Howdy, Stranger!

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

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » On Grand National day Marf links the big race to the genera

SystemSystem Posts: 12,217
edited April 2015 in General

imagepoliticalbetting.com » Blog Archive » On Grand National day Marf links the big race to the general election

Over the years Marf’s cartoons have enriched the site but unfortunately the only way we’ve been able to help her financially is though encouraging people to buy originals or prints of her work and allocating part of the proceeds when we’ve had a PB appeal.

Read the full story here


«13

Comments

  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 43,484
    edited April 2015
    Thirst?

    Edit: is Marf calling Ed Miliband a horse? If so, perhaps time to roll out the long-deceased 'Mr Ed' joke?
  • Moses_Moses_ Posts: 4,865
    edited April 2015
    In for a penny in for a pound

    Oh and first

    Edit - or maybe not first

    Donated anyway.
  • MikeSmithsonMikeSmithson Posts: 7,382

    Thirst?

    Edit: is Marf calling Ed Miliband a horse? If so, perhaps time to roll out the long-deceased 'Mr Ed' joke?

    Yes. I think that the horse MR ED is what Marf is referring to.

  • Moses_Moses_ Posts: 4,865
    It's a nursery rhyme about an imaginary being that can actually talk to humans.....

    Sooooo.......Nothing like Ed then.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 52,300
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/general-election-2015/11528903/Green-Belt-is-safe-under-us-until-2020-Conservative-manifesto-will-say.html

    "The Green Belt will be safe for another five years under a Conservative Government, David Cameron will pledge next week.

    The Prime Minister and Tory leader will say that the protected greenfield land around towns and cities will not get any smaller in its manifesto next week."

    I'm sure this will have been extensively poll tested but I can't help feeling it's increasingly questionable electorally. They risk being painted as protecting the interests of the 'have houses' against the young.
  • Glad to donate £10
  • Moses_Moses_ Posts: 4,865

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/general-election-2015/11528903/Green-Belt-is-safe-under-us-until-2020-Conservative-manifesto-will-say.html

    "The Green Belt will be safe for another five years under a Conservative Government, David Cameron will pledge next week.

    The Prime Minister and Tory leader will say that the protected greenfield land around towns and cities will not get any smaller in its manifesto next week."

    I'm sure this will have been extensively poll tested but I can't help feeling it's increasingly questionable electorally. They risk being painted as protecting the interests of the 'have houses' against the young.

    Or concrete everything and destroy the future of our young people.

    Can't win really can he....?
  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 23,670

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/general-election-2015/11528903/Green-Belt-is-safe-under-us-until-2020-Conservative-manifesto-will-say.html

    "The Green Belt will be safe for another five years under a Conservative Government, David Cameron will pledge next week.

    The Prime Minister and Tory leader will say that the protected greenfield land around towns and cities will not get any smaller in its manifesto next week."

    I'm sure this will have been extensively poll tested but I can't help feeling it's increasingly questionable electorally. They risk being painted as protecting the interests of the 'have houses' against the young.

    The young don't vote.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 57,644

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/general-election-2015/11528903/Green-Belt-is-safe-under-us-until-2020-Conservative-manifesto-will-say.html

    "The Green Belt will be safe for another five years under a Conservative Government, David Cameron will pledge next week.

    The Prime Minister and Tory leader will say that the protected greenfield land around towns and cities will not get any smaller in its manifesto next week."

    I'm sure this will have been extensively poll tested but I can't help feeling it's increasingly questionable electorally. They risk being painted as protecting the interests of the 'have houses' against the young.

    So a London home owner I will personally benefit from this. But it is economically absurd and irrational.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 43,484
    rcs1000 said:

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/general-election-2015/11528903/Green-Belt-is-safe-under-us-until-2020-Conservative-manifesto-will-say.html

    "The Green Belt will be safe for another five years under a Conservative Government, David Cameron will pledge next week.

    The Prime Minister and Tory leader will say that the protected greenfield land around towns and cities will not get any smaller in its manifesto next week."

    I'm sure this will have been extensively poll tested but I can't help feeling it's increasingly questionable electorally. They risk being painted as protecting the interests of the 'have houses' against the young.

    So a London home owner I will personally benefit from this. But it is economically absurd and irrational.
    Protecting the green belt is about more than housing and industry. It's about everyone's quality of life, and preserving something that, once lost, will be nearly impossible to regain.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 43,484
    Worms are useful for comedic purposes only: you can laugh at people who take them seriously.
  • Thirst?

    Edit: is Marf calling Ed Miliband a horse? If so, perhaps time to roll out the long-deceased 'Mr Ed' joke?

    Yes. I think that the horse MR ED is what Marf is referring to.

    But he had a touch of class, Mike.....
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 25,516
    rcs1000 said:

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/general-election-2015/11528903/Green-Belt-is-safe-under-us-until-2020-Conservative-manifesto-will-say.html

    "The Green Belt will be safe for another five years under a Conservative Government, David Cameron will pledge next week.

    The Prime Minister and Tory leader will say that the protected greenfield land around towns and cities will not get any smaller in its manifesto next week."

    I'm sure this will have been extensively poll tested but I can't help feeling it's increasingly questionable electorally. They risk being painted as protecting the interests of the 'have houses' against the young.

    So a London home owner I will personally benefit from this. But it is economically absurd and irrational.
    It's another dickhead policy. Really is this the best the Conservatives have to offer ?
  • Thinking about the Betfair exchange PM after the next election market:

    'Who will be the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom when the first government is formed after the next UK general election. This market will be settled on the formation of the first ministry (government) after assent is given by the reigning monarch after the next UK general election.'

    Is it possible we could proceed straight to a second election without any government being formed?
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 52,300

    rcs1000 said:

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/general-election-2015/11528903/Green-Belt-is-safe-under-us-until-2020-Conservative-manifesto-will-say.html

    "The Green Belt will be safe for another five years under a Conservative Government, David Cameron will pledge next week.

    The Prime Minister and Tory leader will say that the protected greenfield land around towns and cities will not get any smaller in its manifesto next week."

    I'm sure this will have been extensively poll tested but I can't help feeling it's increasingly questionable electorally. They risk being painted as protecting the interests of the 'have houses' against the young.

    So a London home owner I will personally benefit from this. But it is economically absurd and irrational.
    Protecting the green belt is about more than housing and industry. It's about everyone's quality of life, and preserving something that, once lost, will be nearly impossible to regain.
    That's just rhetoric. The present is always lost to the future and there's no inherent reason why human habitation should be a less aesthetic use of land than monoculture fields, for example.

    Central planning of land use seems to be the last remaining remnant of post-war socialism that the right can't abandon. It's even more of a religion than the NHS.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 57,644

    Thinking about the Betfair exchange PM after the next election market:

    'Who will be the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom when the first government is formed after the next UK general election. This market will be settled on the formation of the first ministry (government) after assent is given by the reigning monarch after the next UK general election.'

    Is it possible we could proceed straight to a second election without any government being formed?

    Entirely possible
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 57,644

    rcs1000 said:

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/general-election-2015/11528903/Green-Belt-is-safe-under-us-until-2020-Conservative-manifesto-will-say.html

    "The Green Belt will be safe for another five years under a Conservative Government, David Cameron will pledge next week.

    The Prime Minister and Tory leader will say that the protected greenfield land around towns and cities will not get any smaller in its manifesto next week."

    I'm sure this will have been extensively poll tested but I can't help feeling it's increasingly questionable electorally. They risk being painted as protecting the interests of the 'have houses' against the young.

    So a London home owner I will personally benefit from this. But it is economically absurd and irrational.
    Protecting the green belt is about more than housing and industry. It's about everyone's quality of life, and preserving something that, once lost, will be nearly impossible to regain.
    That's just rhetoric. The present is always lost to the future and there's no inherent reason why human habitation should be a less aesthetic use of land than monoculture fields, for example.

    Central planning of land use seems to be the last remaining remnant of post-war socialism that the right can't abandon. It's even more of a religion than the NHS.
    Yes
  • SmarmeronSmarmeron Posts: 5,099
    @williamglenn

    It's an interesting read about the history of the greenbelt, and it's various supporters
  • TCPoliticalBettingTCPoliticalBetting Posts: 10,819
    edited April 2015

    rcs1000 said:

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/general-election-2015/11528903/Green-Belt-is-safe-under-us-until-2020-Conservative-manifesto-will-say.html

    "The Green Belt will be safe for another five years under a Conservative Government, David Cameron will pledge next week.

    The Prime Minister and Tory leader will say that the protected greenfield land around towns and cities will not get any smaller in its manifesto next week."

    I'm sure this will have been extensively poll tested but I can't help feeling it's increasingly questionable electorally. They risk being painted as protecting the interests of the 'have houses' against the young.

    So a London home owner I will personally benefit from this. But it is economically absurd and irrational.
    It's another dickhead policy. Really is this the best the Conservatives have to offer ?
    What is required are more retirement homes for the biggest growing segment of the population.
    Where do they want them? The answer is that many want them outside of London. So build in areas such as ex MOD land, which are usually rural spacious and raises cash for the Govt. Is it really green belt? Some is but a lot is under utilised semi brown land sites.
  • MikeSmithsonMikeSmithson Posts: 7,382

    Thinking about the Betfair exchange PM after the next election market:

    'Who will be the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom when the first government is formed after the next UK general election. This market will be settled on the formation of the first ministry (government) after assent is given by the reigning monarch after the next UK general election.'

    Is it possible we could proceed straight to a second election without any government being formed?

    I agree. There could be an issue there. It id very hard to define this market lthough we know what it means.

  • richardDoddrichardDodd Posts: 5,472
    Keep the green fields..when they have gone we will be left with concrete.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 82,533

    rcs1000 said:

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/general-election-2015/11528903/Green-Belt-is-safe-under-us-until-2020-Conservative-manifesto-will-say.html

    "The Green Belt will be safe for another five years under a Conservative Government, David Cameron will pledge next week.

    The Prime Minister and Tory leader will say that the protected greenfield land around towns and cities will not get any smaller in its manifesto next week."

    I'm sure this will have been extensively poll tested but I can't help feeling it's increasingly questionable electorally. They risk being painted as protecting the interests of the 'have houses' against the young.

    So a London home owner I will personally benefit from this. But it is economically absurd and irrational.
    It's another dickhead policy. Really is this the best the Conservatives have to offer ?
    What I thought was interesting was the train fare price freeze policy yesterday. It is overwhelmingly the SE commuter belt, where the issue of high season tickets into London is something that is real core interest. The Tories aren't struggling to win those areas, it is basically just playing to the home crowd.

    Again this green belt policy and the train one, I can't see how that win any votes in key marginals like in the midlands.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 43,484

    rcs1000 said:

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/general-election-2015/11528903/Green-Belt-is-safe-under-us-until-2020-Conservative-manifesto-will-say.html

    "The Green Belt will be safe for another five years under a Conservative Government, David Cameron will pledge next week.

    The Prime Minister and Tory leader will say that the protected greenfield land around towns and cities will not get any smaller in its manifesto next week."

    I'm sure this will have been extensively poll tested but I can't help feeling it's increasingly questionable electorally. They risk being painted as protecting the interests of the 'have houses' against the young.

    So a London home owner I will personally benefit from this. But it is economically absurd and irrational.
    Protecting the green belt is about more than housing and industry. It's about everyone's quality of life, and preserving something that, once lost, will be nearly impossible to regain.
    That's just rhetoric. The present is always lost to the future and there's no inherent reason why human habitation should be a less aesthetic use of land than monoculture fields, for example.

    Central planning of land use seems to be the last remaining remnant of post-war socialism that the right can't abandon. It's even more of a religion than the NHS.
    Except 'monoculture fields' produce something useful: food.

    I love construction. I've worked in it, and nearly went into civil engineering as a career. We should have more construction.

    Yet I cannot see how altering green belt policy will be in any way positive, and would only be a sticking-plaster over the real problems that bedevil housing policy, as discussed on here passim.

    I live in a new, modern housing development that is still under construction. The problems that we have here - transport, jobs, shops, build quality etc - will be the same in every new out-of-town development.

    We need to build wiser, not build more of the same.

    (Oh, and usual, I will add that we need to build communities, not homes).
  • SmarmeronSmarmeron Posts: 5,099
    @TCPoliticalBetting
    Building a retirement village can only work on a small scale, and as part of a larger community, otherwise it becomes a parking lot for the STBD".
    *(soon to be dead)
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 25,516

    rcs1000 said:

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/general-election-2015/11528903/Green-Belt-is-safe-under-us-until-2020-Conservative-manifesto-will-say.html

    "The Green Belt will be safe for another five years under a Conservative Government, David Cameron will pledge next week.

    The Prime Minister and Tory leader will say that the protected greenfield land around towns and cities will not get any smaller in its manifesto next week."

    I'm sure this will have been extensively poll tested but I can't help feeling it's increasingly questionable electorally. They risk being painted as protecting the interests of the 'have houses' against the young.

    So a London home owner I will personally benefit from this. But it is economically absurd and irrational.
    It's another dickhead policy. Really is this the best the Conservatives have to offer ?
    What is required are more retirement homes for the biggest growing segment of the population.
    Where do they want them? The answer is that many want them outside of London. So build in areas such as ex MOD land, which are usually rural spacious and raises cash for the Govt. Is it really green belt? Some is but a lot is under utilised semi brown land sites.
    Absolutely. I live in a leafy village in rural Warks. There are about 400 houses in the village and I'd happily have another 200 if they were sensibly done as this would keep the few facilities we have left open and maybe even get us on a bus route.

    There are enough places to develop to house our population on both green and brown land if it's done right. All our politicans seem to want to offer is cannibalisation of the existing housing stock and ludicrously priced accommodation.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 43,484

    rcs1000 said:

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/general-election-2015/11528903/Green-Belt-is-safe-under-us-until-2020-Conservative-manifesto-will-say.html

    "The Green Belt will be safe for another five years under a Conservative Government, David Cameron will pledge next week.

    The Prime Minister and Tory leader will say that the protected greenfield land around towns and cities will not get any smaller in its manifesto next week."

    I'm sure this will have been extensively poll tested but I can't help feeling it's increasingly questionable electorally. They risk being painted as protecting the interests of the 'have houses' against the young.

    So a London home owner I will personally benefit from this. But it is economically absurd and irrational.
    It's another dickhead policy. Really is this the best the Conservatives have to offer ?
    What I thought was interesting was the train fare price freeze policy yesterday. It is overwhelmingly the SE commuter belt, where the issue of high season tickets into London is something that is real core interest. The Tories aren't struggling to win those areas, it is basically just playing to the home crowd.

    Again this green belt policy and the train one, I can't see how that win any votes in key marginals like in the midlands.
    There are lots of train commuters in the northern cities as well; it's not just about London. And northerners are just as keen to preserve their local environment as those in the home counties.
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 25,516

    rcs1000 said:

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/general-election-2015/11528903/Green-Belt-is-safe-under-us-until-2020-Conservative-manifesto-will-say.html

    "The Green Belt will be safe for another five years under a Conservative Government, David Cameron will pledge next week.

    The Prime Minister and Tory leader will say that the protected greenfield land around towns and cities will not get any smaller in its manifesto next week."

    I'm sure this will have been extensively poll tested but I can't help feeling it's increasingly questionable electorally. They risk being painted as protecting the interests of the 'have houses' against the young.

    So a London home owner I will personally benefit from this. But it is economically absurd and irrational.
    It's another dickhead policy. Really is this the best the Conservatives have to offer ?
    What I thought was interesting was the train fare price freeze policy yesterday. It is overwhelmingly the SE commuter belt, where the issue of high season tickets into London is something that is real core interest. The Tories aren't struggling to win those areas, it is basically just playing to the home crowd.

    Again this green belt policy and the train one, I can't see how that win any votes in key marginals like in the midlands.
    More fun will be how Cameron tries to square the circle of oil in Surrey. Will he sell out to big corporates or stop one of our few growth industries.

    As for what is cameron doing for those outside his comfort zone - precious little.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 43,484

    rcs1000 said:

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/general-election-2015/11528903/Green-Belt-is-safe-under-us-until-2020-Conservative-manifesto-will-say.html

    "The Green Belt will be safe for another five years under a Conservative Government, David Cameron will pledge next week.

    The Prime Minister and Tory leader will say that the protected greenfield land around towns and cities will not get any smaller in its manifesto next week."

    I'm sure this will have been extensively poll tested but I can't help feeling it's increasingly questionable electorally. They risk being painted as protecting the interests of the 'have houses' against the young.

    So a London home owner I will personally benefit from this. But it is economically absurd and irrational.
    It's another dickhead policy. Really is this the best the Conservatives have to offer ?
    What is required are more retirement homes for the biggest growing segment of the population.
    Where do they want them? The answer is that many want them outside of London. So build in areas such as ex MOD land, which are usually rural spacious and raises cash for the Govt. Is it really green belt? Some is but a lot is under utilised semi brown land sites.
    Absolutely. I live in a leafy village in rural Warks. There are about 400 houses in the village and I'd happily have another 200 if they were sensibly done as this would keep the few facilities we have left open and maybe even get us on a bus route.

    There are enough places to develop to house our population on both green and brown land if it's done right. All our politicans seem to want to offer is cannibalisation of the existing housing stock and ludicrously priced accommodation.
    It's a case of building a community (what you refer to as 'doing it right'). Develop houses of the right sort, ensure that there is access to shops and facilities, and transport to where people want to go. Sadly these all cost money, and do not earn developers any money.

    We also need to learn the mistakes made when developing planned communities in the past.

    Section 106 need tightening up, to avoid developers taking the p*ss. As one example, I believe there is a road that a developer had to build that would act as a bypass for a village. The road had to be completed with the development. So the developers have built a few less houses than they planned, and have only built the part of the road to serve the development. They are now saying they will complete the road if they get permission for more houses.

    Cunning barstewards. ;-)
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 82,533
    edited April 2015

    rcs1000 said:

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/general-election-2015/11528903/Green-Belt-is-safe-under-us-until-2020-Conservative-manifesto-will-say.html

    "The Green Belt will be safe for another five years under a Conservative Government, David Cameron will pledge next week.

    The Prime Minister and Tory leader will say that the protected greenfield land around towns and cities will not get any smaller in its manifesto next week."

    I'm sure this will have been extensively poll tested but I can't help feeling it's increasingly questionable electorally. They risk being painted as protecting the interests of the 'have houses' against the young.

    So a London home owner I will personally benefit from this. But it is economically absurd and irrational.
    It's another dickhead policy. Really is this the best the Conservatives have to offer ?
    What I thought was interesting was the train fare price freeze policy yesterday. It is overwhelmingly the SE commuter belt, where the issue of high season tickets into London is something that is real core interest. The Tories aren't struggling to win those areas, it is basically just playing to the home crowd.

    Again this green belt policy and the train one, I can't see how that win any votes in key marginals like in the midlands.
    More fun will be how Cameron tries to square the circle of oil in Surrey. Will he sell out to big corporates or stop one of our few growth industries.

    As for what is cameron doing for those outside his comfort zone - precious little.
    Cameron square it? At this rate, it will be Ed who has to make that decision and he is all Mr Green Energy, so I would presume that he will side with the anti-fracking / green lobby and instead we will end up with millions windmills across the country which of course we have to pay for because they aren't economically viable.
  • SmarmeronSmarmeron Posts: 5,099
    Who is doing Conservative strategy?
    "Calculated attack (Beeb)

    Posted at 12:26

    Mr Richards adds he defence secretary's attack on the Labour leader wasn't "a clumsy, casual intervention" but a deliberate act.

    He says this is largely because the one thing most pollsters say people know about Mr Miliband is that he beat his brother to the leadership of the Labour party."

    Probably true, but almost all of them don't see it as a heinous crime.....
    especially the younger members of a family.
    ;)
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 25,516

    rcs1000 said:

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/general-election-2015/11528903/Green-Belt-is-safe-under-us-until-2020-Conservative-manifesto-will-say.html

    "The Green Belt will be safe for another five years under a Conservative Government, David Cameron will pledge next week.

    The Prime Minister and Tory leader will say that the protected greenfield land around towns and cities will not get any smaller in its manifesto next week."
    . They risk being painted as protecting the interests of the 'have houses' against the young.

    So a London home owner I will personally benefit from this. But it is economically absurd and irrational.
    It's another dickhead policy. Really is this the best the Conservatives have to offer ?
    What is required are more retirement homes for the biggest growing segment of the population. semi brown land sites.
    Absolutely. I live in a leafy village in rural Warks. There are about 400 houses in the village of the existing housing stock and ludicrously priced accommodation.
    It's a case of building a community (what you refer to as 'doing it right'). Develop houses of the right sort, ensure that there is access to shops and facilities, and transport to where people want to go. Sadly these all cost money, and do not earn developers any money.

    We also need to learn the mistakes made when developing planned communities in the past.

    Section 106 need tightening up, to avoid developers taking the p*ss. As one example, I believe there is a road that a developer had to build that would act as a bypass for a village. The road had to be completed with the development. So the developers have built a few less houses than they planned, and have only built the part of the road to serve the development. They are now saying they will complete the road if they get permission for more houses.

    Cunning barstewards. ;-)
    That's simply down to project specification and management. But since I live in a green belt area of S Brum I'm not the one calling for my community to be set in aspic for eternity.

    Likewise if Cameron's so concerned about our green and pleasant land why's he subsidising sodding great wind turbines across some of our best scenery.

    The policy is a lemon. he shouldn't be saying no development but articulating how a sympathetic housing policy can be implemented in established communities.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 37,540
    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/general-election-2015/11528903/Green-Belt-is-safe-under-us-until-2020-Conservative-manifesto-will-say.html

    "The Green Belt will be safe for another five years under a Conservative Government, David Cameron will pledge next week.

    The Prime Minister and Tory leader will say that the protected greenfield land around towns and cities will not get any smaller in its manifesto next week."

    I'm sure this will have been extensively poll tested but I can't help feeling it's increasingly questionable electorally. They risk being painted as protecting the interests of the 'have houses' against the young.

    So a London home owner I will personally benefit from this. But it is economically absurd and irrational.
    Protecting the green belt is about more than housing and industry. It's about everyone's quality of life, and preserving something that, once lost, will be nearly impossible to regain.
    That's just rhetoric. The present is always lost to the future and there's no inherent reason why human habitation should be a less aesthetic use of land than monoculture fields, for example.

    Central planning of land use seems to be the last remaining remnant of post-war socialism that the right can't abandon. It's even more of a religion than the NHS.
    Yes
    The Green Belt is an interesting example of how political opinion can shift 180 degrees. It was introduced by Attlee's government and loathed by Conservatives at the time, on the basis that people should do as they please with their own property. But now, Conservatives are the staunchest defenders.

  • edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 17,708

    rcs1000 said:

    So a London home owner I will personally benefit from this. But it is economically absurd and irrational.
    It's another dickhead policy. Really is this the best the Conservatives have to offer ?
    What is required are more retirement homes for the biggest growing segment of the population.
    Where do they want them? The answer is that many want them outside of London. So build in areas such as ex MOD land, which are usually rural spacious and raises cash for the Govt. Is it really green belt? Some is but a lot is under utilised semi brown land sites.
    Absolutely. I live in a leafy village in rural Warks. There are about 400 houses in the village and I'd happily have another 200 if they were sensibly done as this would keep the few facilities we have left open and maybe even get us on a bus route.

    There are enough places to develop to house our population on both green and brown land if it's done right. All our politicans seem to want to offer is cannibalisation of the existing housing stock and ludicrously priced accommodation.
    It's a case of building a community (what you refer to as 'doing it right'). Develop houses of the right sort, ensure that there is access to shops and facilities, and transport to where people want to go. Sadly these all cost money, and do not earn developers any money.

    We also need to learn the mistakes made when developing planned communities in the past.

    Section 106 need tightening up, to avoid developers taking the p*ss. As one example, I believe there is a road that a developer had to build that would act as a bypass for a village. The road had to be completed with the development. So the developers have built a few less houses than they planned, and have only built the part of the road to serve the development. They are now saying they will complete the road if they get permission for more houses.

    Cunning barstewards. ;-)
    You don't need house builders to make sure there are shops, if there are people there who want to buy things people who want to sell things will build shops. What you need to do is stop making other rules that ban people from building shops where people want to buy things.
  • Moses_Moses_ Posts: 4,865
    For me the best bIt about the Hatton Garden Heist is they must have obviously risk assessed the whole operation. Tool box talked it through then carried it out. I mean the.guy on camera has high vis, helmet and glasses.

    Respect...
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 43,484

    rcs1000 said:

    So a London home owner I will personally benefit from this. But it is economically absurd and irrational.
    It's another dickhead policy. Really is this the best the Conservatives have to offer ?
    What is required are more retirement homes for the biggest growing segment of the population.
    Where do they want them? The answer is that many want them outside of London. So build in areas such as ex MOD land, which are usually rural spacious and raises cash for the Govt. Is it really green belt? Some is but a lot is under utilised semi brown land sites.
    Absolutely. I live in a leafy village in rural Warks. There are about 400 houses in the village and I'd happily have another 200 if they were sensibly done as this would keep the few facilities we have left open and maybe even get us on a bus route.

    There are enough places to develop to house our population on both green and brown land if it's done right. All our politicans seem to want to offer is cannibalisation of the existing housing stock and ludicrously priced accommodation.
    It's a case of building a community (what you refer to as 'doing it right'). Develop houses of the right sort, ensure that there is access to shops and facilities, and transport to where people want to go. Sadly these all cost money, and do not earn developers any money.

    We also need to learn the mistakes made when developing planned communities in the past.

    Section 106 need tightening up, to avoid developers taking the p*ss. As one example, I believe there is a road that a developer had to build that would act as a bypass for a village. The road had to be completed with the development. So the developers have built a few less houses than they planned, and have only built the part of the road to serve the development. They are now saying they will complete the road if they get permission for more houses.

    Cunning barstewards. ;-)
    You don't need house builders to make sure there are shops, if there are people there who want to buy things people who want to sell things will build shops. What you need to do is stop making other rules that ban people from building shops where people want to buy things.
    You need there to be plans for where the shops are going to go. If you leave it to builders, they will create dense housing with no gaps for facilities. This is one thing they've done quite well here IMHO.
  • MarfMarf Posts: 20
    Thank you, Mike - I really appreciate it. I've never enjoyed such freedom as on PB. And it does seem crowd-funding is the way forward for artists who publish online.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 82,533
    edited April 2015
    Moses_ said:

    For me the best bIt about the Hatton Garden Heist is they must have obviously risk assessed the whole operation. Tool box talked it through then carried it out. I mean the.guy on camera has high vis, helmet and glasses.

    Respect...

    LOL....

    There are some comedy moments in the video. The guy getting his wheelie bin stuck and having to get 2 other guys to come and help him....While one of the gang has the ability to disable alarms and break into a vault, 3 of them can't work out why a wheelie bin is stuck.

    Also, who goes to do a massive heist where you are going to be drilling through thick concrete walls in fancy shoes...gotta look good on the cctv.

    And the guy very carefully and neatly parking his moped and nearly forgetting to put his disguise on.

    I want to know what the Mirror haven't shown us. I am presuming there is a lot more.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 43,484

    That's simply down to project specification and management. But since I live in a green belt area of S Brum I'm not the one calling for my community to be set in aspic for eternity.

    Likewise if Cameron's so concerned about our green and pleasant land why's he subsidising sodding great wind turbines across some of our best scenery.

    The policy is a lemon. he shouldn't be saying no development but articulating how a sympathetic housing policy can be implemented in established communities.

    I don't want my community to be held in aspic. I fact, the 'village' (*) is going to be extended as per the local plan, and I'm one of the few voices calling for it to be done, but done right.

    I think you may be confusing green belt with all rural land - the vast majority of rural land is outside the green belt and I'm guessing will not be affected by this policy.

    And I agree about the wind turbines.

    (*) It's farcical that it's called a village; but people like it that way.
  • Moses_Moses_ Posts: 4,865

    rcs1000 said:

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/general-election-2015/11528903/Green-Belt-is-safe-under-us-until-2020-Conservative-manifesto-will-say.html

    "The Green Belt will be safe for another five years under a Conservative Government, David Cameron will pledge next week.

    The Prime Minister and Tory leader will say that the protected greenfield land around towns and cities will not get any smaller in its manifesto next week."

    I'm sure this will have been extensively poll tested but I can't help feeling it's increasingly questionable electorally. They risk being painted as protecting the interests of the 'have houses' against the young.

    So a London home owner I will personally benefit from this. But it is economically absurd and irrational.
    It's another dickhead policy. Really is this the best the Conservatives have to offer ?
    Yeah quite agree... Let's put the house on 00 and vote Labour

    feckall to lose really.......except an entire country and history.
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 25,516

    That's simply down to project specification and management. But since I live in a green belt area of S Brum I'm not the one calling for my community to be set in aspic for eternity.

    Likewise if Cameron's so concerned about our green and pleasant land why's he subsidising sodding great wind turbines across some of our best scenery.

    The policy is a lemon. he shouldn't be saying no development but articulating how a sympathetic housing policy can be implemented in established communities.

    I don't want my community to be held in aspic. I fact, the 'village' (*) is going to be extended as per the local plan, and I'm one of the few voices calling for it to be done, but done right.

    I think you may be confusing green belt with all rural land - the vast majority of rural land is outside the green belt and I'm guessing will not be affected by this policy.

    And I agree about the wind turbines.

    (*) It's farcical that it's called a village; but people like it that way.
    No JJ I'm saying even within green belt there has to be development of some kind. People live there and times change and move on. At one level it gets pretty annoying having townies who rarely come near the place specify what I can do in my community because they grew up watching Trumpton and think that's how village life is.
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 25,516
    Moses_ said:

    rcs1000 said:

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/general-election-2015/11528903/Green-Belt-is-safe-under-us-until-2020-Conservative-manifesto-will-say.html

    "The Green Belt will be safe for another five years under a Conservative Government, David Cameron will pledge next week.

    The Prime Minister and Tory leader will say that the protected greenfield land around towns and cities will not get any smaller in its manifesto next week."

    I'm sure this will have been extensively poll tested but I can't help feeling it's increasingly questionable electorally. They risk being painted as protecting the interests of the 'have houses' against the young.

    So a London home owner I will personally benefit from this. But it is economically absurd and irrational.
    It's another dickhead policy. Really is this the best the Conservatives have to offer ?
    Yeah quite agree... Let's put the house on 00 and vote Labour

    feckall to lose really.......except an entire country and history.
    What are you moaning at me for ? I'm not part of Cameron's target audience,

    Nag antifrank he got all the benefits and lurv and still isn't voting Cameron.
  • surbitonsurbiton Posts: 13,549
    Oh, Oh ! SPIN gap now 11. Sleazy Tories on the slide !

    Is there any ELBOW room ? Even a partly-formed ELBOW .
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 43,484

    That's simply down to project specification and management. But since I live in a green belt area of S Brum I'm not the one calling for my community to be set in aspic for eternity.

    Likewise if Cameron's so concerned about our green and pleasant land why's he subsidising sodding great wind turbines across some of our best scenery.

    The policy is a lemon. he shouldn't be saying no development but articulating how a sympathetic housing policy can be implemented in established communities.

    I don't want my community to be held in aspic. I fact, the 'village' (*) is going to be extended as per the local plan, and I'm one of the few voices calling for it to be done, but done right.

    I think you may be confusing green belt with all rural land - the vast majority of rural land is outside the green belt and I'm guessing will not be affected by this policy.

    And I agree about the wind turbines.

    (*) It's farcical that it's called a village; but people like it that way.
    No JJ I'm saying even within green belt there has to be development of some kind. People live there and times change and move on. At one level it gets pretty annoying having townies who rarely come near the place specify what I can do in my community because they grew up watching Trumpton and think that's how village life is.
    Green belt development is not full verboten nowadays - AIUI plenty gets built on the green belt. It is just that there is an extra level of hassle to go through to get it built. In some cases they even have to go up to the SoS level.
  • Scrapheap_as_wasScrapheap_as_was Posts: 10,069
    edited April 2015
    George Osborne‏@George_Osborne·1m1 minute ago
    On campaign trail today with my crack team...
  • IndigoIndigo Posts: 9,966
    edited April 2015

    I'm sure this will have been extensively poll tested but I can't help feeling it's increasingly questionable electorally. They risk being painted as protecting the interests of the 'have houses' against the young.

    A party has to protect the interests of someone. Its in trying to be "all things to all men" that has got us into the mess of wishy-washy pointless triangulated policies. It would be nice for once if parties took a stand, and said in effect, this is what we stand for, these are our values, and these are the people we believe need our protection. But those days are long past, we are now in the days of Crosby anodyne cr*p sadly.
  • surbitonsurbiton Posts: 13,549
    Smarmeron said:

    Who is doing Conservative strategy?
    "Calculated attack (Beeb)

    Posted at 12:26

    Mr Richards adds he defence secretary's attack on the Labour leader wasn't "a clumsy, casual intervention" but a deliberate act.

    He says this is largely because the one thing most pollsters say people know about Mr Miliband is that he beat his brother to the leadership of the Labour party."

    Probably true, but almost all of them don't see it as a heinous crime.....
    especially the younger members of a family.
    ;)

    I think the Tories have finally hit upon the correct strategy. Perhaps even influenced by our highly respected PBTories. They have been reminding us for 4 years why EIC is what he is. One of his failings was he did not follow the patrician edict, only the "eldest" inherits the world !

    The Conservatives should keep on repeating how Ed stabbed his brother in the back !
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 25,516

    That's simply down to project specification and management. But since I live in a green belt area of S Brum I'm not the one calling for my community to be set in aspic for eternity.

    Likewise if Cameron's so concerned about our green and pleasant land why's he subsidising sodding great wind turbines across some of our best scenery.

    The policy is a lemon. he shouldn't be saying no development but articulating how a sympathetic housing policy can be implemented in established communities.

    I don't want my community to be held in aspic. I fact, the 'village' (*) is going to be extended as per the local plan, and I'm one of the few voices calling for it to be done, but done right.

    I think you may be confusing green belt with all rural land - the vast majority of rural land is outside the green belt and I'm guessing will not be affected by this policy.

    And I agree about the wind turbines.

    (*) It's farcical that it's called a village; but people like it that way.
    No JJ I'm saying even within green belt there has to be development of some kind. People live there and times change and move on. At one level it gets pretty annoying having townies who rarely come near the place specify what I can do in my community because they grew up watching Trumpton and think that's how village life is.
    Green belt development is not full verboten nowadays - AIUI plenty gets built on the green belt. It is just that there is an extra level of hassle to go through to get it built. In some cases they even have to go up to the SoS level.
    Yes that's true but as you say the extra level of hassle puts a lot of people off. Really we need to get back to some simple ways of planning where we house people. The standard approach of building mega estates of houses that all look the same isn't much use in a lot of areas.

    There is moreover still lots of land and older buildings which is nor being used and where more housing would fit easily within the exisiting infrastructure. I drive trhough S Birmingham most days on the way to work and there are loads of old factory and retail buildings which could be converted to sensible living accommodation.
  • RogerRoger Posts: 19,981
    OT. I got a notification of Prudential's AGM this morning. In pride of place under 'Directors' is Chief Executive Tidjane Thiam. In the list of 'current appointments' it states 'Tidjane was appointed British Business Ambassador by invitation from the Prime Minister'.

    He also also happens to be one of the 103 businessmen who signed the letter to the Telegraph urging people to vote Tory. Prudential has a proud and honourable heritage as one of the UK's most prominent insurance companies.

    Doesn't this touting for votes on behalf of Cameron's political party make both of them seem rather tawdry?
  • surbitonsurbiton Posts: 13,549

    rcs1000 said:

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/general-election-2015/11528903/Green-Belt-is-safe-under-us-until-2020-Conservative-manifesto-will-say.html

    "The Green Belt will be safe for another five years under a Conservative Government, David Cameron will pledge next week.

    The Prime Minister and Tory leader will say that the protected greenfield land around towns and cities will not get any smaller in its manifesto next week."

    I'm sure this will have been extensively poll tested but I can't help feeling it's increasingly questionable electorally. They risk being painted as protecting the interests of the 'have houses' against the young.

    So a London home owner I will personally benefit from this. But it is economically absurd and irrational.
    It's another dickhead policy. Really is this the best the Conservatives have to offer ?
    What I thought was interesting was the train fare price freeze policy yesterday. It is overwhelmingly the SE commuter belt, where the issue of high season tickets into London is something that is real core interest. The Tories aren't struggling to win those areas, it is basically just playing to the home crowd.

    Again this green belt policy and the train one, I can't see how that win any votes in key marginals like in the midlands.
    More fun will be how Cameron tries to square the circle of oil in Surrey. Will he sell out to big corporates or stop one of our few growth industries.

    As for what is cameron doing for those outside his comfort zone - precious little.
    Cameron square it? At this rate, it will be Ed who has to make that decision and he is all Mr Green Energy, so I would presume that he will side with the anti-fracking / green lobby and instead we will end up with millions windmills across the country which of course we have to pay for because they aren't economically viable.
    Unless we have our own wind turbine and solar industry and not import them from Germany or Denmark. I don't think these countries receive more energy from our sun than we do. We definitely get more quality wind than they do. This is one policy of the SNP post oil that is very good indeed.

    Tories are basically Luddites !
  • Roger said:

    OT. I got a notification of Prudential's AGM this morning. In pride of place under 'Directors' is Chief Executive Tidjane Thiam. In the list of 'current appointments' it states 'Tidjane was appointed British Business Ambassador by invitation from the Prime Minister'.

    He also also happens to be one of the 103 businessmen who signed the letter to the Telegraph urging people to vote Tory. Prudential has a proud and honourable heritage as one of the UK's most prominent insurance companies.

    Doesn't this touting for votes on behalf of Cameron's political party make both of them seem rather tawdry?

    Best sell your shares on ethical grounds.
  • surbitonsurbiton Posts: 13,549
    Roger said:

    OT. I got a notification of Prudential's AGM this morning. In pride of place under 'Directors' is Chief Executive Tidjane Thiam. In the list of 'current appointments' it states 'Tidjane was appointed British Business Ambassador by invitation from the Prime Minister'.

    He also also happens to be one of the 103 businessmen who signed the letter to the Telegraph urging people to vote Tory. Prudential has a proud and honourable heritage as one of the UK's most prominent insurance companies.

    Doesn't this touting for votes on behalf of Cameron's political party make both of them seem rather tawdry?

    Non dom ?
  • IndigoIndigo Posts: 9,966
    surbiton said:

    Smarmeron said:

    Who is doing Conservative strategy?
    "Calculated attack (Beeb)

    Posted at 12:26

    Mr Richards adds he defence secretary's attack on the Labour leader wasn't "a clumsy, casual intervention" but a deliberate act.

    He says this is largely because the one thing most pollsters say people know about Mr Miliband is that he beat his brother to the leadership of the Labour party."

    Probably true, but almost all of them don't see it as a heinous crime.....
    especially the younger members of a family.
    ;)

    I think the Tories have finally hit upon the correct strategy. Perhaps even influenced by our highly respected PBTories. They have been reminding us for 4 years why EIC is what he is. One of his failings was he did not follow the patrician edict, only the "eldest" inherits the world !

    The Conservatives should keep on repeating how Ed stabbed his brother in the back !
    Seems lefties agree it's the smart approach.

    http://labour-uncut.co.uk/2015/04/10/yes-the-tories-were-in-the-gutter-yesterday-but-thats-where-elections-are-won
    Second, to refocus voters’ thoughts on Ed Miliband’s character. The manner in which Ed Miliband defeated his brother is regularly brought up on the doorstep with Labour canvassers and crystallises discomfort with the idea of Ed Miliband as an untrustworthy leader, for many voters.
  • weejonnieweejonnie Posts: 3,820
    Suppose 6 months ago the following was made

    "We intend to invest £8 billion on the NHS" - party 1
    "How do you intend to fund it?" - party 2

    Who would party-1 and party-2 have been?

    it's a funny world.
  • SmarmeronSmarmeron Posts: 5,099
    @Indigo
    You are probably right, unfortunately almost all of the voters who bother with nonsense like that, vote Tory already.
  • IndigoIndigo Posts: 9,966
    Smarmeron said:

    @Indigo
    You are probably right, unfortunately almost all of the voters who bother with nonsense like that, vote Tory already.

    I don't think so, the article says bought up with Labour canvasser on the doorstep, so its unlikely they are talking to Tories, the conversation would not have got that far...
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 43,484

    Yes that's true but as you say the extra level of hassle puts a lot of people off. Really we need to get back to some simple ways of planning where we house people. The standard approach of building mega estates of houses that all look the same isn't much use in a lot of areas.

    There is moreover still lots of land and older buildings which is nor being used and where more housing would fit easily within the exisiting infrastructure. I drive trhough S Birmingham most days on the way to work and there are loads of old factory and retail buildings which could be converted to sensible living accommodation.

    Simple ways of planning have a habit of working for a lucky few, and not working for everyone else.

    There is no reason for housing estates of new builds to look the same. I could refer you to my own village, where they had the cunning plan of having four developers. Each had their own areas of land, but these were interspersed in smallish blocks. Hence faux-wooden barn conversions intermingle with town houses, to (in my opinion) reasonable effect. Looking out my window, I can see several different styles of houses in a pleasant and relatively traffic-free mall where children can play safely as there are ninety-degree bends at either end.

    It works. Even better, as the houses are made of differing materials and age at slightly different rates, they do not necessarily look like they were built at the same time. Differing roof lines and pitches, even when the houses are in a line, also have a positive effect.

    Agree about redevelopment of existing structures where possible. But again, it needs to be done right (although there are companies with plenty of experience of doing it right).

    Oh, and SuDS is a must on any new development. ;-)
  • IndigoIndigo Posts: 9,966
    edited April 2015
    weejonnie said:

    Suppose 6 months ago the following was made

    "We intend to invest £8 billion on the NHS" - party 1
    "How do you intend to fund it?" - party 2

    Who would party-1 and party-2 have been?

    it's a funny world.

    Party 1 are likely to point to the nice large chunk of uncommitted money left in the budget last month that was presumably held back for sweeties just like this so they can say its is both costed, and won't impact budgets, because the money is already there, just not allocated. Some PBers pointed out at the time that there appeared to be about £20bn unspent, so I assume we can expect another £12bn of sweeties in the manifesto.
  • RogerRoger Posts: 19,981
    Surbiton

    Non dom ?

    Good point! Perhaps Ed should operate his non dom policy retrospectively and collect back taxes to say 2005. That should get the public excited.

    On Any Questions when Caroline Lucas was asked whether she was worried the non dom policy might not increase the tax take she said she didn't care. "if non doms want to leave because they have to pay tax like the rest of us then I'll personally drive them to the airport".

    THAT got the biggest cheer of the day.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 61,964
    Good afternoon, everyone.

    Marf, some independent/self-published authors are going down crowd-funding as a route. Not sure it works as well for writers as, for example, game development (which is not without its pitfalls).

    It is interesting to see how such things (and in music as well, with the likes of ViolinTay and Malukah) will develop. At the moment, my vague plan is to see how Sir Edric goes being traditionally published, and keep my 'serious' fantasy self-published, for now.

    Cartoons may be quite a good area for this, because it's easy to see quite quickly if you like a certain style.
  • SmarmeronSmarmeron Posts: 5,099
    @Indigo
    At which point should a sibling defer to their older brother?
    Obviously you wouldn't expect them to not try at an exam in case they got higher marks?
  • dr_spyndr_spyn Posts: 11,300
    edited April 2015
    Roger said:

    Surbiton

    Non dom ?

    Good point! Perhaps Ed should operate his non dom policy retrospectively and collect back taxes to say 2005. That should get the public excited.

    On Any Questions when Caroline Lucas was asked whether she was worried the non dom policy might not increase the tax take she said she didn't care. "if non doms want to leave because they have to pay tax like the rest of us then I'll personally drive them to the airport".

    THAT got the biggest cheer of the day.

    Good of her to show that her party stands for screwing the rest of us by driving out the non doms. Just goes to show how brainless she is.

  • IndigoIndigo Posts: 9,966
    surbiton said:

    Roger said:

    OT. I got a notification of Prudential's AGM this morning. In pride of place under 'Directors' is Chief Executive Tidjane Thiam. In the list of 'current appointments' it states 'Tidjane was appointed British Business Ambassador by invitation from the Prime Minister'.

    He also also happens to be one of the 103 businessmen who signed the letter to the Telegraph urging people to vote Tory. Prudential has a proud and honourable heritage as one of the UK's most prominent insurance companies.

    Doesn't this touting for votes on behalf of Cameron's political party make both of them seem rather tawdry?

    Non dom ?
    No. Unusually a breathtakingly well qualified individual.
  • MonksfieldMonksfield Posts: 2,808
    Marf said:

    Thank you, Mike - I really appreciate it. I've never enjoyed such freedom as on PB. And it does seem crowd-funding is the way forward for artists who publish online.

    Great stuff Marf keep it up!
    Smarmeron said:

    Who is doing Conservative strategy?
    "Calculated attack (Beeb)

    Posted at 12:26

    Mr Richards adds he defence secretary's attack on the Labour leader wasn't "a clumsy, casual intervention" but a deliberate act.

    He says this is largely because the one thing most pollsters say people know about Mr Miliband is that he beat his brother to the leadership of the Labour party."

    Probably true, but almost all of them don't see it as a heinous crime.....
    especially the younger members of a family.
    ;)

    I honestly don't get this fratricide thing. Why was David any more entitled to be leader than Ed? Is there some sort of primogeniture fetishism going on here? There was a contest and Ed won. Whether he was the best candidate or not we'll see.

  • IndigoIndigo Posts: 9,966
    edited April 2015
    Smarmeron said:

    @Indigo
    At which point should a sibling defer to their older brother?
    Obviously you wouldn't expect them to not try at an exam in case they got higher marks?

    Neither, don't play the fool. That isn't what the article said as well you know, it said attacking Ed's character because of Labour voters ambivalence over his handling of his brother was the right thing to do electorally speaking. Don't agree ? Go and take it up with Atul Hatwal, its his article.
  • RogerRoger Posts: 19,981
    Scrapheap

    "Best sell your shares on ethical grounds."

    I think I will!
  • SmarmeronSmarmeron Posts: 5,099
    @Monksfield
    Perhaps they don't Like Andy Murray because he doesn't let Jamie win?
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 25,516

    Yes that's true but as you say the extra level of hassle puts a lot of people off. Really we need to get back to some simple ways of planning where we house people. The standard approach of building mega estates of houses that all look the same isn't much use in a lot of areas.

    There is moreover still lots of land and older buildings which is nor being used and where more housing would fit easily within the exisiting infrastructure. I drive trhough S Birmingham most days on the way to work and there are loads of old factory and retail buildings which could be converted to sensible living accommodation.

    Simple ways of planning have a habit of working for a lucky few, and not working for everyone else.

    There is no reason for housing estates of new builds to look the same. I could refer you to my own village, where they had the cunning plan of having four developers. Each had their own areas of land, but these were interspersed in smallish blocks. Hence faux-wooden barn conversions intermingle with town houses, to (in my opinion) reasonable effect. Looking out my window, I can see several different styles of houses in a pleasant and relatively traffic-free mall where children can play safely as there are ninety-degree bends at either end.

    It works. Even better, as the houses are made of differing materials and age at slightly different rates, they do not necessarily look like they were built at the same time. Differing roof lines and pitches, even when the houses are in a line, also have a positive effect.

    Agree about redevelopment of existing structures where possible. But again, it needs to be done right (although there are companies with plenty of experience of doing it right).

    Oh, and SuDS is a must on any new development. ;-)
    That does sound more the way to go. Mixed developemnt and a bit of variety make a more pleasant environment imo. I hope the new towns announced by the coalition get to go a head and we do something a bit more interesting as we build them.

    Modern architecture always seems to struggle in the UK. Patly it's the attachment to older designs and partly it's the weather. But if we nominated one of the new towns as more of a showpiece for modernism, it could just work.
  • marktheowlmarktheowl Posts: 169
    Indigo said:

    surbiton said:

    Smarmeron said:

    Who is doing Conservative strategy?
    "Calculated attack (Beeb)

    Posted at 12:26

    Mr Richards adds he defence secretary's attack on the Labour leader wasn't "a clumsy, casual intervention" but a deliberate act.

    He says this is largely because the one thing most pollsters say people know about Mr Miliband is that he beat his brother to the leadership of the Labour party."

    Probably true, but almost all of them don't see it as a heinous crime.....
    especially the younger members of a family.
    ;)

    I think the Tories have finally hit upon the correct strategy. Perhaps even influenced by our highly respected PBTories. They have been reminding us for 4 years why EIC is what he is. One of his failings was he did not follow the patrician edict, only the "eldest" inherits the world !

    The Conservatives should keep on repeating how Ed stabbed his brother in the back !
    Seems lefties agree it's the smart approach.

    http://labour-uncut.co.uk/2015/04/10/yes-the-tories-were-in-the-gutter-yesterday-but-thats-where-elections-are-won
    Second, to refocus voters’ thoughts on Ed Miliband’s character. The manner in which Ed Miliband defeated his brother is regularly brought up on the doorstep with Labour canvassers and crystallises discomfort with the idea of Ed Miliband as an untrustworthy leader, for many voters.
    It is of course correct that for many people, the only thing they know about him is that he beat his brother. It's also true that for many people (wrongly) it's a negative. The problem is that the Tories' attacks on him are so utterly transparent it's actively causing people to reassess him and undermining their point. People may think something, but when they see politicians they mistrust bleating on about it, they think hang on a minute. Possibly the most successful bit of negative campaigning of the modern era was swiftboating. Why? Because Bush basically was seen as above it, but it still undermined Kerry's big selling point. As for Labour Uncut, it's just a place for wannabe Hodges. I'd listen to Tim Montgomerie.
  • IndigoIndigo Posts: 9,966
    edited April 2015
    dr_spyn said:

    Roger said:

    Surbiton

    Non dom ?

    Good point! Perhaps Ed should operate his non dom policy retrospectively and collect back taxes to say 2005. That should get the public excited.

    On Any Questions when Caroline Lucas was asked whether she was worried the non dom policy might not increase the tax take she said she didn't care. "if non doms want to leave because they have to pay tax like the rest of us then I'll personally drive them to the airport".

    THAT got the biggest cheer of the day.

    Good of her to show that her party stands for screwing the rest of us by driving out the non doms. Just goes to show how brainless she is.

    She can spout any populist cr*p she wants, she is never going to be a minister, and no one is going to implement any of her policies. Its only slightly more interesting than asking the OMRLP what their policy is.
  • FlightpathFlightpath Posts: 4,012

    rcs1000 said:

    So a London home owner I will personally benefit from this. But it is economically absurd and irrational.
    It's another dickhead policy. Really is this the best the Conservatives have to offer ?
    What I thought was interesting was the train fare price freeze policy yesterday. It is overwhelmingly the SE commuter belt, where the issue of high season tickets into London is something that is real core interest. The Tories aren't struggling to win those areas, it is basically just playing to the home crowd.

    Again this green belt policy and the train one, I can't see how that win any votes in key marginals like in the midlands.
    More fun will be how Cameron tries to square the circle of oil in Surrey. Will he sell out to big corporates or stop one of our few growth industries.

    As for what is cameron doing for those outside his comfort zone - precious little.
    The election is clearly sending you doolally.
    Why would the govt give permission to test drill for oil in Surrey if it did not want to extract oil in Surrey? One minute the nimbys are out complaining that Cameron wants to build a railway through the countryside but according to you Cameron will struggke to give permission to drill for oil.

    According to the Telegraph the manifs=esto will say...
    “We will ensure that local people have more control over planning and protect the Green Belt. We will encourage more neighbourhood planning and protect the Green Belt.
    “Neighbourhood planning gives more power to local people, allowing them to play a much stronger role in shaping their areas.”
    The manifesto will highlight the 1,400 communities, representing six million people, have now applied to draw up the plans to set out where development can take place. It will say: “We will encourage more communities to draw up such plans.”

    I find it hard to see what is wrong with this.
  • IndigoIndigo Posts: 9,966

    I'd listen to Tim Montgomerie.

    I wouldn't, he is Ted Heath's ideological nephew, and is behind complete bilge like The Good Right.

  • Good afternoon, everyone.

    Marf, some independent/self-published authors are going down crowd-funding as a route. Not sure it works as well for writers as, for example, game development (which is not without its pitfalls).

    It is interesting to see how such things (and in music as well, with the likes of ViolinTay and Malukah) will develop. At the moment, my vague plan is to see how Sir Edric goes being traditionally published, and keep my 'serious' fantasy self-published, for now.

    Cartoons may be quite a good area for this, because it's easy to see quite quickly if you like a certain style.

    Thanks Morris.

    I'll see she gets the message.
  • SmarmeronSmarmeron Posts: 5,099
    @Flightpath
    "The manifesto will highlight the 1,400 communities"

    Local referendum or council decision?
    Might not be entirely win win if it is the latter?
  • weejonnieweejonnie Posts: 3,820
    Indigo said:

    weejonnie said:

    Suppose 6 months ago the following was made

    "We intend to invest £8 billion on the NHS" - party 1
    "How do you intend to fund it?" - party 2

    Who would party-1 and party-2 have been?

    it's a funny world.

    Party 1 are likely to point to the nice large chunk of uncommitted money left in the budget last month that was presumably held back for sweeties just like this so they can say its is both costed, and won't impact budgets, because the money is already there, just not allocated. Some PBers pointed out at the time that there appeared to be about £20bn unspent, so I assume we can expect another £12bn of sweeties in the manifesto.
    Isn't £12 billion supposed to be the shortfall of cuts that have to be announced?

    Just a co-incidence I suppose.

    if the Tories HAVE allowed themselves £20 billion to play with during the election campaign, then it seems a clever political manoeuvre as they can allocate it where it will do them most good. (Not necessarily the country of course).

    However they are going to have to explain it in words of 1 syllable or less so that the populace who ARE worried about the deficit can be assured. (Most Labour supporters won't care one way or the other of course - to them money comes from heaven.)
  • IndigoIndigo Posts: 9,966

    The manifesto will highlight the 1,400 communities, representing six million people, have now applied to draw up the plans to set out where development can take place. It will say: “We will encourage more communities to draw up such plans.”

    I find it hard to see what is wrong with this.

    The only problem that immediately springs to mind is if those communities combined fail to come up with plans that provide for the required amount of development. That then presumably requires central government to tell them their plans aren't good enough and to think again, which tends to piss people off.
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 25,516

    rcs1000 said:

    So a London home owner I will personally benefit from this. But it is economically absurd and irrational.
    It's another dickhead policy. Really is this the best the Conservatives have to offer ?
    What I thought was interesting was the train fare price freeze policy yesterday. It is overwhelmingly the SE commuter belt, where the issue of high season tickets into London is something that is real core interest. The Tories aren't struggling to win those areas, it is basically just playing to the home crowd.

    Again this green belt policy and the train one, I can't see how that win any votes in key marginals like in the midlands.
    More fun will be how Cameron tries to square the circle of oil in Surrey. Will he sell out to big corporates or stop one of our few growth industries.

    As for what is cameron doing for those outside his comfort zone - precious little.
    The election is clearly sending you doolally.
    Why would the govt give permission to test drill for oil in Surrey if it did not want to extract oil in Surrey? One minute the nimbys are out complaining that Cameron wants to build a railway through the countryside but according to you Cameron will struggke to give permission to drill for oil.

    According to the Telegraph the manifs=esto will say...
    “We will ensure that local people have more control over planning and protect the Green Belt. We will encourage more neighbourhood planning and protect the Green Belt.
    “Neighbourhood planning gives more power to local people, allowing them to play a much stronger role in shaping their areas.”
    The manifesto will highlight the 1,400 communities, representing six million people, have now applied to draw up the plans to set out where development can take place. It will say: “We will encourage more communities to draw up such plans.”

    I find it hard to see what is wrong with this.
    At the time HMG were granting licences no-one was anticipating a discovery of the size announced this week. something the size of Wytch Farm was more likely. The facts have changed so somewhere along the line Cameron if still PM will have to change his opinion.

    I suspect Ed will happily let the South Downs be ripped up.
  • Roger said:


    On Any Questions when Caroline Lucas was asked whether she was worried the non dom policy might not increase the tax take she said she didn't care. "if non doms want to leave because they have to pay tax like the rest of us then I'll personally drive them to the airport".

    THAT got the biggest cheer of the day.

    The Green MP drives?

  • Smarmeron said:

    @TCPoliticalBetting
    Building a retirement village can only work on a small scale, and as part of a larger community, otherwise it becomes a parking lot for the STBD".
    *(soon to be dead)

    Much more efficient to have people of same type in same areas. That way services can be tailored to their needs. No need for a school but every need for smooth pavements, easy access and a large Care Home.
  • nu123nu123 Posts: 25
    So the Tories are going to propose on keeping the green belt l;and for another five years...

    For goodness sake, why it the Tory campaign so boring?! Where are the radical policies that voters can get behind ? Where are the modern equivalents such as right to buy share ownership.

    They deserve to lose if they can't give people real reasons to vote FOR them instead of against Ed.
  • IndigoIndigo Posts: 9,966

    I suspect Ed will happily let the South Downs be ripped up.

    Manny Shinwell of our times ?

  • Indigo said:

    I'd listen to Tim Montgomerie.

    I wouldn't, he is Ted Heath's ideological nephew, and is behind complete bilge like The Good Right.
    Wrong. Montgomerie is a Eurosceptic. Think IDS.
  • marktheowlmarktheowl Posts: 169
    Indigo said:

    I'd listen to Tim Montgomerie.

    I wouldn't, he is Ted Heath's ideological nephew, and is behind complete bilge like The Good Right.

    Ted Heath won a majority.

  • IndigoIndigo Posts: 9,966

    Indigo said:

    I'd listen to Tim Montgomerie.

    I wouldn't, he is Ted Heath's ideological nephew, and is behind complete bilge like The Good Right.

    Ted Heath won a majority.

    And spent the rest of his life apologising for being a Conservative, rather like Montie does.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 43,484

    Yes that's true but as you say the extra level of hassle puts a lot of people off. Really we need to get back to some simple ways of planning where we house people. The standard approach of building mega estates of houses that all look the same isn't much use in a lot of areas.

    There is moreover still lots of land and older buildings which is nor being used and where more housing would fit easily within the exisiting infrastructure. I drive trhough S Birmingham most days on the way to work and there are loads of old factory and retail buildings which could be converted to sensible living accommodation.

    Simple ways of planning have a habit of working for a lucky few, and not working for everyone else.

    There is no reason for housing estates of new builds to look the same. I could refer you to my own village, where they had the cunning plan of having four developers. Each had their own areas of land, but these were interspersed in smallish blocks. Hence faux-wooden barn conversions intermingle with town houses, to (in my opinion) reasonable effect. Looking out my window, I can see several different styles of houses in a pleasant and relatively traffic-free mall where children can play safely as there are ninety-degree bends at either end.

    It works. Even better, as the houses are made of differing materials and age at slightly different rates, they do not necessarily look like they were built at the same time. Differing roof lines and pitches, even when the houses are in a line, also have a positive effect.

    Agree about redevelopment of existing structures where possible. But again, it needs to be done right (although there are companies with plenty of experience of doing it right).

    Oh, and SuDS is a must on any new development. ;-)
    That does sound more the way to go. Mixed developemnt and a bit of variety make a more pleasant environment imo. I hope the new towns announced by the coalition get to go a head and we do something a bit more interesting as we build them.

    Modern architecture always seems to struggle in the UK. Patly it's the attachment to older designs and partly it's the weather. But if we nominated one of the new towns as more of a showpiece for modernism, it could just work.
    The biggest argument I've heard against the Cambourne-style housing is that it is architecturally dishonest. Which is true, but I don't give a damn. Architectural honesty is a low second to the actual quality of the housing.

    I'd give Cambourne 8 or 8.5 out of town for the development. It can be improved, but sadly the new developments being planned (e.g. Northstowe) are going to be worse. That's why I've got a bee in my bonnet about this: we need to build better developments, not worse.
  • marktheowlmarktheowl Posts: 169
    Indigo said:

    I'd listen to Tim Montgomerie.

    I wouldn't, he is Ted Heath's ideological nephew, and is behind complete bilge like The Good Right.

    And, the point isn't about ideology, it's about tactics. If I were a Tory, I'd initially at least be killing Ed Miliband with kindness. Saying he's nice but inept (I don't think he is, in fact he's often much more capable than Cameron). People have their preconceptions without politicians informing them of them, you bank that and move on - at the moment Ed Miliband looks utterly prime ministerial purely by virtue of dealing with the negativity in the Tory campaign with dignity.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 43,378
    Scott_P said:

    Life in Scotland under the fanatical Nats

    @pressjournal: The Conservative offices in Aberdeen have been attacked overnight http://t.co/tY3o3kbzVC http://t.co/zhiCIzAyoT

    FPT: In other news, Scott P steps on a dog turd on the street corner in Auchtermuchty and personally blames A. Salmond.

    It might have escaped him that just as there are an awful lot of dogs, and an awful lot of people who don't like the Tory Party, most of whom aren't SNP members and many of whom aren't SNP voters. Vandaism is pointess and criminal, but I remember the supposed vandalism blaned on Yessers of an Edinburgh Labour pol's office, when any local would instantly recognise the spray painted slogans as the local youth gang (young toi or whatever they call themselves nowadays).
  • Spurs players in April onwards = Labour Front Bench from May onwards.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 43,484


    At the time HMG were granting licences no-one was anticipating a discovery of the size announced this week. something the size of Wytch Farm was more likely. The facts have changed so somewhere along the line Cameron if still PM will have to change his opinion.

    I suspect Ed will happily let the South Downs be ripped up.

    If you look at the Wytch Farm development, it is very well disguised. And it is in a fairly beautiful and environmentally sensitive area. It should be easier to disguise with oil wells, which should last longer than the more transitory fracking gas wells.

    I guess - Mr Tyndall should know more.
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 43,500

    rcs1000 said:

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/general-election-2015/11528903/Green-Belt-is-safe-under-us-until-2020-Conservative-manifesto-will-say.html

    "The Green Belt will be safe for another five years under a Conservative Government, David Cameron will pledge next week.

    The Prime Minister and Tory leader will say that the protected greenfield land around towns and cities will not get any smaller in its manifesto next week."

    I'm sure this will have been extensively poll tested but I can't help feeling it's increasingly questionable electorally. They risk being painted as protecting the interests of the 'have houses' against the young.

    So a London home owner I will personally benefit from this. But it is economically absurd and irrational.
    It's another dickhead policy. Really is this the best the Conservatives have to offer ?
    What I thought was interesting was the train fare price freeze policy yesterday. It is overwhelmingly the SE commuter belt, where the issue of high season tickets into London is something that is real core interest. The Tories aren't struggling to win those areas, it is basically just playing to the home crowd.

    Again this green belt policy and the train one, I can't see how that win any votes in key marginals like in the midlands.
    More fun will be how Cameron tries to square the circle of oil in Surrey. Will he sell out to big corporates or stop one of our few growth industries.

    As for what is cameron doing for those outside his comfort zone - precious little.
    I want to know when it is being declared Extra Regio
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 43,500
    Carnyx said:

    Scott_P said:

    Life in Scotland under the fanatical Nats

    @pressjournal: The Conservative offices in Aberdeen have been attacked overnight http://t.co/tY3o3kbzVC http://t.co/zhiCIzAyoT

    FPT: In other news, Scott P steps on a dog turd on the street corner in Auchtermuchty and personally blames A. Salmond.

    It might have escaped him that just as there are an awful lot of dogs, and an awful lot of people who don't like the Tory Party, most of whom aren't SNP members and many of whom aren't SNP voters. Vandaism is pointess and criminal, but I remember the supposed vandalism blaned on Yessers of an Edinburgh Labour pol's office, when any local would instantly recognise the spray painted slogans as the local youth gang (young toi or whatever they call themselves nowadays).
    Scott has to be the most stupid one issue dullard on the site, total contribution is just unadulterated merde tout le monde.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 43,484
    Indigo said:

    The manifesto will highlight the 1,400 communities, representing six million people, have now applied to draw up the plans to set out where development can take place. It will say: “We will encourage more communities to draw up such plans.”

    I find it hard to see what is wrong with this.

    The only problem that immediately springs to mind is if those communities combined fail to come up with plans that provide for the required amount of development. That then presumably requires central government to tell them their plans aren't good enough and to think again, which tends to piss people off.
    IANAE, but I *think* the way it works at the moment is that central government gives local authorities targets for housebuilding. The local authority then comes up with a local plan to match the centrally-imposed target, and this has to be signed off by the relevant SoS.

    As an example:
    https://www.scambs.gov.uk/localplan

    It'd be nice to know how this new scheme changes this (if I've understood it correctly).
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 43,500
    nu123 said:

    So the Tories are going to propose on keeping the green belt l;and for another five years...

    For goodness sake, why it the Tory campaign so boring?! Where are the radical policies that voters can get behind ? Where are the modern equivalents such as right to buy share ownership.

    They deserve to lose if they can't give people real reasons to vote FOR them instead of against Ed.

    It is a borefest competition between labour and Tories to see who can be the worst.
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 28,858
    edited April 2015

    Yes that's true but as you say the extra level of hassle puts a lot of people off. Really we need to get back to some simple ways of planning where we house people. The standard approach of building mega estates of houses that all look the same isn't much use in a lot of areas.

    There is moreover still lots of land and older buildings which is nor being used and where more housing would fit easily within the exisiting infrastructure. I drive trhough S Birmingham most days on the way to work and there are loads of old factory and retail buildings which could be converted to sensible living accommodation.

    Simple ways of planning have a habit of working for a lucky few, and not working for everyone else.

    There is no reason for housing estates of new builds to look the same. I could refer you to my own village, where they had the cunning plan of having four developers. Each had their own areas of land, but these were interspersed in smallish blocks. Hence faux-wooden barn conversions intermingle with town houses, to (in my opinion) reasonable effect. Looking out my window, I can see several different styles of houses in a pleasant and relatively traffic-free mall where children can play safely as there are ninety-degree bends at either end.

    It works. Even better, as the houses are made of differing materials and age at slightly different rates, they do not necessarily look like they were built at the same time. Differing roof lines and pitches, even when the houses are in a line, also have a positive effect.

    Agree about redevelopment of existing structures where possible. But again, it needs to be done right (although there are companies with plenty of experience of doing it right).

    Oh, and SuDS is a must on any new development. ;-)
    That does sound more the way to go. Mixed developemnt and a bit of variety make a more pleasant environment imo. I hope the new towns announced by the coalition get to go a head and we do something a bit more interesting as we build them.

    Modern architecture always seems to struggle in the UK. Patly it's the attachment to older designs and partly it's the weather. But if we nominated one of the new towns as more of a showpiece for modernism, it could just work.
    Is there such a thing as 'modernism'? Georgian architecture harked back to Roman and Greek architecture, the Gothic revival harked back to mediaeval architecture. Both are now seen as iconic eras for building design in their own right. 1960's architecture on the other hand...
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 25,516


    At the time HMG were granting licences no-one was anticipating a discovery of the size announced this week. something the size of Wytch Farm was more likely. The facts have changed so somewhere along the line Cameron if still PM will have to change his opinion.

    I suspect Ed will happily let the South Downs be ripped up.

    If you look at the Wytch Farm development, it is very well disguised. And it is in a fairly beautiful and environmentally sensitive area. It should be easier to disguise with oil wells, which should last longer than the more transitory fracking gas wells.

    I guess - Mr Tyndall should know more.
    I suspect the oil wells could be sensitively blended in to the landscape without much effort. However the main issue will be the human one of protestors not wanting to let any of it get started for any number of reasons. Having Greenie Brighton on the doorstep gives the "alternatives" a big head start in the protest game.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,415
    Just on Spring Heeled, but Nicholls is right here - Rocky Creek should be favourite.
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 25,516
    malcolmg said:

    rcs1000 said:

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/general-election-2015/11528903/Green-Belt-is-safe-under-us-until-2020-Conservative-manifesto-will-say.html

    "The Green Belt will be safe for another five years under a Conservative Government, David Cameron will pledge next week.

    The Prime Minister and Tory leader will say that the protected greenfield land around towns and cities will not get any smaller in its manifesto next week."

    I'm sure this will have been extensively poll tested but I can't help feeling it's increasingly questionable electorally. They risk being painted as protecting the interests of the 'have houses' against the young.

    So a London home owner I will personally benefit from this. But it is economically absurd and irrational.
    It's another dickhead policy. Really is this the best the Conservatives have to offer ?
    What I thought was interesting was the train fare price freeze policy yesterday. It is how that win any votes in key marginals like in the midlands.
    More fun will be how Cameron tries to square the circle of oil in Surrey. Will he sell out to big corporates or stop one of our few growth industries.

    As for what is cameron doing for those outside his comfort zone - precious little.
    I want to know when it is being declared Extra Regio
    I'd have thought this will be good news for you short term. I can see HMG wanting to let local communities keep more of their oil money. In Scotland it's to shut you up and in the SE to bribe them to let exploitation go ahead.
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 28,858

    Indigo said:

    I'd listen to Tim Montgomerie.

    I wouldn't, he is Ted Heath's ideological nephew, and is behind complete bilge like The Good Right.
    Wrong. Montgomerie is a Eurosceptic. Think IDS.
    No, he was a eurosceptic, now he's a sellout. Think Hague.
  • TomsToms Posts: 2,478
    edited April 2015
    I think there's been some good sensible comment here about the Ed fratricide nonsense.

    As for DC: I don't believe a word he says about green belts or anything else.

    Fingers crossed the Tories will keep up their present head of steam and Ed will stay cool.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758
    Marf said:

    Thank you, Mike - I really appreciate it. I've never enjoyed such freedom as on PB. And it does seem crowd-funding is the way forward for artists who publish online.

    Do you still have the original of the Richard III cartoon available?
This discussion has been closed.