Mr. Sandpit, hard to gauge performance, but it could be a yo-yo season.
Of course, it's possible these are teething problems.
Fingers crossed for them, they could really do with a break this year. The decision to be the number one team for a PU supplier was absolutely the correct one, hopefully the Japanese end of the partnership will get things sorted out soon and we can see McLaren-Honda winning races again.
The residents own the roads! That's the problem I think.
And if the council adopted the roads they would wack each resident with a hefty (four figure bill), do a half-hearted resurfacing job and then ignore said road for the next twenty years, no matter how much it breaks up in the interim.
The residents of a new estate up the road from me have made a positive decision to keep the roads on the estate out of the council's hands because between them they think they can do a better job of maintenance for lower cost. Looking at the state of the roads around here, they are probably correct.
Meanwhile Mr & Mrs Smith at 29 Acacia Avenue think that they gave their vote, saw the result, shrugged, and left the politicians to get on with carrying it out. They will probably not notice the vast majority of this posturing on either side. If it isn't carried out, they will probably notice, and the consequence for political careers at the next election may well be unfortunate, or even regrettable.
But it's not going to be like that. We didn't vote for a cataclysm, nor for a new order, but for a huge mess that will consume all our political energies for the next decade or more. Even Acacia Avenue will have an opinion, even if it's just "A plague on the lot of them!"
It's a highway robbery by people we don't know because they were masked but they're smelly and their leaders are nasty opportunists who used them for their own purposes because they're ignorant and don't trust foreigners.
They've taken everything we value but we should accept it with good grace because there are more of them than us.
And the fatuous hypobole prize 2017 goes to Roger! Your wife and kids spontaneously combust ? Did your house suddenly vanish ?
Eurosceptics were in a similar position in 1976, and have campaigned doggedly for the last 40 years to get to where we are now. You can do the same, of course you might be getting on a bit by then, but you cant have everything, and you will still have more than 99% of the world does, even after BrExit.
I thought it was quite poetic! I heard a lady from Blackpool say the reason she wanted us out of the EU was because they were trying to stop us eating eggs and said that we had to have straight cucumbers. Her friend said 'it's ridiculous that foreigners can stop us eating eggs.
Well not half as ridiculous as those two being entrusted with whether or not we change the way we are governed
At a street stall I met a woman who said she was voting Remain because her husband said that's what they were doing. My mum was telling on the day and told me that one woman asked her infant daughter 'in or out?' as they entered the polling station (the daughter said 'In!').
We can go back and forth with anecdotes like this all day.
Exactly. Plenty of thick people who voted either way.
But the thickness of the people of Cornwall, who voted Leave en masse and thus denied themselves squillions in EU funding, is greater than most.
Is the UK a net contributor to the EU or a net recipient from it?
Don't know whether to laugh or to cry at the constant stream of similar articles.
On balance, I should really agree with @AlastairMeeks' fine post this morning that there really needs to be a functioning opposition to the government.
The residents own the roads! That's the problem I think.
Jaywick's history is very closely tied to the problems it faces now, and perhaps uniquely so.
Set up as plotlands for holiday homes in the early 20th century, it became permanent overflow housing after WWII. As is often the case with such private developments, the roads remained unadopted by the council.
In other areas, councils have been hesitant to adopt roads as they become liable for the costs. They generally insist on having them up to a high quality *before* adoption. This leaves locals in a trap: they cannot afford to improve the infrastructure, and the council will not adopt them until they are improved.
Add in the fact it is a floodprone area, and not somewhere you'd necesarily want to develop, then you have a perfect storm of problems.
According to Wiki, the locals got a preservation order n Jaywick in the 1970s when the council wanted to demolish it!
Interesting to note that the Tories have effectively replaced an MP in Richmond Park with one in Copeland in recent months. It's difficult to think of two more different constituencies. Could be a pointer to what happens at the general election, with the Tories possibly losing seats like Bath, Cheltenham, Twickenham to the LDs and picking up places like Darlington, Berwickshire, Newcastle-under-Lyme from Labour.
Well when I went to Jaywick no one had heard of him. 12 years an an MP and part of the constituency is the worst place in the country to live is something to be ashamed of.
Jaywick could probably do with some political intervention, council buying the roads off the residents maybe? Something drastic needs to be done, perhaps DCs free market principles won't let him interfere
It is not necessarily his fault if they didn't know who their MP is. Too many people are disconnected from politics (which is something that perhaps helped leave).
I'm fairly interested in ideas that can help areas such as Jaywick, and there are too many of them in the country. Improving the roads, drains and infrastructure is certainly a good idea, as are improved public transport links and employment opportunities. However that's in the council's purview, not the MPs, and is massively costly. He does not control the purse.
I understand you don't like Carswell. However I think you're being a little unfair. If you were the MP for Clacton you might soon find yourself getting very frustrated.
As an example: assume the government gave £1 million to spend on deprived areas in their constituencies. Leaving aside the political issues with this, how would you spend it? Assuming 70,000 constituents, it's about £14 per person. Split around Jaywick's ~5000 population, it would be ~£200 per person. It wouldn't buy a manhole.
What Jaywick needs is a local plan (the council's job), the money to implement the plan, and support from the locals. An MP can act as an enabler for this; he cannot do it himself.
I don't hate him, I find him quite annoyingly smug though. You say he would enabler as an MP but he hasn't been has he? I'm sure it is difficult and frustrating, yes. I'm also sure if Farage or Nuttall had been the MP there for 12 years people arguing with me would be making the point that I am!
Even ignoring the particular circumstances of Richmond Park, the overturning of a large majority happens way more often than the opposition losing a seat to the government.
The truth is that Ukip needed Carswell in 2014 and Carswell needed Ukip. The obvious 'musical differences' were set aside in order to win freedom from the EU. Now that has been achieved its best they go their separate ways.
At my candidate interview for UKIP I cautiously said 'I know he's our new poster boy and all that, but what has Carswell actually done for Clacton in the last 9 years?'... the interviewer said 'precisely'
A marriage of convenience that has run its course
"...but what has Carswell actually done for Clacton in the last 9 years?'"
of the best things an MP can be is high-profile, and Carswell was certainly not unknown even before he joined UKIP. A high-profile can be used to gain prominence for issues the MP believes is important for their constituents (or alternatively used for the MPs own gain, which I would not accuse Carswell of).
The problems that face a place like Jaywick are deep and multifaceted. What's more, similar issues face deprived pockets in many constituents. What would you have had Carswell do that he has not?
Well when I went to Jaywick no one had heard of him. 12 years an an MP and part of the constituency is the worst place in the country to live is something to be ashamed of.
Jaywick could probably do with some political intervention, council buying the roads off the residents maybe? Something drastic needs to be done, perhaps DCs free market principles won't let him interfere
If part of a constituency is very poor, it's not usually the fault of the local MP.
Of course it isn't his fault it was poor when he got there, but a great MP would surely have overseen some improvement from a low base? I've never even heard him mention the place, & having personally contacted him with feedback and suggestions and been ignored I get the impression he doesn't really care
If the roads were resurfaced, foliage cut back and the place given a bit of a general tidy up it might look a bit better.
The residents own the roads! That's the problem I think.
There are a number of resident owned roads in Brookmans Park near me. They all look similar to the surface of the moon and Brookmans Park certainly isn't a poor area.
Nah. The fewer/less "rule" is one guy's personal stylistic taste that has somehow been misremembered and ossified into some kind of Pedants' Commandment.
Proper English, as what woz written by Alfred the Great no less back as early as the 10th century, was quite happy to use "less" with countable nouns.
Swa mid læs worda swa mid ma, swæðer we hit yereccan mayon.
A thousand times yes!
There are occasions when it will make a difference in understanding, much like there are times the Oxford comma will make a big difference. But that does not happen anywhere near as often as people pretend, when they act like it is some gross, unforgivable mistake even when there has been no loss in understanding.
And screw it, I'll split an infinitive whenever I feel like it.
Split infinitives are awesome.
Capitalisation, and lack therein, is what really boils my piss.
It is the difference between helping your Uncle Jack off a horse, and helping your uncle jack off a horse.
Nonstandard capitalisation drives me mad. Therefore I will always refer to an Iphone, and if I were to use the term it would always be Brexit not BREXIT or (god save us) BrExit.
Exactly. Plenty of thick people who voted either way.
But the thickness of the people of Cornwall, who voted Leave en masse and thus denied themselves squillions in EU funding, is greater than most.
This only makes them "thick" if they were of the opinion that money is the most important priority in life for Cornish people, that this trumped any other social and political concerns they had because MONEY MONEY MONEY CORNWALL MUST HAVE THE LOVELY MONEY and any issues of sovereignty or identity or whether Britain is a long-term fit for the long-term evolution of the EU go out of the window because CASH IS THE CORNISH KING OH MY GOD GIVE US ALL THE MONEY GIVE US ALL YOUR F***KING EU MONEY and whether it's been democratic for the British public to have been pushed so far along a route of European integration that has never had strong popular support really doesn't matter because GIMME GIMME GIMME oh look it's eu referendum date let's vote leave that sounds fun.
Otherwise, they're not "thick". They're just people with different opinions and priorities to you.
We have definitive proof in PB that the people of Cornwall are thick !
I hesitate to repeat the discussion we had about this yesterday but it is curious that some police forces seem rather keener on pursuing allegations of sexual offences against dead people which can neither be proved nor prosecuted than on taking action against live people for sexual offences being committed today.
A cynic might suppose that the former requires little work and gets the police lots of attention while the latter involves a lot of work and, possibly, the wrong sort of attention.
The residents own the roads! That's the problem I think.
And if the council adopted the roads they would wack each resident with a hefty (four figure bill), do a half-hearted resurfacing job and then ignore said road for the next twenty years, no matter how much it breaks up in the interim.
The residents of a new estate up the road from me have made a positive decision to keep the roads on the estate out of the council's hands because between them they think they can do a better job of maintenance for lower cost. Looking at the state of the roads around here, they are probably correct.
One of the problems with such private estates is the fact that half-hearted resurfacing jobs are done. The real costs are underground. You need to dig deep and build proper drains (rainwater and sewerage), water and electricity supplies. Trunking for cable can also be added. You then need to build a proper subbase, insert kerbing and other furniture (e.g. streetlights).
Only then do you do the blacktop. All the real work is below that and invisible.
And all this has to be done whilst the residents have continued access to their homes, water and sewerage. It is really, really expensive to do right. But if it is done right it'll last a very long time.
Too often the solution for both councils and locals is to chuck a new layer of tarmac on, or even just spray tar and graded material. Which then disintegrates the next winter.
I thought it was quite poetic! I heard a lady from Blackpool say the reason she wanted us out of the EU was because they were trying to stop us eating eggs and said that we had to have straight cucumbers. Her friend said 'it's ridiculous that foreigners can stop us eating eggs.
Well not half as ridiculous as those two being entrusted with whether or not we change the way we are governed
At a street stall I met a woman who said she was voting Remain because her husband said that's what they were doing. My mum was telling on the day and told me that one woman asked her infant daughter 'in or out?' as they entered the polling station (the daughter said 'In!').
We can go back and forth with anecdotes like this all day.
Exactly. Plenty of thick people who voted either way.
But the thickness of the people of Cornwall, who voted Leave en masse and thus denied themselves squillions in EU funding, is greater than most.
Is the UK a net contributor to the EU or a net recipient from it?
A valiant effort, but people who refused to understand this incredibly simple point before the referendum won't get it now either.
Interesting to note that the Tories have effectively replaced an MP in Richmond Park with one in Copeland in recent months. It's difficult to think of two more different constituencies.
Chealsea and Fulham vs.Jarrow.
Yes interesting Tories now doing better in more working class seats then middle class ones.For every seat they lose to the libdems next time they will probably pick up two from Labour.
Let's not forget Cat Smith who described the Copeland result as an "incredible achievement" to keep the Tory majority to 2,000 votes.
She was not wrong. It certainly was an incredible achievement by Labour to lose a seat held for 80+ years in a by-election fight with the governing party where the influence of third parties was negligible. Scarcely believable for sure.
Interesting to note that the Tories have effectively replaced an MP in Richmond Park with one in Copeland in recent months. It's difficult to think of two more different constituencies. Could be a pointer to what happens at the general election, with the Tories possibly losing seats like Bath, Cheltenham, Twickenham to the LDs and picking up places like Darlington, Berwickshire, Newcastle-under-Lyme from Labour.
I've been of the view for some time that Mrs May is prepared to sacrifice 20 seats to the Lib Dems to gain 50 plus from Labour.
Well when I went to Jaywick no one had heard of him. 12 years an an MP and part of the constituency is the worst place in the country to live is something to be ashamed of.
Jaywick could probably do with some political intervention, council buying the roads off the residents maybe? Something drastic needs to be done, perhaps DCs free market principles won't let him interfere
It is not necessarily his fault if they didn't know who their MP is. Too many people are disconnected from politics (which is something that perhaps helped leave).
I'm fairly interested in ideas that can help areas such as Jaywick, and there are too many of them in the country. Improving the roads, drains and infrastructure is certainly a good idea, as are improved public transport links and employment opportunities. However that's in the council's purview, not the MPs, and is massively costly. He does not control the purse.
I understand you don't like Carswell. However I think you're being a little unfair. If you were the MP for Clacton you might soon find yourself getting very frustrated.
As an example: assume the government gave £1 million to spend on deprived areas in their constituencies. Leaving aside the political issues with this, how would you spend it? Assuming 70,000 constituents, it's about £14 per person. Split around Jaywick's ~5000 population, it would be ~£200 per person. It wouldn't buy a manhole.
What Jaywick needs is a local plan (the council's job), the money to implement the plan, and support from the locals. An MP can act as an enabler for this; he cannot do it himself.
I don't hate him, I find him quite annoyingly smug though. You say he would enabler as an MP but he hasn't been has he? I'm sure it is difficult and frustrating, yes. I'm also sure if Farage or Nuttall had been the MP there for 12 years people arguing with me would be making the point that I am!
Single MPs can in fact do an awful lot, if they know how the system works and where the pressure points are. They also need to have energy, not be beholden to their leadership, and be prepared to bang desks and beard ministers in their lairs. Nicholas Soames in my neighbouring constituency is an example of just such an MP. I am not terribly keen on the bloke as a person and don't agree with some of his politics but, there is no doubt about it he is asset to the people he represents and can get things done (or stopped).
2.2% Con/Zac -> Lab swing, about average for the parliament.
The 92-97 Lib Dem insurgencies Newbury, Christchurch, Eastleigh were all well over 12% Con -> Lab swing.
Labour can take no comfort from Richmond.
Now now, don't discourage them. Of course Richard Burgon is right. Jeremy Corbyn is doing better than Theresa May in by-elections, whatever the Murdoch press says. Hell, she was so frit that she didn't even stand a candidate in Richmond Park.
Let's not forget Cat Smith who described the Copeland result as an "incredible achievement" to keep the Tory majority to 2,000 votes.
She was not wrong. It certainly was an incredible achievement by Labour to lose a seat held for 80+ years in a by-election fight with the governing party where the influence of third parties was negligible. Scarcely believable for sure.
It's slightly scary how deluded Corbyn supporters like Cat Smith and Richard Burgon are. Everything that happens is somehow interpreted as an endorsement of the current Labour leadership.
Well when I went to Jaywick no one had heard of him. 12 years an an MP and part of the constituency is the worst place in the country to live is something to be ashamed of.
Jaywick could probably do with some political intervention, council buying the roads off the residents maybe? Something drastic needs to be done, perhaps DCs free market principles won't let him interfere
It is not necessarily his fault if they didn't know who their MP is. Too many people are disconnected from politics (which is something that perhaps helped leave).
I'm fairly interested in ideas that can help areas such as Jaywick, and there are too many of them in the country. Improving the roads, drains and infrastructure is certainly a good idea, as are improved public transport links and employment opportunities. However that's in the council's purview, not the MPs, and is massively costly. He does not control the purse.
I understand you don't like Carswell. However I think you're being a little unfair. If you were the MP for Clacton you might soon find yourself getting very frustrated.
As an example: assume the government gave £1 million to spend on deprived areas in their constituencies. Leaving aside the political issues with this, how would you spend it? Assuming 70,000 constituents, it's about £14 per person. Split around Jaywick's ~5000 population, it would be ~£200 per person. It wouldn't buy a manhole.
What Jaywick needs is a local plan (the council's job), the money to implement the plan, and support from the locals. An MP can act as an enabler for this; he cannot do it himself.
I don't hate him, I find him quite annoyingly smug though. You say he would enabler as an MP but he hasn't been has he? I'm sure it is difficult and frustrating, yes. I'm also sure if Farage or Nuttall had been the MP there for 12 years people arguing with me would be making the point that I am!
Hansard suggest he has been trying quite hard. 11 PMQs for Jaywick in the since 2010. Meetings with ministers on behalf of his constituents. Ultimately he can try all he wants if the ministers/council can't or wont help, he's stuffed as are other MPs.
The residents own the roads! That's the problem I think.
And if the council adopted the roads they would wack each resident with a hefty (four figure bill), do a half-hearted resurfacing job and then ignore said road for the next twenty years, no matter how much it breaks up in the interim.
The residents of a new estate up the road from me have made a positive decision to keep the roads on the estate out of the council's hands because between them they think they can do a better job of maintenance for lower cost. Looking at the state of the roads around here, they are probably correct.
One of the problems with such private estates is the fact that half-hearted resurfacing jobs are done. The real costs are underground. You need to dig deep and build proper drains (rainwater and sewerage), water and electricity supplies. Trunking for cable can also be added. You then need to build a proper subbase, insert kerbing and other furniture (e.g. streetlights).
Only then do you do the blacktop. All the real work is below that and invisible.
And all this has to be done whilst the residents have continued access to their homes, water and sewerage. It is really, really expensive to do right. But if it is done right it'll last a very long time.
Too often the solution for both councils and locals is to chuck a new layer of tarmac on, or even just spray tar and graded material. Which then disintegrates the next winter.
A lot of the time ime. The developer will put down a road surface only suitable for cars etc. Forgetting the fact that dust bin lorries and removal trucks weigh significantly more and wear out the surface a lot sooner.
Be fair Mr. Pit, if you were a corporate customer of PwC would you trust them with serious tasks to do with your money and investments. If a company cannot organise the handing over of the correct envelope what chance have they in dealing with, even understanding, complex financial issues.
Exactly. Plenty of thick people who voted either way.
But the thickness of the people of Cornwall, who voted Leave en masse and thus denied themselves squillions in EU funding, is greater than most.
This only makes them "thick" if they were of the opinion that money is the most important priority in life for Cornish people, that this trumped any other social and political concerns they had because MONEY MONEY MONEY CORNWALL MUST HAVE THE LOVELY MONEY and any issues of sovereignty or identity or whether Britain is a long-term fit for the long-term evolution of the EU go out of the window because CASH IS THE CORNISH KING OH MY GOD GIVE US ALL THE MONEY GIVE US ALL YOUR F***KING EU MONEY and whether it's been democratic for the British public to have been pushed so far along a route of European integration that has never had strong popular support really doesn't matter because GIMME GIMME GIMME oh look it's eu referendum date let's vote leave that sounds fun.
Otherwise, they're not "thick". They're just people with different opinions and priorities to you.
Re Jaywick, maybe it is above Carswells pay grade, and a bit socialist, but I'd buy the land off the residents, demolish it & build new housing m, maybe affordable/maybe even Luxury. It's quite a nice spot really!
I thought it was quite poetic! I heard a lady from Blackpool say the reason she wanted us out of the EU was because they were trying to stop us eating eggs and said that we had to have straight cucumbers. Her friend said 'it's ridiculous that foreigners can stop us eating eggs.
Well not half as ridiculous as those two being entrusted with whether or not we change the way we are governed
At a street stall I met a woman who said she was voting Remain because her husband said that's what they were doing. My mum was telling on the day and told me that one woman asked her infant daughter 'in or out?' as they entered the polling station (the daughter said 'In!').
We can go back and forth with anecdotes like this all day.
Exactly. Plenty of thick people who voted either way.
But the thickness of the people of Cornwall, who voted Leave en masse and thus denied themselves squillions in EU funding, is greater than most.
Is the UK a net contributor to the EU or a net recipient from it?
A valiant effort, but people who refused to understand this incredibly simple point before the referendum won't get it now either.
I would imagine so.
A wise person once said: "there is no such thing as public money; there is only taxpayers' money."
With respect to money spent in the UK, there is no such thing as EU money, there is only British taxpayers' money. And the same, mutatis mutandis, for other contributor countries.
Meanwhile Mr & Mrs Smith at 29 Acacia Avenue think that they gave their vote, saw the result, shrugged, and left the politicians to get on with carrying it out. They will probably not notice the vast majority of this posturing on either side. If it isn't carried out, they will probably notice, and the consequence for political careers at the next election may well be unfortunate, or even regrettable.
But it's not going to be like that. We didn't vote for a cataclysm, nor for a new order, but for a huge mess that will consume all our political energies for the next decade or more. Even Acacia Avenue will have an opinion, even if it's just "A plague on the lot of them!"
It's a highway robbery by people we don't know because they were masked but they're smelly and their leaders are nasty opportunists who used them for their own purposes because they're ignorant and don't trust foreigners.
They've taken everything we value but we should accept it with good grace because there are more of them than us.
And the fatuous hypobole prize 2017 goes to Roger! Your wife and kids spontaneously combust ? Did your house suddenly vanish ?
Eurosceptics were in a similar position in 1976, and have campaigned doggedly for the last 40 years to get to where we are now. You can do the same, of course you might be getting on a bit by then, but you cant have everything, and you will still have more than 99% of the world does, even after BrExit.
I thought it was quite poetic! I heard a lady from Blackpool say the reason she wanted us out of the EU was because they were trying to stop us eating eggs and said that we had to have straight cucumbers. Her friend said 'it's ridiculous that foreigners can stop us eating eggs.
Well not half as ridiculous as those two being entrusted with whether or not we change the way we are governed
At a street stall I met a woman who said she was voting Remain because her husband said that's what they were doing. My mum was telling on the day and told me that one woman asked her infant daughter 'in or out?' as they entered the polling station (the daughter said 'In!').
We can go back and forth with anecdotes like this all day.
Exactly. Plenty of thick people who voted either way.
But the thickness of the people of Cornwall, who voted Leave en masse and thus denied themselves squillions in EU funding, is greater than most.
Umm, yes... unless of course they'd prefer to aim to be financially independent in the future rather than dependent on a body like the EU.
Be fair Mr. Pit, if you were a corporate customer of PwC would you trust them with serious tasks to do with your money and investments. If a company cannot organise the handing over of the correct envelope what chance have they in dealing with, even understanding, complex financial issues.
Oh indeed. It's just that they milked the association for all it was worth in the run up to the event, then hung out their employees to dry when something didn't quite go according to plan. It's probably fair to say that a different firm of auditors will be working for the Academy next year.
The PwC people made an appalling mistake. All they had to do was put the right piece of paper in the right envelope and give it to the right person. Sheer incompetence which has caused damage to PwC's reputation across the world.
They also took their time to correct the mistake.
Sackable offence if ever their was one. I expect them to resign in disgrace.
Be fair Mr. Pit, if you were a corporate customer of PwC would you trust them with serious tasks to do with your money and investments. If a company cannot organise the handing over of the correct envelope what chance have they in dealing with, even understanding, complex financial issues.
They shouldn't have given the distributing envelope job to a partner. Partners of PwC don't do envelopes. That's the job of their PAs, who would have dispatched the task without any risk of misstep.
Don't know whether to laugh or to cry at the constant stream of similar articles.
Definitely laugh. For one thing, the Tories didn't even fight Richmond Park.
Indeed. Not only was the poster riddled with spelling and grammatical errors, they missed key facts on the two by-elections. Not that the Corbynistas ever let facts get in the way of their praise for the Great Leader.
Cat Smith was right, it was an absolutely extraordinary result.
It's slightly scary how deluded Corbyn supporters like Cat Smith and Richard Burgon are. Everything that happens is somehow interpreted as an endorsement of the current Labour leadership.
Burgon and Smith are two prime examples of everything that is wrong with the modern Labour Party.
I thought it was quite poetic! I heard a lady from Blackpool say the reason she wanted us out of the EU was because they were trying to stop us eating eggs and said that we had to have straight cucumbers. Her friend said 'it's ridiculous that foreigners can stop us eating eggs.
Well not half as ridiculous as those two being entrusted with whether or not we change the way we are governed
At a street stall I met a woman who said she was voting Remain because her husband said that's what they were doing. My mum was telling on the day and told me that one woman asked her infant daughter 'in or out?' as they entered the polling station (the daughter said 'In!').
We can go back and forth with anecdotes like this all day.
Exactly. Plenty of thick people who voted either way.
But the thickness of the people of Cornwall, who voted Leave en masse and thus denied themselves squillions in EU funding, is greater than most.
Is the UK a net contributor to the EU or a net recipient from it?
A valiant effort, but people who refused to understand this incredibly simple point before the referendum won't get it now either.
I would imagine so.
A wise person once said: "there is no such thing as public money; there is only taxpayers' money."
With respect to money spent in the UK, there is no such thing as EU money, there is only British taxpayers' money. And the same, mutatis mutandis, for other contributor countries.
As a wise man once said about Euro cynics: "they know the price of everything and the value of nothing."
Maybe they thought thee was more to the future than EU money? Maybe they thought that as we are a net contributor, EU funding would be replaced by UK funding? Maybe they thought that regaining control over fisheries was more valuable? Are they right? Who knows? But - as with a GE - there's surely a bit more to the decision than a simple question of 'who will give me the most cake?'
Maybe they were wrong to trust the Tories to disregard politics and allocate funding based on need. Maybe the EU has to be more even-handed between regions.
As for regaining control of fisheries, you do know that's another Leaver fantasy, don't you?
Re Jaywick, maybe it is above Carswells pay grade, and a bit socialist, but I'd buy the land off the residents, demolish it & build new housing m, maybe affordable/maybe even Luxury. It's quite a nice spot really!
Surely if there were profit in doing that, someone would have done it by now? Frinton provides all the luxury housing needed in the area, for one.
Re Jaywick, maybe it is above Carswells pay grade, and a bit socialist, but I'd buy the land off the residents, demolish it & build new housing m, maybe affordable/maybe even Luxury. It's quite a nice spot really!
Surely if there were profit in doing that, someone would have done it by now? Frinton provides all the luxury housing needed in the area, for one.
Sorry I mean the council should buy the land and build new housing in it. Not luxury obviously
The EU parliament will decide today on whether to remove her immunity from French prosecution in respect of her tweets of three disgusting ISIS execution photos in 2015 and two cases of alleged defamation.
I haven't found any good reports on this. The best I've found is from Bloomberg. As I understand it, MEPs have the same immunity in their home countries as they would if they were MPs, which varies from country to country.
Can she sell the narrative that the EU is persecuting her for trying to stand up for France against Islam? I think she probably can, and that this will strengthen her.
According to Bloomberg, the timetable is as follows:
today, 28 Feb: an EU parliamentary committee considers a request from a French court to remove her immunity regarding the tweets and the instances of alleged defamation;
next week: the committee makes recommendations to the EU parliament;
later in March: the whole EU parliament votes on the issue.
This seems ideal for Le Pen, especially given that Wilders is likely to be in the news a lot in the second half of March. It will help her push the message that getting a plurality isn't good enough, faced with the EU powers that be, which are "soft on Islam" and assisted by the French compradore "establishment". With "enemies" like this in the EU parliament, does she need "friends"?
Polls are currently saying that from R1 to R2 she'll increase her percentage from 26% to 39% against Macron and 42% against Fillon, so by 50-62%. That wouldn't give her the Elysée, but it would break new ground for an FN candidate.
Maybe they thought thee was more to the future than EU money? Maybe they thought that as we are a net contributor, EU funding would be replaced by UK funding? Maybe they thought that regaining control over fisheries was more valuable? Are they right? Who knows? But - as with a GE - there's surely a bit more to the decision than a simple question of 'who will give me the most cake?'
Maybe they were wrong to trust the Tories to disregard politics and allocate funding based on need. Maybe the EU has to be more even-handed between regions.
As for regaining control of fisheries, you do know that's another Leaver fantasy, don't you?
But the thickness of the people of Cornwall, who voted Leave en masse and thus denied themselves squillions in EU funding, is greater than most.
The money is not parcelled out in cash to the population at so much per head, it tends to be spent on stuff like "Innovation Centres" whatever the feck they are.
I think you are the mouth-breather who deduced that I must be a "Mussolini fanboy" because I said that it was admirable of him to modify the definition of Jewishness in a way which saved the lives of tens of thousands of Jews, at no obvious gain to himself. You should be cautious about denouncing thickness in other people.
The PwC people made an appalling mistake. All they had to do was put the right piece of paper in the right envelope and give it to the right person. Sheer incompetence which has caused damage to PwC's reputation across the world.
You think some clients might tell them to Foxtrot Oscar?
With respect to money spent in the UK, there is no such thing as EU money, there is only British taxpayers' money. And the same, mutatis mutandis, for other contributor countries.
Indeed the UK is a net payer to the EU. However public revenues aren't a fixed amount. Brexit will almost certainly squeeze UK revenues by more than our net payments to the EU, There will be less money to spend on Cornwall (or the NHS - pace the £350 million claim)
Maybe they thought thee was more to the future than EU money? Maybe they thought that as we are a net contributor, EU funding would be replaced by UK funding? Maybe they thought that regaining control over fisheries was more valuable? Are they right? Who knows? But - as with a GE - there's surely a bit more to the decision than a simple question of 'who will give me the most cake?'
Maybe they were wrong to trust the Tories to disregard politics and allocate funding based on need. Maybe the EU has to be more even-handed between regions.
As for regaining control of fisheries, you do know that's another Leaver fantasy, don't you?
Be fair Mr. Pit, if you were a corporate customer of PwC would you trust them with serious tasks to do with your money and investments. If a company cannot organise the handing over of the correct envelope what chance have they in dealing with, even understanding, complex financial issues.
They shouldn't have given the distributing envelope job to a partner. Partners of PwC don't do envelopes. That's the job of their PAs, who would have dispatched the task without any risk of misstep.
Re Jaywick, maybe it is above Carswells pay grade, and a bit socialist, but I'd buy the land off the residents, demolish it & build new housing m, maybe affordable/maybe even Luxury. It's quite a nice spot really!
Is that sort of thing not the duty of the Council and not Westminster MPs?
If a Westminster MP started trying to unilaterally buy up buildings and kick residents out of their homes so that they could be bulldozed and have new homes constructed for sale then I suspect that would cause quite a stink!
Maybe they thought thee was more to the future than EU money? Maybe they thought that as we are a net contributor, EU funding would be replaced by UK funding? Maybe they thought that regaining control over fisheries was more valuable? Are they right? Who knows? But - as with a GE - there's surely a bit more to the decision than a simple question of 'who will give me the most cake?'
Maybe they were wrong to trust the Tories to disregard politics and allocate funding based on need. Maybe the EU has to be more even-handed between regions.
As for regaining control of fisheries, you do know that's another Leaver fantasy, don't you?
Re Jaywick, maybe it is above Carswells pay grade, and a bit socialist, but I'd buy the land off the residents, demolish it & build new housing m, maybe affordable/maybe even Luxury. It's quite a nice spot really!
Surely if there were profit in doing that, someone would have done it by now? Frinton provides all the luxury housing needed in the area, for one.
I simply refuse to believe that Essex could ever have enough luxury.
With respect to money spent in the UK, there is no such thing as EU money, there is only British taxpayers' money. And the same, mutatis mutandis, for other contributor countries.
Indeed the UK is a net payer to the EU. However public revenues aren't a fixed amount. Brexit will almost certainly squeeze UK revenues by more than our net payments to the EU, There will be less money to spend on Cornwall (or the NHS - pace the £350 million claim)
Why? In five years time when you have the evidence you can make that claim. Right now you have no idea what effect Brexit will have on public revenues. You are simply making unfounded assumptions.
It's not an entirely EU thing anyway, it already applies to the EEA, so in principal the same agreements could easily apply to the UK post Brexit if we wanted them too.
It's slightly scary how deluded Corbyn supporters like Cat Smith and Richard Burgon are. Everything that happens is somehow interpreted as an endorsement of the current Labour leadership.
Burgon and Smith are two prime examples of everything that is wrong with the modern Labour Party.
And one of them may well be the next party leader.
Maybe they thought thee was more to the future than EU money? Maybe they thought that as we are a net contributor, EU funding would be replaced by UK funding? Maybe they thought that regaining control over fisheries was more valuable? Are they right? Who knows? But - as with a GE - there's surely a bit more to the decision than a simple question of 'who will give me the most cake?'
Maybe they were wrong to trust the Tories to disregard politics and allocate funding based on need. Maybe the EU has to be more even-handed between regions.
As for regaining control of fisheries, you do know that's another Leaver fantasy, don't you?
Re Jaywick, maybe it is above Carswells pay grade, and a bit socialist, but I'd buy the land off the residents, demolish it & build new housing m, maybe affordable/maybe even Luxury. It's quite a nice spot really!
Surely if there were profit in doing that, someone would have done it by now? Frinton provides all the luxury housing needed in the area, for one.
Sorry I mean the council should buy the land and build new housing in it. Not luxury obviously
The truth is that Ukip needed Carswell in 2014 and Carswell needed Ukip. The obvious 'musical differences' were set aside in order to win freedom from the EU. Now that has been achieved its best they go their separate ways.
At my candidate interview for UKIP I cautiously said 'I know he's our new poster boy and all that, but what has Carswell actually done for Clacton in the last 9 years?'... the interviewer said 'precisely'
A marriage of convenience that has run its course
Interestingly, Tim Shipman in "All Out War" (excellent book, although only just started) says that the original defection was a deliberate move by Hannan and Carswell to try and detoxify the UKIP brand as there was an inverse correlation between UKIP support and Brexit support.
Re Jaywick, maybe it is above Carswells pay grade, and a bit socialist, but I'd buy the land off the residents, demolish it & build new housing m, maybe affordable/maybe even Luxury. It's quite a nice spot really!
Surely if there were profit in doing that, someone would have done it by now? Frinton provides all the luxury housing needed in the area, for one.
Sorry I mean the council should buy the land and build new housing in it. Not luxury obviously
Is it enough? Probably not, but it's better than anything that's happened for the last few decades. Is it Carswell's achievement? I don't really know enough to comment, but I'd very strongly suspect not.
The truth is that Ukip needed Carswell in 2014 and Carswell needed Ukip. The obvious 'musical differences' were set aside in order to win freedom from the EU. Now that has been achieved its best they go their separate ways.
At my candidate interview for UKIP I cautiously said 'I know he's our new poster boy and all that, but what has Carswell actually done for Clacton in the last 9 years?'... the interviewer said 'precisely'
A marriage of convenience that has run its course
Interestingly, Tim Shipman in "All Out War" (excellent book, although only just started) says that the original defection was a deliberate move by Hannan and Carswell to try and detoxify the UKIP brand as there was an inverse correlation between UKIP support and Brexit support.
So Carswell was arrogant enough to believe his defection would alone "detoxify" a party's brand??
Exactly. Plenty of thick people who voted either way.
But the thickness of the people of Cornwall, who voted Leave en masse and thus denied themselves squillions in EU funding, is greater than most.
This only makes them "thick" if they were of the opinion that money is the most important priority in life for Cornish people, that this trumped any other social and political concerns they had because MONEY MONEY MONEY CORNWALL MUST HAVE THE LOVELY MONEY and any issues of sovereignty or identity or whether Britain is a long-term fit for the long-term evolution of the EU go out of the window because CASH IS THE CORNISH KING OH MY GOD GIVE US ALL THE MONEY GIVE US ALL YOUR F***KING EU MONEY and whether it's been democratic for the British public to have been pushed so far along a route of European integration that has never had strong popular support really doesn't matter because GIMME GIMME GIMME oh look it's eu referendum date let's vote leave that sounds fun.
Otherwise, they're not "thick". They're just people with different opinions and priorities to you.
Proof.
One of my bugbears with The Left (and I write this despite having voted Communist in the last Euro elections!) is their trope that "anyone who votes in a way that lies contrary to what my opinion of their own interests is, must be suffering from false consciousness".
To be fair, you hear it from right-wingers occasionally too ("why do all these folk in poor constituencies keep voting Labour for 50 years, if at the end of it the place is as bad a dump as it was at the start?") but left-wingers do seem to enjoy the idea that the only reason someone didn't vote the way they "should" have done is some kind of mental delusion. It's an ugly viewpoint.
These days people voted the wrong way, contrary to the way their real interests and feelings lie (as perceived by me, who benefits from a clearer view of it than they themselves), because they were a bunch of thickheads is starting to get on my mostly metaphorical tits too.
The Vodafone boss confuses roaming charges UK customers pay while in Switzerland with the roaming charges customers of Swiss telecoms companies pay when they are outside the country. It's the second which is relevant here. Europe roaming charges for Swiss are high 45c /36p per minute with Swisscom.
The residents own the roads! That's the problem I think.
And if the council adopted the roads they would wack each resident with a hefty (four figure bill), do a half-hearted resurfacing job and then ignore said road for the next twenty years, no matter how much it breaks up in the interim.
The residents of a new estate up the road from me have made a positive decision to keep the roads on the estate out of the council's hands because between them they think they can do a better job of maintenance for lower cost. Looking at the state of the roads around here, they are probably correct.
Eh?
I've got a newbuild home that is due to have the road adopted by the Council and I've not been advised on any bill for it happening. Whether the road would be adopted or not was a major issue during the survey prior to construction, we wanted it adopted as we had been advised that if it was not adopted we'd be liable for repairs while if it is adopted the Council would be and we pay the same Council Tax either way.
But the thickness of the people of Cornwall, who voted Leave en masse and thus denied themselves squillions in EU funding, is greater than most.
The money is not parcelled out in cash to the population at so much per head, it tends to be spent on stuff like "Innovation Centres" whatever the feck they are.
I think you are the mouth-breather who deduced that I must be a "Mussolini fanboy" because I said that it was admirable of him to modify the definition of Jewishness in a way which saved the lives of tens of thousands of Jews, at no obvious gain to himself. You should be cautious about denouncing thickness in other people.
Are you sure you get 100% of your air through your nose? So if you cover your mouth or hold it shut you don't find that your breathing changes? Just asking.
The truth is that Ukip needed Carswell in 2014 and Carswell needed Ukip. The obvious 'musical differences' were set aside in order to win freedom from the EU. Now that has been achieved its best they go their separate ways.
At my candidate interview for UKIP I cautiously said 'I know he's our new poster boy and all that, but what has Carswell actually done for Clacton in the last 9 years?'... the interviewer said 'precisely'
A marriage of convenience that has run its course
Interestingly, Tim Shipman in "All Out War" (excellent book, although only just started) says that the original defection was a deliberate move by Hannan and Carswell to try and detoxify the UKIP brand as there was an inverse correlation between UKIP support and Brexit support.
So Carswell was arrogant enough to believe his defection would alone "detoxify" a party's brand??
This is also the story in several of the other Brexit books that came out this summer. I've not got hold of All Out War yet, probably a mistake as it is supposed to be the cream of that crop!
Maybe they thought thee was more to the future than EU money? Maybe they thought that as we are a net contributor, EU funding would be replaced by UK funding? Maybe they thought that regaining control over fisheries was more valuable? Are they right? Who knows? But - as with a GE - there's surely a bit more to the decision than a simple question of 'who will give me the most cake?'
Maybe they were wrong to trust the Tories to disregard politics and allocate funding based on need. Maybe the EU has to be more even-handed between regions.
As for regaining control of fisheries, you do know that's another Leaver fantasy, don't you?
Maybe having enough cake doesn't matter to you, but some of these people are on the breadline.
I'm not saying how things will pan out - I'm suggesting why the Cornish might have voted the way that they did, and suggesting that there are other things bar EU grants affecting the way the Cornish feel about Brussels. I might not have voted the way they did, but the way they voted was not 'stupid' - it just encapsulates a different set of priorities.
The truth is that Ukip needed Carswell in 2014 and Carswell needed Ukip. The obvious 'musical differences' were set aside in order to win freedom from the EU. Now that has been achieved its best they go their separate ways.
At my candidate interview for UKIP I cautiously said 'I know he's our new poster boy and all that, but what has Carswell actually done for Clacton in the last 9 years?'... the interviewer said 'precisely'
A marriage of convenience that has run its course
Interestingly, Tim Shipman in "All Out War" (excellent book, although only just started) says that the original defection was a deliberate move by Hannan and Carswell to try and detoxify the UKIP brand as there was an inverse correlation between UKIP support and Brexit support.
So Carswell was arrogant enough to believe his defection would alone "detoxify" a party's brand??
He didn't quite succeed in that, granted, but throwing his support as the sole UKIP MP behind Vote Leave could have been crucial in the close designation battle. It's reasonable to argue that his defection was decisive in the referendum.
Re Jaywick, maybe it is above Carswells pay grade, and a bit socialist, but I'd buy the land off the residents, demolish it & build new housing m, maybe affordable/maybe even Luxury. It's quite a nice spot really!
Surely if there were profit in doing that, someone would have done it by now? Frinton provides all the luxury housing needed in the area, for one.
Sorry I mean the council should buy the land and build new housing in it. Not luxury obviously
"maybe even Luxury" "Not luxury obviously" ??
Yes a mistake!
When you say something is 8/1 and a 'buying opportunity' what was that?
The residents own the roads! That's the problem I think.
And if the council adopted the roads they would wack each resident with a hefty (four figure bill), do a half-hearted resurfacing job and then ignore said road for the next twenty years, no matter how much it breaks up in the interim.
The residents of a new estate up the road from me have made a positive decision to keep the roads on the estate out of the council's hands because between them they think they can do a better job of maintenance for lower cost. Looking at the state of the roads around here, they are probably correct.
Eh?
I've got a newbuild home that is due to have the road adopted by the Council and I've not been advised on any bill for it happening. Whether the road would be adopted or not was a major issue during the survey prior to construction, we wanted it adopted as we had been advised that if it was not adopted we'd be liable for repairs while if it is adopted the Council would be and we pay the same Council Tax either way.
AIUI with new builds it generally isn't much of a problem, unless the developer goes bust after completion of the housing.
Our house was built around fourteen years ago, and towards the end of last year we had workmen fettling around various snags ready for the council's adoption. Not much work was required (a few man-weeks), and the council appears happy.
If the developer goes bust it can be a very different story.
It is very different for areas that have had houses for decades, and especially plotlands, private developments and the like, where the developer is long dead and buried. Then it is on the owners to sort the unadopted roads out.
Re Jaywick, maybe it is above Carswells pay grade, and a bit socialist, but I'd buy the land off the residents, demolish it & build new housing m, maybe affordable/maybe even Luxury. It's quite a nice spot really!
Is that sort of thing not the duty of the Council and not Westminster MPs?
If a Westminster MP started trying to unilaterally buy up buildings and kick residents out of their homes so that they could be bulldozed and have new homes constructed for sale then I suspect that would cause quite a stink!
He could work in conjunction w the council and offer to buy the land? It would be up to the residents to sell or not.
Sorry if this sounds like a punter just making suggestions, & isn't correct subject to planning rules etc, but that's what it is!
Something radical needs to be done and I don't think 'digital democracy' is it
The EU parliament will decide today on whether to remove her immunity from French prosecution in respect of her tweets of three disgusting ISIS execution photos in 2015 and two cases of alleged defamation.
I haven't found any good reports on this. The best I've found is from Bloomberg. As I understand it, MEPs have the same immunity in their home countries as they would if they were MPs, which varies from country to country.
Can she sell the narrative that the EU is persecuting her for trying to stand up for France against Islam? I think she probably can, and that this will strengthen her.
According to Bloomberg, the timetable is as follows:
today, 28 Feb: an EU parliamentary committee considers a request from a French court to remove her immunity regarding the tweets and the instances of alleged defamation;
next week: the committee makes recommendations to the EU parliament;
later in March: the whole EU parliament votes on the issue.
This seems ideal for Le Pen, especially given that Wilders is likely to be in the news a lot in the second half of March. It will help her push the message that getting a plurality isn't good enough, faced with the EU powers that be, which are "soft on Islam" and assisted by the French compradore "establishment". With "enemies" like this in the EU parliament, does she need "friends"?
Polls are currently saying that from R1 to R2 she'll increase her percentage from 26% to 39% against Macron and 42% against Fillon, so by 50-62%. That wouldn't give her the Elysée, but it would break new ground for an FN candidate.
Would you like a bet on Mme Le Pen's second round vote? How about you pay £10 for every point below 42%, and I pay you £10 for every point above. Settled to one decimal place.
The residents own the roads! That's the problem I think.
And if the council adopted the roads they would wack each resident with a hefty (four figure bill), do a half-hearted resurfacing job and then ignore said road for the next twenty years, no matter how much it breaks up in the interim.
The residents of a new estate up the road from me have made a positive decision to keep the roads on the estate out of the council's hands because between them they think they can do a better job of maintenance for lower cost. Looking at the state of the roads around here, they are probably correct.
Eh?
I've got a newbuild home that is due to have the road adopted by the Council and I've not been advised on any bill for it happening. Whether the road would be adopted or not was a major issue during the survey prior to construction, we wanted it adopted as we had been advised that if it was not adopted we'd be liable for repairs while if it is adopted the Council would be and we pay the same Council Tax either way.
The bill Mr. Thompson is sent to residents on an existing non-adopted road which the council, for one reason or another decides to adopt. It is usually hefty and in my experience is in the four figures bracket.
Whether your local council actually maintain your road is, in my view, a matter of doubt. My council certainly does not maintain the roads in my village to any sort of standard. We have wheel-breaking potholes all over the place and it has been getting progressively worse for ten years or more.
Comments
The residents of a new estate up the road from me have made a positive decision to keep the roads on the estate out of the council's hands because between them they think they can do a better job of maintenance for lower cost. Looking at the state of the roads around here, they are probably correct.
Not exactly the classic 'posh boy' upbringing.
On balance, I should really agree with @AlastairMeeks' fine post this morning that there really needs to be a functioning opposition to the government.
Set up as plotlands for holiday homes in the early 20th century, it became permanent overflow housing after WWII. As is often the case with such private developments, the roads remained unadopted by the council.
In other areas, councils have been hesitant to adopt roads as they become liable for the costs. They generally insist on having them up to a high quality *before* adoption. This leaves locals in a trap: they cannot afford to improve the infrastructure, and the council will not adopt them until they are improved.
Add in the fact it is a floodprone area, and not somewhere you'd necesarily want to develop, then you have a perfect storm of problems.
According to Wiki, the locals got a preservation order n Jaywick in the 1970s when the council wanted to demolish it!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jaywick
Mr. Eagles, I did say a few days ago that the Richmond result would be used to try and explain away the Copeland one.
The 92-97 Lib Dem insurgencies Newbury, Christchurch, Eastleigh were all well over 12% Con -> Lab swing.
Labour can take no comfort from Richmond.
They all look similar to the surface of the moon and Brookmans Park certainly isn't a poor area.
I hesitate to repeat the discussion we had about this yesterday but it is curious that some police forces seem rather keener on pursuing allegations of sexual offences against dead people which can neither be proved nor prosecuted than on taking action against live people for sexual offences being committed today.
A cynic might suppose that the former requires little work and gets the police lots of attention while the latter involves a lot of work and, possibly, the wrong sort of attention.
Only then do you do the blacktop. All the real work is below that and invisible.
And all this has to be done whilst the residents have continued access to their homes, water and sewerage. It is really, really expensive to do right. But if it is done right it'll last a very long time.
Too often the solution for both councils and locals is to chuck a new layer of tarmac on, or even just spray tar and graded material. Which then disintegrates the next winter.
Yes interesting Tories now doing better in more working class seats then middle class ones.For every seat they lose to the libdems next time they will probably pick up two from Labour.
Scarcely believable for sure.
Also, he had his fingers crossed behind his back at the time.
The fightback has begun!
(This post is brought to you by @Tories4Corbyn)
https://twitter.com/PwC_LLP/status/836411572591464448?ref_src=twsrc^tfw
Forgetting the fact that dust bin lorries and removal trucks weigh significantly more and wear out the surface a lot sooner.
Luxury. It's quite a nice spot really!
A wise person once said: "there is no such thing as public money; there is only taxpayers' money."
With respect to money spent in the UK, there is no such thing as EU money, there is only British taxpayers' money. And the same, mutatis mutandis, for other contributor countries.
They also took their time to correct the mistake.
Sackable offence if ever their was one. I expect them to resign in disgrace.
Cat Smith was right, it was an absolutely extraordinary result.
As for regaining control of fisheries, you do know that's another Leaver fantasy, don't you?
https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/environment/2017/feb/15/uk-fishermen-may-not-win-waters-back-after-brexit-eu-memo-reveals
Maybe having enough cake doesn't matter to you, but some of these people are on the breadline.
The EU parliament will decide today on whether to remove her immunity from French prosecution in respect of her tweets of three disgusting ISIS execution photos in 2015 and two cases of alleged defamation.
I haven't found any good reports on this. The best I've found is from Bloomberg. As I understand it, MEPs have the same immunity in their home countries as they would if they were MPs, which varies from country to country.
Can she sell the narrative that the EU is persecuting her for trying to stand up for France against Islam? I think she probably can, and that this will strengthen her.
According to Bloomberg, the timetable is as follows:
today, 28 Feb: an EU parliamentary committee considers a request from a French court to remove her immunity regarding the tweets and the instances of alleged defamation;
next week: the committee makes recommendations to the EU parliament;
later in March: the whole EU parliament votes on the issue.
This seems ideal for Le Pen, especially given that Wilders is likely to be in the news a lot in the second half of March. It will help her push the message that getting a plurality isn't good enough, faced with the EU powers that be, which are "soft on Islam" and assisted by the French compradore "establishment". With "enemies" like this in the EU parliament, does she need "friends"?
Polls are currently saying that from R1 to R2 she'll increase her percentage from 26% to 39% against Macron and 42% against Fillon, so by 50-62%. That wouldn't give her the Elysée, but it would break new ground for an FN candidate.
7 Times Remainers Claimed Mobile Phone Costs Would Rise Post-Brexit: https://order-order.com/2017/02/28/vodafone-boss-mobile-roaming-charges-wont-rise-post-brexit/ …
If a Westminster MP started trying to unilaterally buy up buildings and kick residents out of their homes so that they could be bulldozed and have new homes constructed for sale then I suspect that would cause quite a stink!
"Not luxury obviously"
??
Secondly, Tendring District Council have been trumpeting at least three new private-sector developments of flats along the seafront in the last few months (http://www.tendringdc.gov.uk/council/news-pr/news-listing/third-major-development-scheme-put-forward-jaywick-sands), all replacing vacant/derelict buildings.
Is it enough? Probably not, but it's better than anything that's happened for the last few decades. Is it Carswell's achievement? I don't really know enough to comment, but I'd very strongly suspect not.
https://twitter.com/PickardJE/status/836146470717960192
To be fair, you hear it from right-wingers occasionally too ("why do all these folk in poor constituencies keep voting Labour for 50 years, if at the end of it the place is as bad a dump as it was at the start?") but left-wingers do seem to enjoy the idea that the only reason someone didn't vote the way they "should" have done is some kind of mental delusion. It's an ugly viewpoint.
These days people voted the wrong way, contrary to the way their real interests and feelings lie (as perceived by me, who benefits from a clearer view of it than they themselves), because they were a bunch of thickheads is starting to get on my mostly metaphorical tits too.
I've got a newbuild home that is due to have the road adopted by the Council and I've not been advised on any bill for it happening. Whether the road would be adopted or not was a major issue during the survey prior to construction, we wanted it adopted as we had been advised that if it was not adopted we'd be liable for repairs while if it is adopted the Council would be and we pay the same Council Tax either way.
When you say something is 8/1 and a 'buying opportunity' what was that?
Our house was built around fourteen years ago, and towards the end of last year we had workmen fettling around various snags ready for the council's adoption. Not much work was required (a few man-weeks), and the council appears happy.
If the developer goes bust it can be a very different story.
It is very different for areas that have had houses for decades, and especially plotlands, private developments and the like, where the developer is long dead and buried. Then it is on the owners to sort the unadopted roads out.
Sorry if this sounds like a punter just making suggestions, & isn't correct subject to planning rules etc, but that's what it is!
Something radical needs to be done and I don't think 'digital democracy' is it
Whether your local council actually maintain your road is, in my view, a matter of doubt. My council certainly does not maintain the roads in my village to any sort of standard. We have wheel-breaking potholes all over the place and it has been getting progressively worse for ten years or more.