is a lot of empty space, really a lot. You can get a lot of house-building done without even really scratching the surface of the countryside.

    (Also, some new garden cities would be useful.
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-26600689 etc)
    There will remain a lot of empty space on current policies. Successive governments have failed to take action to penalise owners of derelict land who seem content to use it as land banks and speculate on it accumulating in value, all the while blighting the wider neighbourhood, rather than invest to bring such derelict land back into productive use. Unless things change, developers will always look first to develop greenfield land and put pressure on the countryside.
    Their land - they should be free to leave it empty. Bloody socialists.
    I assume you apply the same principle to preventing any compulsory purchase of land for any government project?
    People who receive a fair price don't usually complain about compulsory purchases.
    Actually yes lots of them do.
    Richard, was interested in reading your post earlier today as a former Tory expressing an intense dislike of Mr Cameron. I fall into exactly the same category so know exactly how you feel. I think a lot of Tories who disliked Mr Blair's style of politics feel something similarly repulsive about the triumph of spin above substance in Tory circles, the continual erosion of civil liberties and the complete inability to see that our economic problems go way beyond government largesse.
  • Options
    Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453
    Politicians, you see, have two obvious strategies when they find themselves in true, plummeting, free-falling desperation. Right now, Ed Miliband is doing both.

    One is to wheel out the spouse

    The other strategy is to conceptualise a split between image and substance and declare that only the former is failing. That never works either.
    http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/opinion/columnists/article4160152.ece
  • Options
    MikeSmithsonMikeSmithson Posts: 7,382
    Pulpstar said:

    LD 11 (+4) calling it now.

    Do you want a bet?

  • Options
    hunchmanhunchman Posts: 2,591
    Scott_P said:

    Politicians, you see, have two obvious strategies when they find themselves in true, plummeting, free-falling desperation. Right now, Ed Miliband is doing both.

    One is to wheel out the spouse

    The other strategy is to conceptualise a split between image and substance and declare that only the former is failing. That never works either.
    http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/opinion/columnists/article4160152.ece

    Very true - Mr Miliband's 'I can't outdo Dave on setpieces' quote - who the heck is advising this man? Obviously still the same people that didn't inform him who the local Labour council leader in Swindon was on that dreadful local election trip there. Too many basic mistakes....not fit to govern.......END OF!!!
  • Options
    PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 76,028

    Pulpstar said:

    LD 11 (+4) calling it now.

    Do you want a bet?

    God No xD
  • Options
    GIN1138GIN1138 Posts: 20,943

    Pulpstar said:

    LD 11 (+4) calling it now.

    Do you want a bet?

    Hmmmmm....

  • Options
    MikeSmithsonMikeSmithson Posts: 7,382
    I have the embargoed numbers in front of me so it would be unwise to have a wager
  • Options
    MikeLMikeL Posts: 7,322
    edited July 2014
    GIN1138 said:

    ComRes/Independent (P) Con 30% Lab 32% Lib-Dem 7%

    Lab was low on 32 last time.

    Predict the mover is Lab - up 4 or 5 to 36 or 37.
  • Options
    PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 76,028

    I have the embargoed numbers in front of me so it would be unwise to have a wager

    Yes - I thought this might be the case ;)
  • Options
    hunchmanhunchman Posts: 2,591
    Scott_P said:

    Independence could shrink the Scottish economy by £8 billion through creating a trade barrier with England, Alistair Darling has claimed.

    The Better Together leader cited academic research which suggested leaving the Union could trigger a contraction of up to 5.5 per cent in Scotland's economy.

    The claim came as new polling laid bare the challenge the independence camp faces in convincing voters they would be richer after a Yes vote.

    Twice as many Scots believe they would be £500 worse off after independence than better off, a new Panelbase survey found.

    In the same poll far more voters said the whole country would be worse off after independence, while 17 per cent of respondents would consider leaving Scotland after a Yes vote – the equivalent of 700,000 people.
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/scottish-independence/10996595/Independence-could-shrink-Scottish-economy-by-8-billion.html

    Better off Together suffering from the same trade delusions as the 3 million jobs depend on the EU crowd. Given the interdependence of England and Scotland, try seeing how far anyone would get with trade barriers put up post independence. You'd see the CBI at the gates of Holyrood and Downing Street quicker than you could put the announcement out. Yet again career politicians with no understanding of how the outside world works.....plus ca change.
  • Options
    GIN1138GIN1138 Posts: 20,943

    I have the embargoed numbers in front of me so it would be unwise to have a wager


    Will we be getting the marginals poll with this as well?
  • Options
    GIN1138GIN1138 Posts: 20,943
    It could be Lib-Dem -7% on 0%

    That would be funny, LOL!
  • Options
    TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 114,698
    GIN1138 said:

    It could be Lib-Dem -7% on 0%

    That would be funny, LOL!

    Would you like a bet on that ?

    (Yes I've got of a copy of the embargoed poll as well)

  • Options
    hunchmanhunchman Posts: 2,591
    HYUFD said:

    GOP national primary figures from same poll

    Christie 13
    Paul 12
    Huckabee 12
    Perry 11
    Ryan 11

    No one in the Republican field attracting much enthusiasm! I personally think that by 2016 conditions will be even riper than they were in 1992 (Ross Perot) for attracting a 3rd party candidate into the race. The schism between the establishment Republican base and the tea party elements seems pretty much unbridegable even now with the economy limping along. When confidence turns down in late 2015, 12 months before the election, that'll be plenty of time for the tea party mark II bandwagon to get fully rolling. If I had to predict the 3rd party candidate at the moment, it would be Rand Paul, but lets see on that score. I suspect the Democrat's will be deeply unpopular from the national state of affairs after 8 years, with a hopelessly splintered opposition.
  • Options
    MikeKMikeK Posts: 9,053
    OGH loves these moments of godlike impartiality. ;)
  • Options
    ComRes/Indy's poll due to be released in a few minutes is likely to coincide with that from YouGov/Sun.
    I know which I'd prefer to rely on.
  • Options
    FalseFlagFalseFlag Posts: 1,801
    The Kiev government has still not released the recordings of communications between Air Traffic Control and MH 17, should have been released immediately? Very strange.
  • Options
    HughHugh Posts: 955

    GIN1138 said:

    It could be Lib-Dem -7% on 0%

    That would be funny, LOL!

    Would you like a bet on that ?

    (Yes I've got of a copy of the embargoed poll as well)

    How?
  • Options
    TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 114,698
    Sun Politics @Sun_Politics · 8s

    YouGov/Sun poll tonight - Labour lead by six points: CON 33%, LAB 39%, LD 8%, UKIP 12%
  • Options
    FloaterFloater Posts: 14,195
    Smarmeron said:

    @Richard_Nabavi
    "However, property prices were still 6.4% higher compared with a year ago"
    How does that compare with the pay increases of those people who are trying to buy them?
    Bites your arse more like?

    I must have missed your posts on the subject when Labour were in power.

    Labour are such hypocrites.

  • Options
    TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 21,633
    @Sun_Politics: YouGov/Sun poll tonight - Labour lead by six points: CON 33%, LAB 39%, LD 8%, UKIP 12%
  • Options
    NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 21,380
    While we're waiting, here's YG:
    CON 33 LAB 39 LD 8 Ukip 12
  • Options
    PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 76,028

    Sun Politics @Sun_Politics · 8s

    YouGov/Sun poll tonight - Labour lead by six points: CON 33%, LAB 39%, LD 8%, UKIP 12%

    Will Comres be flying the red flag too ?
  • Options
    MikeKMikeK Posts: 9,053

    Sun Politics @Sun_Politics · 8s

    YouGov/Sun poll tonight - Labour lead by six points: CON 33%, LAB 39%, LD 8%, UKIP 12%

    Spoilsport! You stole Mikes thunder.
  • Options
    bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 21,911
    Tonights YG LAB 364 CON 243 LD 18

    Ed is crap is landslide PM
  • Options
    TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 114,698
    Pulpstar said:

    Sun Politics @Sun_Politics · 8s

    YouGov/Sun poll tonight - Labour lead by six points: CON 33%, LAB 39%, LD 8%, UKIP 12%

    Will Comres be flying the red flag too ?
    You only have to wait a few minutes.
  • Options
    NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 21,380
    MikeK said:

    OGH loves these moments of godlike impartiality. ;)

    LOL. Like.
  • Options
    surbitonsurbiton Posts: 13,549
    MikeK said:

    Sun Politics @Sun_Politics · 8s

    YouGov/Sun poll tonight - Labour lead by six points: CON 33%, LAB 39%, LD 8%, UKIP 12%

    Spoilsport! You stole Mikes thunder.
    Swingback to Labour continues !
  • Options
    TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 114,698
    Hugh said:

    GIN1138 said:

    It could be Lib-Dem -7% on 0%

    That would be funny, LOL!

    Would you like a bet on that ?

    (Yes I've got of a copy of the embargoed poll as well)

    How?
    One of the perks of being PB's occasional guest editor.
  • Options
    If ComRes tells a similar story then Dave's back in the sh ...... you know what.
  • Options
    surbitonsurbiton Posts: 13,549
    FalseFlag said:

    The Kiev government has still not released the recordings of communications between Air Traffic Control and MH 17, should have been released immediately? Very strange.

    They can't get actors with an Equity card !
  • Options
    TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 114,698
    New Thread
  • Options
    hunchmanhunchman Posts: 2,591

    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.''

    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.

    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.
    ....and lots of councillors agreeing to developments outside their patch, so you don't get unwanted development on your own bit of turf.

    This so called 'Tesco tax' is absolutely typical of developments whereby local government is scrapping for revenue in order to keep the concealed debts at a manageable level. Of course there is a big difference between local municipality government and central government, the latter can easily tap the bond markets and print money, the former cannot. Hence the plethora of revenue raising gimmickry. And from councils of all hues too.
  • Options
    FloaterFloater Posts: 14,195

    Smarmeron said:

    And as if by magic, the IMF punctures complacency.
    http://www.politicshome.com/uk/story/43508/

    Would that be more complacent than the goverment that let 4 million people into the country and did sod all about housing and infrastructure ?
    Labour posters on here can be rather shameless can't they.
  • Options
    bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 21,911
    Tonights COMRES LAB 359 CON 229 LD 33

    Ed is crap is landslide PM
  • Options
    Tim_BTim_B Posts: 7,669
    There's one great thing about Georgia politics - not a whiff of nepotism.

    For the US Senate seat, Perdue (related to former gov) beating Nunn (related to former US Senator) 46% - 40%

    For governor Carter, (related to former GA gov and Potus) over Deal (related to ga gov) 45%-44%.

    I don't miss nepotism at all.

    (both polls Rasmussen)
  • Options
    FloaterFloater Posts: 14,195

    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.

    Something has to give - and quickly.
    A couple of years back I was looking at some quite expensive 5 bed detached houses.

    1 single garage with one parking space in front - chances of on road parking did not look good.

    We walked away but they sold out very quickly.
This discussion has been closed.