For any early birds, Elon Musk is going to give a presentation in fifty minutes about his new plans for Mars. Two images he's released early show ships on Mars and the Moon.
It can be watched here: ttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S5V7R_se1Xc
Edit: it is also likely to start late.
The world is a better place with people like Elon Musk around. Great vision, will be fascinating to watch. Oh, and love that it’s still called the BFR!
Agreed. Great thing is he is not just futuristic, he is retro-futuristic - he is exactly what I expected and wanted 2017 to be like when I was a 10 year old science fiction reader.
Not really, PB is mostly full of Leavers anyway. Osborne’s mistake was to call the referendum while Corbyn (a known eurosceptic) was the Labour leader.
I think that is incorrect.
Many on pb.com wanted to say inside a reformed EU. I remember cyclefree writing a characteristically impressive header on exactly this point.
One thing that has surprised me is how much the Remainers blame the UK. I would have said the EU is at least partly to blame for the rupture.
One thing is for certain the reason we are leaving is because of the Conservative Party .
Not at all. Look at Wales. Every Labour seat outside Cardiff voted LEAVE.
The seats that voted REMAIN were the Tory seats (Vale of Glamorgan, Monmouthshire), the then LibDem seat (Ceredigion) and the Plaid seats in NW Wales.
No you misunderstood the conservatives announced holding a referendum before the 2015 GE .Labour and Milliband would not have held one.The referendum was for conservative party management and the threat of UKip not nation concern.
Not really, PB is mostly full of Leavers anyway. Osborne’s mistake was to call the referendum while Corbyn (a known eurosceptic) was the Labour leader.
I think that is incorrect.
Many on pb.com wanted to say inside a reformed EU. I remember cyclefree writing a characteristically impressive header on exactly this point.
One thing that has surprised me is how much the Remainers blame the UK. I would have said the EU is at least partly to blame for the rupture.
Internal EU reform is needed. That may well be Brexit's legacy.
The question is why the EU had to wait till after the secession of one of its largest members before carrying out reforms.
That is not the comforting sign of a well-run organisation.
No you misunderstood the conservatives announced holding a referendum before the 2015 GE .Labour and Milliband would not have held one.The referendum was for conservative party management and the threat of UKip not nation concern.
Mrs C, indeed. Although, to be fair, Cameron was also rather complacent.
Mr. City, yet, had Labour held a Lisbon referendum that would've decreased the building head of steam. Instead, they reneged upon a manifesto promise and Brown slinked along late to sign away our vetoes.
Not really, PB is mostly full of Leavers anyway. Osborne’s mistake was to call the referendum while Corbyn (a known eurosceptic) was the Labour leader.
I think that is incorrect.
Many on pb.com wanted to say inside a reformed EU. I remember cyclefree writing a characteristically impressive header on exactly this point.
One thing that has surprised me is how much the Remainers blame the UK. I would have said the EU is at least partly to blame for the rupture.
One thing is for certain the reason we are leaving is because of the Conservative Party .
Not at all. Look at Wales. Every Labour seat outside Cardiff voted LEAVE.
The seats that voted REMAIN were the Tory seats (Vale of Glamorgan, Monmouthshire), the then LibDem seat (Ceredigion) and the Plaid seats in NW Wales.
Being pedantic, while Vale of Glamorgan and Monmouthshire councils voted Remain the Vale of Glamorgan and Monmouthshire constituencies might have voted Leave.
For any early birds, Elon Musk is going to give a presentation in fifty minutes about his new plans for Mars. Two images he's released early show ships on Mars and the Moon.
It can be watched here: ttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S5V7R_se1Xc
Edit: it is also likely to start late.
The world is a better place with people like Elon Musk around. Great vision, will be fascinating to watch. Oh, and love that it’s still called the BFR!
Agreed. Great thing is he is not just futuristic, he is retro-futuristic - he is exactly what I expected and wanted 2017 to be like when I was a 10 year old science fiction reader.
An issue is that he's not as knowledgeable as his fans make out. Like Bull Gates reading every line of Microsoft well into the 1990s, or Steve Jobs designing every facet of every Apple product, fans tend to see the arch-achievers as greater than they really are, and in the process denigrate the team behind them.
As an example, Musk was planning an interplanetary spaceship without apparently realising that Galactic Cosmic Rays can come from any direction, not just the sun.
But I can forgive that sort of thing as long as he continues to be an arch-disruptor (*) in long stable areas.
(*) He remove the keystone, hence disrupting the arch.
Mrs C, indeed. Although, to be fair, Cameron was also rather complacent.
I am not a cheerleader for either side Mr Dancer, but what we are heading into appears to be worse than what we are leaving behind and our politicians show no signs of wanting to talk about that.
Not really, PB is mostly full of Leavers anyway. Osborne’s mistake was to call the referendum while Corbyn (a known eurosceptic) was the Labour leader.
I think that is incorrect.
Many on pb.com wanted to say inside a reformed EU. I remember cyclefree writing a characteristically impressive header on exactly this point.
One thing that has surprised me is how much the Remainers blame the UK. I would have said the EU is at least partly to blame for the rupture.
One thing is for certain the reason we are leaving is because of the Conservative Party .
Not at all. Look at Wales. Every Labour seat outside Cardiff voted LEAVE.
The seats that voted REMAIN were the Tory seats (Vale of Glamorgan, Monmouthshire), the then LibDem seat (Ceredigion) and the Plaid seats in NW Wales.
No you misunderstood the conservatives announced holding a referendum before the 2015 GE .Labour and Milliband would not have held one.The referendum was for conservative party management and the threat of UKip not nation concern.
I basically don't agree.
I am in favour of referendums, whether in the UK, Scotland or Catalonia. There was a demand for a referendum that was becoming unstoppable, and the Tories were correct to put it in their manifesto & offer a vote, which cut across party political lines.
Once the demand is there, it is absolutely futile to do what the Spanish Government is doing, and prevent people having a referendum. Catalonia will for sure have its referendum, and the attempt to prevent a referendum just makes independence more likely.
And for sure, if Dave hadn't put a referendum in his manifesto, Jeremy would have put it in the next Labour manifesto.
Attempts to deny a legitimate referendum just make it all the more likely that you lose when one is inevitably called.
Mrs C, in the short term, that's almost certainly true (as an aside, I'm perplexed by reports on the news last night Barnier was effectively playing for time as a trump card rather than pushing for transition, as that gives us time and the EU money... if we end up with no transition that helps no-one).
Longer term, it's for the best. I've long said I believe the EU will crumble because those at the top are drunk on ideology and are forcing together nations that are too divergent in terms of economy, culture and demography.
Mr. Cwsc, political game playing for years didn't help (cf Clegg calling for an In/Out referendum in 2010).
Not really, PB is mostly full of Leavers anyway. Osborne’s mistake was to call the referendum while Corbyn (a known eurosceptic) was the Labour leader.
I think that is incorrect.
Many on pb.com wanted to say inside a reformed EU. I remember cyclefree writing a characteristically impressive header on exactly this point.
One thing that has surprised me is how much the Remainers blame the UK. I would have said the EU is at least partly to blame for the rupture.
I think Cyclefree typified the problem for Remain. She spent the run up to the referendum moaning about the EU (often articulately), and now is moaning about Brexit.
This was pretty much the Cameron problem. "We must renegotiate or leave" is not a way to build support for an institution, and went on for years. This prevented any real positive campaign for Remain, and poisoned the well.
The same people will be just as unhappy when we replace the wrong sort of EU with the wrong sort of Brexit.
Continuing my occasional rant about the ONS and their statistics on construction I seriously have to wonder if those concerned ever look out their window. Whilst down at the Oval I was staying at the Westminster Plaza, just on the south side of Westminster Bridge, an hotel with just over 1,000 bedrooms and, so far as I could see, no British born staff.
The scale of development going on on the south bank at the moment is just jaw dropping and gargantuan. Huge buildings going up everywhere, mainly for residential use. You can also see the apparently never ending expansion of the Docklands/Canary Warf development and of course Crossrail. London is very obviously enjoying a construction boom. Anecdotally, a friend of my daughter's, who works as a high crane operator, moans that his inbox is constantly full of text messages offering him new jobs.
Seriously, their figures on construction make their estimates on immigration look good. It's just ridiculous.
Construction is a very visible and subjective industry - if you see lots of new building taking place you think the construction industry is doing well, if you don't you don't.
Now to me there certainly looks like there's a lot of construction work taking place along the M18 and nearby areas. But I had assumed other areas, in particular London, must have less for the official data to be so poor.
Morning all,
David Smith in Sunday Times used to publish his 'skip quota' every so often: a measure of the number of skips for building work in his home's immediate neighbouring streets. A high quota meant the economy was well ( tongue in cheek style).
F1: seems a drain cover came loose and ruined Grosjean's tyre. To be honest, it sounds like it could've been a lot worse.
I was about to make a comment to the efffect that Grosjean crashed *again*, but having seen the replays it was a loose drain cover he could have done nothing about.
Not really, PB is mostly full of Leavers anyway. Osborne’s mistake was to call the referendum while Corbyn (a known eurosceptic) was the Labour leader.
I think that is incorrect.
Many on pb.com wanted to say inside a reformed EU. I remember cyclefree writing a characteristically impressive header on exactly this point.
One thing that has surprised me is how much the Remainers blame the UK. I would have said the EU is at least partly to blame for the rupture.
I think Cyclefree typified the problem for Remain. She spent the run up to the referendum moaning about the EU (often articulately), and now is moaning about Brexit.
This was pretty much the Cameron problem. "We must renegotiate or leave" is not a way to build support for an institution, and went on for years. This prevented any real positive campaign for Remain, and poisoned the well.
The same people will be just as unhappy when we replace the wrong sort of EU with the wrong sort of Brexit.
We can vote out the politicians who negotiated the wrong sort of Brexit, if it is a failure.
I thought the prospect of that made you happy.
We can never vote out Junker, the walking symbol of international tax avoidance. We never voted him in.
Not really, PB is mostly full of Leavers anyway. Osborne’s mistake was to call the referendum while Corbyn (a known eurosceptic) was the Labour leader.
I think that is incorrect.
Many on pb.com wanted to say inside a reformed EU. I remember cyclefree writing a characteristically impressive header on exactly this point.
One thing that has surprised me is how much the Remainers blame the UK. I would have said the EU is at least partly to blame for the rupture.
Internal EU reform is needed. That may well be Brexit's legacy.
The question is why the EU had to wait till after the secession of one of its largest members before carrying out reforms.
That is not the comforting sign of a well-run organisation.
In a word: complacency
There are too many proposals for reform, with each of the 28 having their own preferences and red lines. The UK's preferences do not coincide with the enough others to have any chance of being accepted.
Nelson: "In his rather good (if a little long) conference speech, Jeremy Corbyn summed it up perfectly: his ideas, so long dismissed as being on the fringe of politics, are now mainstream."
Not really, PB is mostly full of Leavers anyway. Osborne’s mistake was to call the referendum while Corbyn (a known eurosceptic) was the Labour leader.
I think that is incorrect.
Many on pb.com wanted to say inside a reformed EU. I remember cyclefree writing a characteristically impressive header on exactly this point.
One thing that has surprised me is how much the Remainers blame the UK. I would have said the EU is at least partly to blame for the rupture.
Internal EU reform is needed. That may well be Brexit's legacy.
The question is why the EU had to wait till after the secession of one of its largest members before carrying out reforms.
That is not the comforting sign of a well-run organisation.
In a word: complacency
There are too many proposals for reform, with each of the 28 having their own preferences and red lines. The UK's preferences do not coincide with the enough others to have any chance of being accepted.
That doesn't sound as though the EU will ever be able to reform (whether along the UK's lines or anyone else's).
Not really, PB is mostly full of Leavers anyway. Osborne’s mistake was to call the referendum while Corbyn (a known eurosceptic) was the Labour leader.
I think that is incorrect.
Many on pb.com wanted to say inside a reformed EU. I remember cyclefree writing a characteristically impressive header on exactly this point.
One thing that has surprised me is how much the Remainers blame the UK. I would have said the EU is at least partly to blame for the rupture.
I think Cyclefree typified the problem for Remain. She spent the run up to the referendum moaning about the EU (often articulately), and now is moaning about Brexit.
This was pretty much the Cameron problem. "We must renegotiate or leave" is not a way to build support for an institution, and went on for years. This prevented any real positive campaign for Remain, and poisoned the well.
The same people will be just as unhappy when we replace the wrong sort of EU with the wrong sort of Brexit.
We can vote out the politicians who negotiated the wrong sort of Brexit, if it is a failure.
I thought the prospect of that made you happy.
We can never vote out Junker, the walking symbol of international tax avoidance. We never voted him in.
My point is that we have chucked out the baby with the bathwater.
We can chuck out the Brexiteers (and pretty certain to do so) but cannot reverse Brexit to our current terms.
We may well rejoin in a couple of decades on worse terms after wrecking several industries, but that is not the same.
Not really, PB is mostly full of Leavers anyway. Osborne’s mistake was to call the referendum while Corbyn (a known eurosceptic) was the Labour leader.
I think that is incorrect.
Many on pb.com wanted to say inside a reformed EU. I remember cyclefree writing a characteristically impressive header on exactly this point.
One thing that has surprised me is how much the Remainers blame the UK. I would have said the EU is at least partly to blame for the rupture.
One thing is for certain the reason we are leaving is because of the Conservative Party .
Not at all. Look at Wales. Every Labour seat outside Cardiff voted LEAVE.
The seats that voted REMAIN were the Tory seats (Vale of Glamorgan, Monmouthshire), the then LibDem seat (Ceredigion) and the Plaid seats in NW Wales.
No you misunderstood the conservatives announced holding a referendum before the 2015 GE .Labour and Milliband would not have held one.The referendum was for conservative party management and the threat of UKip not nation concern.
I basically don't agree.
I am in favour of referendums, whether in the UK, Scotland or Catalonia. There was a demand for a referendum that was becoming unstoppable, and the Tories were correct to put it in their manifesto & offer a vote, which cut across party political lines.
Once the demand is there, it is absolutely futile to do what the Spanish Government is doing, and prevent people having a referendum. Catalonia will for sure have its referendum, and the attempt to prevent a referendum just makes independence more likely.
And for sure, if Dave hadn't put a referendum in his manifesto, Jeremy would have put it in the next Labour manifesto.
Attempts to deny a legitimate referendum just make it all the more likely that you lose when one is inevitably called.
I disagree with you totally Both the 1975 referendum held by Labour and the ,2016 referendum were held for party management purposes .There was no unstoppable demand for a referendum on the EU.
Corbyn did better than expected, and May bungled the election, but if someone says Socialism is a surprise hit they also have to acknowledge that the Tories got a hell of a lot of votes. A half-competent campaign* and the Tories would have likely routed Labour and Corbyn would be fighting to hang on to the leadership.
* Next time try not to piss off your most dedicated voters mid-campaign.
Mrs C, indeed. Although, to be fair, Cameron was also rather complacent.
I am not a cheerleader for either side Mr Dancer, but what we are heading into appears to be worse than what we are leaving behind and our politicians show no signs of wanting to talk about that.
We can chuck out the Brexiteers (and pretty certain to do so) but cannot reverse Brexit to our current terms.
But that is good.
The only way to make the EU work for your country is to be in the Euro, Schengen, etc.
Our semidetached status was one of the problems. Either get stuck in, or leave.
There is no evidence the UKs semi-detached status was a problem. Best of both worlds really - strong influence on development of regulations and the top destination of Foreign Direct Investment for companies wanting to locate in Europe - but not tied to the disaster that was the euro. Two of the biggest EU achievements, the Single Market and the expansion eastwards were both UK goals.
Continuing my occasional rant about the ONS and their statistics on construction I seriously have to wonder if those concerned ever look out their window. Whilst down at the Oval I was staying at the Westminster Plaza, just on the south side of Westminster Bridge, an hotel with just over 1,000 bedrooms and, so far as I could see, no British born staff.
The scale of development going on on the south bank at the moment is just jaw dropping and gargantuan. Huge buildings going up everywhere, mainly for residential use. You can also see the apparently never ending expansion of the Docklands/Canary Warf development and of course Crossrail. London is very obviously enjoying a construction boom. Anecdotally, a friend of my daughter's, who works as a high crane operator, moans that his inbox is constantly full of text messages offering him new jobs.
Seriously, their figures on construction make their estimates on immigration look good. It's just ridiculous.
@DavidL - what makes you think the ONS estimates on migration are wrong? In what direction do you think they are wrong?
The 2011 Census estimate was just 100,000 lower than the 2011 mid-year estimate. I think being out by 100,000 over ten years is not too bad. Of course, things may have changed since then...
I was thinking of their estimates on overstaying students which turned out to be massively overstated.
Not really, PB is mostly full of Leavers anyway. Osborne’s mistake was to call the referendum while Corbyn (a known eurosceptic) was the Labour leader.
I think that is incorrect.
Many on pb.com wanted to say inside a reformed EU. I remember cyclefree writing a characteristically impressive header on exactly this point.
One thing that has surprised me is how much the Remainers blame the UK. I would have said the EU is at least partly to blame for the rupture.
Internal EU reform is needed. That may well be Brexit's legacy.
The question is why the EU had to wait till after the secession of one of its largest members before carrying out reforms.
That is not the comforting sign of a well-run organisation.
In a word: complacency
There are too many proposals for reform, with each of the 28 having their own preferences and red lines. The UK's preferences do not coincide with the enough others to have any chance of being accepted.
That doesn't sound as though the EU will ever be able to reform (whether along the UK's lines or anyone else's).
That is not a happy prognosis for the EU.
I suspect that areas where there is agreement between the Germans and the French and they can win the the support of one or two of the tiddlers will progress. The F.O. seemed to think that any agreement between those two threatened GB.
An issue is that he's not as knowledgeable as his fans make out. Like Bull Gates reading every line of Microsoft well into the 1990s, or Steve Jobs designing every facet of every Apple product, fans tend to see the arch-achievers as greater than they really are, and in the process denigrate the team behind them.
As an example, Musk was planning an interplanetary spaceship without apparently realising that Galactic Cosmic Rays can come from any direction, not just the sun.
But I can forgive that sort of thing as long as he continues to be an arch-disruptor (*) in long stable areas.
(*) He remove the keystone, hence disrupting the arch.
Elon Musk is hype and skilled execution of complex projects in equal measure. Both are important to what he is. Take SpaceX. The product - the standardised and reliable placement of commercial satellites into orbit - is the same as the one provided by Arianespace since the early 90's. But add in exciting talk of manned missions and a massively expanded market of dirt cheap launches by the thousand. Also add in rigorous efficiencies that have almost put Arianespace out of the commercial launch business.
It's a bit like Uber, I suppose, that we have been talking about so much. It's a minicab company at the end of the day. If we didn't have Uber, there are alternatives. But they have the following.
Not really, PB is mostly full of Leavers anyway. Osborne’s mistake was to call the referendum while Corbyn (a known eurosceptic) was the Labour leader.
I think that is incorrect.
Many on pb.com wanted to say inside a reformed EU. I remember cyclefree writing a characteristically impressive header on exactly this point.
One thing that has surprised me is how much the Remainers blame the UK. I would have said the EU is at least partly to blame for the rupture.
One thing is for certain the reason we are leaving is because of the Conservative Party .
Not at all. Look at Wales. Every Labour seat outside Cardiff voted LEAVE.
The seats that voted REMAIN were the Tory seats (Vale of Glamorgan, Monmouthshire), the then LibDem seat (Ceredigion) and the Plaid seats in NW Wales.
No you misunderstood the conservatives announced holding a referendum before the 2015 GE .Labour and Milliband would not have held one.The referendum was for conservative party management and the threat of UKip not nation concern.
I basically don't agree.
I am in favour of referendums, whether in the UK, Scotland or Catalonia. There was a demand for a referendum that was becoming unstoppable, and the Tories were correct to put it in their manifesto & offer a vote, which cut across party political lines.
Once the demand is there, it is absolutely futile to do what the Spanish Government is doing, and prevent people having a referendum. Catalonia will for sure have its referendum, and the attempt to prevent a referendum just makes independence more likely.
And for sure, if Dave hadn't put a referendum in his manifesto, Jeremy would have put it in the next Labour manifesto.
Attempts to deny a legitimate referendum just make it all the more likely that you lose when one is inevitably called.
I disagree with you totally Both the 1975 referendum held by Labour and the ,2016 referendum were held for party management purposes .There was no unstoppable demand for a referendum on the EU.
If there was no demand, then Remain would have won easily.
Mrs C, indeed. Although, to be fair, Cameron was also rather complacent.
Mr. City, yet, had Labour held a Lisbon referendum that would've decreased the building head of steam. Instead, they reneged upon a manifesto promise and Brown slinked along late to sign away our vetoes.
I agree Morris but to be honest I am not really in favour of referendums .It should be our elected representatives who make decisions on complex issues. They should not use referendums for party splits .
An issue is that he's not as knowledgeable as his fans make out. Like Bull Gates reading every line of Microsoft well into the 1990s, or Steve Jobs designing every facet of every Apple product, fans tend to see the arch-achievers as greater than they really are, and in the process denigrate the team behind them.
As an example, Musk was planning an interplanetary spaceship without apparently realising that Galactic Cosmic Rays can come from any direction, not just the sun.
But I can forgive that sort of thing as long as he continues to be an arch-disruptor (*) in long stable areas.
(*) He remove the keystone, hence disrupting the arch.
Elon Musk is hype and skilled execution of complex projects in equal measure. Both are important to what he is. Take SpaceX. The product - the standardised and reliable placement of commercial satellites into orbit - is the same as the one provided by Arianespace since the early 90's. But add in exciting talk of manned missions and a massively expanded market of dirt cheap launches by the thousand. Also add in rigorous efficiencies that have almost put Arianespace out of the commercial launch business.
It's a bit like Uber, I suppose, that we have been talking about so much. It's a minicab company at the end of the day. If we didn't have Uber, there are alternatives. But they have the following.
Rigorous efficiencies and big cheques from Uncle Sam.
I agree Morris but to be honest I am not really in favour of referendums .It should be our elected representatives who make decisions on complex issues. They should not use referendums for party splits .
That might work if Parliament was truly representative. On EU membership that doesn't appear to be the case, the country was always a lot more skeptical than our MPs.
An issue is that he's not as knowledgeable as his fans make out. Like Bull Gates reading every line of Microsoft well into the 1990s, or Steve Jobs designing every facet of every Apple product, fans tend to see the arch-achievers as greater than they really are, and in the process denigrate the team behind them.
As an example, Musk was planning an interplanetary spaceship without apparently realising that Galactic Cosmic Rays can come from any direction, not just the sun.
But I can forgive that sort of thing as long as he continues to be an arch-disruptor (*) in long stable areas.
(*) He remove the keystone, hence disrupting the arch.
Elon Musk is hype and skilled execution of complex projects in equal measure. Both are important to what he is. Take SpaceX. The product - the standardised and reliable placement of commercial satellites into orbit - is the same as the one provided by Arianespace since the early 90's. But add in exciting talk of manned missions and a massively expanded market of dirt cheap launches by the thousand. Also add in rigorous efficiencies that have almost put Arianespace out of the commercial launch business.
It's a bit like Uber, I suppose, that we have been talking about so much. It's a minicab company at the end of the day. If we didn't have Uber, there are alternatives. But they have the following.
Rigorous efficiencies and big cheques from Uncle Sam.
Agreed. The market for the product is limited and not super price sensitive. Given that, SpaceX is a me-too product, to be a bit harsh.
Mrs C, indeed. Although, to be fair, Cameron was also rather complacent.
Mr. City, yet, had Labour held a Lisbon referendum that would've decreased the building head of steam. Instead, they reneged upon a manifesto promise and Brown slinked along late to sign away our vetoes.
It should be our elected representatives who make decisions on complex issues. They should not use referendums for party splits .
The question of being part of the EU or not is complex but it is also a philosophical question of identity and I think ideally suited to being a referendum question as there is no right or wrong answer but depends on what people value most.
The problem comes if you have a referendum where people make a decision based on lies, or where a very close vote leaves a nation split but requiring a massive change in national direction to be taken.
Corbyn did better than expected, and May bungled the election, but if someone says Socialism is a surprise hit they also have to acknowledge that the Tories got a hell of a lot of votes. A half-competent campaign* and the Tories would have likely routed Labour and Corbyn would be fighting to hang on to the leadership.
* Next time try not to piss off your most dedicated voters mid-campaign.
Mrs C, indeed. Although, to be fair, Cameron was also rather complacent.
Mr. City, yet, had Labour held a Lisbon referendum that would've decreased the building head of steam. Instead, they reneged upon a manifesto promise and Brown slinked along late to sign away our vetoes.
It should be our elected representatives who make decisions on complex issues. They should not use referendums for party splits .
The question of being part of the EU or not is complex but it is also a philosophical question of identity and I think ideally suited to being a referendum question as there is no right or wrong answer but depends on what people value most.
The problem comes if you have a referendum where people make a decision based on lies, or where a very close vote leaves a nation split but requiring a massive change in national direction to be taken.
This translates as - the problem comes if you have a referendum where the result is one I don't like.
Continuing on the housebuilding/land hoarding theme from yesterday:
"Lately the government has become keener on large-scale housing developments. They tend to be farther from NIMBY-ish residents, and local authorities find it easier to manage one big project than lots of small ones. But they can give large builders local monopolies. To maximise profits on a plot, the builder may ration supply, putting up houses gradually rather than completing them all at once.
There is circumstantial evidence of this process at work. One study in 2014 looked at sites in London where more than 500 homes were earmarked and found that it was rare to build more than 100 of them a year. Research by Nathaniel Lichfield and Partners (NLP), a consultancy, suggests that as the size of a plot goes up, the annual rate of building gets relatively smaller."
The question I would ask is - if rationing supply of housing/building slower increases profits - aren't companies acting in the best interest of their shareholders to do this?
Replace Council Tax with Land Value Tax on unimproved land plus permissions. Incentivises developers to get things built (because they're paying tax on the plot at exactly the same rate as it would be paid for completed housing) and incentivises councils to issue permissions (because the value of unimproved land with permission to build is far far higher than unimproved land without permission to build).
Corbyn did better than expected, and May bungled the election, but if someone says Socialism is a surprise hit they also have to acknowledge that the Tories got a hell of a lot of votes. A half-competent campaign* and the Tories would have likely routed Labour and Corbyn would be fighting to hang on to the leadership.
* Next time try not to piss off your most dedicated voters mid-campaign.
Indeed. But I suppose the surprise is that pure, red, hard Socialism could get anything more than around 10% of the vote, in a country that is supposed to be rather conservative (small 'c'). There's no doubt the Great Recession has changed things. Blair/Brown went for centralist, don't scare the horses stuff because they thought that the only remote way they would win. This may be still true, we will find out in 2020.
I disagree with you totally Both the 1975 referendum held by Labour and the ,2016 referendum were held for party management purposes .There was no unstoppable demand for a referendum on the EU.
If there was no demand, then Remain would have won easily.
Not really. Since the public faces of the Remain campaign were Cameron and Osborne, people voted Leave to indicate their rejection of a couple of complacent toffs, who could not even manage their own Party, let alone EU negotiations and a decent campaign.
I disagree with you totally Both the 1975 referendum held by Labour and the ,2016 referendum were held for party management purposes .There was no unstoppable demand for a referendum on the EU.
If there was no demand, then Remain would have won easily.
Not really. Since the public faces of the Remain campaign were Cameron and Osborne, people voted Leave to indicate their rejection of a couple of complacent toffs, who could not even manage their own Party, let alone EU negotiations and a decent campaign.
Remain only have themselves to blame then if they let Cameron and Osborne represent them.
Remind me, why was the leader of the Labour Party not one of the public faces of Remain?
I disagree with you totally Both the 1975 referendum held by Labour and the ,2016 referendum were held for party management purposes .There was no unstoppable demand for a referendum on the EU.
If there was no demand, then Remain would have won easily.
Not really. Since the public faces of the Remain campaign were Cameron and Osborne, people voted Leave to indicate their rejection of a couple of complacent toffs, who could not even manage their own Party, let alone EU negotiations and a decent campaign.
Yes that is the problem lots of people use the referendum for differing agendas to the question asked.I heard at work many Labour supporters using the vote to get rid of Cameron.
Continuing on the housebuilding/land hoarding theme from yesterday:
"Lately the government has become keener on large-scale housing developments. They tend to be farther from NIMBY-ish residents, and local authorities find it easier to manage one big project than lots of small ones. But they can give large builders local monopolies. To maximise profits on a plot, the builder may ration supply, putting up houses gradually rather than completing them all at once.
There is circumstantial evidence of this process at work. One study in 2014 looked at sites in London where more than 500 homes were earmarked and found that it was rare to build more than 100 of them a year. Research by Nathaniel Lichfield and Partners (NLP), a consultancy, suggests that as the size of a plot goes up, the annual rate of building gets relatively smaller."
The question I would ask is - if rationing supply of housing/building slower increases profits - aren't companies acting in the best interest of their shareholders to do this?
Replace Council Tax with Land Value Tax on unimproved land plus permissions. Incentivises developers to get things built (because they're paying tax on the plot at exactly the same rate as it would be paid for completed housing) and incentivises councils to issue permissions (because the value of unimproved land with permission to build is far far higher than unimproved land without permission to build).
here's another view from the developers' in-house magazine (in two parts)
Those on the political left who blame land banking for this situation would be missing the point, as the size of land banks does not determine the pace of building. And those on the political right who blame a lack of planning permissions are missing just as big a point – England consistently grants twice as many permissions as homes are started.
Edit: and apologies in advance as I will have to re-post this when that titan of understanding of the UK construction and housing market, @Richard_Tyndall, appears.
With about 3/4 of the annual trade deficit being accounted for by the UK's net imports from the EU (circa £70bn per annum), and about 30% from Germany alone.
A state of affairs which we are, inexplicably, so desparate to keep in place that we are prepared to pay the EU for the privilege.
Mrs C, indeed. Although, to be fair, Cameron was also rather complacent.
Mr. City, yet, had Labour held a Lisbon referendum that would've decreased the building head of steam. Instead, they reneged upon a manifesto promise and Brown slinked along late to sign away our vetoes.
It should be our elected representatives who make decisions on complex issues. They should not use referendums for party splits .
The question of being part of the EU or not is complex but it is also a philosophical question of identity and I think ideally suited to being a referendum question as there is no right or wrong answer but depends on what people value most.
The problem comes if you have a referendum where people make a decision based on lies, or where a very close vote leaves a nation split but requiring a massive change in national direction to be taken.
The issue with that particular referendum was that the presented choice was in the EU or out of the EU. Referendums in my view need to present a choice between two viable alternatives. The out option wasn't even an alternative, let alone a viable one. It was simply the absence of the in option onto which people could project any sort of wishful thinking. The Leave campaign was a boiler house of wishful thinking but we can also blame David Cameron for not forcing the Leave campaign to present a direction and plan as the manifesto for out. If that had happened, Leave would have lost the referendum, without a doubt.
It's biting us now, as Theresa May has to try to implement a direction and plan that don't exist. It's why she talks about the future arrangements as a set of adjectives - bold, creative, new, dynamic, ambitious etc - than as a set of actions - convert the M20 to a lorry park as they wait for the Dover customs, welfare package for bankrupted farmers, or, possibly, do whatever the EU asks us because we have no intention of letting go.
the support for Ruth Davidson - who cannot even be a candidate at the moment, and who isn't all that well known amongst party members in England, is strikingly high. My own view is that she is the only one of those named whose selection would be a complete game-changer (and in a good way!). She of course may not want the job, but if she can be persuaded, the party should find a way to make it possible.
Speaking as someone who has been betting against her and JRM... what would need to happen for her to become leader?
Find her a safe seat somehow before the next GE? Lead the party from outside the Commons (is that even possible these days)? Let TM lead the Tories into the next GE, get Ruth to stand in a Scottish constituency and then challenge if the election result is poor?
Alex Salmond held seats in both Holyrood and Westminster Parliaments simultaneously for a total of 4 years or more.
There would be a barrage of sanctimonious wibble from the other parties, but the precedent is there for a party leader and in the shorter term (9 months?) for a First Minister, if not a PM.
An issue is that he's not as knowledgeable as his fans make out. Like Bull Gates reading every line of Microsoft well into the 1990s, or Steve Jobs designing every facet of every Apple product, fans tend to see the arch-achievers as greater than they really are, and in the process denigrate the team behind them.
As an example, Musk was planning an interplanetary spaceship without apparently realising that Galactic Cosmic Rays can come from any direction, not just the sun.
But I can forgive that sort of thing as long as he continues to be an arch-disruptor (*) in long stable areas.
(*) He remove the keystone, hence disrupting the arch.
Elon Musk is hype and skilled execution of complex projects in equal measure. Both are important to what he is. Take SpaceX. The product - the standardised and reliable placement of commercial satellites into orbit - is the same as the one provided by Arianespace since the early 90's. But add in exciting talk of manned missions and a massively expanded market of dirt cheap launches by the thousand. Also add in rigorous efficiencies that have almost put Arianespace out of the commercial launch business.
It's a bit like Uber, I suppose, that we have been talking about so much. It's a minicab company at the end of the day. If we didn't have Uber, there are alternatives. But they have the following.
Yes, Musk is a lot of hype but has also delivered huge progress. The first stage rockets landing back are now routine, an innovation that removes an order of magnitude from the cost of getting into space.
As Musk admitted himself today, the Falcon Heavy was much more difficult than everyone thought it would be, I guess after all this is actually rocket science!
Even if it takes a decade to get to Mars, rather than the half a decade he’d like it to be, it will still be a massive achievement.
It’s great to see guys with loads of money invest in something worthwhile that advances mankind.
I disagree with you totally Both the 1975 referendum held by Labour and the ,2016 referendum were held for party management purposes .There was no unstoppable demand for a referendum on the EU.
If there was no demand, then Remain would have won easily.
Not really. Since the public faces of the Remain campaign were Cameron and Osborne, people voted Leave to indicate their rejection of a couple of complacent toffs, who could not even manage their own Party, let alone EU negotiations and a decent campaign.
Remain only have themselves to blame then if they let Cameron and Osborne represent them.
Remind me, why was the leader of the Labour Party not one of the public faces of Remain?
(I think I've guessed the reason).
You have but where is the evidence that the main concern for the British people was a referendum on leaving the EU.As for unstoppable you are deluded people were not marching on the street behind UKip.
the support for Ruth Davidson - who cannot even be a candidate at the moment, and who isn't all that well known amongst party members in England, is strikingly high. My own view is that she is the only one of those named whose selection would be a complete game-changer (and in a good way!). She of course may not want the job, but if she can be persuaded, the party should find a way to make it possible.
Speaking as someone who has been betting against her and JRM... what would need to happen for her to become leader?
Find her a safe seat somehow before the next GE? Lead the party from outside the Commons (is that even possible these days)? Let TM lead the Tories into the next GE, get Ruth to stand in a Scottish constituency and then challenge if the election result is poor?
Alex Salmond held seats in both Holyrood and Westminster Parliaments simultaneously for a total of 4 years or more.
There would be a barrage of sanctimonious wibble from the other parties, but the precedent is there for a party leader and in the shorter term (9 months?) for a First Minister, if not a PM.
Seems to me we may be heading to a Boris vs whoever they have decided is the 'Stop Boris' candidate. Rudd and Davidson are imho in the frame as the latter. I have upped my bets on these two a little.
Be useful to know what any PB Tory members feel is the mood on the ground as we enter conference weekend.
I disagree with you totally Both the 1975 referendum held by Labour and the ,2016 referendum were held for party management purposes .There was no unstoppable demand for a referendum on the EU.
If there was no demand, then Remain would have won easily.
Not really. Since the public faces of the Remain campaign were Cameron and Osborne, people voted Leave to indicate their rejection of a couple of complacent toffs, who could not even manage their own Party, let alone EU negotiations and a decent campaign.
Remain only have themselves to blame then if they let Cameron and Osborne represent them.
Remind me, why was the leader of the Labour Party not one of the public faces of Remain?
(I think I've guessed the reason).
You have but where is the evidence that the main concern for the British people was a referendum on leaving the EU.As for unstoppable you are deluded people were not marching on the street behind UKip.
It was not the main concern for the British people but, as we have rehearsed on here very many times, it was required to tip over those Kippers back to voting Cons in 2015, without which there may well have been a Lab govt. So it was for entirely political means, but then again, that's fair enough because, er, it's politics, innit.
Plus for those who really, really wanted to leave the EU (say 4m-odd of them) they didn't have a voice and politics (again) is all about organising yourself to try to bring about change (cf. Vote OK and hunting).
An issue is that he's not as knowledgeable as his fans make out. Like Bull Gates reading every line of Microsoft well into the 1990s, or Steve Jobs designing every facet of every Apple product, fans tend to see the arch-achievers as greater than they really are, and in the process denigrate the team behind them.
As an example, Musk was planning an interplanetary spaceship without apparently realising that Galactic Cosmic Rays can come from any direction, not just the sun.
But I can forgive that sort of thing as long as he continues to be an arch-disruptor (*) in long stable areas.
(*) He remove the keystone, hence disrupting the arch.
Elon Musk is hype and skilled execution of complex projects in equal measure. Both are important to what he is. Take SpaceX. The product - the standardised and reliable placement of commercial satellites into orbit - is the same as the one provided by Arianespace since the early 90's. But add in exciting talk of manned missions and a massively expanded market of dirt cheap launches by the thousand. Also add in rigorous efficiencies that have almost put Arianespace out of the commercial launch business.
It's a bit like Uber, I suppose, that we have been talking about so much. It's a minicab company at the end of the day. If we didn't have Uber, there are alternatives. But they have the following.
Yes, Musk is a lot of hype but has also delivered huge progress. The first stage rockets landing back are now routine, an innovation that removes an order of magnitude from the cost of getting rockets into space.
As Musk admitted himself today, the Falcon Heavy was much more difficult than everyone thought it would be, I guess after all this is actually rocket science!
Even if it takes a decade to get to Mars, rather than the half a decade he’d like it to be, it will still be a massive achievement.
It’s great to see guys with loads of money invest in something worthwhile that advances mankind.
Fair points. Reuse of first stage rockets is a useful cost saving, but would only be an order of magnitude saving if the number of launches expands exponentially, which isn't the market SpaceX is playing in right now. The real reason for pushing for reuse, I suspect, is that Musk is motivated by manned flight, where obviously you have to be confident of getting your rocket back down again safely. The cost saving is a commercial justification for that.
PS. The alternative way of reducing costs is to find ways of producing cheap, one-use engines.
I disagree with you totally Both the 1975 referendum held by Labour and the ,2016 referendum were held for party management purposes .There was no unstoppable demand for a referendum on the EU.
If there was no demand, then Remain would have won easily.
Not really. Since the public faces of the Remain campaign were Cameron and Osborne, people voted Leave to indicate their rejection of a couple of complacent toffs, who could not even manage their own Party, let alone EU negotiations and a decent campaign.
Remain only have themselves to blame then if they let Cameron and Osborne represent them. Remind me, why was the leader of the Labour Party not one of the public faces of Remain? (I think I've guessed the reason).
Remain was not a democratic organisation, was it? It was a power grab by some of the leaders of the Conservative Party, who thereby managed to grab shedloads of public funding and set the agenda of the campaign on their own terms.
The same thing happened on the Leave side too, of course.
With about 3/4 of the annual trade deficit being accounted for by the UK's net imports from the EU (circa £70bn per annum), and about 30% from Germany alone.
A state of affairs which we are, inexplicably, so desparate to keep in place that we are prepared to pay the EU for the privilege.
What difference would it make , if the deficit was with non-EU countries. The problem lies in the UK, Not enough is done to curtail imports or increase exports.
It seems that Philip Hammond has no chance (unless there's a coronation, which now looks most unlikely) because of the loathing of Leavers. Meanwhile Liam Fox, Jacob Rees-Mogg and Boris Johnson are detested by Remainers.
Neither objection seems particularly salient when set against the fact that people want more homes and aren't getting them.
I'm seeing it from the builders' point of view. The impact on the community is not that big, because the development is built in sections: it is not as if they build houses over the area at random. As long as the shared infrastructure is built for the final number, it should be okay.
And you get far more gluts and dearths if you concentrate; at least if you are a big company with many developments on the go..
The problem with long term, large scale developments is that it ties up the housing allocation in the local development plan to the benefit of that builder. They won't lose their planning consent as long as the site is in development, no matter how long it is taking, and that can shut other potential developers out.
The result all too frequently has been that the housing allocation within the local plan does not get built in the timescale contemplated creating a local shortage which in turn allows prices for the development to drift in an upwards direction to the benefit of the house builder but no one else.
That's a good point, but it does not mean that they can be built more quickly.
As a matter of interest, what is the underlying profitability of the major housebuilders on their housing projects (i.e. by splitting out their other activities) ? Much of this argument appears to be that the housebuilders are profiteering.
(My biggest criticism of them is that they often build poor quality homes, rather than too few homes.)
There is a market limit for how quickly new developments can be sold without a fire-sale.
In this area a 100-200 unit housing estate will take 4-6 years to sell, since sales are overwhelmingly to relocating locals and your market is limited to people who will be in reach of work, schools etc and wish to move.
That may be different (sometimes) in larger cities if there are many incomers, or if a large establishment is moving, but look at all the yelling about Grenfell victims who are being asked to move only a mile or two away being 'yanked out of their communities'.
Add in that builders had a bloodbath from the overhang of houses left dangling after the crash and became more conservative as a result in terms of build-to-demand, and Corbyn's demands for 'landbank tax' on 'unbuilt with planning permission' are - in reality - tilting at windmills.
If Corbyn did it anyway, then he would actually slow down housebuilding in practice - and would (perhaps) reap his own whirlwind.
It seems that Philip Hammond has no chance (unless there's a coronation, which now looks most unlikely) because of the loathing of Leavers. Meanwhile Liam Fox, Jacob Rees-Mogg and Boris Johnson are detested by Remainers.
I'm glad I'm not a lone voice in the Tory party.
I'm still laying Boris as leader.
I think the PCP will ensure he isn't in the final two.
Those on the political left who blame land banking for this situation would be missing the point, as the size of land banks does not determine the pace of building. And those on the political right who blame a lack of planning permissions are missing just as big a point – England consistently grants twice as many permissions as homes are started.
Edit: and apologies in advance as I will have to re-post this when that titan of understanding of the UK construction and housing market, @Richard_Tyndall, appears.
A very interesting read - thanks. They say that land banking is a symptom of a wider dysfunctional market whereby housebuilders deliberately build slower to keep prices up.
Indeed. But if there were some kind of penalty for holding land and not building on it/tax on the value of land... what would happen?
Firstly we would expect the price of land would fall - since owning it has a higher associated cost. And presumably developers would try to build faster since the cost calculation has changed. And if they were building faster - then presumably more houses would be built/year. With a lower cost of land and speedier building - we might also expect more houses and lower house prices.
That's all theoretical anyway:
Shelter are arguing for 'civic' housebuilding which they describe as:
" That in a nutshell is Civic Housebuilding: the price paid for the land should be limited to a level that allows for a high quality development, in accordance with local plans. This simple principle contrasts directly with the realities of the speculative housebuilding model, where the quality of the scheme is limited to a level that allows for the highest possible land price."
That would I imagine provoke incredible allegations of expropriation/communism etc. from those who are on this board...
Mr. Glenn, even if that's accurate, it would perhaps be unwise to assume a political party will act in a way that's in accordance with the power of reason...
A very interesting read - thanks. They say that land banking is a symptom of a wider dysfunctional market whereby housebuilders deliberately build slower to keep prices up.
Indeed. But if there were some kind of penalty for holding land and not building on it/tax on the value of land... what would happen?
Firstly we would expect the price of land would fall - since owning it has a higher associated cost. And presumably developers would try to build faster since the cost calculation has changed. And if they were building faster - then presumably more houses would be built/year. With a lower cost of land and speedier building - we might also expect more houses and lower house prices.
That's all theoretical anyway:
Shelter are arguing for 'civic' housebuilding which they describe as:
" That in a nutshell is Civic Housebuilding: the price paid for the land should be limited to a level that allows for a high quality development, in accordance with local plans. This simple principle contrasts directly with the realities of the speculative housebuilding model, where the quality of the scheme is limited to a level that allows for the highest possible land price."
That would I imagine provoke incredible allegations of expropriation/communism etc. from those who are on this board...
Corbyn would be open to something like this I think - I can't imagine the Conservative party being able to say the same.
Well as, was it the Economist article, said - the government has by far the largest landbank.
As for Civic housebuilding, I can absolutely see Jezza latching onto it because as you say the devil is in the detail:
"‘Civic’ housebuilding starts by bringing in land at a lower, fairer cost and channels competition between firms into raising the quality and affordability of homes." (p.3)
"..landowners must be required to sell their land “on reasonable terms.” (p.25)
Who exactly would you trust to set the reasonable terms? And where does it end?
As the Shelter document says very neatly, IMO, the dilemma is high house prices ("in the secondary market") is the metric which will encourage developers to build new houses but of course at the same time this means that house prices are, er, high.
So how to break it? Well perhaps it is compulsory purchase and a government initiative. And fair enough if that is the policy you tie to the mast. But I'm not sure it sits well with the UK of today.
And even if the government stops short of this - but has some other administrative programme - one has to look at what this does to the profitability of the housebuilders and their inclination to build more houses at a profit, I think speaks for itself.
I disagree with you totally Both the 1975 referendum held by Labour and the ,2016 referendum were held for party management purposes .There was no unstoppable demand for a referendum on the EU.
If there was no demand, then Remain would have won easily.
Not really. Since the public faces of the Remain campaign were Cameron and Osborne, people voted Leave to indicate their rejection of a couple of complacent toffs, who could not even manage their own Party, let alone EU negotiations and a decent campaign.
Remain only have themselves to blame then if they let Cameron and Osborne represent them.
Remind me, why was the leader of the Labour Party not one of the public faces of Remain?
(I think I've guessed the reason).
You have but where is the evidence that the main concern for the British people was a referendum on leaving the EU.As for unstoppable you are deluded people were not marching on the street behind UKip.
It was not the main concern for the British people but, as we have rehearsed on here very many times, it was required to tip over those Kippers back to voting Cons in 2015, without which there may well have been a Lab govt. So it was for entirely political means, but then again, that's fair enough because, er, it's politics, innit.
Plus for those who really, really wanted to leave the EU (say 4m-odd of them) they didn't have a voice and politics (again) is all about organising yourself to try to bring about change (cf. Vote OK and hunting).
True shame people do not admit though, it was done for purely party political reasons.Instead of spouting bull shine.
It seems that Philip Hammond has no chance (unless there's a coronation, which now looks most unlikely) because of the loathing of Leavers. Meanwhile Liam Fox, Jacob Rees-Mogg and Boris Johnson are detested by Remainers.
[cut to two years hence and the final two being announced for a Conservative Leadership election] "I can announce that the scores were: Dr Liam Fox, 107. Mr Philip Hammond, 105. Mr Boris Johnson, 104. Accordingly, Dr Liam Fox and Mr Phillip Hammond will be presented to the membership..."
An issue is that he's not as knowledgeable as his fans make out. Like Bull Gates reading every line of Microsoft well into the 1990s, or Steve Jobs designing every facet of every Apple product, fans tend to see the arch-achievers as greater than they really are, and in the process denigrate the team behind them.
As an example, Musk was planning an interplanetary spaceship without apparently realising that Galactic Cosmic Rays can come from any direction, not just the sun.
But I can forgive that sort of thing as long as he continues to be an arch-disruptor (*) in long stable areas.
(*) He remove the keystone, hence disrupting the arch.
Elon Musk is hype and skilled execution of complex projects in equal measure. Both are important to what he is. Take SpaceX. The product - the standardised and reliable placement of commercial satellites into orbit - is the same as the one provided by Arianespace since the early 90's. But add in exciting talk of manned missions and a massively expanded market of dirt cheap launches by the thousand. Also add in rigorous efficiencies that have almost put Arianespace out of the commercial launch business.
It's a bit like Uber, I suppose, that we have been talking about so much. It's a minicab company at the end of the day. If we didn't have Uber, there are alternatives. But they have the following.
Yes, Musk is a lot of hype but has also delivered huge progress. The first stage rockets landing back are now routine, an innovation that removes an order of magnitude from the cost of getting into space.
As Musk admitted himself today, the Falcon Heavy was much more difficult than everyone thought it would be, I guess after all this is actually rocket science!
Even if it takes a decade to get to Mars, rather than the half a decade he’d like it to be, it will still be a massive achievement.
It’s great to see guys with loads of money invest in something worthwhile that advances mankind.
Everything you say about Musk is right but he is also getting billions from the American government. I'd like to see the British government supporting British entrepreneurs in the same way.
I disagree with you totally Both the 1975 referendum held by Labour and the ,2016 referendum were held for party management purposes .There was no unstoppable demand for a referendum on the EU.
If there was no demand, then Remain would have won easily.
Not really. Since the public faces of the Remain campaign were Cameron and Osborne, people voted Leave to indicate their rejection of a couple of complacent toffs, who could not even manage their own Party, let alone EU negotiations and a decent campaign.
Remain only have themselves to blame then if they let Cameron and Osborne represent them.
Remind me, why was the leader of the Labour Party not one of the public faces of Remain?
(I think I've guessed the reason).
You have but where is the evidence that the main concern for the British people was a referendum on leaving the EU.As for unstoppable you are deluded people were not marching on the street behind UKip.
It was not the main concern for the British people but, as we have rehearsed on here very many times, it was required to tip over those Kippers back to voting Cons in 2015, without which there may well have been a Lab govt. So it was for entirely political means, but then again, that's fair enough because, er, it's politics, innit.
Plus for those who really, really wanted to leave the EU (say 4m-odd of them) they didn't have a voice and politics (again) is all about organising yourself to try to bring about change (cf. Vote OK and hunting).
True shame people do not admit though, it was done for purely party political reasons.Instead of spouting bull shine.
The shame is that the result, rather than lancing the boil, instead just opened the wound but this time within the country, not just the Conservative Party.
Was that foreseeable? Perhaps. But these are old discussions; to use 2017's phrase of the year: it is what it is.
Shelter are arguing for 'civic' housebuilding which they describe as:
" That in a nutshell is Civic Housebuilding: the price paid for the land should be limited to a level that allows for a high quality development, in accordance with local plans. This simple principle contrasts directly with the realities of the speculative housebuilding model, where the quality of the scheme is limited to a level that allows for the highest possible land price."
One problem there is that a suitable price for a piece of land is impossible to know until after the fact. The inherent uncertainties inevitably make the process speculative. And public authorities are not any good at that.
They are trying to make an evaluation without knowing the risk factors, and that is a) Irrational and b) Does not work.
Take, for example, this Case Study of a self-build site for 6 houses by Stoke on Trent Council, who found themselves spending £450k on groundworks / infrastructure on a one acre site of just 6 serviced plots which sold for a Grand Total of £591k. And they didn't even have to *buy* this site.
And they had to manipulate the VAT system to even get that.
All it would take would be a few bats or badgers or newts or TPOs or landfill gas and it could have been a financial black hole.
A private developer may have had another 30-40k in Planning Fees on that just for the application.
It does seem as if those on the left think Jeremy is virtually home and dry but on listening to question time last night it did not come over all 'Jeremy' and when Lavery said 'they were a Government in waiting' the audience laughed at him. On the subsequent Steven Nolan 5 live phone in there was similar resistance to Jeremy
I am not an expert (missed Mark Senior) on last night locals but labour seem to have improved in their areas, but so did the conservatives in theirs.
The question for Corbyn supporters is not how he extends his base but how, in the end, he gets middle England to vote for him and so far there is little evidence they will
It seems that Philip Hammond has no chance (unless there's a coronation, which now looks most unlikely) because of the loathing of Leavers. Meanwhile Liam Fox, Jacob Rees-Mogg and Boris Johnson are detested by Remainers.
[cut to two years hence and the final two being announced for a Conservative Leadership election] "I can announce that the scores were: Dr Liam Fox, 107. Mr Philip Hammond, 105. Mr Boris Johnson, 104. Accordingly, Dr Liam Fox and Mr Phillip Hammond will be presented to the membership..."
Even Conservative MPs have always discarded Liam Fox as early as possible. I can not imagine him gaining significant support anywhere except in his own head.
It seems that Philip Hammond has no chance (unless there's a coronation, which now looks most unlikely) because of the loathing of Leavers. Meanwhile Liam Fox, Jacob Rees-Mogg and Boris Johnson are detested by Remainers.
I'm glad I'm not a lone voice in the Tory party.
I'm still laying Boris as leader.
I think the PCP will ensure he isn't in the final two.
Which is why I think that (if there is a contest soon), it will probably be DD vs Rudd or Hammond. Rudd has the big problem of seriously precarious seat, which would have to be addressed in some way.
What these figures also suggest is that, if the contest doesn't happen for two or three years, then there is plenty of room for some newer faces, who aren't disliked by either Brexit faction, to come through. At the moment Ruth Davidson is the only one attracting attention, although the practicalities are very awkward even if she wants the job. Still, the opportunity is there for someone new to emerge, given time.
An issue is that he's not as knowledgeable as his fans make out. Like Bull Gates reading every line of Microsoft well into the 1990s, or Steve Jobs designing every facet of every Apple product, fans tend to see the arch-achievers as greater than they really are, and in the process denigrate the team behind them.
As an example, Musk was planning an interplanetary spaceship without apparently realising that Galactic Cosmic Rays can come from any direction, not just the sun.
But I can forgive that sort of thing as long as he continues to be an arch-disruptor (*) in long stable areas.
(*) He remove the keystone, hence disrupting the arch.
Elon Musk is hype and skilled execution of complex projects in equal measure. Both are important to what he is. Take SpaceX. The product - the standardised and reliable placement of commercial satellites into orbit - is the same as the one provided by Arianespace since the early 90's. But add in exciting talk of manned missions and a massively expanded market of dirt cheap launches by the thousand. Also add in rigorous efficiencies that have almost put Arianespace out of the commercial launch business.
It's a bit like Uber, I suppose, that we have been talking about so much. It's a minicab company at the end of the day. If we didn't have Uber, there are alternatives. But they have the following.
Yes, Musk is a lot of hype but has also delivered huge progress. The first stage rockets landing back are now routine, an innovation that removes an order of magnitude from the cost of getting into space.
As Musk admitted himself today, the Falcon Heavy was much more difficult than everyone thought it would be, I guess after all this is actually rocket science!
Even if it takes a decade to get to Mars, rather than the half a decade he’d like it to be, it will still be a massive achievement.
It’s great to see guys with loads of money invest in something worthwhile that advances mankind.
Everything you say about Musk is right but he is also getting billions from the American government. I'd like to see the British government supporting British entrepreneurs in the same way.
To be fair, he's selling stuff to them they were buying already from a different source - except he's doing it at a far lower cost.
An issue is that he's not as knowledgeable as his fans make out. Like Bull Gates reading every line of Microsoft well into the 1990s, or Steve Jobs designing every facet of every Apple product, fans tend to see the arch-achievers as greater than they really are, and in the process denigrate the team behind them.
As an example, Musk was planning an interplanetary spaceship without apparently realising that Galactic Cosmic Rays can come from any direction, not just the sun.
But I can forgive that sort of thing as long as he continues to be an arch-disruptor (*) in long stable areas.
(*) He remove the keystone, hence disrupting the arch.
Elon Musk is hype and skilled execution of complex projects in equal measure. Both are important to what he is. Take SpaceX. The product - the standardised and reliable placement of commercial satellites into orbit - is the same as the one provided by Arianespace since the early 90's. But add in exciting talk of manned missions and a massively expanded market of dirt cheap launches by the thousand. Also add in rigorous efficiencies that have almost put Arianespace out of the commercial launch business.
It's a bit like Uber, I suppose, that we have been talking about so much. It's a minicab company at the end of the day. If we didn't have Uber, there are alternatives. But they have the following.
Yes, Musk is a lot of hype but has also delivered huge progress. The first stage rockets landing back are now routine, an innovation that removes an order of magnitude from the cost of getting into space.
As Musk admitted himself today, the Falcon Heavy was much more difficult than everyone thought it would be, I guess after all this is actually rocket science!
Even if it takes a decade to get to Mars, rather than the half a decade he’d like it to be, it will still be a massive achievement.
It’s great to see guys with loads of money invest in something worthwhile that advances mankind.
Everything you say about Musk is right but he is also getting billions from the American government. I'd like to see the British government supporting British entrepreneurs in the same way.
As I understand it the US government are paying for services, ie to launch satellites for the government - mainly because they’re cheaper than NASA for certain payloads.
When we leave the EU it will be easier for the British government to buy British without the pesky EU procurement rules, although I’m not sure that was your point
It seems that Philip Hammond has no chance (unless there's a coronation, which now looks most unlikely) because of the loathing of Leavers. Meanwhile Liam Fox, Jacob Rees-Mogg and Boris Johnson are detested by Remainers.
I'm glad I'm not a lone voice in the Tory party.
I'm still laying Boris as leader.
I think the PCP will ensure he isn't in the final two.
Which is why I think that (if there is a contest soon), it will probably be DD vs Rudd or Hammond. Rudd has the big problem of seriously precarious seat, which would have to be addressed in some way.
What these figures also suggest is that, if the contest doesn't happen for two or three years, then there is plenty of room for some newer faces, who aren't disliked by either Brexit faction, to come through. At the moment Ruth Davidson is the only one attracting attention, although the practicalities are very awkward even if she wants the job. Still, the opportunity is there for someone new to emerge, given time.
Plenty of time but no room unless someone takes ermine because if Theresa May can't sack anyone then she can't bring anyone new in to replace them.
I yesterday made the analogy of the payday lenders where you can show, pretty simply, that taking into account likely default rates, together with other cost factors, you can get to a "reasonable" interest rate of around 300% without too much trouble.
Likewise landbanks - as both Shelter and (more predictably, but no less validly) the HBF point out - there are many reasons for the developers to have such a landbank as they do, including as you say newts and TPOs and whatnot.
Plenty of time but no room unless someone takes ermine because if Theresa May can't sack anyone then she can't bring anyone new in to replace them.
You are right that that is a problem to an extent, but there are a number of minor Cabinet-level figures who could safely be shunted out, so there is some room for manoeuvre.
Curious that Andrea Leadsom, who after all made the last two a year ago, wasn't even named in this poll.
Not really
See Carney has said this morning rates will rise as soon as November.
I think it was Pong last night who was saying there will be no rate rises for a long time.
Seems within 2 months a small rate rise will happen and no doubt the pound will strengthen on the news
Don't be misled by predictions from the B of E Governor. He has been warning about interest rate increases for a couple of years now but they have not happened. All that might happen is a reversal of the unnecessary reduction from 0.25% to 0.5% and then stay at these record low rates for another couple of years.
Labour-run council says it opposes Corbyn's housing ballot proposal
Haringey has said it is opposed to Jeremy Corbyn’s proposal to force local authorities to ballot residents before carrying out housing redevelopments because a yes/no vote would risk oversimplifying a complex issue.
Haringey council in north London, which is carrying out a major regeneration project in association with the developer Lendlease, said it would resist the idea of a compulsory ballot.
The Haringey Labour councillor Alan Strickland, who holds the housing and regeneration brief, said: “We will continue to put comprehensive and meaningful engagement with residents at the heart of our regeneration plans, but we do not expect to start using yes/no ballots.”
Corbyn said that under a Labour government, those who lived on an estate earmarked for redevelopment would have to be guaranteed a replacement home at the same site and on the same terms, and no work could take place unless approved by a ballot of existing tenants and leaseholders.
The plans were viewed by many as a thinly veiled attack on some Labour-run councils, especially in London, where boroughs such as Haringey, Southwark and Lambeth have carried out huge and often controversial rebuilding schemes.
Everything you say about Musk is right but he is also getting billions from the American government. I'd like to see the British government supporting British entrepreneurs in the same way.
Corbyn's brilliant plan is to tax technology that reduces work. I can't see a Corbyn led Britain being remotely attractive to the likes of SpaceX and Tesla.
Comments
Mercedes appear unusually slow right now, but it's only practice.
Mr. City, yet, had Labour held a Lisbon referendum that would've decreased the building head of steam. Instead, they reneged upon a manifesto promise and Brown slinked along late to sign away our vetoes.
As an example, Musk was planning an interplanetary spaceship without apparently realising that Galactic Cosmic Rays can come from any direction, not just the sun.
But I can forgive that sort of thing as long as he continues to be an arch-disruptor (*) in long stable areas.
(*) He remove the keystone, hence disrupting the arch.
I am in favour of referendums, whether in the UK, Scotland or Catalonia. There was a demand for a referendum that was becoming unstoppable, and the Tories were correct to put it in their manifesto & offer a vote, which cut across party political lines.
Once the demand is there, it is absolutely futile to do what the Spanish Government is doing, and prevent people having a referendum. Catalonia will for sure have its referendum, and the attempt to prevent a referendum just makes independence more likely.
And for sure, if Dave hadn't put a referendum in his manifesto, Jeremy would have put it in the next Labour manifesto.
Attempts to deny a legitimate referendum just make it all the more likely that you lose when one is inevitably called.
Longer term, it's for the best. I've long said I believe the EU will crumble because those at the top are drunk on ideology and are forcing together nations that are too divergent in terms of economy, culture and demography.
Mr. Cwsc, political game playing for years didn't help (cf Clegg calling for an In/Out referendum in 2010).
This was pretty much the Cameron problem. "We must renegotiate or leave" is not a way to build support for an institution, and went on for years. This prevented any real positive campaign for Remain, and poisoned the well.
The same people will be just as unhappy when we replace the wrong sort of EU with the wrong sort of Brexit.
David Smith in Sunday Times used to publish his 'skip quota' every so often: a measure of the number of skips for building work in his home's immediate neighbouring streets. A high quota meant the economy was well ( tongue in cheek style).
He's not done so for a while.
I thought the prospect of that made you happy.
We can never vote out Junker, the walking symbol of international tax avoidance. We never voted him in.
Interviewer: What would you consider one of your strengths?
Me: I perform under pressure
Interviewer: Can you give me an example?
Me: *deep breath*
Mm ba ba de,
Um bum ba de,
Um bu bu bum da de
PRESSURE, pushing down on me.
"Socialism has turned out to be this year’s surprise hit."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/09/28/time-admit-tories-stuck-past-not-jeremy-corbyn/
Nelson: "In his rather good (if a little long) conference speech, Jeremy Corbyn summed it up perfectly: his ideas, so long dismissed as being on the fringe of politics, are now mainstream."
Hodges:
https://twitter.com/DPJHodges/status/913016085208862722
That is not a happy prognosis for the EU.
We can chuck out the Brexiteers (and pretty certain to do so) but cannot reverse Brexit to our current terms.
We may well rejoin in a couple of decades on worse terms after wrecking several industries, but that is not the same.
The only way to make the EU work for your country is to be in the Euro, Schengen, etc.
Our semidetached status was one of the problems. Either get stuck in, or leave.
Mr. Eagles, you tweet-thief.
Dr. Foxinsox, regarding your baby-and-bathwater comment, what was the alternative?
The EU only changes to integrate more. They gave Cameron sod all yet comments made here yesterday suggested the EU thought it had been very generous.
People would like the economics without the politics but the ideological fantasies of Brussels bureaucrats mean those things cannot be divorced.
In the five years from 2012 to 2016 the UK had a cumulative current account deficit of £480bn:
https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/nationalaccounts/balanceofpayments/timeseries/hbop/pnbp
Anyone want to have a guess at what government borrowing has been over the same period ?
* Next time try not to piss off your most dedicated voters mid-campaign.
Like.
It's a bit like Uber, I suppose, that we have been talking about so much. It's a minicab company at the end of the day. If we didn't have Uber, there are alternatives. But they have the following.
The problem comes if you have a referendum where people make a decision based on lies, or where a very close vote leaves a nation split but requiring a massive change in national direction to be taken.
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/tories-were-unprepared-snap-election-11252868
Incentivises developers to get things built (because they're paying tax on the plot at exactly the same rate as it would be paid for completed housing) and incentivises councils to issue permissions (because the value of unimproved land with permission to build is far far higher than unimproved land without permission to build).
Remind me, why was the leader of the Labour Party not one of the public faces of Remain?
(I think I've guessed the reason).
blog.shelter.org.uk/2016/12/land-banking-whats-the-story-part-1/
Oh, sorry I mean this one:
hbf.co.uk/fileadmin/documents/research/HBF_Report_-_Landbanking_May.pdf
From Shelter's document:
Those on the political left who blame land banking for this situation would be missing the point, as the size of land banks does not determine the pace of building. And those on the political right who blame a lack of planning permissions are missing just as big a point – England consistently grants twice as many permissions as homes are started.
Edit: and apologies in advance as I will have to re-post this when that titan of understanding of the UK construction and housing market, @Richard_Tyndall, appears.
A state of affairs which we are, inexplicably, so desparate to keep in place that we are prepared to pay the EU for the privilege.
It's biting us now, as Theresa May has to try to implement a direction and plan that don't exist. It's why she talks about the future arrangements as a set of adjectives - bold, creative, new, dynamic, ambitious etc - than as a set of actions - convert the M20 to a lorry park as they wait for the Dover customs, welfare package for bankrupted farmers, or, possibly, do whatever the EU asks us because we have no intention of letting go.
There would be a barrage of sanctimonious wibble from the other parties, but the precedent is there for a party leader and in the shorter term (9 months?) for a First Minister, if not a PM.
As Musk admitted himself today, the Falcon Heavy was much more difficult than everyone thought it would be, I guess after all this is actually rocket science!
Even if it takes a decade to get to Mars, rather than the half a decade he’d like it to be, it will still be a massive achievement.
It’s great to see guys with loads of money invest in something worthwhile that advances mankind.
The leaflet, titled 'Homosexuality - the real alternative', was available this on a stand at UKIP's annual get-together in Torquay
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/leaflet-ukip-conference-compares-gay-11257866
Be useful to know what any PB Tory members feel is the mood on the ground as we enter conference weekend.
Plus for those who really, really wanted to leave the EU (say 4m-odd of them) they didn't have a voice and politics (again) is all about organising yourself to try to bring about change (cf. Vote OK and hunting).
PS. The alternative way of reducing costs is to find ways of producing cheap, one-use engines.
The same thing happened on the Leave side too, of course.
And everybody else was kept at arm`s length.
https://twitter.com/JoeTwyman/status/913690479270785024
It seems that Philip Hammond has no chance (unless there's a coronation, which now looks most unlikely) because of the loathing of Leavers. Meanwhile Liam Fox, Jacob Rees-Mogg and Boris Johnson are detested by Remainers.
In this area a 100-200 unit housing estate will take 4-6 years to sell, since sales are overwhelmingly to relocating locals and your market is limited to people who will be in reach of work, schools etc and wish to move.
That may be different (sometimes) in larger cities if there are many incomers, or if a large establishment is moving, but look at all the yelling about Grenfell victims who are being asked to move only a mile or two away being 'yanked out of their communities'.
Add in that builders had a bloodbath from the overhang of houses left dangling after the crash and became more conservative as a result in terms of build-to-demand, and Corbyn's demands for 'landbank tax' on 'unbuilt with planning permission' are - in reality - tilting at windmills.
If Corbyn did it anyway, then he would actually slow down housebuilding in practice - and would (perhaps) reap his own whirlwind.
I'm still laying Boris as leader.
I think the PCP will ensure he isn't in the final two.
Indeed. But if there were some kind of penalty for holding land and not building on it/tax on the value of land... what would happen?
Firstly we would expect the price of land would fall - since owning it has a higher associated cost. And presumably developers would try to build faster since the cost calculation has changed. And if they were building faster - then presumably more houses would be built/year. With a lower cost of land and speedier building - we might also expect more houses and lower house prices.
That's all theoretical anyway:
Shelter are arguing for 'civic' housebuilding which they describe as:
" That in a nutshell is Civic Housebuilding: the price paid for the land should be limited to a level that allows for a high quality development, in accordance with local plans. This simple
principle contrasts directly with the realities of the speculative housebuilding model, where
the quality of the scheme is limited to a level that allows for the highest possible land price."
That would I imagine provoke incredible allegations of expropriation/communism etc. from those who are on this board...
https://england.shelter.org.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0005/1348223/2017_03_02_New_Civic_Housebuilding_Policy_Report.pdf
Corbyn would be open to something like this I think - I can't imagine the Conservative party being able to say the same.
As for Civic housebuilding, I can absolutely see Jezza latching onto it because as you say the devil is in the detail:
"‘Civic’ housebuilding starts by bringing in land at a lower, fairer cost and channels competition between firms into raising the quality and affordability of homes." (p.3)
"..landowners must be required to sell their land “on reasonable terms.” (p.25)
Who exactly would you trust to set the reasonable terms? And where does it end?
As the Shelter document says very neatly, IMO, the dilemma is high house prices ("in the secondary market") is the metric which will encourage developers to build new houses but of course at the same time this means that house prices are, er, high.
So how to break it? Well perhaps it is compulsory purchase and a government initiative. And fair enough if that is the policy you tie to the mast. But I'm not sure it sits well with the UK of today.
And even if the government stops short of this - but has some other administrative programme - one has to look at what this does to the profitability of the housebuilders and their inclination to build more houses at a profit, I think speaks for itself.
What happens if a bunch of DUPers are pushing a similar document on the fringe of the tory conf?
"I can announce that the scores were: Dr Liam Fox, 107. Mr Philip Hammond, 105. Mr Boris Johnson, 104. Accordingly, Dr Liam Fox and Mr Phillip Hammond will be presented to the membership..."
This is also applicable to the Labour party.
http://britainelects.com/2017/09/27/previews-28-sep-2017/
Was that foreseeable? Perhaps. But these are old discussions; to use 2017's phrase of the year: it is what it is.
" That in a nutshell is Civic Housebuilding: the price paid for the land should be limited to a level that allows for a high quality development, in accordance with local plans. This simple
principle contrasts directly with the realities of the speculative housebuilding model, where
the quality of the scheme is limited to a level that allows for the highest possible land price."
One problem there is that a suitable price for a piece of land is impossible to know until after the fact. The inherent uncertainties inevitably make the process speculative. And public authorities are not any good at that.
They are trying to make an evaluation without knowing the risk factors, and that is a) Irrational and b) Does not work.
Take, for example, this Case Study of a self-build site for 6 houses by Stoke on Trent Council, who found themselves spending £450k on groundworks / infrastructure on a one acre site of just 6 serviced plots which sold for a Grand Total of £591k. And they didn't even have to *buy* this site.
And they had to manipulate the VAT system to even get that.
All it would take would be a few bats or badgers or newts or TPOs or landfill gas and it could have been a financial black hole.
A private developer may have had another 30-40k in Planning Fees on that just for the application.
http://www.selfbuildportal.org.uk/stoke-serviced-plots
I am not an expert (missed Mark Senior) on last night locals but labour seem to have improved in their areas, but so did the conservatives in theirs.
The question for Corbyn supporters is not how he extends his base but how, in the end, he gets middle England to vote for him and so far there is little evidence they will
Even Conservative MPs have always discarded Liam Fox as early as possible. I can not imagine him gaining significant support anywhere except in his own head.
What these figures also suggest is that, if the contest doesn't happen for two or three years, then there is plenty of room for some newer faces, who aren't disliked by either Brexit faction, to come through. At the moment Ruth Davidson is the only one attracting attention, although the practicalities are very awkward even if she wants the job. Still, the opportunity is there for someone new to emerge, given time.
When we leave the EU it will be easier for the British government to buy British without the pesky EU procurement rules, although I’m not sure that was your point
See Carney has said this morning rates will rise as soon as November.
I think it was Pong last night who was saying there will be no rate rises for a long time.
Seems within 2 months a small rate rise will happen and no doubt the pound will strengthen on the news
Local election results 28 Sep 17
Northampton Eastfield
Lab hold
Northampton Nene Valley
Con hold
St. Edmundsbury Chedburgh
Con hold
St. Edmundsbury Hundon
Con hold
Harrogate Washburn
Con hold
Harlow Toddbrook
Lab hold
Barnsley Kingstone
Lab hold
E. Staffordshire Stretton
Con hold
Lancaster Halton-with-Aughton
Lab win
I yesterday made the analogy of the payday lenders where you can show, pretty simply, that taking into account likely default rates, together with other cost factors, you can get to a "reasonable" interest rate of around 300% without too much trouble.
Likewise landbanks - as both Shelter and (more predictably, but no less validly) the HBF point out - there are many reasons for the developers to have such a landbank as they do, including as you say newts and TPOs and whatnot.
Labour-run council says it opposes Corbyn's housing ballot proposal
Haringey has said it is opposed to Jeremy Corbyn’s proposal to force local authorities to ballot residents before carrying out housing redevelopments because a yes/no vote would risk oversimplifying a complex issue.
Haringey council in north London, which is carrying out a major regeneration project in association with the developer Lendlease, said it would resist the idea of a compulsory ballot.
The Haringey Labour councillor Alan Strickland, who holds the housing and regeneration brief, said: “We will continue to put comprehensive and meaningful engagement with residents at the heart of our regeneration plans, but we do not expect to start using yes/no ballots.”
Corbyn said that under a Labour government, those who lived on an estate earmarked for redevelopment would have to be guaranteed a replacement home at the same site and on the same terms, and no work could take place unless approved by a ballot of existing tenants and leaseholders.
The plans were viewed by many as a thinly veiled attack on some Labour-run councils, especially in London, where boroughs such as Haringey, Southwark and Lambeth have carried out huge and often controversial rebuilding schemes.