In other news, that nice Danny Alexander was in my neck of the woods today, with an interesting announcement on housebuilding.
The Northstowe development comprises 10,000+ homes that are planned to be built on the site of the old Oakington airfield, to the north of Cambridge. First mooted in 2006 as an eco-town, there has been no meaningful development in the intervening years.
Today, Danny Alexander announced that the government will be building the development as a trial scheme. They will pay the builders to build the houses, which will then be sold on to the public. The government (hope) to regain its investment from those sales.
I cannot make up my mind whether this is genius or stupidity. It certainly promises to unblock the stalled development, but will the builders just take the government for a ride?
More importantly, will removing housebuilders from the planning of developments make for better communities, or will it just lead to faddy council-designed wastelands?
To be fair (and going very off-topic), DBFO / PFI can be a good idea IMHO. DBFO (Design/Build/Finance/Operate) works well in limited projects, such as roads, which is where it was mainly used in the 1980s.
Roads are limited-scope projects, and the quality of the maintenance (essentially the 'operate' bit) can easily be checked by the Highways Agency or local authority.
In the case of schools and hospitals, the 'operate' bit can be orders of magnitude more complex, and is where many nastinesses can occur.
But yes, this housing scheme may be ripe for abuse, which is why a trial scheme is probably a good idea. Northstowe's been stalled for too long ...
And hate, Mr. Royale, don't forget the hate. Almost every day on here I am told that as a supporter of UKIP my motive is hate. Apparently I hate people of a different religion, people born abroad, this country, the modern world and goodness knows what else besides. Why someone I have never met feels they know my motives better than I do, is beyond me, especially when I hatred is an emotion I don't use and certainly never express.
Then there is ignorance. You will have noticed that, besides being motivated by hate, all UKIP supporters are ignorant, at least according to some on here. I consider myself pretty well educated (bachelor's degrees in mathematics and history and post graduate qualifications) and reasonably well informed about current affairs and politics, yet I am told I am ignorant mainly because I feel I can no longer support the Conservative Party.
Why some posters feel the need to throw around stereotypes and insult people they have never met and do not know in the slightest is a mystery. When some of those same people support a party that is trying to attract UKIP supporters back, well I do wonder.
It's endemic in so many people who strongly support a party. In order to justify themselves and dehumanise whoever they choose as an opponent, they declaim the motives of their opponent, which they can perceptively see as being stupid and/or malevolent (so as to enhance themselves relative to them).
"All Tories want to..." "Lefties always detest..." "UKippers are driven by..." "Lib Dems just can't resist..."
...you know the rest.
The thing is - the only people they're really talking to are themselves. It doesn't appeal to those who they're traducing, the uninterested turn away in embarrassment, the neutral-but-interested feel disgust.
It's simply political masturbation. Feels good to those doing it, makes everyone seeing it feel uncomfortable.
It can be irritating when you try to have a sensible debate and partisans turn up frantically fapping away.
I realise that UKIP fanboys don't have the slightest interest in policy, but sooner or later the complete incoherence of the party is going to fall apart at the seams, and some of those who are currently loudest in praising UKIP will be angriest in denouncing it.
Interesting stats on how the polls and party support have changed post 2010, broken down by demographic http://may2015.com/category/gqrr/
Thats a great link. Seen a few people tweet it now.
I actually think there is a really good series of thread to be had after looking at the data broken like that. Some pollsters are "seeing" quite different trends than others in both the overall share of votes and also in the different demographics.
I realise that UKIP fanboys don't have the slightest interest in policy, but sooner or later the complete incoherence of the party is going to fall apart at the seams, and some of those who are currently loudest in praising UKIP will be angriest in denouncing it.
Wouldn't know about the fanboys.. I know most of the policy but must admit I was unaware of the age they want sex education taught
I just don't think Farage not knowing it off by heart matters that much to people who are inclined to vote UKIP. If you do, so be it.. you seem to know it all...
Labour support is actually down with ABs with Green support doubling and with C2s with a big rise in UKIP support, Labour support is only up significantly with DEs and slightly up with C1s
Green Party: 'We could win 20 seats next May' By The Sun @TheSunNewspaper LEADER Natalie Bennett made the claim as figures show party have doubled membership to 27,618 this year
If it should be okay for women to breastfeed in Claridge's, surely it should also be just as okay for young men to pleasure themselves in Claridge's, or old people to urinate or defecate while dining there.
All of these things are just as "natural" as breastfeeding. (No offence intended).
If it should be okay for women to breastfeed in Claridge's, surely it should also be just as okay for young men to pleasure themselves in Claridge's, or old people to urinate or defecate while dining there.
All of these things are just as "natural" as breastfeeding. (No offence intended).
It must be OK.. Madonna got her tits out for Page 3 today, but some women do it in the hope that someone will complain... it advances the feminist agenda..
I realise that UKIP fanboys don't have the slightest interest in policy, but sooner or later the complete incoherence of the party is going to fall apart at the seams, and some of those who are currently loudest in praising UKIP will be angriest in denouncing it.
Wouldn't know about the fanboys.. I know most of the policy but must admit I was unaware of the age they want sex education taught
I just don't think Farage not knowing it off by heart matters that much to people who are inclined to vote UKIP. If you do, so be it.. you seem to know it all...
Both the Telegraph and the Standard also seem to think that's the main story.
I expect you're right though. People who support UKIP have no interest in policy. They like a party that allows them to complain that the country has gone to the dogs. You don't need policies for that.
Interesting stats on how the polls and party support have changed post 2010, broken down by demographic http://may2015.com/category/gqrr/
Thats a great link. Seen a few people tweet it now.
I actually think there is a really good series of thread to be had after looking at the data broken like that. Some pollsters are "seeing" quite different trends than others in both the overall share of votes and also in the different demographics.
The data tables from this morning's TNS poll had some interesting detail.
They split out parents/non-parents, and then subdivided them again by gender. They broke out income into four groups, rather than just ABC1/C2DE.
If it should be okay for women to breastfeed in Claridge's, surely it should also be just as okay for young men to pleasure themselves in Claridge's, or old people to urinate or defecate while dining there.
All of these things are just as "natural" as breastfeeding. (No offence intended).
It must be OK.. Madonna got her tits out for Page 3 today, but some women do it in the hope that someone will complain... it advances the feminist agenda..
If it should be okay for women to breastfeed in Claridge's, surely it should also be just as okay for young men to pleasure themselves in Claridge's, or old people to urinate or defecate while dining there.
All of these things are just as "natural" as breastfeeding. (No offence intended).
It must be OK.. Madonna got her tits out for Page 3 today, but some women do it in the hope that someone will complain... it advances the feminist agenda..
It's a woman feeding a baby. That's all.
I really don't get the problem?
Its not a problem, its only a problem when women flaunt it in public as they so often do. No hint of being discreet.
Are you the most authoritarian person ever on politicalbetting?
Is there any part of a person's daily life that you don't think needs official sanction from the state?
Asks someone who advocates ethnic cleansing of the poorer members of society.
I don't believe I'm in favour of any kind of ethnic cleansing.
My flip answer, by the way, is that the cleansing would be of the weaker members of society, irrespective of their ethnic mix.
My more serious answer is that I believe very strongly in limiting the powers of the state. I find this idea that - if 51% of people (or - what 25% in 2005?) vote for a party, then that party should have unbridled powers.
Over the course of human history, it is not wars, or murderers, or terrorists that have been the biggest (non-disease) killers of people - it is their own governments.
I sincerely believe that giving money and power to the government is like - in the words of PJ O'Rourke - giving whisky and car keys to teenagers.
I believe that civil society has been irreparably damaged by allowing the government into areas of our lives that are better served by voluntary institutions (such as the Church, or volunteer fire departments, etc.).
I realise that not many share my views: but I think the real problem is that we have come to see the government as the solutions to our problems, when so often it is the cause of them. A naive belief that "it is somebody else's problem" and "somebody else should do something" hollows out us as individuals, and morally numbs us, and intellectually castrates us. I believe that so many of the problems of unemployment and crime come from too much government, not too little.
It would be pointless for me to quote AJP Taylor again (I'm sure Socrates at the very least is bored of me cutting and pasting him): But I genuinely believe that we should work harder to try and return to the limits of government we had in 1906.
I consider that quote by AJP Taylor to be one of the most important commentaries ever written on what has gone wrong with Britain in the 20th century. I never tire of reading it as it is a perfect summary of how much we have lost, even though most people hardly realise it.
I would tend to agree, up to a point. I have said to Richard before that were it not for the not inconsequential matter of the level of state control in the economy we advocate, we would find little to disagree upon. The latest in-roads into liberty over pornograhy and snooping make me shudder.
My more serious answer is that I believe very strongly in limiting the powers of the state... I realise that not many share my views: but I think the real problem is that we have come to see the government as the solutions to our problems, when so often it is the cause of them...
You're not alone.
There are more liberatarians out there than the major parties realise. The degree varies, of course. I think the state does have a valid role in things like law & order, defence, diplomacy/foreign policy, key infrastructure and a safety net approach for health & welfare. That probably makes me a lefty compared to the more fervent liberatarians who are close to anarchists! But it's very much to libertarian end of the spectrum compared to mainstream party politics in the UK.
No party adequately services voters like us, so we end up reluctantly voting for whichever one perceives as least worst (if you prioritise the economics, probably Tory; if you prioritise the social side, probably LD or Blarite Labour; if you think the lack of liberty is down to EU oversight, probably UKIP).
A party that could pull together all these disparate voters in a truly liberal (economically & socially) coalition could probably do quite well. It would have appeal to a host of people across traditional demographic boundaries. But of course, it's one thing to think that in theory and quite another to make it practical.
Instead of dreaming, I decided to figure out how protect myself & those close to me from government rather than worry about how much harm it was doing to everyone else. Adequate wealth is by far the best defence. Financial freedom gives you the tools & privileges to maintain your social freedoms and keep the state at arms length, and of course financial freedom also creates the possibility to further enhance it through a wider range of investment options and life opportunities for you & your family. It's a virtuous circle. That's why I prioritise the Tories as my personal least-worst option.
On the topic of near-absolute power being given to our governments, paradoxically I wonder if that's the one saving grace of our system, from a libertarian perspective. They can do just about anything. But the next parliament can also do that. So in practice, as long as there is more than one strong party, the political games should mean they can keep cancelling each other out. Small majorities either way (or two party coalitions) should keep things nicely paralysed due to infighting and let individuals slide through the middle without too much extra interference. There's a cost to continually adapting to the change of course, but it rather stops them doing anything too crazy & extreme given that the electoral centre of gravity holds politicians in low enough esteem to not let them get away with too much.
Comments
Roads are limited-scope projects, and the quality of the maintenance (essentially the 'operate' bit) can easily be checked by the Highways Agency or local authority.
In the case of schools and hospitals, the 'operate' bit can be orders of magnitude more complex, and is where many nastinesses can occur.
But yes, this housing scheme may be ripe for abuse, which is why a trial scheme is probably a good idea. Northstowe's been stalled for too long ...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-30296758
I actually think there is a really good series of thread to be had after looking at the data broken like that. Some pollsters are "seeing" quite different trends than others in both the overall share of votes and also in the different demographics.
I just don't think Farage not knowing it off by heart matters that much to people who are inclined to vote UKIP. If you do, so be it.. you seem to know it all...
By The Sun @TheSunNewspaper
LEADER Natalie Bennett made the claim as figures show party have doubled membership to 27,618 this year
Pigs might fly ..... supersonically!
All of these things are just as "natural" as breastfeeding. (No offence intended).
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/dec/02/claridges-breastfeeding-babies
Probably .............. not!
on economy slips as pessimism returns http://t.co/9NAm4jOiqn
I expect you're right though. People who support UKIP have no interest in policy. They like a party that allows them to complain that the country has gone to the dogs. You don't need policies for that.
They split out parents/non-parents, and then subdivided them again by gender. They broke out income into four groups, rather than just ABC1/C2DE.
I really don't get the problem?
https://yougov.co.uk/news/2014/11/30/65-think-increasing-inheritance-tax-threshold-good/
https://yougov.co.uk/news/2014/11/27/voters-back-redistribution-wealth/
There are more liberatarians out there than the major parties realise. The degree varies, of course. I think the state does have a valid role in things like law & order, defence, diplomacy/foreign policy, key infrastructure and a safety net approach for health & welfare. That probably makes me a lefty compared to the more fervent liberatarians who are close to anarchists! But it's very much to libertarian end of the spectrum compared to mainstream party politics in the UK.
No party adequately services voters like us, so we end up reluctantly voting for whichever one perceives as least worst (if you prioritise the economics, probably Tory; if you prioritise the social side, probably LD or Blarite Labour; if you think the lack of liberty is down to EU oversight, probably UKIP).
A party that could pull together all these disparate voters in a truly liberal (economically & socially) coalition could probably do quite well. It would have appeal to a host of people across traditional demographic boundaries. But of course, it's one thing to think that in theory and quite another to make it practical.
Instead of dreaming, I decided to figure out how protect myself & those close to me from government rather than worry about how much harm it was doing to everyone else. Adequate wealth is by far the best defence. Financial freedom gives you the tools & privileges to maintain your social freedoms and keep the state at arms length, and of course financial freedom also creates the possibility to further enhance it through a wider range of investment options and life opportunities for you & your family. It's a virtuous circle. That's why I prioritise the Tories as my personal least-worst option.
On the topic of near-absolute power being given to our governments, paradoxically I wonder if that's the one saving grace of our system, from a libertarian perspective. They can do just about anything. But the next parliament can also do that. So in practice, as long as there is more than one strong party, the political games should mean they can keep cancelling each other out. Small majorities either way (or two party coalitions) should keep things nicely paralysed due to infighting and let individuals slide through the middle without too much extra interference. There's a cost to continually adapting to the change of course, but it rather stops them doing anything too crazy & extreme given that the electoral centre of gravity holds politicians in low enough esteem to not let them get away with too much.