It's far from clear that George Osborne is proposing anything more than Gordon Brown proposed in 1997. He's described his policy as an insurance against a rainy day. That sounds very like the Golden Rule.
I thought Osborne was proposing an annual surplus, which would make it very different to Brown's fiscal rule. As I understand it, it would also include capital expenditure, which I don't believe Brown's did.
However, whichever way you look at it, getting to surplus by 2020 means further big cuts. 2020, of course, is a completely arbitrary year. It could be done by, say, 2023 with less pain.
Its a surplus during the boom. 2020 is not completely arbitrary either, besides being an election year it will be 13 years since the start of the financial crisis, 11 years since the end of the last recession and 7 years after the country started growing well again (assuming the recovery keeps its momentum). Given the economic cycle generally lasts with about 8-12 years of growth that should be about the peak of the next boom and the best time to have fixed the budget.
If we can't fix the deficit into even a small surplus by then, how are we supposed to cope with the next crisis? We could be in the next recession by 2023 ... this is the problem with people who only want to deal with the last problem and never plan. Or do you think we've now ended boom and bust?
I do not think that you need to be in surplus to deal with a recession, as has been shown on countless occasions previously.
I also do not believe that this recovery is like those we have had before. There is no boom feeding through to anyone except the very wealthy who, admittedly, are doing spectacularly well at the moment.
Mr. Brooke, from what I've read the Mail was out of line. It's entirely legitimate (given Miliband banged on about his father and talked of bringing socialism to Britain) to look at the Marxist Miliband's views, but the personalised way it was done was entirely unfair [from what I've gathered].
However, I agree with you that the left are far happier claiming victimisation (especially ironic given McBride's book) than defending the state grabbing land and fixing prices.
I suggest you read about compulsory purchase orders and HS2, or better, how Tory and Labour governments built new towns.
There is a difference between compulsory purchase orders (CPO) and the "use of lose" proposals of rEd.
A CPO may only be issued if the proposed development is deemed to be for "public betterment". Central or local governments issuing the CPO must demonstrate that the taking of the land is necessary and there is a "compelling case in the public interest". Owners or occupiers can challenge this, and their objection will be heard by an independent Inspector.
Full compensation for loss of value of the land and property purchased, plus costs of moving both out and into new premises and all associated legal costs including legal advice are paid by the purchaser. In addition there is very often a premium paid as an incentive to the property owners facilitating the process and waiving rights to challenge the decision.
Please explain how the confiscation of land purchased for purposes of developing residential property can be considered a "public betterment" or necessary or "a compelling case in the public interest".
rEd's proposals are an unhealthy oppression of democratic principles similar in nature to Stalin's land confiscation from the Kulaks in early 20th century Russia. Will directors of the construction companies be rounded up at 3.00 am in the morning and bundled off to gulags in the remote regions of the Sottish Highlands?
From my post below: "However, I agree with you that the left are far happier claiming victimisation (especially ironic given McBride's book) than defending the state grabbing land and fixing prices."
Or it could mean a healthier economy and less new giveaways.
Or people doing what you did, and starting up their own companies and employing more people, generating income and (hopefully) income into the country.
It could mean all those things, but it will undoubtedly mean huge spending cuts, such as those being trailed today relating to the under 25s.
It is perfectly possible to do what we did when the government runs a deficit, of course. After all, that is what we did.
A surplus sounds enticing, but in practice may be far less so for anyone who does not have a very high income. But all that will come out in the debate. Whichever way you look at it, it's a sharp tack to the right economically from the Tories.
A sharp shift to the right vs 1997-2001 (approx not got exact years) when implementing Tory spending plans resulted in a small surplus?
The surplus was a happy outcome, not a fixed policy. It never has been before, as far as I can tell. The Tory policy now is always to spend less than the government generates. In the end that may happen through growth, but we have to get to that point first. And that means cuts. And given inflation - even at a very low level - it probably means on-going cuts even in times of growth. And that's before we even think about whether running a permanent surplus is a good idea in the first place.
I'm boarding a plane so don't have the stats to hand, but I thought that to run a surplus we just had to return government spending to a level that it was in 2005 or 2006? Of course it is never as simple as that - TME is different to spending due to interest payments - and we need to factor in inflation, but we are not talking about a return to the Dark Ages.
Cameron was clear, - work study or learn if you want benefits -seems fair enough to me.
Still seems a bit unfair on people of modest backgrounds who come to the end of their degree/course/training scheme and can't find work....
If their parents cannot put them up and/or support them financially they are buggered. Perhaps Dave and George do not realise that there are families which do not have the funds to support their adult children.
I thought Osborne was proposing an annual surplus, which would make it very different to Brown's fiscal rule. As I understand it, it would also include capital expenditure, which I don't believe Brown's did.
However, whichever way you look at it, getting to surplus by 2020 means further big cuts. 2020, of course, is a completely arbitrary year. It could be done by, say, 2023 with less pain.
Its a surplus during the boom. 2020 is not completely arbitrary either, besides being an election year it will be 13 years since the start of the financial crisis, 11 years since the end of the last recession and 7 years after the country started growing well again (assuming the recovery keeps its momentum). Given the economic cycle generally lasts with about 8-12 years of growth that should be about the peak of the next boom and the best time to have fixed the budget.
If we can't fix the deficit into even a small surplus by then, how are we supposed to cope with the next crisis? We could be in the next recession by 2023 ... this is the problem with people who only want to deal with the last problem and never plan. Or do you think we've now ended boom and bust?
I do not think that you need to be in surplus to deal with a recession, as has been shown on countless occasions previously.
Such as taking the country up to 80% debt:GDP?
We've lost our safety cushion, Brown's blown it. At 40% debt:GDP you have a point, at 80% debt:GDP you don't. If we don't reach surplus by the next crisis then what's going to happen then? Either we'll have to have major austerity during the crisis or skyrocket debt:GDP. Or we can be sensible now, get a surplus during our growth (which will bring debt:GDP back to manageable levels) and cope with a moderate deficit during the next recession.
If debt:GDP isn't an issue then during growth you can run a small deficit so long as the deficit is less than growth. That's not the case any more until we bring debt:GDP back down.
Mr. Brooke, from what I've read the Mail was out of line. It's entirely legitimate (given Miliband banged on about his father and talked of bringing socialism to Britain) to look at the Marxist Miliband's views, but the personalised way it was done was entirely unfair [from what I've gathered].
However, I agree with you that the left are far happier claiming victimisation (especially ironic given McBride's book) than defending the state grabbing land and fixing prices.
I suggest you read about compulsory purchase orders and HS2, or better, how Tory and Labour governments built new towns.
There is a difference between compulsory purchase orders (CPO) and the "use of lose" proposals of rEd.
A CPO may only be issued if the proposed development is deemed to be for "public betterment". Central or local governments issuing the CPO must demonstrate that the taking of the land is necessary and there is a "compelling case in the public interest". Owners or occupiers can challenge this, and their objection will be heard by an independent Inspector.
Full compensation for loss of value of the land and property purchased, plus costs of moving both out and into new premises and all associated legal costs including legal advice are paid by the purchaser. In addition there is very often a premium paid as an incentive to the property owners facilitating the process and waiving rights to challenge the decision.
Please explain how the confiscation of land purchased for purposes of developing residential property can be considered a "public betterment" or necessary or "a compelling case in the public interest".
rEd's proposals are an unhealthy oppression of democratic principles similar in nature to Stalin's land confiscation from the Kulaks in early 20th century Russia. Will directors of the construction companies be rounded up at 3.00 am in the morning and bundled off to gulags in the remote regions of the Sottish Highlands?
I think we should be told.
If after a defined period of time land bought for purposes of developing residential property is not being used to develop residential property, then it is in the public interest to ensure that it is.
Mr. Observer, you're not suggesting Red Ed's land grab policy means a continuation of the status quo, are you?
I ma saying it is a slight extension of an existing status quo. The UK government and local authorities have been seizing land for years. The idea that what Ed is suggesting is somehow a flagrant breach of an ancient British settlement is absurd.
Well, not really. The means may be the same but there is a vast different between CPO for (a) national infrastructure projects/ preventing someone blocking a specific small-scale project and (b) a general policy that people can't do with their own land what they want to.
Good to see that yesterday's YouGov had the Lib Dems down to 8%. I should think that Clegg's plan to tack right on the economy and left on social issues should mean they manage to appeal to approximately no-one.
@Philip_Thompson - I am all for being sensible. The issue is whether it is sensible to inflict seven more years of austerity on the country in order to reach a surplus by the arbitrary year of 2020. If it involves taking all benefits away from under 25s, for example, then the downside of that could fair outweigh the upside. Likewise, if running a surplus means the withdrawal of the state from health provision, then I would argue the downside outweighs the upside. At the very least, there needs to be a rigorous debate about all the implications of what Osborne is proposing.
Ladbrokes Politics@LadPolitics45m Thanks @David_Cameron for avoiding "Hard working families" in speech. "Red Ed" at 3/1 was the biggest priced winner in the buzzword bingo.
Mr. Observer, you're not suggesting Red Ed's land grab policy means a continuation of the status quo, are you?
I ma saying it is a slight extension of an existing status quo. The UK government and local authorities have been seizing land for years. The idea that what Ed is suggesting is somehow a flagrant breach of an ancient British settlement is absurd.
It could be a lot more than a slight extension. CPOs are fiddly beasts, and AFAICR there has to be public betterment at its heart. A new road, railway line, or shopping centre can be examples. It also serves a purpose in preventing one landowner, or a small group thereof, from preventing a much larger development from going ahead. It is far from automatic.
The exact way Labour's proposed scheme will work is unclear, but it looks as though it will go way beyond CPO. I'm also curious if they've actually investigated why planning lapses occur - it is far from always the would-be developer's fault.
It would have been much better if they tackled the supermarket's anticompetitive land banks.
Mr. Observer, you're not suggesting Red Ed's land grab policy means a continuation of the status quo, are you?
I ma saying it is a slight extension of an existing status quo. The UK government and local authorities have been seizing land for years. The idea that what Ed is suggesting is somehow a flagrant breach of an ancient British settlement is absurd.
Well, not really. The means may be the same but there is a vast different between CPO for (a) national infrastructure projects/ preventing someone blocking a specific small-scale project and (b) a general policy that people can't do with their own land what they want to.
If people have bought land to build housing then it is reasonable to expect that they do so within a fixed time period, not at the point which most suits them. Housing is just as much a national necessity as a national infrastructure project. Housing is infrastructure.
@Philip_Thompson - I am all for being sensible. The issue is whether it is sensible to inflict seven more years of austerity on the country in order to reach a surplus by the arbitrary year of 2020. If it involves taking all benefits away from under 25s, for example, then the downside of that could fair outweigh the upside. Likewise, if running a surplus means the withdrawal of the state from health provision, then I would argue the downside outweighs the upside. At the very least, there needs to be a rigorous debate about all the implications of what Osborne is proposing.
Does your business never set targets ? Do the directors never try to stretch themselves ?
If after a defined period of time land bought for purposes of developing residential property is not being used to develop residential property, then it is in the public interest to ensure that it is.
The PB Romney's are going to shriek socialism at any policy from now and it will be just as productive as it was for Romney. Why not let them foam at the mouth and let it all out? Their hysteria is at least very funny and probably therapeutic for them. They have to contemplate Cammie's dull and lifeless showing today and the pie in the sky nonsense about under 25's. Don't be too harsh on them.
My not desperately informed view is that to satisfy a court that the public interest defence has been met, they will need to define it more tightly than "land that hasn't been developed in a given time period".
@Philip_Thompson - I am all for being sensible. The issue is whether it is sensible to inflict seven more years of austerity on the country in order to reach a surplus by the arbitrary year of 2020. If it involves taking all benefits away from under 25s, for example, then the downside of that could fair outweigh the upside. Likewise, if running a surplus means the withdrawal of the state from health provision, then I would argue the downside outweighs the upside. At the very least, there needs to be a rigorous debate about all the implications of what Osborne is proposing.
Does your business never set targets ? Do the directors never try to stretch themselves ?
Mr. Punter, McBride was a creature of Brown. Brown's chief lieutenants were Balls and Miliband. They've claimed ignorance, shock and horror at what this man, whom they have never before met, did on behalf of their political master.
I'm sure McBride and his ways are not indicative of Labour as a whole, but it was most definitely indicative of the Brown premiership, and the current Leader of the Opposition and Shadow Chancellor were both part of the Brown inner circle.
Who on here defends McBride, or ever did?
Ooh, can I have a stab, Sir?
McBride was simply doing a job that our modern political culture demands* (quite well at times, it seems).
As we've seen this week with the rancid Daily Mail stuff, a lot of our media demand that politics is done by vile smear, lies, bullying, and a lot of our politicians pandered to this. In fact, I'm sure McBridism still goes on in some parties.
Which is why it's so refreshing that Ed Miliband comes across as wanting to do things a different way, and not simply play the nasty old game.
*admittedly a "concentration camp guard" defence, but anyone who listens to Fighting Talk on Radio 5 on Sat mornings would give me decent points for that effort...?
@Philip_Thompson - I am all for being sensible. The issue is whether it is sensible to inflict seven more years of austerity on the country in order to reach a surplus by the arbitrary year of 2020. If it involves taking all benefits away from under 25s, for example, then the downside of that could fair outweigh the upside. Likewise, if running a surplus means the withdrawal of the state from health provision, then I would argue the downside outweighs the upside. At the very least, there needs to be a rigorous debate about all the implications of what Osborne is proposing.
Neither of those are guaranteed. We can arguable reach a surplus by 2020 with moderate restraint rather than major austerity. The advantage of doing so is it will remove the need for major austerity in the future?
Or do you not think there's a real risk for another recession in 7+ years time?
Didn't the Left try to push the narrative that Miliband won the last Conference season, as well?
IIRC they were all ejaculating into their own faces after his "One Nation" speech. Move on a few months and Miliband was facing some of the worst personal polling, of any political leader, in British history.
NO ONE NORMAL CARES ABOUT THE CONFERENCES.
He's good at presenting arguments in set piece speeches. Conferences suit him.
What Ed Miliband needs to do is continue to build on his conference success (he failed completely to do that last year). He regularly seems to learn from experience, which is something I like about him. Let's see if he's learned this.
@Philip_Thompson - I am all for being sensible. The issue is whether it is sensible to inflict seven more years of austerity on the country in order to reach a surplus by the arbitrary year of 2020. If it involves taking all benefits away from under 25s, for example, then the downside of that could fair outweigh the upside. Likewise, if running a surplus means the withdrawal of the state from health provision, then I would argue the downside outweighs the upside. At the very least, there needs to be a rigorous debate about all the implications of what Osborne is proposing.
Does your business never set targets ? Do the directors never try to stretch themselves ?
Government is not a business.
It's not a question of business v government it's about basic management.
You regularly complain about the british management's lack of ambition, are you now saying you're in the same boat ?
Kirkup (Telegraph again) on the speech: A FLAT SPEECH
David Cameron's speech to Tory conference lacked any kind of punch. Maybe he was tired: there were some uncharacteristic shadows under his eyes. Or maybe his heart wasn't in it: this is, after all, the "spare" year of a five-year Parliament. It's hardly surprising Mr Cameron privately regarded this as one of the less important Big Speeches of his career. Whatever it was, the audience sensed it and responded dutifully at best.
After a workmanlike section on Ed Miliband and Labour, what remained was the vision: Britain as "the Land of Opportunity" after an outright Tory victory in 2015. But how would the lives of voters be materially different? Details were scant. Perhaps welfare would be withheld from under-25s. Perhaps it might be a bit easier to deport foreign criminals. And perhaps taxes might be a bit lower - once the structural deficit is eliminated at the end of the decade, presumably.
In short, this was not a vision of a country or state that would look or feel radically different from the one Mr Cameron says his current Government is delivering. That's a problem for him. He wants to persuade voters that if they freed him from the shackles of his coalition deal with the Lib Dems, he would do things in a more Conservative way. But this speech offered differences of degree, not of type. The Land of Opportunity remains a distant prospect.
FPT. Southern Observer "The more I think about it the more extraordinary it is that the Tories are going to go into the next election promising to take benefits away from the under 25s. It really does beggar belief. There must be more to it than what is being reported. I am not sure they realise what a big demographic they are taking on here. Not just under 25s, but their families too"
Your comment sums why I think that Ed Miliband and Nick Clegg failed the big test this Conference season as they continue on their negative and retrograde political outlook on welfare. Your right to note the size of the demographic being targeted here, but wrong to assume that the many under twenty fives or their parents aspire to be relying on benefits at so young an age. I don't know what planet you live on, but "If your not learning you need to be earning" has to be about the most fundamental message uttered by parents to their school leaving age kids for generations. Do you really think those same parents are going to be up in arms about a Government backing up the importance of the need for that aspiration? Or do you think they would be more happy to vote instead for a Labour party that actively encourages their children down a route that sees them automatically getting a handout for choosing to do neither?
@Philip_Thompson - I am all for being sensible. The issue is whether it is sensible to inflict seven more years of austerity on the country in order to reach a surplus by the arbitrary year of 2020. If it involves taking all benefits away from under 25s, for example, then the downside of that could fair outweigh the upside. Likewise, if running a surplus means the withdrawal of the state from health provision, then I would argue the downside outweighs the upside. At the very least, there needs to be a rigorous debate about all the implications of what Osborne is proposing.
Does your business never set targets ? Do the directors never try to stretch themselves ?
Government is not a business.
Romney said it was a great deal on his way to his glorious victory.
Didn't the Left try to push the narrative that Miliband won the last Conference season, as well?
IIRC they were all ejaculating into their own faces after his "One Nation" speech. Move on a few months and Miliband was facing some of the worst personal polling, of any political leader, in British history.
NO ONE NORMAL CARES ABOUT THE CONFERENCES.
Chez brooke no-one's even aware they've taken place bar myself.
Mr. Brooke, from what I've read the Mail was out of line. It's entirely legitimate (given Miliband banged on about his father and talked of bringing socialism to Britain) to look at the Marxist Miliband's views, but the personalised way it was done was entirely unfair [from what I've gathered].
However, I agree with you that the left are far happier claiming victimisation (especially ironic given McBride's book) than defending the state grabbing land and fixing prices.
...
If after a defined period of time land bought for purposes of developing residential property is not being used to develop residential property, then it is in the public interest to ensure that it is.
Even if we were to accept you argument that rEd's land confiscation would be in the public interest (which I don't) it would not be decisive as the requirement is for "public betterment", that the purchase be "necessary" and there is a compelling case it is in the public interest.
I am not a lawyer so I won't go further, except to say that a general legal principle might be applied here: what was the intention of Parliament when it drafted the law? Did Parliament contemplate a construction company having land confiscated for unreasonable delays in developing the land? My guess is that the courts would reject the fitting of new circumstances to old law in this way.
Nothing stopping rEd passing fresh legislation though. Though even Stalin was too shame-faced to give statutory authority to all his oppressions.
@Philip_Thompson - I am all for being sensible. The issue is whether it is sensible to inflict seven more years of austerity on the country in order to reach a surplus by the arbitrary year of 2020. If it involves taking all benefits away from under 25s, for example, then the downside of that could fair outweigh the upside. Likewise, if running a surplus means the withdrawal of the state from health provision, then I would argue the downside outweighs the upside. At the very least, there needs to be a rigorous debate about all the implications of what Osborne is proposing.
Do the directors never try to stretch themselves ?
Only after a long lunch and then only on the advice of suitably trained medical staff in attendance.
Is it worth reading the threads re Cameron's speech? The news highlights are just Labour digs, bad jokes/slogans and the under 25s (er... what?) thing.
I've got a breadmaker gathering dust next to the juicer and the George Foreman anti-chubber grill. So I don't need any appliance advice.
Good to see people coming out of the woodwork to finally stand up to the Mail. Alan Sugar on Channel 4 and apparently Campbell has posted the odious man's address. Even the mild mannered Greenslade steps up to the plate
Is it worth reading the threads re Cameron's speech? The news highlights are just Labour digs, bad jokes/slogans and the under 25s (er... what?) thing.
I've got a breadmaker gathering dust next to the juicer and the George Foreman anti-chubber grill. So I don't need any appliance advice.
That's where I keep my slow cooker. Was very useful and exciting the first and only time I used it.
My not desperately informed view is that to satisfy a court that the public interest defence has been met, they will need to define it more tightly than "land that hasn't been developed in a given time period".
This is the HRA that the Conservatives are pledged to abolish, eh? To give a more serious reply: as I understand the policy, it will work like this:
1. If you want to build on land, you can seek planning permission, as now.
2. If it's granted, you have 5 years to build, as now, before permission lapses (assuming you own it).
3. However, after a shorter period (not yet fixed, but say 1 year), the local authority will have the right to tax the land at a substantial rate, increasing for each year of non-use if no significant building work is under way. They won't have to - if there is obviously a serious building project under way, they can hold off.
4. If you don't like the tax, you can a) Surrender your planning permission. No problem, but expect any renewed application to be met with some scepticism. b) Pay the tax. c) Sell. d) Build.
The local authority has CPO powers, as now (and no, they're not only used for motorways etc.), but that's not the main point, which is that keeping land with planning permission on hold while waiting for a buyer will become very expensive, to the point that most businesses will want to build or sell ("use it or lose itr"). But if they want to pay the escalating tax and enrich the community, that's fine too.
I can't see anything very revolutionary in any of that. Obviously it needs detail, but Stalinism it ain't.
FPT. Southern Observer "The more I think about it the more extraordinary it is that the Tories are going to go into the next election promising to take benefits away from the under 25s. It really does beggar belief. There must be more to it than what is being reported. I am not sure they realise what a big demographic they are taking on here. Not just under 25s, but their families too"
Your comment sums why I think that Ed Miliband and Nick Clegg failed the big test this Conference season as they continue on their negative and retrograde political outlook on welfare. Your right to note the size of the demographic being targeted here, but wrong to assume that the many under twenty fives or their parents aspire to be relying on benefits at so young an age. I don't know what planet you live on, but "If your not learning you need to be earning" has to be about the most fundamental message uttered by parents to their school leaving age kids for generations. Do you really think those same parents are going to be up in arms about a Government backing up the importance of the need for that aspiration? Or do you think they would be more happy to vote instead for a Labour party that actively encourages their children down a route that sees them automatically getting a handout for choosing to do neither?
So you think that one of your children who moves to Glasgow and studies for three years then works for two should be denied benefit if made unemployed and forced to return home? Pitiful if you do
Tim, your argument is logically correct, but I think fitalass is right. No-one wants their child to be on benefits.
It's a similar reason why drug legalisation is not happening. No parent wants their child to take drugs, even if they logically accept that having them legal and regulated would be safer.
Of course there's a world of difference between a welfare safety net and living on welfare for life, but in modern politics nuance always loses.
FPT. Southern Observer "The more I think about it the more extraordinary it is that the Tories are going to go into the next election promising to take benefits away from the under 25s. It really does beggar belief. There must be more to it than what is being reported. I am not sure they realise what a big demographic they are taking on here. Not just under 25s, but their families too"
Your comment sums why I think that Ed Miliband and Nick Clegg failed the big test this Conference season as they continue on their negative and retrograde political outlook on welfare. Your right to note the size of the demographic being targeted here, but wrong to assume that the many under twenty fives or their parents aspire to be relying on benefits at so young an age. I don't know what planet you live on, but "If your not learning you need to be earning" has to be about the most fundamental message uttered by parents to their school leaving age kids for generations. Do you really think those same parents are going to be up in arms about a Government backing up the importance of the need for that aspiration? Or do you think they would be more happy to vote instead for a Labour party that actively encourages their children down a route that sees them automatically getting a handout for choosing to do neither?
Yes, I think that many parents will be up in arms that the Tories expect them to support their adult children financially and to put them up at home if they cannot find jobs. I think that they may conclude that the Tories do not live in the real world if they expect this and that talk of aspiration will sound very hollow when a 21 year old is forced to go home to kip on the sofa because he/she has not found a job immediately on leaving university or has been made redundant or has just left the armed services after doing a couple of tours in Afghanistan, and so on.
Having to apply for housing benefit because your job does not pay enough, or having to apply for JSA because you have been made redundant, is not about rejecting aspiration. That Tories such as yourself think it is shows just how out of touch you are.
My not desperately informed view is that to satisfy a court that the public interest defence has been met, they will need to define it more tightly than "land that hasn't been developed in a given time period".
This is the HRA that the Conservatives are pledged to abolish, eh? To give a more serious reply: as I understand the policy, it will work like this:
1. If you want to build on land, you can seek planning permission, as now.
2. If it's granted, you have 5 years to build, as now, before permission lapses (assuming you own it).
3. However, after a shorter period (not yet fixed, but say 1 year), the local authority will have the right to tax the land at a substantial rate, increasing for each year of non-use if no significant building work is under way. They won't have to - if there is obviously a serious building project under way, they can hold off.
4. If you don't like the tax, you can a) Surrender your planning permission. No problem, but expect any renewed application to be met with some scepticism. b) Pay the tax. c) Sell. d) Build.
The local authority has CPO powers, as now (and no, they're not only used for motorways etc.), but that's not the main point, which is that keeping land with planning permission on hold while waiting for a buyer will become very expensive, to the point that most businesses will want to build or sell ("use it or lose itr"). But if they want to pay the escalating tax and enrich the community, that's fine too.
I can't see anything very revolutionary in any of that. Obviously it needs detail, but Stalinism it ain't.
You would say that Comrade Palmer. It's rank communism mixed with socialism and a heady pinch of marxism. Admit it! It's quite clearly commarxocialism. The worst kind imaginable and the kind that makes Saint Paul Dacre fart uncontrollably. Need I say more? I think not. ;^ )
This years conference speeches matter little. I didn't see any of them, and I follow politics.
Ed Miliband made the biggest move, yes, without a doubt. But he moved to the left.
I can hear Blair and his coterie tutting. What's the first rule for winning elections? Push your opponent to their extreme. Blair spent all his waking moments pushing the Tories to the right because he knew they couldn't win from there. The reverse applies to Labour: they can't win from the left.
Elections are won in the middle ground, in the marginal seats among swing voters. Tacking to the left may take Labour's majority in my area (Caerphilly) from 50% to 70%, much like Hague managed to up the Tory vote share in his uber-rich Shires, but it won't likely translate into votes in marginals.
Ed may have won the unimportant battle of the last fortnight (I agree he has), but he's positioned himself in a worse spot when it comes to winning the war.
If I were the Tories I'd spend the next 18 months making the 'socialist' tag stick. With Ed's help. Election maestro Blair will be turning in his heated pool.
@Philip_Thompson - I am all for being sensible. The issue is whether it is sensible to inflict seven more years of austerity on the country in order to reach a surplus by the arbitrary year of 2020. If it involves taking all benefits away from under 25s, for example, then the downside of that could fair outweigh the upside. Likewise, if running a surplus means the withdrawal of the state from health provision, then I would argue the downside outweighs the upside. At the very least, there needs to be a rigorous debate about all the implications of what Osborne is proposing.
Does your business never set targets ? Do the directors never try to stretch themselves ?
Government is not a business.
It's not a question of business v government it's about basic management.
You regularly complain about the british management's lack of ambition, are you now saying you're in the same boat ?
No, I am saying it is a bit silly to compare running a national government to running an SME. It's rather like comparing government spending to household spending. That said, I would certainly like to see more people with experience of running SMEs in government.
Good to see people coming out of the woodwork to finally stand up to the Mail. Alan Sugar on Channel 4 and apparently Campbell has posted the odious man's address. Even the mild mannered Greenslade steps up to the plate
The Tory leadership have hardly covered themselves in glory though. From Cameron's half-hearted condemnation, to Hunt and Gove's positive endorsement of Dacre and his vile cancerous rag.
It makes you wonder.
Some Tories, of course, have shown their fundamental decency, like Iain Dale - "The sound of Tory ministers frantically trying to avoid upsetting the Daily Mail is truly nauseating. They need to grow a collective pair."
My not desperately informed view is that to satisfy a court that the public interest defence has been met, they will need to define it more tightly than "land that hasn't been developed in a given time period".
This is the HRA that the Conservatives are pledged to abolish, eh? To give a more serious reply: as I understand the policy, it will work like this:
1. If you want to build on land, you can seek planning permission, as now.
2. If it's granted, you have 5 years to build, as now, before permission lapses (assuming you own it).
3. However, after a shorter period (not yet fixed, but say 1 year), the local authority will have the right to tax the land at a substantial rate, increasing for each year of non-use if no significant building work is under way. They won't have to - if there is obviously a serious building project under way, they can hold off.
4. If you don't like the tax, you can a) Surrender your planning permission. No problem, but expect any renewed application to be met with some scepticism. b) Pay the tax. c) Sell. d) Build.
The local authority has CPO powers, as now (and no, they're not only used for motorways etc.), but that's not the main point, which is that keeping land with planning permission on hold while waiting for a buyer will become very expensive, to the point that most businesses will want to build or sell ("use it or lose itr"). But if they want to pay the escalating tax and enrich the community, that's fine too.
I can't see anything very revolutionary in any of that. Obviously it needs detail, but Stalinism it ain't.
Comrade Palmer
As a blueprint for new primary legislation, your outline appears plausible.
But as an argument in justification of extending CPO legislation to relate to the new circumstances of a private development of residential buildings on land not required for any other purpose, it fails for the reasons outlined by antifransky, the USSR Commissar for Legal Affairs.
Good to see people coming out of the woodwork to finally stand up to the Mail. Alan Sugar on Channel 4 and apparently Campbell has posted the odious man's address. Even the mild mannered Greenslade steps up to the plate
The Tory leadership have hardly covered themselves in glory though. From Cameron's half-hearted condemnation, to Hunt and Gove's positive endorsement of Dacre and his vile cancerous rag.
It makes you wonder.
Some Tories, of course, have shown their fundamental decency, like Iain Dale - "The sound of Tory ministers frantically trying to avoid upsetting the Daily Mail is truly nauseating. They need to grow a collective pair."
Why is critiquing Ralph Miliband any different to the abuse Cameron and Osborne get for their posh, monied backgrounds?
The Mail is a horrible newspaper, but as long as they don't break the law they can do whatever they like.
It's not up to the Tories to berate them. It's a personal battle between Ed and the Mail.
The next election will be a clear choice, in ideological terms after Cameron and Miliband's speeches probably the clearest choice since the 80s and early 90s. Cameron pushing a pro business, anti welfare agenda and Miliband pushing for higher taxes and the reverse of welfare cuts
@Philip_Thompson - I am all for being sensible. The issue is whether it is sensible to inflict seven more years of austerity on the country in order to reach a surplus by the arbitrary year of 2020. If it involves taking all benefits away from under 25s, for example, then the downside of that could fair outweigh the upside. Likewise, if running a surplus means the withdrawal of the state from health provision, then I would argue the downside outweighs the upside. At the very least, there needs to be a rigorous debate about all the implications of what Osborne is proposing.
Does your business never set targets ? Do the directors never try to stretch themselves ?
Government is not a business.
It's not a question of business v government it's about basic management.
You regularly complain about the british management's lack of ambition, are you now saying you're in the same boat ?
No, I am saying it is a bit silly to compare running a national government to running an SME. It's rather like comparing government spending to household spending. That said, I would certainly like to see more people with experience of running SMEs in government.
the principles of spending are pretty much the same. You have income and if you spend within it you're in surplus. If you spend beyond it you have to borrow. If you don't pay the money back when you said you would you get a credit problem.
Currently we have lots of debt and are still spending beyond our means. No country can afford to do that indefinitely. Debt run up by our generation is simply tax receipts taken from our children, they'll have to pay it back.
Oh Come on. David Cameron's back ground and eduction has been brought up incessantly in the last three years. He's probably thinking 'hello Ed, welcome to my world'.
Its been inferred on countless occasions here and elsewhere that Cam's upbringing alone makes him unfit for government. ''Incompetent fops.....chinless chumocracy....completely out of touch...never had to balance a budget......' etc etc etc etc.....there are thousands of examples.
Has Ed Milliband ever stepped in and said - stop it, Cameron's background is his own business, he couldn't choose it, lets fight him on his policies ,not his trust fund. Has he f7ck
And suddenly when Ed's background is examined once, a background he lauded and said was his inspiration, he has an enormous moan.
From my post below: "However, I agree with you that the left are far happier claiming victimisation (especially ironic given McBride's book) than defending the state grabbing land and fixing prices."
Fairy nuff, Morris.
I see ROberts put his hand up. I couldn't disagree more with him, but at least he had the honesty and courage to step forward.
Why is critiquing Ralph Miliband any different to the abuse Cameron and Osborne get for their posh, monied backgrounds?
Its OK, ever since Ed became leader he issued a blanket ban on labour people using Cameron's background as a basis for claiming he was unfit for government. Ed insisted on fighting on the issues.
Good to see people coming out of the woodwork to finally stand up to the Mail. Alan Sugar on Channel 4 and apparently Campbell has posted the odious man's address. Even the mild mannered Greenslade steps up to the plate
The Tory leadership have hardly covered themselves in glory though. From Cameron's half-hearted condemnation, to Hunt and Gove's positive endorsement of Dacre and his vile cancerous rag.
It makes you wonder.
Some Tories, of course, have shown their fundamental decency, like Iain Dale - "The sound of Tory ministers frantically trying to avoid upsetting the Daily Mail is truly nauseating. They need to grow a collective pair."
Why is critiquing Ralph Miliband any different to the abuse Cameron and Osborne get for their posh, monied backgrounds?
The Mail is a horrible newspaper, but as long as they don't break the law they can do whatever they like.
It's not up to the Tories to berate them. It's a personal battle between Ed and the Mail.
There's been nothing stopping Cameron standing up to the press if he so chose.
Good to see people coming out of the woodwork to finally stand up to the Mail. Alan Sugar on Channel 4 and apparently Campbell has posted the odious man's address. Even the mild mannered Greenslade steps up to the plate
The Tory leadership have hardly covered themselves in glory though. From Cameron's half-hearted condemnation, to Hunt and Gove's positive endorsement of Dacre and his vile cancerous rag.
It makes you wonder.
Some Tories, of course, have shown their fundamental decency, like Iain Dale - "The sound of Tory ministers frantically trying to avoid upsetting the Daily Mail is truly nauseating. They need to grow a collective pair."
Why is critiquing Ralph Miliband any different to the abuse Cameron and Osborne get for their posh, monied backgrounds?
The Mail is a horrible newspaper, but as long as they don't break the law they can do whatever they like.
It's not up to the Tories to berate them. It's a personal battle between Ed and the Mail.
There's been nothing stopping Cameron standing up to the press if he so chose.
maybe he's just got more maturity or a thicker skin.
Good to see people coming out of the woodwork to finally stand up to the Mail. Alan Sugar on Channel 4 and apparently Campbell has posted the odious man's address. Even the mild mannered Greenslade steps up to the plate
The Tory leadership have hardly covered themselves in glory though. From Cameron's half-hearted condemnation, to Hunt and Gove's positive endorsement of Dacre and his vile cancerous rag.
It makes you wonder.
Some Tories, of course, have shown their fundamental decency, like Iain Dale - "The sound of Tory ministers frantically trying to avoid upsetting the Daily Mail is truly nauseating. They need to grow a collective pair."
Why is critiquing Ralph Miliband any different to the abuse Cameron and Osborne get for their posh, monied backgrounds?
The Mail is a horrible newspaper, but as long as they don't break the law they can do whatever they like.
It's not up to the Tories to berate them. It's a personal battle between Ed and the Mail.
Accusing him of hating Britain is a bit different to critiquing, and iirc libel law doesn't protect the dead.
This years conference speeches matter little. I didn't see any of them, and I follow politics.
Ed Miliband made the biggest move, yes, without a doubt. But he moved to the left.
I can hear Blair and his coterie tutting. What's the first rule for winning elections? Push your opponent to their extreme. Blair spent all his waking moments pushing the Tories to the right because he knew they couldn't win from there. The reverse applies to Labour: they can't win from the left.
Elections are won in the middle ground, in the marginal seats among swing voters. Tacking to the left may take Labour's majority in my area (Caerphilly) from 50% to 70%, much like Hague managed to up the Tory vote share in his uber-rich Shires, but it won't likely translate into votes in marginals.
Ed may have won the unimportant battle of the last fortnight (I agree he has), but he's positioned himself in a worse spot when it comes to winning the war.
If I were the Tories I'd spend the next 18 months making the 'socialist' tag stick. With Ed's help. Election maestro Blair will be turning in his heated pool.
Could you explain the move to the left, the energy price freeze does not cost the government money.
Mary Ann Sieghart says this which is a good point .
"The other difficulty for the Tories is that the populist bribes that Labour is offering don’t cost any money, whereas the Conservative ones do. Labour’s promise to freeze energy bills may not work, but what’s certain is that the money won’t come out of Treasury coffers. The cost will either be borne by the energy companies or passed on to the consumer before or after the freeze.
By contrast, freezing fuel duty, as George Osborne promised to do this week, is expensive. So is giving a tax break to married couples. So are free school meals for infants. Even the Help to Buy scheme will cost the Treasury money if borrowers default."
Mr. Observer, you're not suggesting Red Ed's land grab policy means a continuation of the status quo, are you?
I ma saying it is a slight extension of an existing status quo. The UK government and local authorities have been seizing land for years. The idea that what Ed is suggesting is somehow a flagrant breach of an ancient British settlement is absurd.
Well, not really. The means may be the same but there is a vast different between CPO for (a) national infrastructure projects/ preventing someone blocking a specific small-scale project and (b) a general policy that people can't do with their own land what they want to.
If people have bought land to build housing then it is reasonable to expect that they do so within a fixed time period, not at the point which most suits them. Housing is just as much a national necessity as a national infrastructure project. Housing is infrastructure.
Why is that *reasonable*? Answer: it isn't.
What happens when the reason they cannot build within the timescale is out of their hands? When the local council are being obstructive (as does happen)? When the economics of the plans don't add up due to changes in the market? When a couple of hoping to build a house are having trouble with the mortgage?
This will harm not just big companies, but many small builders and individuals. Indeed, it will hurt the latter disproportionately.
In addition, IANAE but ISTR that the planning is not seen to lapse if work has started, e.g. foundations dug. That's an obvious loophole, right there.
I want *you* to lodge the future plans for your company three years in advance with your local council. If you don't meet your objectives, they'll take part of your business off you. Okay?
Good to see people coming out of the woodwork to finally stand up to the Mail. Alan Sugar on Channel 4 and apparently Campbell has posted the odious man's address. Even the mild mannered Greenslade steps up to the plate
The Tory leadership have hardly covered themselves in glory though. From Cameron's half-hearted condemnation, to Hunt and Gove's positive endorsement of Dacre and his vile cancerous rag.
It makes you wonder.
Some Tories, of course, have shown their fundamental decency, like Iain Dale - "The sound of Tory ministers frantically trying to avoid upsetting the Daily Mail is truly nauseating. They need to grow a collective pair."
Why is critiquing Ralph Miliband any different to the abuse Cameron and Osborne get for their posh, monied backgrounds?
The Mail is a horrible newspaper, but as long as they don't break the law they can do whatever they like.
It's not up to the Tories to berate them. It's a personal battle between Ed and the Mail.
There's been nothing stopping Cameron standing up to the press if he so chose.
maybe he's just got more maturity or a thicker skin.
That's one possible explanation,but unlikely. He's in their pocket, but maybe Miliband will help him grow a spine
Oh really ? I do wish the PB Lefties could make up their minds if the "right wing press" is a dying dinosaur to be ignored or an untamed beast that needs mastering.
If it's a dying dinosaur then Ed's not really taking on the strong, he's simply kicking some old men when they're down.
If it's an untamed beast then reports of its death are premature and press posturing is pretty stupid.
In either event we can at least count on him seeking to put people out work asap. Same old Labour.
pretty uninspiring from dave all in all. Rubbish jokes and a funny death stare at the camera
What is the f*cking point in wasting ten seconds of your life writing that, which everyone will immediately dismiss because there is zero chance of your saying anything else?
Really?
Did that give you a buzz, writing that? Did you think "this will show them, this will turn the narrative, a well known and very dull Labour supporter like me, saying on pb, exactly what everyone will expect me to say?"
Sean, given few of us have your notoriety, I very much doubt if any of us most 'umble posters expect anything we say to change the narrative anywhere beyond the next ten pb comments (and that's probably optimistic). As such we just come here to post our opinion.
I'm a Lib Dem and posted approval for Clegg's speech, I doubt it changed anyone's mind about it. But it's what I thought so I posted it on a forum.
Do you get a buzz out of this kind of "why the f*cking f*ck did you bother to post that you dull b*stard" post? Because you do it every so often and I'm not sure what you expect to get out of it apart from that.
Good to see people coming out of the woodwork to finally stand up to the Mail. Alan Sugar on Channel 4 and apparently Campbell has posted the odious man's address. Even the mild mannered Greenslade steps up to the plate
The Tory leadership have hardly covered themselves in glory though. From Cameron's half-hearted condemnation, to Hunt and Gove's positive endorsement of Dacre and his vile cancerous rag.
It makes you wonder.
Some Tories, of course, have shown their fundamental decency, like Iain Dale - "The sound of Tory ministers frantically trying to avoid upsetting the Daily Mail is truly nauseating. They need to grow a collective pair."
Why is critiquing Ralph Miliband any different to the abuse Cameron and Osborne get for their posh, monied backgrounds?
The Mail is a horrible newspaper, but as long as they don't break the law they can do whatever they like.
It's not up to the Tories to berate them. It's a personal battle between Ed and the Mail.
There's been nothing stopping Cameron standing up to the press if he so chose.
maybe he's just got more maturity or a thicker skin.
That's one possible explanation,but unlikely. He's in their pocket, but maybe Miliband will help him grow a spine
Oh really ? I do wish the PB Lefties could make up their minds if the "right wing press" is a dying dinosaur to be ignored or an untamed beast that needs mastering.
If it's a dying dinosaur then Ed's not really taking on the strong, he's simply kicking some old men when they're down.
If it's an untamed beast then reports of its death are premature and press posturing is pretty stupid.
In either event we can at least count on him seeking to put people out work asap. Same old Labour.
A terrible week for Ed Milliband.....keep saying it !
pretty uninspiring from dave all in all. Rubbish jokes and a funny death stare at the camera
What is the f*cking point in wasting ten seconds of your life writing that, which everyone will immediately dismiss because there is zero chance of your saying anything else?
Really?
Did that give you a buzz, writing that? Did you think "this will show them, this will turn the narrative, a well known and very dull Labour supporter like me, saying on pb, exactly what everyone will expect me to say?"
Sean, given few of us have your notoriety, I very much doubt if any of us most 'umble posters expect anything we say to change the narrative anywhere beyond the next ten pb comments (and that's probably optimistic). As such we just come here to post our opinion.
I'm a Lib Dem and posted approval for Clegg's speech, I doubt it changed anyone's mind about it. But it's what I thought so I posted it on a forum.
Do you get a buzz out of this kind of "why the f*cking f*ck did you bother to post that you dull b*stard" post? Because you do it every so often and I'm not sure what you expect to get out of it apart from that.
Comrade Sean T is merely a Primrose Hill lefty luvvie internationalist (note his love for foreign shores!) masquerading as a goose-stepping, Horst Wessel-singing Jew-baiting Nazi - highly entertaining all the same
This years conference speeches matter little. I didn't see any of them, and I follow politics.
Ed Miliband made the biggest move, yes, without a doubt. But he moved to the left.
I can hear Blair and his coterie tutting. What's the first rule for winning elections? Push your opponent to their extreme. Blair spent all his waking moments pushing the Tories to the right because he knew they couldn't win from there. The reverse applies to Labour: they can't win from the left.
Elections are won in the middle ground, in the marginal seats among swing voters. Tacking to the left may take Labour's majority in my area (Caerphilly) from 50% to 70%, much like Hague managed to up the Tory vote share in his uber-rich Shires, but it won't likely translate into votes in marginals.
Ed may have won the unimportant battle of the last fortnight (I agree he has), but he's positioned himself in a worse spot when it comes to winning the war.
If I were the Tories I'd spend the next 18 months making the 'socialist' tag stick. With Ed's help. Election maestro Blair will be turning in his heated pool.
Could you explain the move to the left, the energy price freeze does not cost the government money.
Mary Ann Sieghart says this which is a good point .
"The other difficulty for the Tories is that the populist bribes that Labour is offering don’t cost any money, whereas the Conservative ones do. Labour’s promise to freeze energy bills may not work, but what’s certain is that the money won’t come out of Treasury coffers. The cost will either be borne by the energy companies or passed on to the consumer before or after the freeze.
By contrast, freezing fuel duty, as George Osborne promised to do this week, is expensive. So is giving a tax break to married couples. So are free school meals for infants. Even the Help to Buy scheme will cost the Treasury money if borrowers default."
gas and electricity have VAT if the price is frozen the government doesn't get any more money when the world price of fuel rises. Furthermore the money Osborne is "giving back" isn't the Treasury's in the first place, it's ours.
Good to see people coming out of the woodwork to finally stand up to the Mail. Alan Sugar on Channel 4 and apparently Campbell has posted the odious man's address. Even the mild mannered Greenslade steps up to the plate
The Tory leadership have hardly covered themselves in glory though. From Cameron's half-hearted condemnation, to Hunt and Gove's positive endorsement of Dacre and his vile cancerous rag.
It makes you wonder.
Some Tories, of course, have shown their fundamental decency, like Iain Dale - "The sound of Tory ministers frantically trying to avoid upsetting the Daily Mail is truly nauseating. They need to grow a collective pair."
Why is critiquing Ralph Miliband any different to the abuse Cameron and Osborne get for their posh, monied backgrounds?
The Mail is a horrible newspaper, but as long as they don't break the law they can do whatever they like.
It's not up to the Tories to berate them. It's a personal battle between Ed and the Mail.
There's been nothing stopping Cameron standing up to the press if he so chose.
maybe he's just got more maturity or a thicker skin.
That's one possible explanation,but unlikely. He's in their pocket, but maybe Miliband will help him grow a spine
Oh really ? I do wish the PB Lefties could make up their minds if the "right wing press" is a dying dinosaur to be ignored or an untamed beast that needs mastering.
If it's a dying dinosaur then Ed's not really taking on the strong, he's simply kicking some old men when they're down.
If it's an untamed beast then reports of its death are premature and press posturing is pretty stupid.
In either event we can at least count on him seeking to put people out work asap. Same old Labour.
A terrible week for Ed Milliband.....keep saying it !
To save me trawling the news... where's the funding coming from to keep all under 25s in work or training? Is it an extension of something already in place? What... where... what?
This years conference speeches matter little. I didn't see any of them, and I follow politics.
Ed Miliband made the biggest move, yes, without a doubt. But he moved to the left.
I can hear Blair and his coterie tutting. What's the first rule for winning elections? Push your opponent to their extreme. Blair spent all his waking moments pushing the Tories to the right because he knew they couldn't win from there. The reverse applies to Labour: they can't win from the left.
Elections are won in the middle ground, in the marginal seats among swing voters. Tacking to the left may take Labour's majority in my area (Caerphilly) from 50% to 70%, much like Hague managed to up the Tory vote share in his uber-rich Shires, but it won't likely translate into votes in marginals.
Ed may have won the unimportant battle of the last fortnight (I agree he has), but he's positioned himself in a worse spot when it comes to winning the war.
If I were the Tories I'd spend the next 18 months making the 'socialist' tag stick. With Ed's help. Election maestro Blair will be turning in his heated pool.
Could you explain the move to the left, the energy price freeze does not cost the government money.
Mary Ann Sieghart says this which is a good point .
"The other difficulty for the Tories is that the populist bribes that Labour is offering don’t cost any money, whereas the Conservative ones do. Labour’s promise to freeze energy bills may not work, but what’s certain is that the money won’t come out of Treasury coffers. The cost will either be borne by the energy companies or passed on to the consumer before or after the freeze.
By contrast, freezing fuel duty, as George Osborne promised to do this week, is expensive. So is giving a tax break to married couples. So are free school meals for infants. Even the Help to Buy scheme will cost the Treasury money if borrowers default."
gas and electricity have VAT if the price is frozen the government doesn't get any more money when the world price of fuel rises. Furthermore the money Osborne is "giving back" isn't the Treasury's in the first place, it's ours.
Labour - the people who can't do sums.
My Mum pays tax. She doesn't drive, so she gets nothing back.
My not desperately informed view is that to satisfy a court that the public interest defence has been met, they will need to define it more tightly than "land that hasn't been developed in a given time period".
I agree with antifrank (if we're talking a CPO-type operation). The circumstances where the government can seize your land would need to be tightly defined (people already start building a single wall to avoid lapse, do they not?) or else we're going to have a rather more extensive system of discretion as to which sites can be taken in the public interest.
The difference with the new towns and most CPOs is that the public authority isn't undertaking to use the land for something else (unless there's a part of the plan I've missed), they will pass it on to some other developer(?).
I think a well-designed scheme could work, but there would be more bureaucracy attached than I think might otherwise be anticipated.
To save me trawling the news... where's the funding coming from to keep all under 25s in work or training? Is it an extension of something already in place? What... where... what?
Osbrowne's getting into the property market in a big way. Didn't you hear? It's very profitable.
This years conference speeches matter little. I didn't see any of them, and I follow politics.
Ed Miliband made the biggest move, yes, without a doubt. But he moved to the left.
I can hear Blair and his coterie tutting. What's the first rule for winning elections? Push your opponent to their extreme. Blair spent all his waking moments pushing the Tories to the right because he knew they couldn't win from there. The reverse applies to Labour: they can't win from the left.
Elections are won in the middle ground, in the marginal seats among swing voters. Tacking to the left may take Labour's majority in my area (Caerphilly) from 50% to 70%, much like Hague managed to up the Tory vote share in his uber-rich Shires, but it won't likely translate into votes in marginals.
Ed may have won the unimportant battle of the last fortnight (I agree he has), but he's positioned himself in a worse spot when it comes to winning the war.
If I were the Tories I'd spend the next 18 months making the 'socialist' tag stick. With Ed's help. Election maestro Blair will be turning in his heated pool.
Could you explain the move to the left, the energy price freeze does not cost the government money.
Mary Ann Sieghart says this which is a good point .
gas and electricity have VAT if the price is frozen the government doesn't get any more money when the world price of fuel rises. Furthermore the money Osborne is "giving back" isn't the Treasury's in the first place, it's ours.
Labour - the people who can't do sums.
My Mum pays tax. She doesn't drive, so she gets nothing back.
Really ? I thought you were telling us HMG goes lightly on pensioners and they never get hit as hard as the rest of us ?
Good to see people coming out of the woodwork to finally stand up to the Mail. Alan Sugar on Channel 4 and apparently Campbell has posted the odious man's address. Even the mild mannered Greenslade steps up to the plate
The Tory leadership have hardly covered themselves in glory though. From Cameron's half-hearted condemnation, to Hunt and Gove's positive endorsement of Dacre and his vile cancerous rag.
It makes you wonder.
Some Tories, of course, have shown their fundamental decency, like Iain Dale - "The sound of Tory ministers frantically trying to avoid upsetting the Daily Mail is truly nauseating. They need to grow a collective pair."
Why is critiquing Ralph Miliband any different to the abuse Cameron and Osborne get for their posh, monied backgrounds?
The Mail is a horrible newspaper, but as long as they don't break the law they can do whatever they like.
It's not up to the Tories to berate them. It's a personal battle between Ed and the Mail.
Accusing him of hating Britain is a bit different to critiquing, and iirc libel law doesn't protect the dead.
What the Mail did was to quote an extract from Ralph Miliband's diaries, written at the age of 17, in which he stated his opinion that "the Englishman is a rabid nationalist" and that "you sometimes want them [the English] to lose [the war] to show them how things are".
Forgiveable juvenilia perhaps but The Mail went on to quote published writings of a forty five year old Ralph Miliband in which he wrote of his disdain for the British Establishment, saying it included: "Eton and Harrow, Oxford and Cambridge, the great Clubs, The Times [pre-Murdoch], the Church, the Army, the respectable Sunday papers ... the House of Lords ... social hierarchies, God Save the Queen".
The Mail headlined their article "The Man Who Hated Britain". An exaggeration perhaps but not one which had no valid base for argument.
And yes you are correct, you cannot libel the dead.
This years conference speeches matter little. I didn't see any of them, and I follow politics.
Ed Miliband made the biggest move, yes, without a doubt. But he moved to the left.
I can hear Blair and his coterie tutting. What's the first rule for winning elections? Push your opponent to their extreme. Blair spent all his waking moments pushing the Tories to the right because he knew they couldn't win from there. The reverse applies to Labour: they can't win from the left.
Elections are won in the middle ground, in the marginal seats among swing voters. Tacking to the left may take Labour's majority in my area (Caerphilly) from 50% to 70%, much like Hague managed to up the Tory vote share in his uber-rich Shires, but it won't likely translate into votes in marginals.
Ed may have won the unimportant battle of the last fortnight (I agree he has), but he's positioned himself in a worse spot when it comes to winning the war.
If I were the Tories I'd spend the next 18 months making the 'socialist' tag stick. With Ed's help. Election maestro Blair will be turning in his heated pool.
Could you explain the move to the left, the energy price freeze does not cost the government money.
Mary Ann Sieghart says this which is a good point .
"The other difficulty for the Tories is that the populist bribes that Labour is offering don’t cost any money, whereas the Conservative ones do. Labour’s promise to freeze energy bills may not work, but what’s certain is that the money won’t come out of Treasury coffers. The cost will either be borne by the energy companies or passed on to the consumer before or after the freeze.
By contrast, freezing fuel duty, as George Osborne promised to do this week, is expensive. So is giving a tax break to married couples. So are free school meals for infants. Even the Help to Buy scheme will cost the Treasury money if borrowers default."
gas and electricity have VAT if the price is frozen the government doesn't get any more money when the world price of fuel rises. Furthermore the money Osborne is "giving back" isn't the Treasury's in the first place, it's ours.
Labour - the people who can't do sums.
So the same does not apply to petrol you are demented.
Labour's proposal to guarantee every long-term unemployed person a job is interesting compared to the Tories' proposal for under 25 year olds. If the long-term unemployed don't take the job (though we don't know what jobs they're going to magic up for them) they lose their benefits.
pretty uninspiring from dave all in all. Rubbish jokes and a funny death stare at the camera
What is the f*cking point in wasting ten seconds of your life writing that, which everyone will immediately dismiss because there is zero chance of your saying anything else?
Really?
Did that give you a buzz, writing that? Did you think "this will show them, this will turn the narrative, a well known and very dull Labour supporter like me, saying on pb, exactly what everyone will expect me to say?"
Sean, given few of us have your notoriety, I very much doubt if any of us most 'umble posters expect anything we say to change the narrative anywhere beyond the next ten pb comments (and that's probably optimistic). As such we just come here to post our opinion.
I'm a Lib Dem and posted approval for Clegg's speech, I doubt it changed anyone's mind about it. But it's what I thought so I posted it on a forum.
Do you get a buzz out of this kind of "why the f*cking f*ck did you bother to post that you dull b*stard" post? Because you do it every so often and I'm not sure what you expect to get out of it apart from that.
Good to see people coming out of the woodwork to finally stand up to the Mail. Alan Sugar on Channel 4 and apparently Campbell has posted the odious man's address. Even the mild mannered Greenslade steps up to the plate
Oh is Lord Sugar on message about Ed's big wheeze as well?
Cathy Newman@cathynewman1h Exclusive: @Lord_Sugar says concerned if @Ed_Miliband energy price freeze gets implemented, cd be "tantamount to nationalisation" #c4news
This years conference speeches matter little. I didn't see any of them, and I follow politics.
Ed Miliband made the biggest move, yes, without a doubt. But he moved to the left.
I can hear Blair and his coterie tutting. What's the first rule for winning elections? Push your opponent to their extreme. Blair spent all his waking moments pushing the Tories to the right because he knew they couldn't win from there. The reverse applies to Labour: they can't win from the left.
Elections are won in the middle ground, in the marginal seats among swing voters. Tacking to the left may take Labour's majority in my area (Caerphilly) from 50% to 70%, much like Hague managed to up the Tory vote share in his uber-rich Shires, but it won't likely translate into votes in marginals.
Ed may have won the unimportant battle of the last fortnight (I agree he has), but he's positioned himself in a worse spot when it comes to winning the war.
If I were the Tories I'd spend the next 18 months making the 'socialist' tag stick. With Ed's help. Election maestro Blair will be turning in his heated pool.
Could you explain the move to the left, the energy price freeze does not cost the government money.
Mary Ann Sieghart says this which is a good point .
"The other difficulty for the Tories is that the populist bribes that Labour is offering don’t
gas and electricity have VAT if the price is frozen the government doesn't get any more money when the world price of fuel rises. Furthermore the money Osborne is "giving back" isn't the Treasury's in the first place, it's ours.
Labour - the people who can't do sums.
So the same does not apply to petrol you are demented.
I'm not the one claiming the government giving people their own money back is wrong or that taking it from other people is a superior form of taxation. And for the record Osborne has said he is freezing fuel duty on petrol not VAT. If the world price of petrol goes up by 5p he'll still levy VAT on the increase. Ed has frozen the base price and hasn't worked out what shit that will cause him.
"Five of the world's ten best selling artists, last year, were Chinese."
I'm not at all surprised. I saw two stunning and quite separate exhibitions of Chinese art last year and they were as innovative and creative as any contemporary work I've seen.
Why do labour and the tories keep promising at EVERY GE that they will create 1,000,000 jobs? They were doing it in 1987!
Government can't create jobs - only private sector can!
And the private sector can't create jobs without the help of government either, it's a collaborative process. How many jobs will the private sector produce if people aren't taught to read and write, or roads and other infrastructure isn't maintained, or the police don't enforce the laws like stopping theft? This fantasy that one bit of the economy is the most important because we can't function without it is ridiculous, losing any part of the economy grounds the whole thing.
Politicians mean that they will try and do their bit better to help create more jobs.
We will only really know if Ed had as good a conference season as people are saying if the polls show in the next month or so that people have changed their opinion of him. We have been told the Tories can't call him weak anymore after hack gate and Syria, that did't stop them, I doubt the conference season will either. Another way of looking at it would be if peoples opinion of Ed doesn't change hes pretty screwed, I mean if its been so good now, what more can he do.
Comments
A CPO may only be issued if the proposed development is deemed to be for "public betterment". Central or local governments issuing the CPO must demonstrate that the taking of the land is necessary and there is a "compelling case in the public interest". Owners or occupiers can challenge this, and their objection will be heard by an independent Inspector.
Full compensation for loss of value of the land and property purchased, plus costs of moving both out and into new premises and all associated legal costs including legal advice are paid by the purchaser. In addition there is very often a premium paid as an incentive to the property owners facilitating the process and waiving rights to challenge the decision.
Please explain how the confiscation of land purchased for purposes of developing residential property can be considered a "public betterment" or necessary or "a compelling case in the public interest".
rEd's proposals are an unhealthy oppression of democratic principles similar in nature to Stalin's land confiscation from the Kulaks in early 20th century Russia. Will directors of the construction companies be rounded up at 3.00 am in the morning and bundled off to gulags in the remote regions of the Sottish Highlands?
I think we should be told.
From my post below:
"However, I agree with you that the left are far happier claiming victimisation (especially ironic given McBride's book) than defending the state grabbing land and fixing prices."
We've lost our safety cushion, Brown's blown it. At 40% debt:GDP you have a point, at 80% debt:GDP you don't. If we don't reach surplus by the next crisis then what's going to happen then? Either we'll have to have major austerity during the crisis or skyrocket debt:GDP. Or we can be sensible now, get a surplus during our growth (which will bring debt:GDP back to manageable levels) and cope with a moderate deficit during the next recession.
If debt:GDP isn't an issue then during growth you can run a small deficit so long as the deficit is less than growth. That's not the case any more until we bring debt:GDP back down.
Ladbrokes Politics@LadPolitics45m
Thanks @David_Cameron for avoiding "Hard working families" in speech. "Red Ed" at 3/1 was the biggest priced winner in the buzzword bingo.
The exact way Labour's proposed scheme will work is unclear, but it looks as though it will go way beyond CPO. I'm also curious if they've actually investigated why planning lapses occur - it is far from always the would-be developer's fault.
It would have been much better if they tackled the supermarket's anticompetitive land banks.
All from memory, so take it FWIIW.
Don't be too harsh on them.
http://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/human-rights/human-rights/the-human-rights-act/what-the-rights-mean/article-1-of-the-first-protocol-protection-of-property.php
My not desperately informed view is that to satisfy a court that the public interest defence has been met, they will need to define it more tightly than "land that hasn't been developed in a given time period".
Rabbit in headlights. This looks like a well thought through policy. All 5 minutes of it.
McBride was simply doing a job that our modern political culture demands* (quite well at times, it seems).
As we've seen this week with the rancid Daily Mail stuff, a lot of our media demand that politics is done by vile smear, lies, bullying, and a lot of our politicians pandered to this. In fact, I'm sure McBridism still goes on in some parties.
Which is why it's so refreshing that Ed Miliband comes across as wanting to do things a different way, and not simply play the nasty old game.
*admittedly a "concentration camp guard" defence, but anyone who listens to Fighting Talk on Radio 5 on Sat mornings would give me decent points for that effort...?
Or do you not think there's a real risk for another recession in 7+ years time?
What Ed Miliband needs to do is continue to build on his conference success (he failed completely to do that last year). He regularly seems to learn from experience, which is something I like about him. Let's see if he's learned this.
You regularly complain about the british management's lack of ambition, are you now saying you're in the same boat ?
A FLAT SPEECH
David Cameron's speech to Tory conference lacked any kind of punch. Maybe he was tired: there were some uncharacteristic shadows under his eyes. Or maybe his heart wasn't in it: this is, after all, the "spare" year of a five-year Parliament. It's hardly surprising Mr Cameron privately regarded this as one of the less important Big Speeches of his career. Whatever it was, the audience sensed it and responded dutifully at best.
After a workmanlike section on Ed Miliband and Labour, what remained was the vision: Britain as "the Land of Opportunity" after an outright Tory victory in 2015. But how would the lives of voters be materially different? Details were scant. Perhaps welfare would be withheld from under-25s. Perhaps it might be a bit easier to deport foreign criminals. And perhaps taxes might be a bit lower - once the structural deficit is eliminated at the end of the decade, presumably.
In short, this was not a vision of a country or state that would look or feel radically different from the one Mr Cameron says his current Government is delivering. That's a problem for him. He wants to persuade voters that if they freed him from the shackles of his coalition deal with the Lib Dems, he would do things in a more Conservative way. But this speech offered differences of degree, not of type. The Land of Opportunity remains a distant prospect.
Your comment sums why I think that Ed Miliband and Nick Clegg failed the big test this Conference season as they continue on their negative and retrograde political outlook on welfare. Your right to note the size of the demographic being targeted here, but wrong to assume that the many under twenty fives or their parents aspire to be relying on benefits at so young an age. I don't know what planet you live on, but "If your not learning you need to be earning" has to be about the most fundamental message uttered by parents to their school leaving age kids for generations. Do you really think those same parents are going to be up in arms about a Government backing up the importance of the need for that aspiration? Or do you think they would be more happy to vote instead for a Labour party that actively encourages their children down a route that sees them automatically getting a handout for choosing to do neither?
I did warn you.
'Which is why it's so refreshing that Ed Miliband comes across as wanting to do things a different way, and not simply play the nasty old game.'
So when Ed was part of Brown's inner circle and knew exactly what McBride was doing he did nothing,how refreshing is that?
I've got a breadmaker gathering dust next to the juicer and the George Foreman anti-chubber grill. So I don't need any appliance advice.
http://www.theguardian.com/media/greenslade/2013/oct/02/edmiliband-pauldacre
1. If you want to build on land, you can seek planning permission, as now.
2. If it's granted, you have 5 years to build, as now, before permission lapses (assuming you own it).
3. However, after a shorter period (not yet fixed, but say 1 year), the local authority will have the right to tax the land at a substantial rate, increasing for each year of non-use if no significant building work is under way. They won't have to - if there is obviously a serious building project under way, they can hold off.
4. If you don't like the tax, you can
a) Surrender your planning permission. No problem, but expect any renewed application to be met with some scepticism.
b) Pay the tax.
c) Sell.
d) Build.
The local authority has CPO powers, as now (and no, they're not only used for motorways etc.), but that's not the main point, which is that keeping land with planning permission on hold while waiting for a buyer will become very expensive, to the point that most businesses will want to build or sell ("use it or lose itr"). But if they want to pay the escalating tax and enrich the community, that's fine too.
I can't see anything very revolutionary in any of that. Obviously it needs detail, but Stalinism it ain't.
Quit the jokes Dave.
It's a similar reason why drug legalisation is not happening. No parent wants their child to take drugs, even if they logically accept that having them legal and regulated would be safer.
Of course there's a world of difference between a welfare safety net and living on welfare for life, but in modern politics nuance always loses.
Having to apply for housing benefit because your job does not pay enough, or having to apply for JSA because you have been made redundant, is not about rejecting aspiration. That Tories such as yourself think it is shows just how out of touch you are.
Ed Miliband made the biggest move, yes, without a doubt. But he moved to the left.
I can hear Blair and his coterie tutting. What's the first rule for winning elections? Push your opponent to their extreme. Blair spent all his waking moments pushing the Tories to the right because he knew they couldn't win from there. The reverse applies to Labour: they can't win from the left.
Elections are won in the middle ground, in the marginal seats among swing voters. Tacking to the left may take Labour's majority in my area (Caerphilly) from 50% to 70%, much like Hague managed to up the Tory vote share in his uber-rich Shires, but it won't likely translate into votes in marginals.
Ed may have won the unimportant battle of the last fortnight (I agree he has), but he's positioned himself in a worse spot when it comes to winning the war.
If I were the Tories I'd spend the next 18 months making the 'socialist' tag stick. With Ed's help. Election maestro Blair will be turning in his heated pool.
It makes you wonder.
Some Tories, of course, have shown their fundamental decency, like Iain Dale - "The sound of Tory ministers frantically trying to avoid upsetting the Daily Mail is truly nauseating. They need to grow a collective pair."
As a blueprint for new primary legislation, your outline appears plausible.
But as an argument in justification of extending CPO legislation to relate to the new circumstances of a private development of residential buildings on land not required for any other purpose, it fails for the reasons outlined by antifransky, the USSR Commissar for Legal Affairs.
He's doing Miliband no favours.
The Mail is a horrible newspaper, but as long as they don't break the law they can do whatever they like.
It's not up to the Tories to berate them. It's a personal battle between Ed and the Mail.
I suspect their patience might be boundless in this one case.
Currently we have lots of debt and are still spending beyond our means. No country can afford to do that indefinitely. Debt run up by our generation is simply tax receipts taken from our children, they'll have to pay it back.
Oh Come on. David Cameron's back ground and eduction has been brought up incessantly in the last three years. He's probably thinking 'hello Ed, welcome to my world'.
Its been inferred on countless occasions here and elsewhere that Cam's upbringing alone makes him unfit for government. ''Incompetent fops.....chinless chumocracy....completely out of touch...never had to balance a budget......' etc etc etc etc.....there are thousands of examples.
Has Ed Milliband ever stepped in and said - stop it, Cameron's background is his own business, he couldn't choose it, lets fight him on his policies ,not his trust fund. Has he f7ck
And suddenly when Ed's background is examined once, a background he lauded and said was his inspiration, he has an enormous moan.
I see ROberts put his hand up. I couldn't disagree more with him, but at least he had the honesty and courage to step forward.
Its OK, ever since Ed became leader he issued a blanket ban on labour people using Cameron's background as a basis for claiming he was unfit for government. Ed insisted on fighting on the issues.
Oh wait.....
Or he wants to fight on the issues?
Hope to see you at the next one!
' Campbell has posted the odious man's address.'
Would be much better for Ed if he kept Comical Ali well away from this.
Mary Ann Sieghart says this which is a good point .
"The other difficulty for the Tories is that the populist bribes that Labour is offering don’t cost any money, whereas the Conservative ones do. Labour’s promise to freeze energy bills may not work, but what’s certain is that the money won’t come out of Treasury coffers. The cost will either be borne by the energy companies or passed on to the consumer before or after the freeze.
By contrast, freezing fuel duty, as George Osborne promised to do this week, is expensive. So is giving a tax break to married couples. So are free school meals for infants. Even the Help to Buy scheme will cost the Treasury money if borrowers default."
http://www.smf.co.uk/marketsquare/guest/camerons-populism-headache/
What happens when the reason they cannot build within the timescale is out of their hands? When the local council are being obstructive (as does happen)? When the economics of the plans don't add up due to changes in the market? When a couple of hoping to build a house are having trouble with the mortgage?
This will harm not just big companies, but many small builders and individuals. Indeed, it will hurt the latter disproportionately.
In addition, IANAE but ISTR that the planning is not seen to lapse if work has started, e.g. foundations dug. That's an obvious loophole, right there.
I want *you* to lodge the future plans for your company three years in advance with your local council. If you don't meet your objectives, they'll take part of your business off you. Okay?
If it's a dying dinosaur then Ed's not really taking on the strong, he's simply kicking some old men when they're down.
If it's an untamed beast then reports of its death are premature and press posturing is pretty stupid.
In either event we can at least count on him seeking to put people out work asap. Same old Labour.
I'm a Lib Dem and posted approval for Clegg's speech, I doubt it changed anyone's mind about it. But it's what I thought so I posted it on a forum.
Do you get a buzz out of this kind of "why the f*cking f*ck did you bother to post that you dull b*stard" post? Because you do it every so often and I'm not sure what you expect to get out of it apart from that.
Keep up the good work, Comrade!
Labour - the people who can't do sums.
No - I don't believe that what I, or anyone says on PB, changes anything. But It was the case. Cameron cannot tell a joke to save his life.
The difference with the new towns and most CPOs is that the public authority isn't undertaking to use the land for something else (unless there's a part of the plan I've missed), they will pass it on to some other developer(?).
I think a well-designed scheme could work, but there would be more bureaucracy attached than I think might otherwise be anticipated.
VAT = 25%
Income tax = 25% (no 40% or any of that nonsense)
Interest rates = 25%
Forgiveable juvenilia perhaps but The Mail went on to quote published writings of a forty five year old Ralph Miliband in which he wrote of his disdain for the British Establishment, saying it included: "Eton and Harrow, Oxford and Cambridge, the great Clubs, The Times [pre-Murdoch], the Church, the Army, the respectable Sunday papers ... the House of Lords ... social hierarchies, God Save the Queen".
The Mail headlined their article "The Man Who Hated Britain". An exaggeration perhaps but not one which had no valid base for argument.
And yes you are correct, you cannot libel the dead.
Do you use Cotswold crunchy flour too?
How different are these proposals really?
Oh is Lord Sugar on message about Ed's big wheeze as well?
Cathy Newman@cathynewman1h
Exclusive: @Lord_Sugar says concerned if @Ed_Miliband energy price freeze gets implemented, cd be "tantamount to nationalisation" #c4news
Government can't create jobs - only private sector can!
'He's in their pocket, but maybe Miliband will help him grow a spine'
Can you remind us where Ed's spine was,when he was part of Brown's inner circle and knew exactly what McBride was doing & he did sweet FA.
Spineless or OK as long as Labour was doing the smearing?
"Five of the world's ten best selling artists, last year, were Chinese."
I'm not at all surprised. I saw two stunning and quite separate exhibitions of Chinese art last year and they were as innovative and creative as any contemporary work I've seen.
Politicians mean that they will try and do their bit better to help create more jobs.