King Cole, it's also an issue with expanding current villages/towns.
If there's no parking, but old shops and brownfield area get made into houses, streets become clogged. If there are no more schools, they become overcrowded. Building on fields mean fewer places for dogs to be walked off-street, and more muck on the pavements.
As an aside, the most interesting geography lesson I had (not that this was a competitive field...) was when we were given graph paper which had a river drawn on it. Using a set of step-by-step guidelines, we had to colour in a few squares at a time to show where we'd build, then expand, a settlement through time. Problems with new ships being too large to go a long way upstream, or the risk of flooding etc, made it quite interesting, as did the variety of settlement layouts that came about.
As an aside, my abortive degree included surveying. We were told that, for housing developments with gardens, you could fit as many houses in using winding roads and cul-de-sacs as you could with straight rows of houses. Like you, a session with graph paper and cut-out rectangles for houses and garages seemed to prove this.
The secret is that the gardens are rarely regularly-shaped. And that's exactly what I see in the houses in my development, and why builders are willing to build them over straight rows.
Only one thing wrong with the CGI. At the relevant time, the Liver Building and others were as black as the hobs of Hell, from soot, and were not cleaned up till the mid-1970s, long after the LOR had gone...
It amuses me, the constant oohs and aahs over the latest glass abortion to go up in London. The Liver Building was the tallest and largest office building in the country, for over 50 years, until Shell Mex went up in London in 1962 - a longevity record, at least, which is unlikely ever to be beaten.
We still have the largest clocks in the Kingdom, of course, a metre wider than your Big Ben....
And the largest proportion of obnoxious people with an overblown sense of self-importance.
It is one of the riddles how nearby Manchester- confronted with similar challenges appears to have made so much a better fist of reinventing itself.....
The best thing to have happened to Manchester in the last 30 years was when Corbyn and McDonnell's mates decided to bomb Manchester city centre.
However, while it might be a promotion of sorts to be switched, it would still be a move of weakness for both men. For Corbyn would still have a Bastard in the ranks and not only that: the prime Bastard around whom others were willing to rally. He could lead a revolt against Corbyn just as much from SHS as from SFS. The issue is not the post he's given, it's whether he's in the Shadow Cabinet or not at all. Meanwhile, for Benn, to allow himself to be moved to what most would see as a lesser role (even if it's not), having made a considerable success of his current one would equally be seen as a sign of acquiescence and weakness.
...
Plus it diminishes Burnham - if that were still possible - if he colluded with Benn. Hence the denials. Indeed it would diminish all Corbyn's opponents in the Shadow Cabinet if they co-operated in getting him out of a mess of his own making. In any event the other point for Corbyn is to put his own placemen(women) into the vacant jobs. He wants to put someone of a similar loony persuasion as FS.
I came here intending to post on the Times story, but now its being denied. Now of course they will both look foolish if it actually happens. It would indeed be the most absurd notion in the history of reshuffles. Labour have got themselves into a stupid 'damned if they do damned if they don't' position. I believe the other name this is known by is 'incompetence'.
Allowing the job swap would be a climbdown for the leadership, but there is a suspicion in the party that the harshest briefings on the reshuffle had little to do with Corbyn, and came while he was incommunicado in Malta over Christmas. This briefing to the Independent, in which Benn’s sacking was mooted along with a purge of Blairite ‘serial losers’, is widely believed to have come from Corbyn’s director of communications, Seumas Milne. Party figures suggest that the briefing seems to have calmed down since the leader returned from his holiday. Corbyn and his staff know that they cannot look weak by allowing those who appear disloyal to continue in place, but they also cannot look ludicrous by sacking everyone with experience and replacing them with chums who agree with the Labour leader.
Not a surprise that Milne might behind weekend briefing. As I said yesterday on PB, Corbyn's supporters keep banging on about the new politics and what a lovely man he is, but they can't accept that his kitchen cabinet is a set of hard left fanatics who will do anything they can to further the agenda. There is nothing new about Milne's way of operating.
Only one thing wrong with the CGI. At the relevant time, the Liver Building and others were as black as the hobs of Hell, from soot, and were not cleaned up till the mid-1970s, long after the LOR had gone...
It amuses me, the constant oohs and aahs over the latest glass abortion to go up in London. The Liver Building was the tallest and largest office building in the country, for over 50 years, until Shell Mex went up in London in 1962 - a longevity record, at least, which is unlikely ever to be beaten.
We still have the largest clocks in the Kingdom, of course, a metre wider than your Big Ben....
And the largest proportion of obnoxious people with an overblown sense of self-importance.
It is one of the riddles how nearby Manchester- confronted with similar challenges appears to have made so much a better fist of reinventing itself.....
The best thing to have happened to Manchester in the last 30 years was when Corbyn and McDonnell's mates decided to bomb Manchester city centre.
Ha, true. A good friend of mine from Manchester says that the IRA bombed The Arndale and caused a billion pounds worth of improvements! It was the catalyst for so much regeneration, the city centre is almost unrecognisable now from 20 years ago, and all in a good way.
Only one thing wrong with the CGI. At the relevant time, the Liver Building and others were as black as the hobs of Hell, from soot, and were not cleaned up till the mid-1970s, long after the LOR had gone...
It amuses me, the constant oohs and aahs over the latest glass abortion to go up in London. The Liver Building was the tallest and largest office building in the country, for over 50 years, until Shell Mex went up in London in 1962 - a longevity record, at least, which is unlikely ever to be beaten.
We still have the largest clocks in the Kingdom, of course, a metre wider than your Big Ben....
And the largest proportion of obnoxious people with an overblown sense of self-importance.
It is one of the riddles how nearby Manchester- confronted with similar challenges appears to have made so much a better fist of reinventing itself.....
The best thing to have happened to Manchester in the last 30 years was when Corbyn and McDonnell's mates decided to bomb Manchester city centre.
Ha, true. A good friend of mine from Manchester says that the IRA bombed The Arndale and caused a billion pounds worth of improvements! It was the catalyst for so much regeneration, the city centre is almost unrecognisable now from 20 years ago, and all in a good way.
The Luftwaffe did a lot of good slum clearance work in London's East End.
Mr. Jessop, hmm. That's a shade counter-intuitive, but quite interesting.
Mr. Eagles, Hamas never bombed Manchester.
It surprised me too. If I get an hour or two free (ha!) I might try it again, maybe in a vector graphics package.
We had a very memorable week surveying a couple of fields on a hillside, and being told to design a housing development on them. I was second-best at surveying (because my dad had taught me and I'd helped survey some sites for him), behind a man who'd worked professionally for a surveyor. I loved that week, even if I spent most of the time designing drains.
I probably couldn't even set up a theodolite now. I've got a level in our display case, and I'd love to add a Victorian theodolite to the collection. When Robert's old enough I'll have him out in the street mapping it ...
Only one thing wrong with the CGI. At the relevant time, the Liver Building and others were as black as the hobs of Hell, from soot, and were not cleaned up till the mid-1970s, long after the LOR had gone...
It amuses me, the constant oohs and aahs over the latest glass abortion to go up in London. The Liver Building was the tallest and largest office building in the country, for over 50 years, until Shell Mex went up in London in 1962 - a longevity record, at least, which is unlikely ever to be beaten.
We still have the largest clocks in the Kingdom, of course, a metre wider than your Big Ben....
And the largest proportion of obnoxious people with an overblown sense of self-importance.
It is one of the riddles how nearby Manchester- confronted with similar challenges appears to have made so much a better fist of reinventing itself.....
The best thing to have happened to Manchester in the last 30 years was when Corbyn and McDonnell's mates decided to bomb Manchester city centre.
Ha, true. A good friend of mine from Manchester says that the IRA bombed The Arndale and caused a billion pounds worth of improvements! It was the catalyst for so much regeneration, the city centre is almost unrecognisable now from 20 years ago, and all in a good way.
See that's why McDonnell wanted to honour the IRA for bombing the UK.
It's in the list quoted by the BBC. Whether, of course, it'll been as "green" as originally envisaged.......
Local government used to do a lot of that sort of thing ....... build houses ..... of course! Why did they stop?
Because the housing they built was of appalling quality and universally despised?
Generally speaking untrue.
Before my time, but my impression is that the problem with much of the post-war housing stock is not the building quality per se (some appalling examples excepted). The problem was the philosophies that lay behind large-scale building, particularly in the 60s and 70s.
As I keep on saying: you need to build communities, not homes. And that costs much more.
Who is the "you" who has this need? All PMs see their need as to take whatever credit is going, whilst shifting any blame elsewhere.
Did I say "PMs"? I meant, of course, all line managers.
Nothing in the Northern Powerhouse. Maybe they are waiting till it dries out.
Surely the point of the Northern Power House is to get local councils to do stuff not central government?
HMG is to build houses in six places, all in the south. There are councils in the south. There are places to build houses in the north.
One good drought is all that is needed.
''The government will also announce a £1.2bn fund to build 30,000 affordable starter homes on underused brownfield land in the next five years. The move will fast-track the creation of at least 30,000 new starter homes by 2020, Downing Street said.'' This will be built all over the country, so not just in the south.
It's in the list quoted by the BBC. Whether, of course, it'll been as "green" as originally envisaged.......
Local government used to do a lot of that sort of thing ....... build houses ..... of course! Why did they stop?
Because the housing they built was of appalling quality and universally despised?
Generally speaking untrue.
Before my time, but my impression is that the problem with much of the post-war housing stock is not the building quality per se (some appalling examples excepted). The problem was the philosophies that lay behind large-scale building, particularly in the 60s and 70s.
As I keep on saying: you need to build communities, not homes. And that costs much more.
Who is the "you" who has this need? All PMs see their need as to take whatever credit is going, whilst shifting any blame elsewhere.
Did I say "PMs"? I meant, of course, all line managers.
Only one thing wrong with the CGI. At the relevant time, the Liver Building and others were as black as the hobs of Hell, from soot, and were not cleaned up till the mid-1970s, long after the LOR had gone...
It amuses me, the constant oohs and aahs over the latest glass abortion to go up in London. The Liver Building was the tallest and largest office building in the country, for over 50 years, until Shell Mex went up in London in 1962 - a longevity record, at least, which is unlikely ever to be beaten.
We still have the largest clocks in the Kingdom, of course, a metre wider than your Big Ben....
And the largest proportion of obnoxious people with an overblown sense of self-importance.
It is one of the riddles how nearby Manchester- confronted with similar challenges appears to have made so much a better fist of reinventing itself.....
The best thing to have happened to Manchester in the last 30 years was when Corbyn and McDonnell's mates decided to bomb Manchester city centre.
Ha, true. A good friend of mine from Manchester says that the IRA bombed The Arndale and caused a billion pounds worth of improvements! It was the catalyst for so much regeneration, the city centre is almost unrecognisable now from 20 years ago, and all in a good way.
It's not just that though; it's a difference in mentality. There seems to be a much greater desire in Liverpool to proclaim how great a city it was and to live in that past, whereas Manchester seems far keener on looking to the future.
What I would question is the statement, from some quarters, that Corbyn needs a shadow cabinet that agrees with him, unanimously, on foreign policy. He really doesn't. He could sideline Syria as an issue if he didn't have such bee in his own bonnet about it. It's not a major issue for voters and shouldn't be one for a serious political party. Brush the Middle East under the carpet and get Benn to make trouble for the Government over its European policy.
I'd agree with that Mr J. Some of the very big estates with no services ....... shops, pubs etc ,,,,, were bad, as were some (not all) of the high rise developments. Smaller estates, with community services, such as shops, schools, GP surgeries etc were fine, and as you say, developed good community spirit. People knock, for example, Basildon, but, particularly among the early "settlers" there was a fierce pride in what they were participating in. Harlow too, which was a series of "neighbourhoods" linked by good public bus services to the centre did and still does, well.
Agreed. We overdo the "consistent neighbourhood" concept - housing to go in X (ideally all looking much the same), retail in Y, jobs in Z. There was a scheme in Broxtowe shortly before the election to build a big private housing estate off the M1 with over 1000 homes, a couple of corner shops and no community facilities. I suggested that it needed at least one supermarket to prevent massive traffic jams in and out and the developers seemed surprised at the eccentric intervention - it's an area designated for housing, not retail, so what are you on about? So far as I know, it's likely to go through.
It's in the list quoted by the BBC. Whether, of course, it'll been as "green" as originally envisaged.......
Local government used to do a lot of that sort of thing ....... build houses ..... of course! Why did they stop?
Because the housing they built was of appalling quality and universally despised?
Generally speaking untrue.
Before my time, but my impression is that the problem with much of the post-war housing stock is not the building quality per se (some appalling examples excepted). The problem was the philosophies that lay behind large-scale building, particularly in the 60s and 70s.
As I keep on saying: you need to build communities, not homes. And that costs much more.
Who is the "you" who has this need? All PMs see their need as to take whatever credit is going, whilst shifting any blame elsewhere.
Did I say "PMs"? I meant, of course, all line managers.
Heh. I've been a line and team manager.
And you're wrong. Utterly wrong.
Sir, you prove my point. No one has, or ever had had, the right to tell another human being what to do. Society is another word for oppression.
Only one thing wrong with the CGI. At the relevant time, the Liver Building and others were as black as the hobs of Hell, from soot, and were not cleaned up till the mid-1970s, long after the LOR had gone...
It amuses me, the constant oohs and aahs over the latest glass abortion to go up in London. The Liver Building was the tallest and largest office building in the country, for over 50 years, until Shell Mex went up in London in 1962 - a longevity record, at least, which is unlikely ever to be beaten.
We still have the largest clocks in the Kingdom, of course, a metre wider than your Big Ben....
And the largest proportion of obnoxious people with an overblown sense of self-importance.
It is one of the riddles how nearby Manchester- confronted with similar challenges appears to have made so much a better fist of reinventing itself.....
The best thing to have happened to Manchester in the last 30 years was when Corbyn and McDonnell's mates decided to bomb Manchester city centre.
Ha, true. A good friend of mine from Manchester says that the IRA bombed The Arndale and caused a billion pounds worth of improvements! It was the catalyst for so much regeneration, the city centre is almost unrecognisable now from 20 years ago, and all in a good way.
It's not just that though; it's a difference in mentality. There seems to be a much greater desire in Liverpool to proclaim how great a city it was and to live in that past, whereas Manchester seems far keener on looking to the future.
Actually I sometimes think Manchester goes too far the other way in forgetting its history which is, after all, fairly remarkable. We could be reminded of "the shock city of the age" occasionally.
Mr Danzuck's first wife is quickly learning how the press behave. Yesterday the MoS ran with her kiss and tell about the former MP, today the DM are repeating a counter-claim from another newspaper that she used to work as an escort. I feel sorry for the kids.
I came here intending to post on the Times story, but now its being denied. Now of course they will both look foolish if it actually happens. It would indeed be the most absurd notion in the history of reshuffles. Labour have got themselves into a stupid 'damned if they do damned if they don't' position. I believe the other name this is known by is 'incompetence'.
Allowing the job swap would be a climbdown for the leadership, but there is a suspicion in the party that the harshest briefings on the reshuffle had little to do with Corbyn, and came while he was incommunicado in Malta over Christmas. This briefing to the Independent, in which Benn’s sacking was mooted along with a purge of Blairite ‘serial losers’, is widely believed to have come from Corbyn’s director of communications, Seumas Milne. Party figures suggest that the briefing seems to have calmed down since the leader returned from his holiday. Corbyn and his staff know that they cannot look weak by allowing those who appear disloyal to continue in place, but they also cannot look ludicrous by sacking everyone with experience and replacing them with chums who agree with the Labour leader.
That's how bonkers it's got - even the Lab leadership knows it would be ludicrous to put people who agree with the Lab leadership into the shadow cabinet.
I'd agree with that Mr J. Some of the very big estates with no services ....... shops, pubs etc ,,,,, were bad, as were some (not all) of the high rise developments. Smaller estates, with community services, such as shops, schools, GP surgeries etc were fine, and as you say, developed good community spirit. People knock, for example, Basildon, but, particularly among the early "settlers" there was a fierce pride in what they were participating in. Harlow too, which was a series of "neighbourhoods" linked by good public bus services to the centre did and still does, well.
Agreed. We overdo the "consistent neighbourhood" concept - housing to go in X (ideally all looking much the same), retail in Y, jobs in Z. There was a scheme in Broxtowe shortly before the election to build a big private housing estate off the M1 with over 1000 homes, a couple of corner shops and no community facilities. I suggested that it needed at least one supermarket to prevent massive traffic jams in and out and the developers seemed surprised at the eccentric intervention - it's an area designated for housing, not retail, so what are you on about? So far as I know, it's likely to go through.
That's the problem with zoning too broadly. I'm fairly convinced that any development of (say) over 100-200 houses should attempt to be fairly self-supporting and not leeching off its neighbours. The larger the new development, the more it should have in order to survive on its own basis. If there are enough houses for there to be children to teach, build the schools rather than expand schools in the neighbouring town. Build parks. Build a pub. Build a community hub. Build a library / doctor's surgery. If possible, separate it from the existing town by a green space. The larger the development, the more of these things there should be.
Such developments have other benefits, including less traffic and morte chance of building a distinct community.
But this all costs money, and we let developers get away with too much on S106 ...
Only one thing wrong with the CGI. At the relevant time, the Liver Building and others were as black as the hobs of Hell, from soot, and were not cleaned up till the mid-1970s, long after the LOR had gone...
It amuses me, the constant oohs and aahs over the latest glass abortion to go up in London. The Liver Building was the tallest and largest office building in the country, for over 50 years, until Shell Mex went up in London in 1962 - a longevity record, at least, which is unlikely ever to be beaten.
We still have the largest clocks in the Kingdom, of course, a metre wider than your Big Ben....
And the largest proportion of obnoxious people with an overblown sense of self-importance.
It is one of the riddles how nearby Manchester- confronted with similar challenges appears to have made so much a better fist of reinventing itself.....
The best thing to have happened to Manchester in the last 30 years was when Corbyn and McDonnell's mates decided to bomb Manchester city centre.
Ha, true. A good friend of mine from Manchester says that the IRA bombed The Arndale and caused a billion pounds worth of improvements! It was the catalyst for so much regeneration, the city centre is almost unrecognisable now from 20 years ago, and all in a good way.
It's not just that though; it's a difference in mentality. There seems to be a much greater desire in Liverpool to proclaim how great a city it was and to live in that past, whereas Manchester seems far keener on looking to the future.
Actually I sometimes think Manchester goes too far the other way in forgetting its history which is, after all, fairly remarkable. We could be reminded of "the shock city of the age" occasionally.
Liverpool and Bristol grew rich on the backs of slavery. But there is no denying they grew very rich. Equally there is no denying that Osborne's carrot and stick (and evolutionary) policy to get the big northern conurbations to co-operate and develop as a distinct region is a good one. The region needs to take this opportunity to develop a separate identity for itself.
I'd agree with that Mr J. Some of the very big estates with no services ....... shops, pubs etc ,,,,, were bad, as were some (not all) of the high rise developments. Smaller estates, with community services, such as shops, schools, GP surgeries etc were fine, and as you say, developed good community spirit. People knock, for example, Basildon, but, particularly among the early "settlers" there was a fierce pride in what they were participating in. Harlow too, which was a series of "neighbourhoods" linked by good public bus services to the centre did and still does, well.
Agreed. We overdo the "consistent neighbourhood" concept - housing to go in X (ideally all looking much the same), retail in Y, jobs in Z. There was a scheme in Broxtowe shortly before the election to build a big private housing estate off the M1 with over 1000 homes, a couple of corner shops and no community facilities. I suggested that it needed at least one supermarket to prevent massive traffic jams in and out and the developers seemed surprised at the eccentric intervention - it's an area designated for housing, not retail, so what are you on about? So far as I know, it's likely to go through.
Some years ago, I attended an open meeting about a planning application. A local man, wished to convert the ground floor of his house into a corner shop. This on a estate of housing so constructed that walking to the shops was impossible.
The locals were all in favour - his son had done the design and it was really very clever... blended in perfectly.
The planning officer was frothing at the mouth. Apparently putting retail in a designated "domestic" area was, to him, unthinkable and evil.
Mr Danzuck's first wife is quickly learning how the press behave. Yesterday the MoS ran with her kiss and tell about the former MP, today the DM are repeating a counter-claim from another newspaper that she used to work as an escort. I feel sorry for the kids.
It's in the list quoted by the BBC. Whether, of course, it'll been as "green" as originally envisaged.......
Local government used to do a lot of that sort of thing ....... build houses ..... of course! Why did they stop?
Because the housing they built was of appalling quality and universally despised?
Generally speaking untrue.
Before my time, but my impression is that the problem with much of the post-war housing stock is not the building quality per se (some appalling examples excepted). The problem was the philosophies that lay behind large-scale building, particularly in the 60s and 70s.
As I keep on saying: you need to build communities, not homes. And that costs much more.
Who is the "you" who has this need? All PMs see their need as to take whatever credit is going, whilst shifting any blame elsewhere.
Did I say "PMs"? I meant, of course, all line managers.
Heh. I've been a line and team manager.
And you're wrong. Utterly wrong.
Sir, you prove my point. No one has, or ever had had, the right to tell another human being what to do. Society is another word for oppression.
I don't agree with that, and I'm not sure how you get there from what I've been saying.
Giving people the facilities by which they can build a community is not telling them what to do: it's giving them options. If you do not give them such facilities (*) then no-one has the option.
There's a village knitting group that a friend of mine attends. I doubt I'll ever attend. On the other hand, I sometimes join an informal writing group in the library. Some friends who are in a jazz band practice in a local community building. They're choices, and we're not obliged to do so.
(*) Or allocate spaces for them to be built in convenient places.
I came here intending to post on the Times story, but now its being denied. Now of course they will both look foolish if it actually happens. It would indeed be the most absurd notion in the history of reshuffles. Labour have got themselves into a stupid 'damned if they do damned if they don't' position. I believe the other name this is known by is 'incompetence'.
Allowing the job swap would be a climbdown for the leadership, but there is a suspicion in the party that the harshest briefings on the reshuffle had little to do with Corbyn, and came while he was incommunicado in Malta over Christmas. This briefing to the Independent, in which Benn’s sacking was mooted along with a purge of Blairite ‘serial losers’, is widely believed to have come from Corbyn’s director of communications, Seumas Milne. Party figures suggest that the briefing seems to have calmed down since the leader returned from his holiday. Corbyn and his staff know that they cannot look weak by allowing those who appear disloyal to continue in place, but they also cannot look ludicrous by sacking everyone with experience and replacing them with chums who agree with the Labour leader.
That's how bonkers it's got - even the Lab leadership knows it would be ludicrous to put people who agree with the Lab leadership into the shadow cabinet.
The shadow cabinet - or the real one, for that matter - shouldn't be an echo chamber for the leader; it should be comprised of that party's most effective political performers in parliament - those most capable of leadership, of taking the battle to the other parties and, in government, of administering policy and implementing legislation.
Once again though, the problem with Corbyn is that he has the support of such a small proportion of MPs. Usually, differences wouldn't matter because they could be smoothed over as those who reach high prominence are practical and centralist. Corbyn's position is perhaps unique in British political history and the inevitable consequences include the kind of dilemma he now faces in how to build an effective shadow cabinet - if indeed that is at all possible.
From the moment he was elected, Corbyn's leadership has been on life support. The only question is who turns it off - the Labour Party (in which case it still has a future role at Westminster) or the voters (in which case it is done for).
And the reason Benn is in the cross-hairs is because he was such a superb advocate against the position Corbyn has spent his political career working for - Stop the War. He made Corbyn look feeble. There is no coming back from that.
I'd agree with that Mr J. Some of the very big estates with no services ....... shops, pubs etc ,,,,, were bad, as were some (not all) of the high rise developments. Smaller estates, with community services, such as shops, schools, GP surgeries etc were fine, and as you say, developed good community spirit. People knock, for example, Basildon, but, particularly among the early "settlers" there was a fierce pride in what they were participating in. Harlow too, which was a series of "neighbourhoods" linked by good public bus services to the centre did and still does, well.
Agreed. We overdo the "consistent neighbourhood" concept - housing to go in X (ideally all looking much the same), retail in Y, jobs in Z. There was a scheme in Broxtowe shortly before the election to build a big private housing estate off the M1 with over 1000 homes, a couple of corner shops and no community facilities. I suggested that it needed at least one supermarket to prevent massive traffic jams in and out and the developers seemed surprised at the eccentric intervention - it's an area designated for housing, not retail, so what are you on about? So far as I know, it's likely to go through.
That's the problem with zoning too broadly. I'm fairly convinced that any development of (say) over 100-200 houses should attempt to be fairly self-supporting and not leeching off its neighbours. The larger the new development, the more it should have in order to survive on its own basis. If there are enough houses for there to be children to teach, build the schools rather than expand schools in the neighbouring town. Build parks. Build a pub. Build a community hub. Build a library / doctor's surgery. If possible, separate it from the existing town by a green space. The larger the development, the more of these things there should be.
Such developments have other benefits, including less traffic and more chance of building a distinct community.
But this all costs money, and we let developers get away with too much on S106 ...
This requires planners and the planning system to be sensible. They are not. But in any event - where would the money for library staff come from (the service increasingly relies on volunteers)? the doctors? Pubs as such are increasingly less viable these days - they are actually closing and being turned into housing, not built to service housing. It would require a large development to warrant a school. I suspect larger developments do in fact take these things into consideration.
Mr Danzuck's first wife is quickly learning how the press behave. Yesterday the MoS ran with her kiss and tell about the former MP, today the DM are repeating a counter-claim from another newspaper that she used to work as an escort. I feel sorry for the kids.
Only one thing wrong with the CGI. At the relevant time, the Liver Building and others were as black as the hobs of Hell, from soot, and were not cleaned up till the mid-1970s, long after the LOR had gone...
It amuses me, the constant oohs and aahs over the latest glass abortion to go up in London. The Liver Building was the tallest and largest office building in the country, for over 50 years, until Shell Mex went up in London in 1962 - a longevity record, at least, which is unlikely ever to be beaten.
We still have the largest clocks in the Kingdom, of course, a metre wider than your Big Ben....
And the largest proportion of obnoxious people with an overblown sense of self-importance.
It is one of the riddles how nearby Manchester- confronted with similar challenges appears to have made so much a better fist of reinventing itself.....
The best thing to have happened to Manchester in the last 30 years was when Corbyn and McDonnell's mates decided to bomb Manchester city centre.
Ha, true. A good friend of mine from Manchester says that the IRA bombed The Arndale and caused a billion pounds worth of improvements! It was the catalyst for so much regeneration, the city centre is almost unrecognisable now from 20 years ago, and all in a good way.
It's not just that though; it's a difference in mentality. There seems to be a much greater desire in Liverpool to proclaim how great a city it was and to live in that past, whereas Manchester seems far keener on looking to the future.
Actually I sometimes think Manchester goes too far the other way in forgetting its history which is, after all, fairly remarkable. We could be reminded of "the shock city of the age" occasionally.
Liverpool and Bristol grew rich on the backs of slavery. But there is no denying they grew very rich. Equally there is no denying that Osborne's carrot and stick (and evolutionary) policy to get the big northern conurbations to co-operate and develop as a distinct region is a good one. The region needs to take this opportunity to develop a separate identity for itself.
I think it's a very good policy. I hope central and local government follow through on it.
I'd agree with that Mr J. Some of the very big estates with no services ....... shops, pubs etc ,,,,, were bad, as were some (not all) of the high rise developments. Smaller estates, with community services, such as shops, schools, GP surgeries etc were fine, and as you say, developed good community spirit. People knock, for example, Basildon, but, particularly among the early "settlers" there was a fierce pride in what they were participating in. Harlow too, which was a series of "neighbourhoods" linked by good public bus services to the centre did and still does, well.
Agreed. We overdo the "consistent neighbourhood" concept - housing to go in X (ideally all looking much the same), retail in Y, jobs in Z. There was a scheme in Broxtowe shortly before the election to build a big private housing estate off the M1 with over 1000 homes, a couple of corner shops and no community facilities. I suggested that it needed at least one supermarket to prevent massive traffic jams in and out and the developers seemed surprised at the eccentric intervention - it's an area designated for housing, not retail, so what are you on about? So far as I know, it's likely to go through.
That's the problem with zoning too broadly. I'm fairly convinced that any development of (say) over 100-200 houses should attempt to be fairly self-supporting and not leeching off its neighbours. The larger the new development, the more it should have in order to survive on its own basis. If there are enough houses for there to be children to teach, build the schools rather than expand schools in the neighbouring town. Build parks. Build a pub. Build a community hub. Build a library / doctor's surgery. If possible, separate it from the existing town by a green space. The larger the development, the more of these things there should be.
Such developments have other benefits, including less traffic and more chance of building a distinct community.
But this all costs money, and we let developers get away with too much on S106 ...
This requires planners and the planning system to be sensible. They are not. But in any event - where would the money for library staff come from (the service increasingly relies on volunteers)? the doctors? Pubs as such are increasingly less viable these days - they are actually closing and being turned into housing, not built to service housing. It would require a large development to warrant a school. I suspect larger developments do in fact take these things into consideration.
As I said, the larger the development the more of these things they will have.The important thing is for developments not to leech too much off their neighbours.
Agreed. We overdo the "consistent neighbourhood" concept - housing to go in X (ideally all looking much the same), retail in Y, jobs in Z. There was a scheme in Broxtowe shortly before the election to build a big private housing estate off the M1 with over 1000 homes, a couple of corner shops and no community facilities. I suggested that it needed at least one supermarket to prevent massive traffic jams in and out and the developers seemed surprised at the eccentric intervention - it's an area designated for housing, not retail, so what are you on about? So far as I know, it's likely to go through.
That's the problem with zoning too broadly. I'm fairly convinced that any development of (say) over 100-200 houses should attempt to be fairly self-supporting and not leeching off its neighbours. The larger the new development, the more it should have in order to survive on its own basis. If there are enough houses for there to be children to teach, build the schools rather than expand schools in the neighbouring town. Build parks. Build a pub. Build a community hub. Build a library / doctor's surgery. If possible, separate it from the existing town by a green space. The larger the development, the more of these things there should be.
Such developments have other benefits, including less traffic and more chance of building a distinct community.
But this all costs money, and we let developers get away with too much on S106 ...
This requires planners and the planning system to be sensible. They are not. But in any event - where would the money for library staff come from (the service increasingly relies on volunteers)? the doctors? Pubs as such are increasingly less viable these days - they are actually closing and being turned into housing, not built to service housing. It would require a large development to warrant a school. I suspect larger developments do in fact take these things into consideration.
As I said, the larger the development the more of these things they will have.The important thing is for developments not to leech too much off their neighbours.
Yes. Well... perhaps. A development can make its neighbour's facilities more viable.
I came here intending to post on the Times story, but now its being denied. Now of course they will both look foolish if it actually happens. It would indeed be the most absurd notion in the history of reshuffles. Labour have got themselves into a stupid 'damned if they do damned if they don't' position. I believe the other name this is known by is 'incompetence'.
Allowing the job swap would be a climbdown for the leadership, but there is a suspicion in the party that the harshest briefings on the reshuffle had little to do with Corbyn, and came while he was incommunicado in Malta over Christmas. This briefing to the Independent, in which Benn’s sacking was mooted along with a purge of Blairite ‘serial losers’, is widely believed to have come from Corbyn’s director of communications, Seumas Milne. Party figures suggest that the briefing seems to have calmed down since the leader returned from his holiday. Corbyn and his staff know that they cannot look weak by allowing those who appear disloyal to continue in place, but they also cannot look ludicrous by sacking everyone with experience and replacing them with chums who agree with the Labour leader.
That's how bonkers it's got - even the Lab leadership knows it would be ludicrous to put people who agree with the Lab leadership into the shadow cabinet.
The shadow cabinet - or the real one, for that matter - shouldn't be an echo chamber for the leader; it should be comprised of that party's most effective political performers in parliament - those most capable of leadership, of taking the battle to the other parties and, in government, of administering policy and implementing legislation.
Once again though, the problem with Corbyn is that he has the support of such a small proportion of MPs. Usually, differences wouldn't matter because they could be smoothed over as those who reach high prominence are practical and centralist. Corbyn's position is perhaps unique in British political history and the inevitable consequences include the kind of dilemma he now faces in how to build an effective shadow cabinet - if indeed that is at all possible.
The Shadow Cabinet has to speak with one voice. It is indeed ludicrous for it to contain two opposing positions, as we saw with Syria. Or do you think what we saw at that debate was healthy discussion?
As a voter I want to know what I'm going to get when I vote for a party. I don't want it to be a matter of seeing who wins the internal fight.
Unless, of course, I have a vote on the matter myself, which I will have on the EU ref.
"I would've batted for 700 yesterday. The more scoreboard pressure you can have on a flat pitch, the better." - Geoffrey Boycott
Ok Geoffrey...
The problem with that is that the only way you can win is to enforce the follow-on, which is hard work on the bowlers.
And on Boycs' logic, why stop at 700? With the time available and the speed England were scoring at, why not head on to 750, 800 or wherever the wickets run out?
Only one thing wrong with the CGI. At the relevant time, the Liver Building and others were as black as the hobs of Hell, from soot, and were not cleaned up till the mid-1970s, long after the LOR had gone...
It amuses me, the constant oohs and aahs over the latest glass abortion to go up in London. The Liver Building was the tallest and largest office building in the country, for over 50 years, until Shell Mex went up in London in 1962 - a longevity record, at least, which is unlikely ever to be beaten.
We still have the largest clocks in the Kingdom, of course, a metre wider than your Big Ben....
And the largest proportion of obnoxious people with an overblown sense of self-importance.
It is one of the riddles how nearby Manchester- confronted with similar challenges appears to have made so much a better fist of reinventing itself.....
The best thing to have happened to Manchester in the last 30 years was when Corbyn and McDonnell's mates decided to bomb Manchester city centre.
Ha, true. A good friend of mine from Manchester says that the IRA bombed The Arndale and caused a billion pounds worth of improvements! It was the catalyst for so much regeneration, the city centre is almost unrecognisable now from 20 years ago, and all in a good way.
The Luftwaffe did a lot of good slum clearance work in London's East End.
Much of the rebuilding from bomb damage was patch-up and uncoordinated, resulting in ugly cities.
I should have made myself clearer. I agree with all the points you make in your post.
What I despise is line managers in larger outfits behaving like business owners. Telling someone what they can and cannot do without taking the financial consequences personally (as an entrepreneur does) is morally vicious. It is, however, so common, in both for-profit and not-for-profit activities that we have lost sight of the ethical implications.
The shadow cabinet - or the real one, for that matter - shouldn't be an echo chamber for the leader; it should be comprised of that party's most effective political performers in parliament - those most capable of leadership, of taking the battle to the other parties and, in government, of administering policy and implementing legislation.
Once again though, the problem with Corbyn is that he has the support of such a small proportion of MPs. Usually, differences wouldn't matter because they could be smoothed over as those who reach high prominence are practical and centralist. Corbyn's position is perhaps unique in British political history and the inevitable consequences include the kind of dilemma he now faces in how to build an effective shadow cabinet - if indeed that is at all possible.
"I would've batted for 700 yesterday. The more scoreboard pressure you can have on a flat pitch, the better." - Geoffrey Boycott
Ok Geoffrey...
The problem with that is that the only way you can win is to enforce the follow-on, which is hard work on the bowlers.
And on Boycs' logic, why stop at 700? With the time available and the speed England were scoring at, why not head on to 750, 800 or wherever the wickets run out?
Boycott's doing no more than reprising his role as professional curmudgeon. It's pretty stale now but it's the only trick he has left.
Jeremy Corbyn not only refused to answer questions about the forthcoming reshuffle; he also sidestepped questions about the new Islamic State propaganda video that seems to feature a British jihadi. This is from the Press Association’s report.
Asked what he made of the video and what should be done about it, Corbyn said: “I’m talking about railways this morning.”
Allowing the job swap would be a climbdown for the leadership, but there is a suspicion in the party that the harshest briefings on the reshuffle had little to do with Corbyn, and came while he was incommunicado in Malta over Christmas. This briefing to the Independent, in which Benn’s sacking was mooted along with a purge of Blairite ‘serial losers’, is widely believed to have come from Corbyn’s director of communications, Seumas Milne. Party figures suggest that the briefing seems to have calmed down since the leader returned from his holiday. Corbyn and his staff know that they cannot look weak by allowing those who appear disloyal to continue in place, but they also cannot look ludicrous by sacking everyone with experience and replacing them with chums who agree with the Labour leader.
That's how bonkers it's got - even the Lab leadership knows it would be ludicrous to put people who agree with the Lab leadership into the shadow cabinet.
The shadow cabinet - or the real one, for that matter - shouldn't be an echo chamber for the leader; it should be comprised of that party's most effective political performers in parliament - those most capable of leadership, of taking the battle to the other parties and, in government, of administering policy and implementing legislation.
Once again though, the problem with Corbyn is that he has the support of such a small proportion of MPs. Usually, differences wouldn't matter because they could be smoothed over as those who reach high prominence are practical and centralist. Corbyn's position is perhaps unique in British political history and the inevitable consequences include the kind of dilemma he now faces in how to build an effective shadow cabinet - if indeed that is at all possible.
The Shadow Cabinet has to speak with one voice. It is indeed ludicrous for it to contain two opposing positions, as we saw with Syria. Or do you think what we saw at that debate was healthy discussion?
As a voter I want to know what I'm going to get when I vote for a party. I don't want it to be a matter of seeing who wins the internal fight.
Unless, of course, I have a vote on the matter myself, which I will have on the EU ref.
The lunacy stems from Corbyn clearly not having the confidence of the PLP, and their not being able to do anything about it. Everything stems from that.
Certainly the Shadow Cabinet should speak with one voice on issues of importance and the fact it couldn't was a serious problem - but a symptom rather than a feature in its own right.
I came here intending to post on the Times story, but now its being denied. Now of course they will both look foolish if it actually happens. It would indeed be the most absurd notion in the history of reshuffles. Labour have got themselves into a stupid 'damned if they do damned if they don't' position. I believe the other name this is known by is 'incompetence'.
Allowincontinue in place, but they also cannot look ludicrous by sacking everyone with experience and replacing them with chums who agree with the Labour leader.
That's how bonkers it's got - even the Lab leadership knows it would be ludicrous to put people who agree with the Lab leadership into the shadow cabinet.
The shadow cabinet - or the real one, for that matter - shouldn't be an echo chamber for the leader; it should be comprised of that party's most effective political performers in parliament - those most capable of leadership, of taking the battle to the other parties and, in government, of administering policy and implementing legislation.
Once again though, the problem with Corbyn is that he has the support of such a small proportion of MPs. Usually, differences wouldn't matter because they could be smoothed over as those who reach high prominence are practical and centralist. Corbyn's position is perhaps unique in British political history and the inevitable consequences include the kind of dilemma he now faces in how to build an effective shadow cabinet - if indeed that is at all possible.
Sorry I replied as though I disagreed with your post. I don't (of course to have read it through would have helped).
Yes - the difference now is that any cabinet will have a range of views (ofc take the Cons and the EU) but I need to know whether the party position will be upheld and not subject to reversal. OK you could say well what if eg. Owen P decided to rise up and I get that but as you also say, to have open warfare in a shadow cabinet with no one sure who will win in the end.
As mentioned earlier - my $0.02 is he should go sh1t or bust - sack all the rebels, install those who share his idiotic views and put that to the electorate.
Of course NPXMPX2 would be disappointed but at least you would be able to call them a party.
Jeremy Corbyn not only refused to answer questions about the forthcoming reshuffle; he also sidestepped questions about the new Islamic State propaganda video that seems to feature a British jihadi. This is from the Press Association’s report.
Asked what he made of the video and what should be done about it, Corbyn said: “I’m talking about railways this morning.”
Does Corbyn realise that the questions aren't going to stop just because he doesn't wish to answer them? I'm sure Corbyn would love to talk about railways, but his party are all talking about a reshuffle and the media about this new jihadi moron.
I'm sure the PM will point out that the same fate awaits this jihadi moron as the last jihadi moron, though will he be talking about the guy in Syria or the leader of the opposition?
Jeremy Corbyn not only refused to answer questions about the forthcoming reshuffle; he also sidestepped questions about the new Islamic State propaganda video that seems to feature a British jihadi. This is from the Press Association’s report.
Asked what he made of the video and what should be done about it, Corbyn said: “I’m talking about railways this morning.”
Does Corbyn realise that the questions aren't going to stop just because he doesn't wish to answer them? I'm sure Corbyn would love to talk about railways, but his party are all talking about a reshuffle and the media about this new jihadi moron.
I'm sure the PM will point out that the same fate awaits this jihadi moron as the last jihadi moron, though will he be talking about the guy in Syria or the leader of the opposition?
Team Corbyn also doesn't seem to have worked out that the media in this country have this terrible habit of asking questions about a range of topics during an interview, and not simply broadcasting your propaganda.
I look forward to the GE debates. What is your position on....I am not answering that question, I only want to talk about evil Tory cuts....What would you do about .... if you win the GE...I am not answering that question, we will discuss it when we win...
The shadow cabinet - or the real one, for that matter - shouldn't be an echo chamber for the leader; it should be comprised of that party's most effective political performers in parliament - those most capable of leadership, of taking the battle to the other parties and, in government, of administering policy and implementing legislation.
Once again though, the problem with Corbyn is that he has the support of such a small proportion of MPs. Usually, differences wouldn't matter because they could be smoothed over as those who reach high prominence are practical and centralist. Corbyn's position is perhaps unique in British political history and the inevitable consequences include the kind of dilemma he now faces in how to build an effective shadow cabinet - if indeed that is at all possible.
The Shadow Cabinet has to speak with one voice. It is indeed ludicrous for it to contain two opposing positions, as we saw with Syria. Or do you think what we saw at that debate was healthy discussion?
As a voter I want to know what I'm going to get when I vote for a party. I don't want it to be a matter of seeing who wins the internal fight.
Unless, of course, I have a vote on the matter myself, which I will have on the EU ref.
I don't see the need for unanimity, especially on such a tangential issue.
When it comes to the election the party will present a manifesto and you can take a view on that.
But also, it's always the case that parties may change based on who wins an internal fight. How could it be otherwise?
"I would've batted for 700 yesterday. The more scoreboard pressure you can have on a flat pitch, the better." - Geoffrey Boycott
Ok Geoffrey...
The problem with that is that the only way you can win is to enforce the follow-on, which is hard work on the bowlers.
And on Boycs' logic, why stop at 700? With the time available and the speed England were scoring at, why not head on to 750, 800 or wherever the wickets run out?
Boycott's doing no more than reprising his role as professional curmudgeon. It's pretty stale now but it's the only trick he has left.
It's worth remembering that he was a pretty useless captain himself.
His comments about batting (when he lays off the stick of rhubarb routine) can be very interesting imo.
Jeremy Corbyn not only refused to answer questions about the forthcoming reshuffle; he also sidestepped questions about the new Islamic State propaganda video that seems to feature a British jihadi. This is from the Press Association’s report.
Asked what he made of the video and what should be done about it, Corbyn said: “I’m talking about railways this morning.”
Does Corbyn realise that the questions aren't going to stop just because he doesn't wish to answer them? I'm sure Corbyn would love to talk about railways, but his party are all talking about a reshuffle and the media about this new jihadi moron.
I'm sure the PM will point out that the same fate awaits this jihadi moron as the last jihadi moron, though will he be talking about the guy in Syria or the leader of the opposition?
Team Corbyn also doesn't seem to have worked out that the media in this country have this terrible habit of asking questions about a range of topics during an interview, and not simply broadcasting your propaganda.
I look forward to the GE debates. What is your position on....I am not answering that question, I only want to talk about evil Tory cuts....What would you do about .... if you win the GE...I am not answering that question, we will discuss it when we win...
Given that the first thing he said in his victory speech was how evil the media are in UK, how long would we give him before he recruits his own team of 'media' to follow him around and send approved video and written copy to the press and TV companies?
Any half-decent competent leader should be able to say about his / her team:-
1. This is who we are. 2. This is what we do and how we do it. 3. This is where we're going. 4. This is how we're getting there.
Pace @HurstLlama's comments from last night that a leader should be able to say where they're going, I totally agree. This was implicit - to me, at least - in having effective communication skills because the key to any effective communication is having something to say, something you want to say - and a leader who cannot say where they are going or why people should want to be led by them - cannot be a good communicator.
The real issue with Corbyn and the Shadow Cabinet/PLP is that the majority of the latter do not agree with Corbyn on 1., either have no idea of his views on 2. and/or distrust what they see his acolytes doing, think that his destination is not one they share (point 3) and that how they get there (point 4) will make it impossible or very difficult to go anywhere else in future. Hard to see how this can be resolved by either one side or the other backing down. I don't think Corbyn will back down so the PLP will probably end up doing so, given that they have collectively also totally failed to answer questions 1 - 4 in a way which is persuasive to the members.
It's a pickle for them and an enjoyable spectacle for the rest of us.
Re the cricket...it is a flat pitch etc etc etc, but said this numerous times, our attack is very samey. We have 4 right arm medium fast bowlers all of basically the same pace and then a right arm finger spinner. This is especially evident away from home, where often conditions / pitches don't offer as much.
"I would've batted for 700 yesterday. The more scoreboard pressure you can have on a flat pitch, the better." - Geoffrey Boycott
Ok Geoffrey...
The problem with that is that the only way you can win is to enforce the follow-on, which is hard work on the bowlers.
And on Boycs' logic, why stop at 700? With the time available and the speed England were scoring at, why not head on to 750, 800 or wherever the wickets run out?
Boycott's doing no more than reprising his role as professional curmudgeon. It's pretty stale now but it's the only trick he has left.
It's worth remembering that he was a pretty useless captain himself.
His comments about batting (when he lays off the stick of rhubarb routine) can be very interesting imo.
It is an utter disgrace and a stain on the nation that Boycs hasn't been knighted.
Re the cricket...it is a flat pitch etc etc etc, but said this numerous times, our attack is very samey. We have 4 right arm medium fast bowlers all of basically the same pace and then a right arm finger spinner.
The bowlers weren't too bad this morning, we got them to lunch for only 56 runs. But there weren't any wickets, and only one dropped catch that looked particularly close to being one. I guess the hosts feel they've got a chance of batting out a draw from here, but there's an awful lot of cricket still to be played.
Re the cricket...it is a flat pitch etc etc etc, but said this numerous times, our attack is very samey. We have 4 right arm medium fast bowlers all of basically the same pace and then a right arm finger spinner.
The bowlers weren't too bad this morning, we got them to lunch for only 56 runs. But there weren't any wickets, and only one dropped catch that looked particularly close to being one. I guess the hosts feel they've got a chance of batting out a draw from here, but there's an awful lot of cricket still to be played.
I am not just saying it because of this morning, just pointing out that I believe it is a weakness in the current England attack. No left arm, no rip roaring pace bowler, no leg spinner. Not saying we should have all, but we have none. It is a shame that Tymal Mills is buggered, he fitted the left arm and rip roaring category. And it seems we have given up on Rashid.
"I would've batted for 700 yesterday. The more scoreboard pressure you can have on a flat pitch, the better." - Geoffrey Boycott
Ok Geoffrey...
The problem with that is that the only way you can win is to enforce the follow-on, which is hard work on the bowlers.
And on Boycs' logic, why stop at 700? With the time available and the speed England were scoring at, why not head on to 750, 800 or wherever the wickets run out?
Boycott's doing no more than reprising his role as professional curmudgeon. It's pretty stale now but it's the only trick he has left.
It's worth remembering that he was a pretty useless captain himself.
His comments about batting (when he lays off the stick of rhubarb routine) can be very interesting imo.
It is an utter disgrace and a stain on the nation that Boycs hasn't been knighted.
My Yorkshire family were calling him Sir Geoffrey in the early 70s.
I was going to say that I'm not convinced as I don't see him as having been at the level of Hutton. Then, looking at Wikipedia, I see that the list of British cricketing knights is longer and less exclusive than I thought. So maybe I agree.
The shadow cabinet - or the real one, for that matter - shouldn't be an echo chamber for the leader; it should be comprised of that party's most effective political performers in parliament - those most capable of leadership, of taking the battle to the other parties and, in government, of administering policy and implementing legislation.
Once again though, the problem with Corbyn is that he has the support of such a small proportion of MPs. Usually, differences wouldn't matter because they could be smoothed over as those who reach high prominence are practical and centralist. Corbyn's position is perhaps unique in British political history and the inevitable consequences include the kind of dilemma he now faces in how to build an effective shadow cabinet - if indeed that is at all possible.
The Shadow Cabinet has to speak with one voice. It is indeed ludicrous for it to contain two opposing positions, as we saw with Syria. Or do you think what we saw at that debate was healthy discussion?
As a voter I want to know what I'm going to get when I vote for a party. I don't want it to be a matter of seeing who wins the internal fight.
Unless, of course, I have a vote on the matter myself, which I will have on the EU ref.
I don't see the need for unanimity, especially on such a tangential issue.
When it comes to the election the party will present a manifesto and you can take a view on that.
But also, it's always the case that parties may change based on who wins an internal fight. How could it be otherwise?
There's lack of unity on a "tangential issue" (Britain going to war - more central than tangential IMO) and there's complete chaos.
In the meantime, and in advance of the manifesto which I'm sure will clear everything up for us, the famous "narrative" will have to be built, canvassers will have to canvas, cabinet members will have to opine. It is usual for any opposition to defer to the manifesto for details, but the general thrust of policy will have to be built up for months and years in the mind of the electorate.
But I don't know why I bother as @Cyclefree has yet again nailed it.
Then again, there's only so many ways of restating the bleedin' obvious.
I always take these surveys with a massive pinch of salt. We keep hearing 1 in x doctors, teachers, etc etc etc are going to leave and it will mean no teachers, doctors, nurses, etc etc etc. Yes changes often have people reconsider their position and / or hasten what they might have already planning to do, but it doesn't mean others won't step in their place.
Mr. Jessop, hmm. That's a shade counter-intuitive, but quite interesting.
Mr. Eagles, Hamas never bombed Manchester.
It surprised me too. If I get an hour or two free (ha!) I might try it again, maybe in a vector graphics package.
We had a very memorable week surveying a couple of fields on a hillside, and being told to design a housing development on them. I was second-best at surveying (because my dad had taught me and I'd helped survey some sites for him), behind a man who'd worked professionally for a surveyor. I loved that week, even if I spent most of the time designing drains.
I probably couldn't even set up a theodolite now. I've got a level in our display case, and I'd love to add a Victorian theodolite to the collection. When Robert's old enough I'll have him out in the street mapping it ...
Life has got infinitely easier for the surveyer over the last couple of decades. For archaeology we now use an EDM and Total Station which gives astonishingly good results for fairly minimal input. The biggest problem we have these days is the loss of benchmarks which seem to be far less common than they were even only 20 years ago. Of course the Total Station is supposed to make these redundant to a large extent but I still can't quite bring myself to trust the accuracy without being able to get a real backsight onto a fixed point.
Some pbred was on here last night I think about manufacturing having been in recession for multiple months, I thought that was wrong and today's markit survey shows it is still growing albeit not as quickly.
The Shadow Cabinet has to speak with one voice. It is indeed ludicrous for it to contain two opposing positions, as we saw with Syria. Or do you think what we saw at that debate was healthy discussion?
As a voter I want to know what I'm going to get when I vote for a party. I don't want it to be a matter of seeing who wins the internal fight.
Unless, of course, I have a vote on the matter myself, which I will have on the EU ref.
I don't see the need for unanimity, especially on such a tangential issue.
When it comes to the election the party will present a manifesto and you can take a view on that.
But also, it's always the case that parties may change based on who wins an internal fight. How could it be otherwise?
There's lack of unity on a "tangential issue" (Britain going to war - more central than tangential IMO) and there's complete chaos.
In the meantime, and in advance of the manifesto which I'm sure will clear everything up for us, the famous "narrative" will have to be built, canvassers will have to canvas, cabinet members will have to opine. It is usual for any opposition to defer to the manifesto for details, but the general thrust of policy will have to be built up for months and years in the mind of the electorate.
But I don't know why I bother as @Cyclefree has yet again nailed it.
Then again, there's only so many ways of restating the bleedin' obvious.
I think the issue is tangential because we weren't going to war, just extending the scope of our existing operations in a minor way. Foreign policy doesn't decide elections and a footnote like that certainly won't.
I agree that it would be ideal if the shadow cabinet were of one mind about it but imo it should be possible to work with divided opinion on something like this. At least, I think Corbyn has no choice. Pace @surbiton last night, Benn is a talented politician relative to the rest of the people Corbyn has available. He needs to work with what he has.
I take your point about building up a narrative but, again, that need not involve Syria. I would expect a narrative centred on the big economic issues, not the minutiae of Middle East policy.
The shadow cabinet - or the real one, for that matter - shouldn't be an echo chamber for the leader; it should be comprised of that party's most effective political performers in parliament - those most capable of leadership, of taking the battle to the other parties and, in government, of administering policy and implementing legislation.
Once again though, the problem with Corbyn is that he has the support of such a small proportion of MPs. Usually, differences wouldn't matter because they could be smoothed over as those who reach high prominence are practical and centralist. Corbyn's position is perhaps unique in British political history and the inevitable consequences include the kind of dilemma he now faces in how to build an effective shadow cabinet - if indeed that is at all possible.
The Shadow Cabinet has to speak with one voice. It is indeed ludicrous for it to contain two opposing positions, as we saw with Syria. Or do you think what we saw at that debate was healthy discussion?
As a voter I want to know what I'm going to get when I vote for a party. I don't want it to be a matter of seeing who wins the internal fight.
Unless, of course, I have a vote on the matter myself, which I will have on the EU ref.
I don't see the need for unanimity, especially on such a tangential issue.
When it comes to the election the party will present a manifesto and you can take a view on that.
But also, it's always the case that parties may change based on who wins an internal fight. How could it be otherwise?
There's lack of unity on a "tangential issue" (Britain going to war - more central than tangential IMO) and there's complete chaos.
In the meantime, and in advance of the manifesto which I'm sure will clear everything up for us, the famous "narrative" will have to be built, canvassers will have to canvas, cabinet members will have to opine. It is usual for any opposition to defer to the manifesto for details, but the general thrust of policy will have to be built up for months and years in the mind of the electorate.
But I don't know why I bother as @Cyclefree has yet again nailed it.
Then again, there's only so many ways of restating the bleedin' obvious.
Did we not have a similar level of dissent in the major opposition party around the turn of the 20th Century over the Boer War. And di not that party go on to win a splendid victory not too long afterwards?
I always take these surveys with a massive pinch of salt. We keep hearing 1 in x doctors, teachers, etc etc etc are going to leave and it will mean no teachers, doctors, nurses, etc etc etc. Yes changes often have people reconsider their position and / or hasten what they might have already planning to do, but it doesn't mean others won't step in their place.
Why does Stamp Duty change mean buy-to-let landlords will sell property and get out. You only pay it when you buy a new one. So at worst it will mean existing landlords don't expand their empires. Of course some will plan to sell urgently in the next couple of months in fear that they will not be able to sell later because of the sudden dearth of buy-to-letters, but 200,000?
Corbyn has no interest in the PLP. He is interested in the wider Labour party and keeping the membership on side so that he can ensure the far left secures as much control as possible. Whatever happens with the reshuffle he will not be humiliated because he just does not see things in that way. He is not a politician. He is not someone who has ever sought to change minds. He has his world view. It has not altered and it never will.
THE ‘assassination’ attempt on Nigel Farage may be the work of a serial killer with a grudge against bellends, police believe.
After the UKIP leader’s car was apparently sabotaged, detectives said they were looking for a psychopath who may have had a traumatic childhood encounter with a tw@
Corbyn has no interest in the PLP. He is interested in the wider Labour party and keeping the membership on side so that he can ensure the far left secures as much control as possible. Whatever happens with the reshuffle he will not be humiliated because he just does not see things in that way. He is not a politician. He is not someone who has ever sought to change minds. He has his world view. It has not altered and it never will.
Your warnings will be bracketed with Lord m's of course. More importantly, can we finish third this season?
What intrigues me is whether the shadow cabinet (as currently constituted) is in broad agreement with McDonnell's economic policies. After all, the biggest challenge for Labour is gaining credibility on the economy. So, on renationalisation, "people's QE", the tax-gap stuff, is Labour's front bench on the same page?
Some pbred was on here last night I think about manufacturing having been in recession for multiple months, I thought that was wrong and today's markit survey shows it is still growing albeit not as quickly.
A Labour poster is wrong on the economy? Say it ain't so.
I always take these surveys with a massive pinch of salt. We keep hearing 1 in x doctors, teachers, etc etc etc are going to leave and it will mean no teachers, doctors, nurses, etc etc etc. Yes changes often have people reconsider their position and / or hasten what they might have already planning to do, but it doesn't mean others won't step in their place.
Good morning all. Surely I'm not alone in spending my entire life considering whether I should be doing something else?
I imagine it's part of the human condition - or at least, for those of us who were never smitten by any particular vocation. I ended up in various computer related shenanigans through a series of happy accidents, blind luck and laziness .
Some pbred was on here last night I think about manufacturing having been in recession for multiple months, I thought that was wrong and today's markit survey shows it is still growing albeit not as quickly.
A Labour poster is wrong on the economy? Say it ain't so.
Some pbred was on here last night I think about manufacturing having been in recession for multiple months, I thought that was wrong and today's markit survey shows it is still growing albeit not as quickly.
A Labour poster is wrong on the economy? Say it ain't so.
Hard to imagine...
Next you'll be saying Labour posters are wrong about the ground game as well
I think everyone agrees that Labour are in something of a mess, and that their policies are (or at least the leader wants them to become) quite different to those which they've had for some time.
What really astonishes me is that there hasn't been one single Labour MP who's decided to cast out in some other direction - a new party, or crossing the floor, or something. I'm not saying that I necessarily think that it'd be a wise thing to do.
Burnham surely can't allow himself to be made to look even weaker, and something else will come along wherever they put Benn.
There's lack of unity on a "tangential issue" (Britain going to war - more central than tangential IMO) and there's complete chaos.
In the meantime, and in advance of the manifesto which I'm sure will clear everything up for us, the famous "narrative" will have to be built, canvassers will have to canvas, cabinet members will have to opine. It is usual for any opposition to defer to the manifesto for details, but the general thrust of policy will have to be built up for months and years in the mind of the electorate.
But I don't know why I bother as @Cyclefree has yet again nailed it.
Then again, there's only so many ways of restating the bleedin' obvious.
I think the issue is tangential because we weren't going to war, just extending the scope of our existing operations in a minor way. Foreign policy doesn't decide elections and a footnote like that certainly won't.
I agree that it would be ideal if the shadow cabinet were of one mind about it but imo it should be possible to work with divided opinion on something like this. At least, I think Corbyn has no choice. Pace @surbiton last night, Benn is a talented politician relative to the rest of the people Corbyn has available. He needs to work with what he has.
I take your point about building up a narrative but, again, that need not involve Syria. I would expect a narrative centred on the big economic issues, not the minutiae of Middle East policy.
Foreign policy - at least Middle East intervention - and Trident and the use of force against "terrorists" (in quotation marks because some Corbynistas may well believe the "one man's terrorist is another's freedom fighter" line) is, however, something that is close to Corbyn's heart and at least some of those who voted for him feel that having someone like him in charge is a direct challenge to the Blair world view and all that that entailed. So I think it will be very hard indeed for Corbyn to accept divided opinion on this as, however relatively unimportant to the general public, it's pretty central to him.
Foreign policy is not foreign at all to Corbyn. It's pretty much the only thing that distinguished him in his years of rebellion - all that vainglorious and delusional "I'm talking to Hamas to advance the Israel/Palestine peace process / the IRA to advance the Northern Ireland peace process" nonsense. Why would he want to give that up? Without it he's just another MP rebelling on the size of the welfare budget. Important but a teensy bit dull, no? And not heroic.
More on a key driver of politics in the coming years - the end of cheap labour.
I'm not entirely convinced. Software capabilities have grown so rapidly recently, that direct human replacement for some roles may not be far off.
The infrastructure and tooling support for things like machine learning are also increasingly being open sourced (e.g. Google's TensorFlow and Facebook's Torch modules).
Fascinating insight into BBC worldview from lunchtime TMS interview with Global Radio Richard Park. Every suggestion from Park (who has also worked extensively with BBC) from trying to increase popularity of cricket to commercial cricket coverage was.met with well I couldn't do that from Aggers & British people won't accept it / isn't as good as BBC.
This would the same BBC who didn't see why the public might want to see from behind the bowlers arm from both ends & all the likes of Hawley, snacks, hot spot only came about when BBC lost the rights to home test matches.
I always take these surveys with a massive pinch of salt. We keep hearing 1 in x doctors, teachers, etc etc etc are going to leave and it will mean no teachers, doctors, nurses, etc etc etc. Yes changes often have people reconsider their position and / or hasten what they might have already planning to do, but it doesn't mean others won't step in their place.
Why does Stamp Duty change mean buy-to-let landlords will sell property and get out. You only pay it when you buy a new one. So at worst it will mean existing landlords don't expand their empires. Of course some will plan to sell urgently in the next couple of months in fear that they will not be able to sell later because of the sudden dearth of buy-to-letters, but 200,000?
I presume misunderstanding of the policy change & BTLers whose plan is to build a larger portfolio in the future.
But I don't know why I bother as @Cyclefree has yet again nailed it.
Then again, there's only so many ways of restating the bleedin' obvious.
I think the issue is tangential because we weren't going to war, just extending the scope of our existing operations in a minor way. Foreign policy doesn't decide elections and a footnote like that certainly won't.
I agree that it would be ideal if the shadow cabinet were of one mind about it but imo it should be possible to work with divided opinion on something like this. At least, I think Corbyn has no choice. Pace @surbiton last night, Benn is a talented politician relative to the rest of the people Corbyn has available. He needs to work with what he has.
I take your point about building up a narrative but, again, that need not involve Syria. I would expect a narrative centred on the big economic issues, not the minutiae of Middle East policy.
Foreign policy - at least Middle East intervention - and Trident and the use of force against "terrorists" (in quotation marks because some Corbynistas may well believe the "one man's terrorist is another's freedom fighter" line) is, however, something that is close to Corbyn's heart and at least some of those who voted for him feel that having someone like him in charge is a direct challenge to the Blair world view and all that that entailed. So I think it will be very hard indeed for Corbyn to accept divided opinion on this as, however relatively unimportant to the general public, it's pretty central to him.
Foreign policy is not foreign at all to Corbyn. It's pretty much the only thing that distinguished him in his years of rebellion - all that vainglorious and delusional "I'm talking to Hamas to advance the Israel/Palestine peace process / the IRA to advance the Northern Ireland peace process" nonsense. Why would he want to give that up? Without it he's just another MP rebelling on the size of the welfare budget. Important but a teensy bit dull, no? And not heroic.
Or consider Hurd - Farmer Tim's bête noire
Maggie actually wasn't happy with many of the positions he had on foreign affairs - but was able to persuade him to come to collective (cabinet) view on the major issues. She kept him because he was quite good at the job.
I always take these surveys with a massive pinch of salt. We keep hearing 1 in x doctors, teachers, etc etc etc are going to leave and it will mean no teachers, doctors, nurses, etc etc etc. Yes changes often have people reconsider their position and / or hasten what they might have already planning to do, but it doesn't mean others won't step in their place.
Good morning all. Surely I'm not alone in spending my entire life considering whether I should be doing something else?
I imagine it's part of the human condition - or at least, for those of us who were never smitten by any particular vocation. I ended up in various computer related shenanigans through a series of happy accidents, blind luck and laziness .
More on a key driver of politics in the coming years - the end of cheap labour.
I'm not entirely convinced. Software capabilities have grown so rapidly recently, that direct human replacement for some roles may not be far off.
The infrastructure and tooling support for things like machine learning are also increasingly being open sourced (e.g. Google's TensorFlow and Facebook's Torch modules).
Despite many improvements, Machine learning has still got miles to go.
More on a key driver of politics in the coming years - the end of cheap labour.
I'm not entirely convinced. Software capabilities have grown so rapidly recently, that direct human replacement for some roles may not be far off.
The infrastructure and tooling support for things like machine learning are also increasingly being open sourced (e.g. Google's TensorFlow and Facebook's Torch modules).
It's mix and match. Mainly machines are good at dumb, repatative tasks. This has been broadened so that they can do dumb jobs that require a bit of human input.
McDonalds will be 100% automated at the back end within a very short time - certainly in this country when the minimum wage kicks in. You will have a couple of well paid staff to mind the place, fix the machines, greet the customers etc, rather than 2 dozen running around behind the counter.
I think everyone agrees that Labour are in something of a mess, and that their policies are (or at least the leader wants them to become) quite different to those which they've had for some time.
What really astonishes me is that there hasn't been one single Labour MP who's decided to cast out in some other direction - a new party, or crossing the floor, or something.
Tribe before sanity.
Equally amazing is folk like former MP Tom Harris, who is quite content to write articles in the the telegraph wailing at Corbyn and the state of the Party, while still sending his subscriptions every month...
I always take these surveys with a massive pinch of salt. We keep hearing 1 in x doctors, teachers, etc etc etc are going to leave and it will mean no teachers, doctors, nurses, etc etc etc. Yes changes often have people reconsider their position and / or hasten what they might have already planning to do, but it doesn't mean others won't step in their place.
Why does Stamp Duty change mean buy-to-let landlords will sell property and get out. You only pay it when you buy a new one. So at worst it will mean existing landlords don't expand their empires. Of course some will plan to sell urgently in the next couple of months in fear that they will not be able to sell later because of the sudden dearth of buy-to-letters, but 200,000?
I presume misunderstanding of the policy change & BTLers whose plan is to build a larger portfolio in the future.
Alternatively perhaps they see a pattern of bashing BTL landlords in 2 consecutive budgets.
Comments
The secret is that the gardens are rarely regularly-shaped. And that's exactly what I see in the houses in my development, and why builders are willing to build them over straight rows.
In any event the other point for Corbyn is to put his own placemen(women) into the vacant jobs. He wants to put someone of a similar loony persuasion as FS.
Mr. Eagles, Hamas never bombed Manchester.
Morning all,
Not a surprise that Milne might behind weekend briefing. As I said yesterday on PB, Corbyn's supporters keep banging on about the new politics and what a lovely man he is, but they can't accept that his kitchen cabinet is a set of hard left fanatics who will do anything they can to further the agenda. There is nothing new about Milne's way of operating.
We had a very memorable week surveying a couple of fields on a hillside, and being told to design a housing development on them. I was second-best at surveying (because my dad had taught me and I'd helped survey some sites for him), behind a man who'd worked professionally for a surveyor. I loved that week, even if I spent most of the time designing drains.
I probably couldn't even set up a theodolite now. I've got a level in our display case, and I'd love to add a Victorian theodolite to the collection. When Robert's old enough I'll have him out in the street mapping it ...
Did I say "PMs"? I meant, of course, all line managers.
The move will fast-track the creation of at least 30,000 new starter homes by 2020, Downing Street said.''
This will be built all over the country, so not just in the south.
And you're wrong. Utterly wrong.
https://orderorder.files.wordpress.com/2016/01/twitter540.jpg?w=900
That's how bonkers it's got - even the Lab leadership knows it would be ludicrous to put people who agree with the Lab leadership into the shadow cabinet.
Such developments have other benefits, including less traffic and morte chance of building a distinct community.
But this all costs money, and we let developers get away with too much on S106 ...
Equally there is no denying that Osborne's carrot and stick (and evolutionary) policy to get the big northern conurbations to co-operate and develop as a distinct region is a good one. The region needs to take this opportunity to develop a separate identity for itself.
The locals were all in favour - his son had done the design and it was really very clever... blended in perfectly.
The planning officer was frothing at the mouth. Apparently putting retail in a designated "domestic" area was, to him, unthinkable and evil.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3383168/Cannabis-obsession-sex-ugly-downfall-twists-turns-one-ugliest-sex-scandals-recent-political-history.html
Giving people the facilities by which they can build a community is not telling them what to do: it's giving them options. If you do not give them such facilities (*) then no-one has the option.
There's a village knitting group that a friend of mine attends. I doubt I'll ever attend. On the other hand, I sometimes join an informal writing group in the library. Some friends who are in a jazz band practice in a local community building. They're choices, and we're not obliged to do so.
(*) Or allocate spaces for them to be built in convenient places.
The shadow cabinet - or the real one, for that matter - shouldn't be an echo chamber for the leader; it should be comprised of that party's most effective political performers in parliament - those most capable of leadership, of taking the battle to the other parties and, in government, of administering policy and implementing legislation.
Once again though, the problem with Corbyn is that he has the support of such a small proportion of MPs. Usually, differences wouldn't matter because they could be smoothed over as those who reach high prominence are practical and centralist. Corbyn's position is perhaps unique in British political history and the inevitable consequences include the kind of dilemma he now faces in how to build an effective shadow cabinet - if indeed that is at all possible.
And the reason Benn is in the cross-hairs is because he was such a superb advocate against the position Corbyn has spent his political career working for - Stop the War. He made Corbyn look feeble. There is no coming back from that.
But in any event - where would the money for library staff come from (the service increasingly relies on volunteers)? the doctors? Pubs as such are increasingly less viable these days - they are actually closing and being turned into housing, not built to service housing. It would require a large development to warrant a school.
I suspect larger developments do in fact take these things into consideration.
Ok Geoffrey...
A development can make its neighbour's facilities more viable.
Once again though, the problem with Corbyn is that he has the support of such a small proportion of MPs. Usually, differences wouldn't matter because they could be smoothed over as those who reach high prominence are practical and centralist. Corbyn's position is perhaps unique in British political history and the inevitable consequences include the kind of dilemma he now faces in how to build an effective shadow cabinet - if indeed that is at all possible.
The Shadow Cabinet has to speak with one voice. It is indeed ludicrous for it to contain two opposing positions, as we saw with Syria. Or do you think what we saw at that debate was healthy discussion?
As a voter I want to know what I'm going to get when I vote for a party. I don't want it to be a matter of seeing who wins the internal fight.
Unless, of course, I have a vote on the matter myself, which I will have on the EU ref.
And on Boycs' logic, why stop at 700? With the time available and the speed England were scoring at, why not head on to 750, 800 or wherever the wickets run out?
I should have made myself clearer. I agree with all the points you make in your post.
What I despise is line managers in larger outfits behaving like business owners. Telling someone what they can and cannot do without taking the financial consequences personally (as an entrepreneur does) is morally vicious. It is, however, so common, in both for-profit and not-for-profit activities that we have lost sight of the ethical implications.
Asked what he made of the video and what should be done about it, Corbyn said: “I’m talking about railways this morning.”
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/blog/live/2016/jan/04/corbyn-warned-by-shadow-minister-not-to-carry-out-punishment-reshuffle-politics-live
It is because we all know Corbyn's answer...
As a voter I want to know what I'm going to get when I vote for a party. I don't want it to be a matter of seeing who wins the internal fight.
Unless, of course, I have a vote on the matter myself, which I will have on the EU ref.
The lunacy stems from Corbyn clearly not having the confidence of the PLP, and their not being able to do anything about it. Everything stems from that.
Certainly the Shadow Cabinet should speak with one voice on issues of importance and the fact it couldn't was a serious problem - but a symptom rather than a feature in its own right.
Once again though, the problem with Corbyn is that he has the support of such a small proportion of MPs. Usually, differences wouldn't matter because they could be smoothed over as those who reach high prominence are practical and centralist. Corbyn's position is perhaps unique in British political history and the inevitable consequences include the kind of dilemma he now faces in how to build an effective shadow cabinet - if indeed that is at all possible.
Sorry I replied as though I disagreed with your post. I don't (of course to have read it through would have helped).
Yes - the difference now is that any cabinet will have a range of views (ofc take the Cons and the EU) but I need to know whether the party position will be upheld and not subject to reversal. OK you could say well what if eg. Owen P decided to rise up and I get that but as you also say, to have open warfare in a shadow cabinet with no one sure who will win in the end.
As mentioned earlier - my $0.02 is he should go sh1t or bust - sack all the rebels, install those who share his idiotic views and put that to the electorate.
Of course NPXMPX2 would be disappointed but at least you would be able to call them a party.
I'm sure the PM will point out that the same fate awaits this jihadi moron as the last jihadi moron, though will he be talking about the guy in Syria or the leader of the opposition?
Is this the end of this bit of ..............?
https://twitter.com/spectator/status/683952956908154880
I look forward to the GE debates. What is your position on....I am not answering that question, I only want to talk about evil Tory cuts....What would you do about .... if you win the GE...I am not answering that question, we will discuss it when we win...
When it comes to the election the party will present a manifesto and you can take a view on that.
But also, it's always the case that parties may change based on who wins an internal fight. How could it be otherwise?
His comments about batting (when he lays off the stick of rhubarb routine) can be very interesting imo.
1. This is who we are.
2. This is what we do and how we do it.
3. This is where we're going.
4. This is how we're getting there.
Pace @HurstLlama's comments from last night that a leader should be able to say where they're going, I totally agree. This was implicit - to me, at least - in having effective communication skills because the key to any effective communication is having something to say, something you want to say - and a leader who cannot say where they are going or why people should want to be led by them - cannot be a good communicator.
The real issue with Corbyn and the Shadow Cabinet/PLP is that the majority of the latter do not agree with Corbyn on 1., either have no idea of his views on 2. and/or distrust what they see his acolytes doing, think that his destination is not one they share (point 3) and that how they get there (point 4) will make it impossible or very difficult to go anywhere else in future. Hard to see how this can be resolved by either one side or the other backing down. I don't think Corbyn will back down so the PLP will probably end up doing so, given that they have collectively also totally failed to answer questions 1 - 4 in a way which is persuasive to the members.
It's a pickle for them and an enjoyable spectacle for the rest of us.
How long though before we see press stories about who is actually running the Labour party?
http://order-order.com/2016/01/04/clive-lewis-i-dont-want-to-be-shadow-defence-secretary/
And are we going to find it is a damn squib?
I was going to say that I'm not convinced as I don't see him as having been at the level of Hutton. Then, looking at Wikipedia, I see that the list of British cricketing knights is longer and less exclusive than I thought. So maybe I agree.
In the meantime, and in advance of the manifesto which I'm sure will clear everything up for us, the famous "narrative" will have to be built, canvassers will have to canvas, cabinet members will have to opine. It is usual for any opposition to defer to the manifesto for details, but the general thrust of policy will have to be built up for months and years in the mind of the electorate.
But I don't know why I bother as @Cyclefree has yet again nailed it.
Then again, there's only so many ways of restating the bleedin' obvious.
I agree that it would be ideal if the shadow cabinet were of one mind about it but imo it should be possible to work with divided opinion on something like this. At least, I think Corbyn has no choice. Pace @surbiton last night, Benn is a talented politician relative to the rest of the people Corbyn has available. He needs to work with what he has.
I take your point about building up a narrative but, again, that need not involve Syria. I would expect a narrative centred on the big economic issues, not the minutiae of Middle East policy.
After the UKIP leader’s car was apparently sabotaged, detectives said they were looking for a psychopath who may have had a traumatic childhood encounter with a tw@
http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/politics/politics-headlines/farage-stalked-by-bellend-killer-20160104104993
More on a key driver of politics in the coming years - the end of cheap labour.
I imagine it's part of the human condition - or at least, for those of us who were never smitten by any particular vocation. I ended up in various computer related shenanigans through a series of happy accidents, blind luck and laziness
What really astonishes me is that there hasn't been one single Labour MP who's decided to cast out in some other direction - a new party, or crossing the floor, or something. I'm not saying that I necessarily think that it'd be a wise thing to do.
Burnham surely can't allow himself to be made to look even weaker, and something else will come along wherever they put Benn.
Foreign policy is not foreign at all to Corbyn. It's pretty much the only thing that distinguished him in his years of rebellion - all that vainglorious and delusional "I'm talking to Hamas to advance the Israel/Palestine peace process / the IRA to advance the Northern Ireland peace process" nonsense. Why would he want to give that up? Without it he's just another MP rebelling on the size of the welfare budget. Important but a teensy bit dull, no? And not heroic.
The infrastructure and tooling support for things like machine learning are also increasingly being open sourced (e.g. Google's TensorFlow and Facebook's Torch modules).
This would the same BBC who didn't see why the public might want to see from behind the bowlers arm from both ends & all the likes of Hawley, snacks, hot spot only came about when BBC lost the rights to home test matches.
Maggie actually wasn't happy with many of the positions he had on foreign affairs - but was able to persuade him to come to collective (cabinet) view on the major issues. She kept him because he was quite good at the job.
McDonalds will be 100% automated at the back end within a very short time - certainly in this country when the minimum wage kicks in. You will have a couple of well paid staff to mind the place, fix the machines, greet the customers etc, rather than 2 dozen running around behind the counter.
Equally amazing is folk like former MP Tom Harris, who is quite content to write articles in the the telegraph wailing at Corbyn and the state of the Party, while still sending his subscriptions every month...
A fat goose to be plucked over.