Is there anyone here on PB who's planning to vote TIG at the Euro elections?
I know we're an atypical bunch, but you'd expect there to be at least one putative TIGger in our ranks.
edit: ah, I see kle4 posted at the same time
Do we know which MEP coalition they are aligning themselves with?
There were reports a couple of days ago that they would sit with the EPP group.
Thank you. That would be logical, if true, but it would also be a good reason not to vote for them given Manfred Weber comes across as a less drunk version of Juncker.
No, the two Tory renegades have returned to the EPP. TIG had been clear this sets no precedent for their post-election group, if they have one.
Is there anyone here on PB who's planning to vote TIG at the Euro elections?
I know we're an atypical bunch, but you'd expect there to be at least one putative TIGger in our ranks.
edit: ah, I see kle4 posted at the same time
Do we know which MEP coalition they are aligning themselves with?
There were reports a couple of days ago that they would sit with the EPP group.
Thank you. That would be logical, if true, but it would also be a good reason not to vote for them given Manfred Weber comes across as a less drunk version of Juncker.
No, the two Tory renegades have returned to the EPP. TIG had been clear this sets no precedent for their post-election group, if they have one.
So basically, voting for them is in every way a protest and wasted vote?
If I'm honest, it does sound pretty tempting when put that way...
That's a very interesting comment, and I think entirely right. House prices are the big issue here, with even wealthy families saying their kids have to leave the area altogether when they leave home.
The Council local plan is completely brazen about it - they concede there is indeed a serious shortage of affordable housing, but they have explicitly decided not to address it, because if they did then "the usual formula" (of only a fifth of housing being "affordable") would mean they had to build lots more non-affordable housing too, and that would mean too much house-building. Whether this "usual formula" is a legal requirement or just something they've made up I can't make out - does anyone know?
My understanding, although I am no lawyer, is that at least 20% of any major development must be 'affordable.' I cannot see how that would stop them building a development that was 100% affordable.
However, my suspicion is that they would work only via developers who would insist on the full 80% luxury to maximise their profits. So essentially, a policy decision by Surrey.
Thanks - that's my suspicion too. Given the demand for housing space, I assume that it's possible to find developers who will build say 50% affordable housing if the alternative is refusal. They would pay less in CIL (new roads etc.) if the total value was less, but we have a shortage of housing more noticeably than a shortage of roads.
Is there anyone here on PB who's planning to vote TIG at the Euro elections?
I know we're an atypical bunch, but you'd expect there to be at least one putative TIGger in our ranks.
edit: ah, I see kle4 posted at the same time
Do we know which MEP coalition they are aligning themselves with?
There were reports a couple of days ago that they would sit with the EPP group.
Thank you. That would be logical, if true, but it would also be a good reason not to vote for them given Manfred Weber comes across as a less drunk version of Juncker.
No, the two Tory renegades have returned to the EPP. TIG had been clear this sets no precedent for their post-election group, if they have one.
Wait and see if they have any MEPs before worrying which group they might sit with.
David Spiegelhalter is giving a talk at 8pm on R4 on "the risk makers". No doubt the "professor for the public understanding of luck" as he is described in the Radio Times will hold up a mirror for denizens of PB. (He is actually the Winton Professor of the Public Understanding of Risk in the Statistical Laboratory at the University of Cambridge.)
Is there anyone here on PB who's planning to vote TIG at the Euro elections?
I know we're an atypical bunch, but you'd expect there to be at least one putative TIGger in our ranks.
edit: ah, I see kle4 posted at the same time
I would have been up for it, had they looked the best prospect to break the mould. But I am expecting them to put one of the renegade Tory MEPs high on the list in my region, and that isn't change UK, at all. So I'll probably vote LibDem as usual.
Incidentally the vote share ranking between TIG and LibDem will probably have a big influence on its future prospects IMO.
Is there anyone here on PB who's planning to vote TIG at the Euro elections?
I know we're an atypical bunch, but you'd expect there to be at least one putative TIGger in our ranks.
edit: ah, I see kle4 posted at the same time
Do we know which MEP coalition they are aligning themselves with?
There were reports a couple of days ago that they would sit with the EPP group.
Thank you. That would be logical, if true, but it would also be a good reason not to vote for them given Manfred Weber comes across as a less drunk version of Juncker.
Edit - I'm personally in a horribly difficult position in this election because I think the Socialist candidate for EUCC is by far the best, but I'm damned if I'll vote for a party associated with Corbyn.
Talking of less drunk versions of juncker do we think Diane Abbott might have issues? Her difficulty with figures last year ago had definite shades of Charlie Kennedy
The key aspect is shown in the graph on page 7 on the last link - our business investment has fallen from being one of the highest in the G7 to the lowest following the referendum.
I have a theory that housing affordability is a key factor.
In Surrey house prices must lead to high inequality, lower social mobility and lower immigration thus keeping a solid Labour council estate vote.
Whereas the cheap housing of much of Eastern England spreads home ownership further down the socioeconomic ladder and also encourages immigration thus creating a more right-wing working class vote.
The source of the wealth for the posh houses must be different between Surrey and Broxtowe with the former being predominantly City based but a much more public sector element in Broxtowe.
That's a very interesting comment, and I think entirely right. House prices are the big issue here, with even wealthy families saying their kids have to leave the area altogether when they leave home.
The Council local plan is completely brazen about it - they concede there is indeed a serious shortage of affordable housing, but they have explicitly decided not to address it, because if they did then "the usual formula" (of only a fifth of housing being "affordable") would mean they had to build lots more non-affordable housing too, and that would mean too much house-building. Whether this "usual formula" is a legal requirement or just something they've made up I can't make out - does anyone know?
My understanding, although I am no lawyer, is that at least 20% of any major development must be 'affordable.' I cannot see how that would stop them building a development that was 100% affordable.
However, my suspicion is that they would work only via developers who would insist on the full 80% luxury to maximise their profits. So essentially, a policy decision by Surrey.
Exactly. The affordable housing % is a minimum, if one often not achieved. Nick is misunderstanding if the argument is that it forces lots of unaffordable build.
Is there anyone here on PB who's planning to vote TIG at the Euro elections?
I know we're an atypical bunch, but you'd expect there to be at least one putative TIGger in our ranks.
edit: ah, I see kle4 posted at the same time
Do we know which MEP coalition they are aligning themselves with?
There were reports a couple of days ago that they would sit with the EPP group.
Thank you. That would be logical, if true, but it would also be a good reason not to vote for them given Manfred Weber comes across as a less drunk version of Juncker.
Edit - I'm personally in a horribly difficult position in this election because I think the Socialist candidate for EUCC is by far the best, but I'm damned if I'll vote for a party associated with Corbyn.
Talking of less drunk versions of juncker do we think Diane Abbott might have issues? Her difficulty with figures last year ago had definite shades of Charlie Kennedy
Is there anyone here on PB who's planning to vote TIG at the Euro elections?
I know we're an atypical bunch, but you'd expect there to be at least one putative TIGger in our ranks.
edit: ah, I see kle4 posted at the same time
Do we know which MEP coalition they are aligning themselves with?
There were reports a couple of days ago that they would sit with the EPP group.
Thank you. That would be logical, if true, but it would also be a good reason not to vote for them given Manfred Weber comes across as a less drunk version of Juncker.
Edit - I'm personally in a horribly difficult position in this election because I think the Socialist candidate for EUCC is by far the best, but I'm damned if I'll vote for a party associated with Corbyn.
Talking of less drunk versions of juncker do we think Diane Abbott might have issues? Her difficulty with figures last year ago had definite shades of Charlie Kennedy
I suspect so, but hard to be sure. A number of her media appearances suggest a bit too long in the green room. Possibly I am making 2 and 2 make 5, and it is other health issues.
That's a very interesting comment, and I think entirely right. House prices are the big issue here, with even wealthy families saying their kids have to leave the area altogether when they leave home.
The Council local plan is completely brazen about it - they concede there is indeed a serious shortage of affordable housing, but they have explicitly decided not to address it, because if they did then "the usual formula" (of only a fifth of housing being "affordable") would mean they had to build lots more non-affordable housing too, and that would mean too much house-building. Whether this "usual formula" is a legal requirement or just something they've made up I can't make out - does anyone know?
My understanding, although I am no lawyer, is that at least 20% of any major development must be 'affordable.' I cannot see how that would stop them building a development that was 100% affordable.
However, my suspicion is that they would work only via developers who would insist on the full 80% luxury to maximise their profits. So essentially, a policy decision by Surrey.
Thanks - that's my suspicion too. Given the demand for housing space, I assume that it's possible to find developers who will build say 50% affordable housing if the alternative is refusal. They would pay less in CIL (new roads etc.) if the total value was less, but we have a shortage of housing more noticeably than a shortage of roads.
I disagree. Developers are usually happy to sit on land for a couple of years under such circumstances until there is a change of heart. Bear in mind, in Surrey the value will only appreciate.
That is why although I disagree with Corbyn on so many things I can definitely see merit in a programme of municipal social house building. My big misgiving is that I doubt if the money would be forthcoming to pay for it.
An important story, recognising the real damage a Tory leadership contest pandering to the petty obsessions of its members could do to national policy:
Exactly. The affordable housing % is a minimum, if one often not achieved. Nick is misunderstanding if the argument is that it forces lots of unaffordable build.
Well, that's what I thought. But it's not my misunderstanding - the council is saying that they won't build more affordable homes because if they did they'd need to build silly numbers of non-affordable homes because of a "theoretical policy requirement"::
"...The Council considers that it is not appropriate to set a local plan target for new housing to ensure that the 314 new affordable homes needed a year are delivered...if Waverley were to theoretically meet a figure of 314 new affordable dwellings a year, then overall 897 new homes a year would be required in Waverley (based on a theoretical policy requirement of 35% of new homes on all housing developments to be affordable). This would not be realistic as it would result in delivery rates higher than anywhere across England (over a sustained period) over the last 15 years, or over the pre-recession decade."
I'm about to criticise this on social media, but thought I'd check with the brains trust here first.
Is there anyone here on PB who's planning to vote TIG at the Euro elections?
I know we're an atypical bunch, but you'd expect there to be at least one putative TIGger in our ranks.
edit: ah, I see kle4 posted at the same time
Do we know which MEP coalition they are aligning themselves with?
There were reports a couple of days ago that they would sit with the EPP group.
Thank you. That would be logical, if true, but it would also be a good reason not to vote for them given Manfred Weber comes across as a less drunk version of Juncker.
Edit - I'm personally in a horribly difficult position in this election because I think the Socialist candidate for EUCC is by far the best, but I'm damned if I'll vote for a party associated with Corbyn.
Talking of less drunk versions of juncker do we think Diane Abbott might have issues? Her difficulty with figures last year ago had definite shades of Charlie Kennedy
I suspect so, but hard to be sure. A number of her media appearances suggest a bit too long in the green room. Possibly I am making 2 and 2 make 5, and it is other health issues.
Slightly odd walking on to a tube with a kids cocktail even if it wasn't illegal.
Exactly. The affordable housing % is a minimum, if one often not achieved. Nick is misunderstanding if the argument is that it forces lots of unaffordable build.
Well, that's what I thought. But it's not my misunderstanding - the council is saying that they won't build more affordable homes because if they did they'd need to build silly numbers of non-affordable homes because of a "theoretical policy requirement"::
"...The Council considers that it is not appropriate to set a local plan target for new housing to ensure that the 314 new affordable homes needed a year are delivered...if Waverley were to theoretically meet a figure of 314 new affordable dwellings a year, then overall 897 new homes a year would be required in Waverley (based on a theoretical policy requirement of 35% of new homes on all housing developments to be affordable). This would not be realistic as it would result in delivery rates higher than anywhere across England (over a sustained period) over the last 15 years, or over the pre-recession decade."
I'm about to criticise this on social media, but thought I'd check with the brains trust here first.
To be blunt, that statement strikes me as pretty fair bollocks. There is nothing in law that I can see to stop them building 400 houses a year and making them all affordable. The issue would be, who would fund it?
And that's why working through developers is ultimately a bad way of building affordable housing. For a slight increase in costs, they can build something that will have thrice the value. Obviously, therefore, they will fight to build for the upper end. That means somebody who has to be willing to accept a lower financial return needs to step in - be that housing associations, the local council, or local employers.
Is there anyone here on PB who's planning to vote TIG at the Euro elections?
I know we're an atypical bunch, but you'd expect there to be at least one putative TIGger in our ranks.
edit: ah, I see kle4 posted at the same time
Do we know which MEP coalition they are aligning themselves with?
There were reports a couple of days ago that they would sit with the EPP group.
Thank you. That would be logical, if true, but it would also be a good reason not to vote for them given Manfred Weber comes across as a less drunk version of Juncker.
Edit - I'm personally in a horribly difficult position in this election because I think the Socialist candidate for EUCC is by far the best, but I'm damned if I'll vote for a party associated with Corbyn.
Talking of less drunk versions of juncker do we think Diane Abbott might have issues? Her difficulty with figures last year ago had definite shades of Charlie Kennedy
I suspect so, but hard to be sure. A number of her media appearances suggest a bit too long in the green room. Possibly I am making 2 and 2 make 5, and it is other health issues.
Slightly odd walking on to a tube with a kids cocktail even if it wasn't illegal.
A cry for help from left behind Communities , really if that was the case I’d have been a lot more accepting of the result .
Even though they chose to take their anger out on the wrong thing . The government really should have been the cause of their anger .
A big part of the Leave vote was due to well off Tories in the Shires , the same group who want a no deal and really have little to lose whilst fxcking everyone else .
Can you explain then why the wealthiest Tory shires of the M4 and M3 corridors voted Remain?
After all Cameron, Osborne etc are entirely representative of the wealthy Tory patrician class, and they are liberal remainers.
Or how if the Leave vote was mostly wealthy Tories, why so few went to university?
Maybe you are talking bollocks.
Fair point, but the explanation is that *fewer than expected* posh people voted remain, not *None*
No, that’s not the assertion. This false narrative has been seeping in from the Remain camp that actually Leave is some Machiavellian scheme of the most well-off to screw over the poor.
The narrative in question comes from the "Three Tribes" theory of Matthew Goodwin, who postulates that the Leave vote was an alliance of three tribes: the poor, the retired, and wealthy social conservatives. Of those three tribes, only the poor fit your preferred narrative.
A large hoard of cash has been found at the home of Sudan's ousted president Omar al-Bashir and he is now being investigated for money laundering, prosecutors say.
How much you ask...a few grand....a few hundred grands perhaps ...£100 million.
The window cleaner must charge a fortune to need to have that much cash on hand
A large hoard of cash has been found at the home of Sudan's ousted president Omar al-Bashir and he is now being investigated for money laundering, prosecutors say.
How much you ask...a few grand....a few hundred grands perhaps ...£100 million.
The window cleaner must charge a fortune to need to have that much cash on hand
Much though it pains me to offer a possible defence for such an absolute Tristram Hunt, I would point out that observant Muslims are not supposed to deposit money in banks which offer usury. So it wouldn't be absolute stupid for him to keep his money in his house.
A more pertinent question might be, how has a man who was living in one of the poorest countries on earth amassed that amount of money in the first place? I'm guessing it wasn't saved out of his housekeeping...
Yesterday's somewhat downbeat anecdata quoted by Mike wasn't mirrored today, incidentally - rather positive Labour canvassing. I think the reason for the difference is that socioeconomic group does still make a difference down here in a way that it barely does in my former patch. I was canvassing a long road yesterday which allegedly has one of the highest proportions of £1M+houses in Britain (I doubt it, but it's certainly posh), and the Labour vote there is only 10%. In Broxtowe there are similarly luxurious streets where Labour is above 30% - lots of academics brandishing the Guardian and even the occasional Morning Star. Conversely, ex-council estates in Broxtowe are now hard work for Labour, with lots of Kippers, Tories and abstainers, whereas down here they're still predominantly Labour.
I have a theory that housing affordability is a key factor.
In Surrey house prices must lead to high inequality, lower social mobility and lower immigration thus keeping a solid Labour council estate vote.
Whereas the cheap housing of much of Eastern England spreads home ownership further down the socioeconomic ladder and also encourages immigration thus creating a more right-wing working class vote.
The source of the wealth for the posh houses must be different between Surrey and Broxtowe with the former being predominantly City based but a much more public sector element in Broxtowe.
I like your theory, but you did lose me at "cheap housing of much of Eastern England" . Perhaps "far less expensive than London but still way, way more than County Durham" would be closer to the truth.
A large hoard of cash has been found at the home of Sudan's ousted president Omar al-Bashir and he is now being investigated for money laundering, prosecutors say.
How much you ask...a few grand....a few hundred grands perhaps ...£100 million.
The window cleaner must charge a fortune to need to have that much cash on hand
Much though it pains me to offer a possible defence for such an absolute Tristram Hunt, I would point out that observant Muslims are not supposed to deposit money in banks which offer usury. So it wouldn't be absolute stupid for him to keep his money in his house.
A more pertinent question might be, how has a man who was living in one of the poorest countries on earth amassed that amount of money in the first place? I'm guessing it wasn't saved out of his housekeeping...
A large hoard of cash has been found at the home of Sudan's ousted president Omar al-Bashir and he is now being investigated for money laundering, prosecutors say.
How much you ask...a few grand....a few hundred grands perhaps ...£100 million.
The window cleaner must charge a fortune to need to have that much cash on hand
Much though it pains me to offer a possible defence for such an absolute Tristram Hunt, I would point out that observant Muslims are not supposed to deposit money in banks which offer usury. So it wouldn't be absolute stupid for him to keep his money in his house.
A more pertinent question might be, how has a man who was living in one of the poorest countries on earth amassed that amount of money in the first place? I'm guessing it wasn't saved out of his housekeeping...
Basically Woking Borough Council have borrowed £500m to build three tower blocks in the centre of the town. They argue that either they do this or they'll have to let developers build on the green belt. It's interesting to read @NickPalmer say that other parts of Surrey don't feel compelled to do the same.
Personally I don't care about house prices being high around where I live. I think immigration has been too high and interest rates are too low, but I don't see why local tax payers should be on the hook for mismanagement by national politicians.
Is there anyone here on PB who's planning to vote TIG at the Euro elections?
I know we're an atypical bunch, but you'd expect there to be at least one putative TIGger in our ranks.
edit: ah, I see kle4 posted at the same time
Do we know which MEP coalition they are aligning themselves with?
There were reports a couple of days ago that they would sit with the EPP group.
Thank you. That would be logical, if true, but it would also be a good reason not to vote for them given Manfred Weber comes across as a less drunk version of Juncker.
Edit - I'm personally in a horribly difficult position in this election because I think the Socialist candidate for EUCC is by far the best, but I'm damned if I'll vote for a party associated with Corbyn.
Talking of less drunk versions of juncker do we think Diane Abbott might have issues? Her difficulty with figures last year ago had definite shades of Charlie Kennedy
I suspect so, but hard to be sure. A number of her media appearances suggest a bit too long in the green room. Possibly I am making 2 and 2 make 5, and it is other health issues.
Slightly odd walking on to a tube with a kids cocktail even if it wasn't illegal.
Exactly. The affordable housing % is a minimum, if one often not achieved. Nick is misunderstanding if the argument is that it forces lots of unaffordable build.
Well, that's what I thought. But it's not my misunderstanding - the council is saying that they won't build more affordable homes because if they did they'd need to build silly numbers of non-affordable homes because of a "theoretical policy de."
I'm about to criticise this on social media, but thought I'd check with the brains trust here first.
To be blunt, that statement strikes me as pretty fair bollocks. There is nothing in law that I can see to stop them building 400 houses a year and making them all affordable. The issue would be, who would fund it?
And that's why working through developers is ultimately a bad way of building affordable housing. For a slight increase in costs, they can build something that will have thrice the value. Obviously, therefore, they will fight to build for the upper end. That means somebody who has to be willing to accept a lower financial return needs to step in - be that housing associations, the local council, or local employers.
Yes. Based on my experience as a councillor (now possibly a couple of years out of date), the way it worked was as follows. When the local plan was being agreed, councillors would get worked up about the need for affordable housing in the area, and there would be a big debate about whether the minimum proportion should be 20%, 25% or even 40%. Whatever figure was agreed would be written into policy as applying to all developments over a minimum size (say of 15 or 20 units or more).
In practice thereafter, many development proposals would come in just under that unit threshold (even to the extent of developing a large site in stages, each below the threshold). Or, where a large development was being proposed, the developer would come along to the council and say "look, we don't really make any money from these affordable housing units, and putting a bunch of 'council flats' in the middle of our luxury development will make the private units much less attractive. So how about we give you some money to build some affordable housing somewhere else, and in return you waive the criteria?"
And the council would say "yes, here is our sort code and account number", and a six figure sum of money (known as a "commuted housing payment") would drop into the council's accounts, and the developer would go ahead and not build any affordable housing. In theory, the money the council received was to provide affordable housing elsewhere, but in practice, partly because councils are so strapped for cash and partly because they were so restricted in developing their own housing, the cash simply disappeared into the budget and was never seen again.
Is there anyone here on PB who's planning to vote TIG at the Euro elections?
I know we're an atypical bunch, but you'd expect there to be at least one putative TIGger in our ranks.
edit: ah, I see kle4 posted at the same time
Do we know which MEP coalition they are aligning themselves with?
There were reports a couple of days ago that they would sit with the EPP group.
Thank you. That would be logical, if true, but it would also be a good reason not to vote for them given Manfred Weber comes across as a less drunk version of Juncker.
Edit - I'm personally in a horribly difficult position in this election because I think the Socialist candidate for EUCC is by far the best, but I'm damned if I'll vote for a party associated with Corbyn.
Talking of less drunk versions of juncker do we think Diane Abbott might have issues? Her difficulty with figures last year ago had definite shades of Charlie Kennedy
I suspect so, but hard to be sure. A number of her media appearances suggest a bit too long in the green room. Possibly I am making 2 and 2 make 5, and it is other health issues.
Slightly odd walking on to a tube with a kids cocktail even if it wasn't illegal.
And so the puritans diagnose someone as an alcoholic. The evidence. One can of weak pre-mixed cocktail (total units: about half a pint of beer) on a train.
Yesterday's somewhat downbeat anecdata quoted by Mike wasn't mirrored today, incidentally - rather positive Labour canvassing. I think the reason for the difference is that socioeconomic group does still make a difference down here in a way that it barely does in my former patch. I was canvassing a long road yesterday which allegedly has one of the highest proportions of £1M+houses in Britain (I doubt it, but it's certainly posh), and the Labour vote there is only 10%. In Broxtowe there are similarly luxurious streets where Labour is above 30% - lots of academics brandishing the Guardian and even the occasional Morning Star. Conversely, ex-council estates in Broxtowe are now hard work for Labour, with lots of Kippers, Tories and abstainers, whereas down here they're still predominantly Labour.
I have a theory that housing affordability is a key factor.
In Surrey house prices must lead to high inequality, lower social mobility and lower immigration thus keeping a solid Labour council estate vote.
Whereas the cheap housing of much of Eastern England spreads home ownership further down the socioeconomic ladder and also encourages immigration thus creating a more right-wing working class vote.
The source of the wealth for the posh houses must be different between Surrey and Broxtowe with the former being predominantly City based but a much more public sector element in Broxtowe.
I like your theory, but you did lose me at "cheap housing of much of Eastern England" . Perhaps "far less expensive than London but still way, way more than County Durham" would be closer to the truth.
Where is the cheapest housing in England? If I had to make a wild guess I would point to somewhere like Maryport, but I can imagine it might be say, Bury or Bradford or Stoke.
A cry for help from left behind Communities , really if that was the case I’d have been a lot more accepting of the result .
Even though they chose to take their anger out on the wrong thing . The government really should have been the cause of their anger .
A big part of the Leave vote was due to well off Tories in the Shires , the same group who want a no deal and really have little to lose whilst fxcking everyone else .
Can you explain then why the wealthiest Tory shires of the M4 and M3 corridors voted Remain?
After all Cameron, Osborne etc are entirely representative of the wealthy Tory patrician class, and they are liberal remainers.
Or how if the Leave vote was mostly wealthy Tories, why so few went to university?
Maybe you are talking bollocks.
Fair point, but the explanation is that *fewer than expected* posh people voted remain, not *None*
No, that’s not the assertion. This false narrative has been seeping in from the Remain camp that actually Leave is some Machiavellian scheme of the most well-off to screw over the poor.
The truth is precisely the opposite. The places with the greatest concentrations of wealth voted Remain.
It’s blatant. Take a look at Kent, a very leavey place. The wealthiest part is Tunbridge Wells, it’s the destination of choice for City workers for example. Just as true-blue Tory as elsewhere, yet it’s the only part of the county to vote Remain.
Amazing how people who understand how the economy works voted not to destroy it. Didn't see that one coming!
LOL, good luck with that one. There’s very few international airlines around in which neither Qatar nor Etihad have a stake. As you know, the whole industry is running on tiny margins and these two large investors have prevented a lot of failures, as well as providing strategic investment opportunities. Occasionally they screw up, such as we saw last week with Jet Airways in India - Etihad deciding there not to throw any more good money after bad.
Basically Woking Borough Council have borrowed £500m to build three tower blocks in the centre of the town. They argue that either they do this or they'll have to let developers build on the green belt. It's interesting to read @NickPalmer say that other parts of Surrey don't feel compelled to do the same.
Personally I don't care about house prices being high around where I live. I think immigration has been too high and interest rates are too low, but I don't see why local tax payers should be on the hook for mismanagement by national politicians.
Are those the big blocks being built near the station, on the west side of the line?
Yes. Based on my experience as a councillor (now possibly a couple of years out of date), the way it worked was as follows. When the local plan was being agreed, councillors would get worked up about the need for affordable housing in the area, and there would be a big debate about whether the minimum proportion should be 20%, 25% or even 40%. Whatever figure was agreed would be written into policy as applying to all developments over a minimum size (say of 15 or 20 units or more).
In practice thereafter, many development proposals would come in just under that unit threshold (even to the extent of developing a large site in stages, each below the threshold). Or, where a large development was being proposed, the developer would come along to the council and say "look, we don't really make any money from these affordable housing units, and putting a bunch of 'council flats' in the middle of our luxury development will make the private units much less attractive. So how about we give you some money to build some affordable housing somewhere else, and in return you waive the criteria?"
And the council would say "yes, here is our sort code and account number", and a six figure sum of money (known as a "commuted housing payment") would drop into the council's accounts, and the developer would go ahead and not build any affordable housing. In theory, the money the council received was to provide affordable housing elsewhere, but in practice, partly because councils are so strapped for cash and partly because they were so restricted in developing their own housing, the cash simply disappeared into the budget and was never seen again.
Which is roughly what has happened in both Staffordshire (although the need isn't especially acute there) and the Forest of Dean.
Basically Woking Borough Council have borrowed £500m to build three tower blocks in the centre of the town. They argue that either they do this or they'll have to let developers build on the green belt. It's interesting to read @NickPalmer say that other parts of Surrey don't feel compelled to do the same.
Personally I don't care about house prices being high around where I live. I think immigration has been too high and interest rates are too low, but I don't see why local tax payers should be on the hook for mismanagement by national politicians.
Are those the big blocks being built near the station, on the west side of the line?
Yesterday's somewhat downbeat anecdata quoted by Mike wasn't mirrored today, incidentally - rather positive Labour canvassing. I think the reason for the difference is that socioeconomic group does still make a difference down here in a way that it barely does in my former patch. I was canvassing a long road yesterday which allegedly has one of the highest proportions of £1M+houses in Britain (I doubt it, but it's certainly posh), and the Labour vote there is only 10%. In Broxtowe there are similarly luxurious streets where Labour is above 30% - lots of academics brandishing the Guardian and even the occasional Morning Star. Conversely, ex-council estates in Broxtowe are now hard work for Labour, with lots of Kippers, Tories and abstainers, whereas down here they're still predominantly Labour.
I have a theory that housing affordability is a key factor.
In Surrey house prices must lead to high inequality, lower social mobility and lower immigration thus keeping a solid Labour council estate vote.
Whereas the cheap housing of much of Eastern England spreads home ownership further down the socioeconomic ladder and also encourages immigration thus creating a more right-wing working class vote.
The source of the wealth for the posh houses must be different between Surrey and Broxtowe with the former being predominantly City based but a much more public sector element in Broxtowe.
I like your theory, but you did lose me at "cheap housing of much of Eastern England" . Perhaps "far less expensive than London but still way, way more than County Durham" would be closer to the truth.
Where is the cheapest housing in England? If I had to make a wild guess I would point to somewhere like Maryport, but I can imagine it might be say, Bury or Bradford or Stoke.
I am on the tablet for I'm on the train (again), so I can't do some proper searches. But if I'd have to guess I'd go for County Durham way up north. Elsewise it'd be Stoke. Anybody got any better answers?
Yesterday's somewhat downbeat anecdata quoted by Mike wasn't mirrored today, incidentally - rather positive Labour canvassing. I think the reason for the difference is that socioeconomic group does still make a difference down here in a way that it barely does in my former patch. I was canvassing a long road yesterday which allegedly has one of the highest proportions of £1M+houses in Britain (I doubt it, but it's certainly posh), and the Labour vote there is only 10%. In Broxtowe there are similarly luxurious streets where Labour is above 30% - lots of academics brandishing the Guardian and even the occasional Morning Star. Conversely, ex-council estates in Broxtowe are now hard work for Labour, with lots of Kippers, Tories and abstainers, whereas down here they're still predominantly Labour.
I have a theory that housing affordability is a key factor.
In Surrey house prices must lead to high inequality, lower social mobility and lower immigration thus keeping a solid Labour council estate vote.
Whereas the cheap housing of much of Eastern England spreads home ownership further down the socioeconomic ladder and also encourages immigration thus creating a more right-wing working class vote.
The source of the wealth for the posh houses must be different between Surrey and Broxtowe with the former being predominantly City based but a much more public sector element in Broxtowe.
I like your theory, but you did lose me at "cheap housing of much of Eastern England" . Perhaps "far less expensive than London but still way, way more than County Durham" would be closer to the truth.
Where is the cheapest housing in England? If I had to make a wild guess I would point to somewhere like Maryport, but I can imagine it might be say, Bury or Bradford or Stoke.
Aren't there parts of Liverpool, South Wales, and I think somewhere in the North East (Hull?) where delapidated housing was being given away for a nominal amount if someone agreed to live there and renovate?
Basically Woking Borough Council have borrowed £500m to build three tower blocks in the centre of the town. They argue that either they do this or they'll have to let developers build on the green belt. It's interesting to read @NickPalmer say that other parts of Surrey don't feel compelled to do the same.
Personally I don't care about house prices being high around where I live. I think immigration has been too high and interest rates are too low, but I don't see why local tax payers should be on the hook for mismanagement by national politicians.
Are those the big blocks being built near the station, on the west side of the line?
Yes they are.
There’s space for three more blocks next to the railway line in Woking?
I went through there on a train at Christmas for the first time in a decade or so, and there are dozens of new tower blocks there, of what look like nice apartments aimed at commuters.
Yesterday's somewhat downbeat anecdata quoted by Mike wasn't mirrored today, incidentally - rather positive Labour canvassing. I think the reason for the difference is that socioeconomic group does still make a difference down here in a way that it barely does in my former patch. I was canvassing a long road yesterday which allegedly has one of the highest proportions of £1M+houses in Britain (I doubt it, but it's certainly posh), and the Labour vote there is only 10%. In Broxtowe there are similarly luxurious streets where Labour is above 30% - lots of academics brandishing the Guardian and even the occasional Morning Star. Conversely, ex-council estates in Broxtowe are now hard work for Labour, with lots of Kippers, Tories and abstainers, whereas down here they're still predominantly Labour.
I have a theory that housing affordability is a key factor.
In Surrey house prices must lead to high inequality, lower social mobility and lower immigration thus keeping a solid Labour council estate vote.
Whereas the cheap housing of much of Eastern England spreads home ownership further down the socioeconomic ladder and also encourages immigration thus creating a more right-wing working class vote.
The source of the wealth for the posh houses must be different between Surrey and Broxtowe with the former being predominantly City based but a much more public sector element in Broxtowe.
I like your theory, but you did lose me at "cheap housing of much of Eastern England" . Perhaps "far less expensive than London but still way, way more than County Durham" would be closer to the truth.
Where is the cheapest housing in England? If I had to make a wild guess I would point to somewhere like Maryport, but I can imagine it might be say, Bury or Bradford or Stoke.
Aren't there parts of Liverpool, South Wales, and I think somewhere in the North East (Hull?) where delapidated housing was being given away for a nominal amount if someone agreed to live there and renovate?
Stoke is running a scheme along those lines - I think it's £50 and 5 years. But I wondered about places without such conditions.
To be blunt, that statement strikes me as pretty fair bollocks. There is nothing in law that I can see to stop them building 400 houses a year and making them all affordable. The issue would be, who would fund it?
It's somewhere between bollocks and not bollocks.
My reading is that they have to put an affordable housing percentage into the Local Plan. They're quoting 35% which is typical but unambitious. If you try putting (say) 80% in there then it'll get thrown out by the Inspector, so you need to find a percentage that will pass muster, given that all the developers will be lobbying against it at the inspection hearings. Our local plan (West Oxfordshire) is 40% in most of the district, 50% in the wealthiest rural areas, 35% only in the poorest area.
The problem is that if the Local Plan says "we need 8 gazillion new houses", evidenced by a well-reasoned SHMA, and if it then says "35% of these must be affordable", then it becomes very hard for the planning authority to turn down applications that accord with that. Ultimately the landowners are going to sell to the developers who offer the highest returns, so if Enlightened All-Affordable Developer and Rapacious Spivs Inc are competing for the same land, most landowners will sell to the latter.
So my campaigning suggestion would be to get a higher target, say 50%, in the Local Plan. You can point at other authorities and say "they have 50%, why has our sh-tty council adopted such a low figure". This depends on the state of adoption of your Local Plan, of course. There's nothing to stop an adopted Local Plan being modified but I guess you'd need to go through the inspection stage again for a significant modification like this, otherwise, again, the developers will haul you through the courts.
(not an expert, but represented our town council at the inspection hearing and went through a lot of the consultation palaver)
Yesterday's somewhat downbeat anecdata quoted by Mike wasn't mirrored today, incidentally - rather positive Labour canvassing. I think the reason for the difference is that socioeconomic group does still make a difference down here in a way that it barely does in my former patch. I was canvassing a long road yesterday which allegedly has one of the highest proportions of £1M+houses in Britain (I doubt it, but it's certainly posh), and the Labour vote there is only 10%. In Broxtowe there are similarly luxurious streets where Labour is above 30% - lots of academics brandishing the Guardian and even the occasional Morning Star. Conversely, ex-council estates in Broxtowe are now hard work for Labour, with lots of Kippers, Tories and abstainers, whereas down here they're still predominantly Labour.
I have a theory that housing affordability is a key factor.
In Surrey house prices must lead to high inequality, lower social mobility and lower immigration thus keeping a solid Labour council estate vote.
Whereas the cheap housing of much of Eastern England spreads home ownership further down the socioeconomic ladder and also encourages immigration thus creating a more right-wing working class vote.
The source of the wealth for the posh houses must be different between Surrey and Broxtowe with the former being predominantly City based but a much more public sector element in Broxtowe.
I like your theory, but you did lose me at "cheap housing of much of Eastern England" . Perhaps "far less expensive than London but still way, way more than County Durham" would be closer to the truth.
Where is the cheapest housing in England? If I had to make a wild guess I would point to somewhere like Maryport, but I can imagine it might be say, Bury or Bradford or Stoke.
I am on the tablet for I'm on the train (again), so I can't do some proper searches. But if I'd have to guess I'd go for County Durham way up north. Elsewise it'd be Stoke. Anybody got any better answers?
Sunderland is pretty cheap. Also Lancashire former mill towns - Bolton, Burnley etc.
Yesterday's somewhat downbeat anecdata quoted by Mike wasn't mirrored today, incidentally - rather positive Labour canvassing. I think the reason for the difference is that socioeconomic group does still make a difference down here in a way that it barely does in my former patch. I was canvassing a long road yesterday which allegedly has one of the highest proportions of £1M+houses in Britain (I doubt it, but it's certainly posh), and the Labour vote there is only 10%. In Broxtowe there are similarly luxurious streets where Labour is above 30% - lots of academics brandishing the Guardian and even the occasional Morning Star. Conversely, ex-council estates in Broxtowe are now hard work for Labour, with lots of Kippers, Tories and abstainers, whereas down here they're still predominantly Labour.
I have a theory that housing affordability is a key factor.
In Surrey house prices must lead to high inequality, lower social mobility and lower immigration thus keeping a solid Labour council estate vote.
Whereas the cheap housing of much of Eastern England spreads home ownership further down the socioeconomic ladder and also encourages immigration thus creating a more right-wing working class vote.
The source of the wealth for the posh houses must be different between Surrey and Broxtowe with the former being predominantly City based but a much more public sector element in Broxtowe.
I like your theory, but you did lose me at "cheap housing of much of Eastern England" . Perhaps "far less expensive than London but still way, way more than County Durham" would be closer to the truth.
Where is the cheapest housing in England? If I had to make a wild guess I would point to somewhere like Maryport, but I can imagine it might be say, Bury or Bradford or Stoke.
I am on the tablet for I'm on the train (again), so I can't do some proper searches. But if I'd have to guess I'd go for County Durham way up north. Elsewise it'd be Stoke. Anybody got any better answers?
To be blunt, that statement strikes me as pretty fair bollocks. There is nothing in law that I can see to stop them building 400 houses a year and making them all affordable. The issue would be, who would fund it?
It's somewhere between bollocks and not bollocks.
My reading is that they have to put an affordable housing percentage into the Local Plan. They're quoting 35% which is typical but unambitious. If you try putting (say) 80% in there then it'll get thrown out by the Inspector, so you need to find a percentage that will pass muster, given that all the developers will be lobbying against it at the inspection hearings. Our local plan (West Oxfordshire) is 40% in most of the district, 50% in the wealthiest rural areas, 35% only in the poorest area.
The problem is that if the Local Plan says "we need 8 gazillion new houses", evidenced by a well-reasoned SHMA, and if it then says "35% of these must be affordable", then it becomes very hard for the planning authority to turn down applications that accord with that. Ultimately the landowners are going to sell to the developers who offer the highest returns, so if Enlightened All-Affordable Developer and Rapacious Spivs Inc are competing for the same land, most landowners will sell to the latter.
So my campaigning suggestion would be to get a higher target, say 50%, in the Local Plan. You can point at other authorities and say "they have 50%, why has our sh-tty council adopted such a low figure". This depends on the state of adoption of your Local Plan, of course. There's nothing to stop an adopted Local Plan being modified but I guess you'd need to go through the inspection stage again for a significant modification like this, otherwise, again, the developers will haul you through the courts.
(not an expert, but represented our town council at the inspection hearing and went through a lot of the consultation palaver)
Officers tend to like higher targets not because it delivers more affordable housing but because it makes it easier to drag in lots of commuted housing payments, as per my post below.
Is there anyone here on PB who's planning to vote TIG at the Euro elections?
I know we're an atypical bunch, but you'd expect there to be at least one putative TIGger in our ranks.
edit: ah, I see kle4 posted at the same time
Do we know which MEP coalition they are aligning themselves with?
There were reports a couple of days ago that they would sit with the EPP group.
Thank you. That would be logical, if true, but it would also be a good reason not to vote for them given Manfred Weber comes across as a less drunk version of Juncker.
Edit - I'm personally in a horribly difficult position in this election because I think the Socialist candidate for EUCC is by far the best, but I'm damned if I'll vote for a party associated with Corbyn.
Talking of less drunk versions of juncker do we think Diane Abbott might have issues? Her difficulty with figures last year ago had definite shades of Charlie Kennedy
I suspect so, but hard to be sure. A number of her media appearances suggest a bit too long in the green room. Possibly I am making 2 and 2 make 5, and it is other health issues.
I recall her being really effusive in her tribute to Charles Kennedy when he so sadly passed away.
Basically Woking Borough Council have borrowed £500m to build three tower blocks in the centre of the town. They argue that either they do this or they'll have to let developers build on the green belt. It's interesting to read @NickPalmer say that other parts of Surrey don't feel compelled to do the same.
Personally I don't care about house prices being high around where I live. I think immigration has been too high and interest rates are too low, but I don't see why local tax payers should be on the hook for mismanagement by national politicians.
Are those the big blocks being built near the station, on the west side of the line?
Yes they are.
There’s space for three more blocks next to the railway line in Woking?
I went through there on a train at Christmas for the first time in a decade or so, and there are dozens of new tower blocks there, of what look like nice apartments aimed at commuters.
Basingstoke was very much the same.
The existing ones are on the South side of the line. These new ones are going up to the north of the line on what used to be the fire station/post office/market. I'm not quite sure what the plan with these ones is. It sounds like the council will own them (I don't think that's the case for the ones previously built).
What's interesting about Woking is that back in 2012 it had a fairly decent net internal immigration (i.e. for people already resident in England and Wales). It's now got net emigration to the rest of England and Wales meaning that, like London, it's population would be falling were it not for immigration from outside of England and Wales.
Officers tend to like higher targets not because it delivers more affordable housing but because it makes it easier to drag in lots of commuted housing payments, as per my post below.
Yes, I was just about to +1 your post!
But again that's a policy thing - NP can promise "no commuted housing payments will be accepted" as part of his programme if he wants. Might not be the snappiest slogan.
Yesterday's somewhat downbeat anecdata quoted by Mike wasn't mirrored today, incidentally - rather positive Labour canvassing. I think the reason for the difference is that socioeconomic group does still make a difference down here in a way that it barely does in my former patch. I was canvassing a long road yesterday which allegedly has one of the highest proportions of £1M+houses in Britain (I doubt it, but it's certainly posh), and the Labour vote there is only 10%. In Broxtowe there are similarly luxurious streets where Labour is above 30% - lots of academics brandishing the Guardian and even the occasional Morning Star. Conversely, ex-council estates in Broxtowe are now hard work for Labour, with lots of Kippers, Tories and abstainers, whereas down here they're still predominantly Labour.
I have a theory that housing affordability is a key factor.
In Surrey house prices must lead to high inequality, lower social mobility and lower immigration thus keeping a solid Labour council estate vote.
Whereas the cheap housing of much of Eastern England spreads home ownership further down the socioeconomic ladder and also encourages immigration thus creating a more right-wing working class vote.
The source of the wealth for the posh houses must be different between Surrey and Broxtowe with the former being predominantly City based but a much more public sector element in Broxtowe.
I like your theory, but you did lose me at "cheap housing of much of Eastern England" . Perhaps "far less expensive than London but still way, way more than County Durham" would be closer to the truth.
Where is the cheapest housing in England? If I had to make a wild guess I would point to somewhere like Maryport, but I can imagine it might be say, Bury or Bradford or Stoke.
Aren't there parts of Liverpool, South Wales, and I think somewhere in the North East (Hull?) where delapidated housing was being given away for a nominal amount if someone agreed to live there and renovate?
Burnley I think. They were selling them for £10k or thereabouts, or £50k for old but habitable two-up-two-downs.
A cry for help from left behind Communities , really if that was the case I’d have been a lot more accepting of the result .
Even though they chose to take their anger out on the wrong thing . The government really should have been the cause of their anger .
A big part of the Leave vote was due to well off Tories in the Shires , the same group who want a no deal and really have little to lose whilst fxcking everyone else .
Can you explain then why the wealthiest Tory shires of the M4 and M3 corridors voted Remain?
After all Cameron, Osborne etc are entirely representative of the wealthy Tory patrician class, and they are liberal remainers.
Or how if the Leave vote was mostly wealthy Tories, why so few went to university?
Maybe you are talking bollocks.
Fair point, but the explanation is that *fewer than expected* posh people voted remain, not *None*
No, that’s not the assertion. This false narrative has been seeping in from the Remain camp that actually Leave is some Machiavellian scheme of the most well-off to screw over the poor.
The truth is precisely the opposite. The places with the greatest concentrations of wealth voted Remain.
It’s blatant. Take a look at Kent, a very leavey place. The wealthiest part is Tunbridge Wells, it’s the destination of choice for City workers for example. Just as true-blue Tory as elsewhere, yet it’s the only part of the county to vote Remain.
Amazing how people who understand how the economy works benefit most from our membership of the EU voted not to destroy it. Didn't see that one coming!
Fixed it for you.
The thing I find most sad is all the middle-class lefty Remainers who bleat about the super-rich 1% supposedly being evil Leavers to con the poor into voting for them.
IanB2: deciding not to fight elections immediately was one of TIGs worst decisions. When the SDP was formed in 1981, they couldn't wait to get an opportunity to contest elections from what I've read. Being a political party that doesn't want to fight elections is a contradiction in terms.
The SDP actually made the same error back in 1981 by faling to resign their seats to force by elections. Had they done so, virtually all were likely to have been re-elected and better placed to fight the 1983 election. A single late defector - Bruce Douglas -Mann - insisted on a by election at Mitcham & Morden in Spring 1982, but he fell victim to the surge of patriotism which boosted the Tory vote at the time of the Falklands conflict.
Nah, it was a split Left-wing vote. Angela Rumbold lost a bit of vote-share for the Tories.
Thanks for the expert advice - just what I need. When Labour sweeps SW Surrey, I'll remember to credit IanB2 and ydoethur!
tlg86: the Woking issue is cited in the plan as a reason to build more (not necessarily affordable) housing, out of solidarity with Woking: "...as Waverley and Guildford are within the West Surrey Housing Market Area they are expected, where possible, to meet Woking’s unmet housing need."
Officers tend to like higher targets not because it delivers more affordable housing but because it makes it easier to drag in lots of commuted housing payments, as per my post below.
Yes, I was just about to +1 your post!
But again that's a policy thing - NP can promise "no commuted housing payments will be accepted" as part of his programme if he wants. Might not be the snappiest slogan.
But I think in fact you are both slightly missing the point. The point here being that the claim is to build affordable houses it would be necessary to build three times as many high end houses. Which as you have pointed out, isn't the case because the target is a minimum not a law of physics.
So again I say it strikes me as pretty fair bollocks.
Yesterday's somewhat downbeat anecdata quoted by Mike wasn't mirrored today, incidentally - rather positive Labour canvassing. I think the reason for the difference
I have a theory that housing affordability is a key
I like your theory, but you did lose me at "cheap housing of much of Eastern England" . Perhaps "far less expensive than London but still way, way more than County Durham" would be closer to the truth.
Where is the cheapest housing in England? If I had to make a wild guess I would point to somewhere like Maryport, but I can imagine it might be say, Bury or Bradford or Stoke.
Yesterday's somewhat downbeat anecdata quoted by Mike wasn't mirrored today, incidentally - rather positive Labour canvassing. I think the reason for the difference is that socioeconomic
I have a theory that housing affordability is a key factor.
In Surrey house prices must lead to high inequality, lower social mobility and lower immigration thus keeping a solid Labour council estate vote.
Whereas the cheap housing of much of Eastern England spreads home ownership further down the socioeconomic ladder and also encourages immigration thus creating a more right-wing working class vote.
The source of the wealth for the posh houses must be different between Surrey and Broxtowe with the former being predominantly City based but a much more public sector element in Broxtowe.
I like your theory, but you did lose me at "cheap housing of much of Eastern England" . Perhaps "far less expensive than London but still way, way more than County Durham" would be closer to the truth.
Where is the cheapest housing in England? If I had to make a wild guess I would point to somewhere like Maryport, but I can imagine it might be say, Bury or Bradford or Stoke.
Gainsborough in Lincs must be near the cheapest.
Housing is a fairly pure market. Where there are well paid jobs, houses are expensive. Where there are not, housing is cheap.
So despite Leicester' population expanding at about 2% per year for the last 2 decades because we are the City with the second lowest Gross Household Disposeable income, housing is quite reasonable. Fox jr rents a good condition 2 bed terraced in fashionable Clarendon Park for £700 pcm inclusive.
Officers tend to like higher targets not because it delivers more affordable housing but because it makes it easier to drag in lots of commuted housing payments, as per my post below.
Yes, I was just about to +1 your post!
But again that's a policy thing - NP can promise "no commuted housing payments will be accepted" as part of his programme if he wants. Might not be the snappiest slogan.
Maybe not that as a slogan, but some format of "We won't accept bungs from developers like the current lot, we'll insist on affordable housing for local residents" seems pretty marketable imho. You may say that's an unfair characterisation of the commuted housing payments (and I'd agree, though I don't think it's entirely unfair) but I don't think it's a bad policy in PR purposes.
Yesterday's somewhat downbeat anecdata quoted by Mike wasn't mirrored today, incidentally - rather positive Labour canvassing. I think the reason for the difference is that socioeconomic group does still make a difference down here in a way that it barely does in my former patch. I was canvassing a long road yesterday which allegedly has one of the highest proportions of £1M+houses in Britain (I doubt it, but it's certainly posh), and the Labour vote there is only 10%. In Broxtowe there are similarly luxurious streets where Labour is above 30% - lots of academics brandishing the Guardian and even the occasional Morning Star. Conversely, ex-council estates in Broxtowe are now hard work for Labour, with lots of Kippers, Tories and abstainers, whereas down here they're still predominantly Labour.
I have a theory that housing affordability is a key factor.
In Surrey house prices must lead to high inequality, lower social mobility and lower immigration thus keeping a solid Labour council estate vote.
Whereas the cheap housing of much of Eastern England spreads home ownership further down the socioeconomic ladder and also encourages immigration thus creating a more right-wing working class vote.
The source of the wealth for the posh houses must be different between Surrey and Broxtowe with the former being predominantly City based but a much more public sector element in Broxtowe.
I like your theory, but you did lose me at "cheap housing of much of Eastern England" . Perhaps "far less expensive than London but still way, way more than County Durham" would be closer to the truth.
Where is the cheapest housing in England? If I had to make a wild guess I would point to somewhere like Maryport, but I can imagine it might be say, Bury or Bradford or Stoke.
Officers tend to like higher targets not because it delivers more affordable housing but because it makes it easier to drag in lots of commuted housing payments, as per my post below.
Yes, I was just about to +1 your post!
But again that's a policy thing - NP can promise "no commuted housing payments will be accepted" as part of his programme if he wants. Might not be the snappiest slogan.
Maybe not that as a slogan, but some format of "We won't accept bungs from developers like the current lot, we'll insist on affordable housing for local residents" seems pretty marketable imho. You may say that's an unfair characterisation of the commuted housing payments (and I'd agree, though I don't think it's entirely unfair) but I don't think it's a bad policy in PR purposes.
For someone with the time and inclination, trying to establish to what extent the commuted housing payment receipts have actually turned into real new affordable housing units is possibly the best campaigning line. It would take a bit of time to force the information out of a council but I expect most will have taken millions over a period of time with little or no extra affordable housing to show for it.
Edit/ noting the possible bias in my experience having been a councillor in London.
A cry for help from left behind Communities , really if that was the case I’d have been a lot more accepting of the result .
Even though they chose to take their anger out on the wrong thing . The government really should have been the cause of their anger .
A big part of the Leave vote was due to well off Tories in the Shires , the same group who want a no deal and really have little to lose whilst fxcking everyone else .
Can you explain then why the wealthiest Tory shires of the M4 and M3 corridors voted Remain?
After all Cameron, Osborne etc are entirely representative of the wealthy Tory patrician class, and they are liberal remainers.
Or how if the Leave vote was mostly wealthy Tories, why so few went to university?
Maybe you are talking bollocks.
Fair point, but the explanation is that *fewer than expected* posh people voted remain, not *None*
No, that’s not the assertion. This false narrative has been seeping in from the Remain camp that actually Leave is some Machiavellian scheme of the most well-off to screw over the poor.
The truth is precisely the opposite. The places with the greatest concentrations of wealth voted Remain.
It’s blatant. Take a look at Kent, a very leavey place. The wealthiest part is Tunbridge Wells, it’s the destination of choice for City workers for example. Just as true-blue Tory as elsewhere, yet it’s the only part of the county to vote Remain.
Amazing how people who understand how the economy works benefit most from our membership of the EU voted not to destroy it. Didn't see that one coming!
Fixed it for you.
The thing I find most sad is all the middle-class lefty Remainers who bleat about the super-rich 1% supposedly being evil Leavers to con the poor into voting for them.
It's so you can blame some without seeming to blame ordinary voters for their choice, by instead saying they are dumb.
Yesterday's somewhat downbeat anecdata quoted by Mike wasn't mirrored today, incidentally - rather positive Labour canvassing. I think the reason for the difference is that socioeconomic group does still make a difference down here in a way that it barely does in my former patch. I was canvassing a long road yesterday which allegedly has one of the highest proportions of £1M+houses in Britain (I doubt it, but it's certainly posh), and the Labour vote there is only 10%. In Broxtowe there are similarly luxurious streets where Labour is above 30% - lots of academics brandishing the Guardian and even the occasional Morning Star. Conversely, ex-council estates in Broxtowe are now hard work for Labour, with lots of Kippers, Tories and abstainers, whereas down here they're still predominantly Labour.
I have a theory that housing affordability is a key factor.
In Surrey house prices must lead to high inequality, lower social mobility and lower immigration thus keeping a solid Labour council estate vote.
Whereas the cheap housing of much of Eastern England spreads home ownership further down the socioeconomic ladder and also encourages immigration thus creating a more right-wing working class vote.
The source of the wealth for the posh houses must be different between Surrey and Broxtowe with the former being predominantly City based but a much more public sector element in Broxtowe.
I like your theory, but you did lose me at "cheap housing of much of Eastern England" . Perhaps "far less expensive than London but still way, way more than County Durham" would be closer to the truth.
Where is the cheapest housing in England? If I had to make a wild guess I would point to somewhere like Maryport, but I can imagine it might be say, Bury or Bradford or Stoke.
Aren't there parts of Liverpool, South Wales, and I think somewhere in the North East (Hull?) where delapidated housing was being given away for a nominal amount if someone agreed to live there and renovate?
Stoke sold some houses for £1 during the recession. You had to agree to live there for 5 years and perform renovations (which were apparently quite significant given the state of them at the time). I definitely remember somewhere else doing it too, but can't recall where. Stoke repeated it in 2017, so they seem to think it worked.
Officers tend to like higher targets not because it delivers more affordable housing but because it makes it easier to drag in lots of commuted housing payments, as per my post below.
Yes, I was just about to +1 your post!
But again that's a policy thing - NP can promise "no commuted housing payments will be accepted" as part of his programme if he wants. Might not be the snappiest slogan.
Maybe not that as a slogan, but some format of "We won't accept bungs from developers like the current lot, we'll insist on affordable housing for local residents" seems pretty marketable imho. You may say that's an unfair characterisation of the commuted housing payments (and I'd agree, though I don't think it's entirely unfair) but I don't think it's a bad policy in PR purposes.
Just being an anti any housing nimby works better for Independents
I'll ask the question again....what are Change UK actually proposing to change?
Terrible name. They appear to stand for much more of the same but without a broad framework of social or constitutional principle underlying their whole position. 'Same' would be a better name, 'Same with less Imagination than the LDs' even more accurate. Pity, because there is a bit of space in the political spectrum and a lot of people puzzled about whom to vote for.
Officers tend to like higher targets not because it delivers more affordable housing but because it makes it easier to drag in lots of commuted housing payments, as per my post below.
Yes, I was just about to +1 your post!
But again that's a policy thing - NP can promise "no commuted housing payments will be accepted" as part of his programme if he wants. Might not be the snappiest slogan.
Maybe not that as a slogan, but some format of "We won't accept bungs from developers like the current lot, we'll insist on affordable housing for local residents" seems pretty marketable imho. You may say that's an unfair characterisation of the commuted housing payments (and I'd agree, though I don't think it's entirely unfair) but I don't think it's a bad policy in PR purposes.
For someone with the time and inclination, trying to establish to what extent the commuted housing payment receipts have actually turned into real new affordable housing units is possibly the best campaigning line. It would take a bit of time to force the information out of a council but I expect most will have taken millions over a period of time with little or no extra affordable housing to show for it.
Edit/ noting the possible bias in my experience having been a councillor in London.
In council meetings where these things get discussed, it could also be worth proposing the setup of an escrow account for such payments, so that they are ring-fenced for development of “affordable” housing rather than just disappearing into the big council income pot.
Yesterday's somewhat downbeat anecdata quoted by Mike wasn't mirrored today, incidentally - rather positive Labour canvassing. I think the reason for the difference is that socioeconomic group does still make a difference down here in a way that it barely does in my former patch. I was canvassing a long road yesterday which allegedly has one of the highest proportions of £1M+houses in Britain (I doubt it, but it's certainly posh), and the Labour vote there is only 10%. In Broxtowe there are similarly luxurious streets where Labour is above 30% - lots of academics brandishing the Guardian and even the occasional Morning Star. Conversely, ex-council estates in Broxtowe are now hard work for Labour, with lots of Kippers, Tories and abstainers, whereas down here they're still predominantly Labour.
I have a theory that housing affordability is a key factor.
In Surrey house prices must lead to high inequality, lower social mobility and lower immigration thus keeping a solid Labour council estate vote.
Whereas the cheap housing of much of Eastern England spreads home ownership further down the socioeconomic ladder and also encourages immigration thus creating a more right-wing working class vote.
The source of the wealth for the posh houses must be different between Surrey and Broxtowe with the former being predominantly City based but a much more public sector element in Broxtowe.
I like your theory, but you did lose me at "cheap housing of much of Eastern England" . Perhaps "far less expensive than London but still way, way more than County Durham" would be closer to the truth.
Where is the cheapest housing in England? If I had to make a wild guess I would point to somewhere like Maryport, but I can imagine it might be say, Bury or Bradford or Stoke.
Aren't there parts of Liverpool, South Wales, and I think somewhere in the North East (Hull?) where delapidated housing was being given away for a nominal amount if someone agreed to live there and renovate?
Stoke sold some houses for £1 during the recession. You had to agree to live there for 5 years and perform renovations (which were apparently quite significant given the state of them at the time). I definitely remember somewhere else doing it too, but can't recall where. Stoke repeated it in 2017, so they seem to think it worked.
Officers tend to like higher targets not because it delivers more affordable housing but because it makes it easier to drag in lots of commuted housing payments, as per my post below.
Yes, I was just about to +1 your post!
But again that's a policy thing - NP can promise "no commuted housing payments will be accepted" as part of his programme if he wants. Might not be the snappiest slogan.
Maybe not that as a slogan, but some format of "We won't accept bungs from developers like the current lot, we'll insist on affordable housing for local residents" seems pretty marketable imho. You may say that's an unfair characterisation of the commuted housing payments (and I'd agree, though I don't think it's entirely unfair) but I don't think it's a bad policy in PR purposes.
Just being an anti any housing nimby works better for Independents
Alas, this is true. Another consequence of renters under-40 not voting half as much as homeowners over 65. Eventually the tide may turn, but very eventually.
Yesterday's somewhat downbeat anecdata quoted by Mike wasn't mirrored today, incidentally - rather positive Labour canvassing. I think the reason for the difference is that socioeconomic group does still make a difference down here in a way that it barely does in my former patch. I was canvassing a long road yesterday which allegedly has one of the highest proportions of £1M+houses in Britain (I doubt it, but it's certainly posh), and the Labour vote there is only 10%. In Broxtowe there are similarly luxurious streets where Labour is above 30% - lots of academics brandishing the Guardian and even the occasional Morning Star. Conversely, ex-council estates in Broxtowe are now hard work for Labour, with lots of Kippers, Tories and abstainers, whereas down here they're still predominantly Labour.
I have a theory that housing affordability is a key factor.
In Surrey house prices must lead to high inequality, lower social mobility and lower immigration thus keeping a solid Labour council estate vote.
Whereas the cheap housing of much of Eastern England spreads home ownership further down the socioeconomic ladder and also encourages immigration thus creating a more right-wing working class vote.
The source of the wealth for the posh houses must be different between Surrey and Broxtowe with the former being predominantly City based but a much more public sector element in Broxtowe.
I like your theory, but you did lose me at "cheap housing of much of Eastern England" . Perhaps "far less expensive than London but still way, way more than County Durham" would be closer to the truth.
Where is the cheapest housing in England? If I had to make a wild guess I would point to somewhere like Maryport, but I can imagine it might be say, Bury or Bradford or Stoke.
Thanks, but again that's affordability rather than cheapness. There might be places where houses are cheaper in raw numbers but incomes are lower. That's why I guessed at Maryport where there isn't much local employment.
Of course, it may be that affordability is a more sensible measure than cash price.
We're constituency neighbours. Labour's position in this part of the world is interesting. Lots of historic baggage get in the way of a pretty decent vote turning out. Good luck with it.
Thanks for the expert advice - just what I need. When Labour sweeps SW Surrey, I'll remember to credit IanB2 and ydoethur!
tlg86: the Woking issue is cited in the plan as a reason to build more (not necessarily affordable) housing, out of solidarity with Woking: "...as Waverley and Guildford are within the West Surrey Housing Market Area they are expected, where possible, to meet Woking’s unmet housing need."
LOL! "Solidarity with Woking" - It's like anywhere north of the A3 is a third world country.
To be honest, I find housing a bit strange. How do you define Woking's housing need? Who has the right to live there? Whilst the council would never admit it, I reckon they're comfortable racking up a lot of debt because they know the national government will always find someone on the social to put in those tower blocks if they can't rent them commercially.
Yesterday's somewhat downbeat anecdata quoted by Mike wasn't mirrored today, incidentally - rather positive Labour canvassing. I think the reason for the difference is that socioeconomic group does still make a difference down here in a way that it barely does in my former patch. I was canvassing a long road yesterday which allegedly has one of the highest proportions of £1M+houses in Britain (I doubt it, but it's certainly posh), and the Labour vote there is only 10%. In Broxtowe there are similarly luxurious streets where Labour is above 30% - lots of academics brandishing the Guardian and even the occasional Morning Star. Conversely, ex-council estates in Broxtowe are now hard work for Labour, with lots of Kippers, Tories and abstainers, whereas down here they're still predominantly Labour.
I have a theory that housing affordability is a key factor.
In Surrey house prices must lead to high inequality, lower social mobility and lower immigration thus keeping a solid Labour council estate vote.
Whereas the cheap housing of much of Eastern England spreads home ownership further down the socioeconomic ladder and also encourages immigration thus creating a more right-wing working class vote.
The source of the wealth for the posh houses must be different between Surrey and Broxtowe with the former being predominantly City based but a much more public sector element in Broxtowe.
I like your theory, but you did lose me at "cheap housing of much of Eastern England" . Perhaps "far less expensive than London but still way, way more than County Durham" would be closer to the truth.
Where is the cheapest housing in England? If I had to make a wild guess I would point to somewhere like Maryport, but I can imagine it might be say, Bury or Bradford or Stoke.
Thanks, but again that's affordability rather than cheapness. There might be places where houses are cheaper in raw numbers but incomes are lower. That's why I guessed at Maryport where there isn't much local employment.
Of course, it may be that affordability is a more sensible measure than cash price.
In council meetings where these things get discussed, it could also be worth proposing the setup of an escrow account for such payments, so that they are ring-fenced for development of “affordable” housing rather than just disappearing into the big council income pot.
That's a great idea.
If I do get in (60% chance IMO), maybe I can be PB's experimental councillor - I suspect the Labour group will be rather small (it's currently 0), so I may have lots of scope to try out new ideas.
I'll ask the question again....what are Change UK actually proposing to change?
Terrible name. They appear to stand for much more of the same but without a broad framework of social or constitutional principle underlying their whole position. 'Same' would be a better name, 'Same with less Imagination than the LDs' even more accurate. Pity, because there is a bit of space in the political spectrum and a lot of people puzzled about whom to vote for.
Its not a terrible name really they just dont embody it
Yesterday's somewhat downbeat anecdata quoted by Mike wasn't mirrored today, incidentally - rather positive Labour canvassing. I think the reason for the difference is that socioeconomic group does still make a difference down here in a way that it barely does in my former patch. I was canvassing a long road yesterday which allegedly has one of the highest proportions of £1M+houses in Britain (I doubt it, but it's certainly posh), and the Labour vote there is only 10%. In Broxtowe there are similarly luxurious streets where Labour is above 30% - lots of academics brandishing the Guardian and even the occasional Morning Star. Conversely, ex-council estates in Broxtowe are now hard work for Labour, with lots of Kippers, Tories and abstainers, whereas down here they're still predominantly Labour.
I have a theory that housing affordability is a key factor.
In Surrey house prices must lead to high inequality, lower social mobility and lower immigration thus keeping a solid Labour council estate vote.
Whereas the cheap housing of much of Eastern England spreads home ownership further down the socioeconomic ladder and also encourages immigration thus creating a more right-wing working class vote.
The source of the wealth for the posh houses must be different between Surrey and Broxtowe with the former being predominantly City based but a much more public sector element in Broxtowe.
I like your theory, but you did lose me at "cheap housing of much of Eastern England" . Perhaps "far less expensive than London but still way, way more than County Durham" would be closer to the truth.
Where is the cheapest housing in England? If I had to make a wild guess I would point to somewhere like Maryport, but I can imagine it might be say, Bury or Bradford or Stoke.
Thanks, but again that's affordability rather than cheapness. There might be places where houses are cheaper in raw numbers but incomes are lower. That's why I guessed at Maryport where there isn't much local employment.
Of course, it may be that affordability is a more sensible measure than cash price.
In council meetings where these things get discussed, it could also be worth proposing the setup of an escrow account for such payments, so that they are ring-fenced for development of “affordable” housing rather than just disappearing into the big council income pot.
That's a great idea.
If I do get in (60% chance IMO), maybe I can be PB's experimental councillor - I suspect the Labour group will be rather small (it's currently 0), so I may have lots of scope to try out new ideas.
I hope the council is reasonable and will give you some decent committees to be on for the places you are entitled to overall.
Aren't there parts of Liverpool, South Wales, and I think somewhere in the North East (Hull?) where delapidated housing was being given away for a nominal amount if someone agreed to live there and renovate?
Burnley I think. They were selling them for £10k or thereabouts, or £50k for old but habitable two-up-two-downs.
John Prescott's Pathfinder scheme was an utter disaster economically and environmentally.
I wish I could source the info to give more info as I'd love to see if the scheme worked in the medium-term, but one street was saved from demolition under Pathfinder by a canny developer. He bought the street for next to nothing, and looked into why the houses are unpopular. Reasons were (from memory) things like lack of tranport, car parking, and the quality of the houses.
So the developer renovated up most of the houses, but demolished one in three or four, and made the footprint into residents' parking. They also did a deal with the local council that would mean the street got a bus service for a certain number of years.
All fairly cheap (compared to building new houses), and much better environmentally than building new. It wouldn't work everywhere, but demolition and rebuilding is often the too easy answer (and I'm saying that as someone whose dad was in demo and building).
Oh, and Happy Easter one and all from the sandpit, where thanks to being further east than most of PB it’s now Sunday.
Maybe it should be a day of reflection from our politicians about what’s really important, and whether everyone being a little more polite, civil and constructive with each other might be a better way to live their lives.
Officers tend to like higher targets not because it delivers more affordable housing but because it makes it easier to drag in lots of commuted housing payments, as per my post below.
Yes, I was just about to +1 your post!
But again that's a policy thing - NP can promise "no commuted housing payments will be accepted" as part of his programme if he wants. Might not be the snappiest slogan.
But I think in fact you are both slightly missing the point. The point here being that the claim is to build affordable houses it would be necessary to build three times as many high end houses. Which as you have pointed out, isn't the case because the target is a minimum not a law of physics.
I should get back to trying to wrap my fingers around the Guilmant for tomorrow morning's service...!
I have repeatedly heard that Nitrogen is a greenhouse gas. Apparently farmers in particular should be worried. It's not though, and its really annoying me that people keep saying it. Methane and nitrous oxides are greenhouse gases.
I agree with the jumping-up-and-down over climate change, but if those doing so don't know what they're talking about then there's a problem.
There's much more scientific nonsense that is spouted about climate change.
(Small caveat here - I might be wrong - I'm not an expert on any of this. )
Officers tend to like higher targets not because it delivers more affordable housing but because it makes it easier to drag in lots of commuted housing payments, as per my post below.
Yes, I was just about to +1 your post!
But again that's a policy thing - NP can promise "no commuted housing payments will be accepted" as part of his programme if he wants. Might not be the snappiest slogan.
But I think in fact you are both slightly missing the point. The point here being that the claim is to build affordable houses it would be necessary to build three times as many high end houses. Which as you have pointed out, isn't the case because the target is a minimum not a law of physics.
I should get back to trying to wrap my fingers around the Guilmant for tomorrow morning's service...!
Good luck! Hope you've got some nice music lined up. I am singing, not playing tomorrow - nice bit of Schubert and Handel.
I have repeatedly heard that Nitrogen is a greenhouse gas. Apparently farmers in particular should be worried. It's not though, and its really annoying me that people keep saying it. Methane and nitrous oxides are greenhouse gases.
I agree with the jumping-up-and-down over climate change, but if those doing so don't know what they're talking about then there's a problem.
There's much more scientific nonsense that is spouted about climate change.
(Small caveat here - I might be wrong - I'm not an expert on any of this. )
Climate change is rapidly becoming like education - everyone is an expert because they breathe air.
In council meetings where these things get discussed, it could also be worth proposing the setup of an escrow account for such payments, so that they are ring-fenced for development of “affordable” housing rather than just disappearing into the big council income pot.
That's a great idea.
If I do get in (60% chance IMO), maybe I can be PB's experimental councillor - I suspect the Labour group will be rather small (it's currently 0), so I may have lots of scope to try out new ideas.
Good luck!
I am coming around to the idea that some form of PR for district and county councils is a good idea. Having councils where >90% of councillors are from one party almost inevitably leads to serious accountability problems, especially if the makeup stays the same for decades as is the case in somewhere like Surrey or Manchester.
Officers tend to like higher targets not because it delivers more affordable housing but because it makes it easier to drag in lots of commuted housing payments, as per my post below.
Yes, I was just about to +1 your post!
But again that's a policy thing - NP can promise "no commuted housing payments will be accepted" as part of his programme if he wants. Might not be the snappiest slogan.
But I think in fact you are both slightly missing the point. The point here being that the claim is to build affordable houses it would be necessary to build three times as many high end houses. Which as you have pointed out, isn't the case because the target is a minimum not a law of physics.
So again I say it strikes me as pretty fair bollocks.
No, in fact I was taking that point as relatively straightforward (since the policy will surely define the target as a minimum, as has already been said) and trying to develop the discussion further.
IanB2: deciding not to fight elections immediately was one of TIGs worst decisions. When the SDP was formed in 1981, they couldn't wait to get an opportunity to contest elections from what I've read. Being a political party that doesn't want to fight elections is a contradiction in terms.
The SDP actually made the same error back in 1981 by faling to resign their seats to force by elections. Had they done so, virtually all were likely to have been re-elected and better placed to fight the 1983 election. A single late defector - Bruce Douglas -Mann - insisted on a by election at Mitcham & Morden in Spring 1982, but he fell victim to the surge of patriotism which boosted the Tory vote at the time of the Falklands conflict.
Nah, it was a split Left-wing vote. Angela Rumbold lost a bit of vote-share for the Tories.
Had the by election been held a few months earlier, Douglas-Mann would have won comfortably on the back of a much lower Tory vote. Just look at what had happened at the Hillhead by election at the end of March 1982 and at Crosby in late November 1981. Tory support shot up dramatically in the May/June 1982 period.
In council meetings where these things get discussed, it could also be worth proposing the setup of an escrow account for such payments, so that they are ring-fenced for development of “affordable” housing rather than just disappearing into the big council income pot.
That's a great idea.
If I do get in (60% chance IMO), maybe I can be PB's experimental councillor - I suspect the Labour group will be rather small (it's currently 0), so I may have lots of scope to try out new ideas.
Good luck!
I am coming around to the idea that some form of PR for district and county councils is a good idea. Having councils where >90% of councillors are from one party almost inevitably leads to serious accountability problems, especially if the makeup stays the same for decades as is the case in somewhere like Surrey or Manchester.
Officers tend to like higher targets not because it delivers more affordable housing but because it makes it easier to drag in lots of commuted housing payments, as per my post below.
Yes, I was just about to +1 your post!
But again that's a policy thing - NP can promise "no commuted housing payments will be accepted" as part of his programme if he wants. Might not be the snappiest slogan.
But I think in fact you are both slightly missing the point. The point here being that the claim is to build affordable houses it would be necessary to build three times as many high end houses. Which as you have pointed out, isn't the case because the target is a minimum not a law of physics.
I should get back to trying to wrap my fingers around the Guilmant for tomorrow morning's service...!
Good luck! Hope you've got some nice music lined up. I am singing, not playing tomorrow - nice bit of Schubert and Handel.
"Labour will never defeat Nigel Farage if it continues to “sit on the fence” over Brexit and offers only “mealy-mouthed” support for a second referendum, the party’s deputy leader says today.
In an extraordinary intervention that exposes the tensions at the top of the party over Brexit strategy, Tom Watson warns that Labour will lose to Farage’s new “far right” Brexit party in May’s European elections if it continues to give the impression that “we half agree with him”.
Is there anyone here on PB who's planning to vote TIG at the Euro elections?
I know we're an atypical bunch, but you'd expect there to be at least one putative TIGger in our ranks.
edit: ah, I see kle4 posted at the same time
Do we know which MEP coalition they are aligning themselves with?
There were reports a couple of days ago that they would sit with the EPP group.
Thank you. That would be logical, if true, but it would also be a good reason not to vote for them given Manfred Weber comes across as a less drunk version of Juncker.
Edit - I'm personally in a horribly difficult position in this election because I think the Socialist candidate for EUCC is by far the best, but I'm damned if I'll vote for a party associated with Corbyn.
Talking of less drunk versions of juncker do we think Diane Abbott might have issues? Her difficulty with figures last year ago had definite shades of Charlie Kennedy
I suspect so, but hard to be sure. A number of her media appearances suggest a bit too long in the green room. Possibly I am making 2 and 2 make 5, and it is other health issues.
Slightly odd walking on to a tube with a kids cocktail even if it wasn't illegal.
And so the puritans diagnose someone as an alcoholic. The evidence. One can of weak pre-mixed cocktail (total units: about half a pint of beer) on a train.
Burn the witch.
Being judgemental of a politician! What could have come over me.
PS Anyone miss the expenses scandal on Radio 4 yesterday well worth listening to on play it again. The duck pond is by no means the funniest bit...
I wouldn’t be surprised if Hannan is about the only one with a chance of being elected who backs leave. Many of the existing Tory MEPs went native years ago.
"Britons experienced the hottest day of the year so far on Saturday, and the hottest Easter bank holiday weekend for 70 years, as the temperature hit 25.5C (77.9F) in Gosport in Hampshire.
The temperature is expected to rise even further on Monday to 27C, making the sunniest spots in the UK warmer than most of Europe, Algeria and Morocco."
"Labour will never defeat Nigel Farage if it continues to “sit on the fence” over Brexit and offers only “mealy-mouthed” support for a second referendum, the party’s deputy leader says today.
In an extraordinary intervention that exposes the tensions at the top of the party over Brexit strategy, Tom Watson warns that Labour will lose to Farage’s new “far right” Brexit party in May’s European elections if it continues to give the impression that “we half agree with him”.
Will they ever go full remain? I'm not sure, since Watson and others saying that sort of thing achieves its aim of retaining the remain vote anyway. Corbyn doesnt need to seem more keen on remain or a referendum.
I still think labour should win the EPs as a result, although coming second to Farage is probably the best outcome the Tories could hope for given their likely humiliation.
IanB2: deciding not to fight elections immediately was one of TIGs worst decisions. When the SDP was formed in 1981, they couldn't wait to get an opportunity to contest elections from what I've read. Being a political party that doesn't want to fight elections is a contradiction in terms.
The SDP actually made the same error back in 1981 by faling to resign their seats to force by elections. Had they done so, virtually all were likely to have been re-elected and better placed to fight the 1983 election. A single late defector - Bruce Douglas -Mann - insisted on a by election at Mitcham & Morden in Spring 1982, but he fell victim to the surge of patriotism which boosted the Tory vote at the time of the Falklands conflict.
Nah, it was a split Left-wing vote. Angela Rumbold lost a bit of vote-share for the Tories.
Had the by election been held a few months earlier, Douglas-Mann would have won comfortably on the back of a much lower Tory vote. Just look at what had happened at the Hillhead by election at the end of March 1982 and at Crosby in late November 1981. Tory support shot up dramatically in the May/June 1982 period.
Search your feelings, Justin. You will know it to be true!
Tory vote-share in 1979 = 43.9% Tory vote-share in 1982 = 43.4%
Officers tend to like higher targets not because it delivers more affordable housing but because it makes it easier to drag in lots of commuted housing payments, as per my post below.
Yes, I was just about to +1 your post!
But again that's a policy thing - NP can promise "no commuted housing payments will be accepted" as part of his programme if he wants. Might not be the snappiest slogan.
But I think in fact you are both slightly missing the point. The point here being that the claim is to build affordable houses it would be necessary to build three times as many high end houses. Which as you have pointed out, isn't the case because the target is a minimum not a law of physics.
So again I say it strikes me as pretty fair bollocks.
No, in fact I was taking that point as relatively straightforward (since the policy will surely define the target as a minimum, as has already been said) and trying to develop the discussion further.
OK, fair point. Because I don't have your expert knowledge, I was just considering the basic question of whether the council were telling porkies. I certainly agree that what you did add was valuable, and highly disturbing.
LOL, good luck with that one. There’s very few international airlines around in which neither Qatar nor Etihad have a stake. As you know, the whole industry is running on tiny margins and these two large investors have prevented a lot of failures, as well as providing strategic investment opportunities. Occasionally they screw up, such as we saw last week with Jet Airways in India - Etihad deciding there not to throw any more good money after bad.
Etihad has in addition to Jet, invested in Air Berlin and Alitalia. It’s a shit decision magnet, the Qualiflyer alliance for the 2010s. The list of failures that Etihad and Qatar have presented is thin going.
I wouldn’t be surprised if Hannan is about the only one with a chance of being elected who backs leave. Many of the existing Tory MEPs went native years ago.
Closed party lists are a really bad idea.
As I understand it the Tories offered all the current MEPs the opportunity to re-stand in their existing list positions (as they’re hoping to either not have the election at all, or the MEPs all to be redundant in a few months’ time).
As you say, the problem now is that, in avoiding a selection row with the candidates, they’ve left ‘EU natives’ at the top of a few lists - which is going to embolden anyone pro-Brexit in those areas to vote for Farage instead.
I seriously think we could be down to less than a handful of re-elections; no-one except Hannan, top of a list of 10, is safe.
IanB2: deciding not to fight elections immediately was one of TIGs worst decisions. When the SDP was formed in 1981, they couldn't wait to get an opportunity to contest elections from what I've read. Being a political party that doesn't want to fight elections is a contradiction in terms.
The SDP actually made the same error back in 1981 by faling to resign their seats to force by elections. Had they done so, virtually all were likely to have been re-elected and better placed to fight the 1983 election. A single late defector - Bruce Douglas -Mann - insisted on a by election at Mitcham & Morden in Spring 1982, but he fell victim to the surge of patriotism which boosted the Tory vote at the time of the Falklands conflict.
Nah, it was a split Left-wing vote. Angela Rumbold lost a bit of vote-share for the Tories.
Had the by election been held a few months earlier, Douglas-Mann would have won comfortably on the back of a much lower Tory vote. Just look at what had happened at the Hillhead by election at the end of March 1982 and at Crosby in late November 1981. Tory support shot up dramatically in the May/June 1982 period.
Search your feelings, Justin. You will know it to be true!
Tory vote-share in 1979 = 43.9% Tory vote-share in 1982 = 43.4%
That really misses the point! Had the by election been a few months earlier , the Tories would probably fallen below 25% there - greatly to the benefit of the SDP.
We're constituency neighbours. Labour's position in this part of the world is interesting. Lots of historic baggage get in the way of a pretty decent vote turning out. Good luck with it.
Thanks! Our weak position makes us free from obscure disputes on the Correct Party Line for . Councillors since we haven't got any. Our leadership team is a Blairite (a former fighter pilot in Afghanistan, no less), a Corbynite (me) and an expert organiser - we get on famously, and if we actually win any seats the membership will be thrilled.
It's good fun - in my ward, I'm on my second canvass of every home, and the other candidates aren't canvassing at all, merely putting out leaflets. Will it make a difference? Dunno!
Officers tend to like higher targets not because it delivers more affordable housing but because it makes it easier to drag in lots of commuted housing payments, as per my post below.
Yes, I was just about to +1 your post!
But again that's a policy thing - NP can promise "no commuted housing payments will be accepted" as part of his programme if he wants. Might not be the snappiest slogan.
But I think in fact you are both slightly missing the point. The point here being that the claim is to build affordable houses it would be necessary to build three times as many high end houses. Which as you have pointed out, isn't the case because the target is a minimum not a law of physics.
So again I say it strikes me as pretty fair bollocks.
No, in fact I was taking that point as relatively straightforward (since the policy will surely define the target as a minimum, as has already been said) and trying to develop the discussion further.
OK, fair point. Because I don't have your expert knowledge, I was just considering the basic question of whether the council were telling porkies. I certainly agree that what you did add was valuable, and highly disturbing.
Disturbing in that any target set for the public sector tends to have unintended consequences. It was the biggest failing of the New Labour control freakery era. Measuring anything using a simplistic target is fraught with danger.
The best example comes from Soviet Russia - concerned at the levels of deaths in hospitals, the USSR required all hospitals to report their levels of inpatient mortality, with the usual severe consequences for the worst offenders. The upshot was that it became common for patients thought to be nearing their end to be wheeled out onto the street so that they could die off hospital premises.
"Labour will never defeat Nigel Farage if it continues to “sit on the fence” over Brexit and offers only “mealy-mouthed” support for a second referendum, the party’s deputy leader says today.
In an extraordinary intervention that exposes the tensions at the top of the party over Brexit strategy, Tom Watson warns that Labour will lose to Farage’s new “far right” Brexit party in May’s European elections if it continues to give the impression that “we half agree with him”.
Comments
If I'm honest, it does sound pretty tempting when put that way...
No doubt the "professor for the public understanding of luck" as he is described in the Radio Times will hold up a mirror for denizens of PB.
(He is actually the Winton Professor of the Public Understanding of Risk in the Statistical Laboratory at the University of Cambridge.)
Incidentally the vote share ranking between TIG and LibDem will probably have a big influence on its future prospects IMO.
Impact on business due to brexit uncertainty.
https://hbr.org/2019/03/brexit-is-already-affecting-uk-businesses-heres-how
https://www.imf.org/~/media/Files/Publications/WP/2018/wp18247.ashx
https://www.bankofengland.co.uk/-/media/boe/files/speech/2019/will-uk-investment-bounce-back-speech-by-jonathan-haskel.pdf
The key aspect is shown in the graph on page 7 on the last link - our business investment has fallen from being one of the highest in the G7 to the lowest following the referendum.
Make your own mind up.
That is why although I disagree with Corbyn on so many things I can definitely see merit in a programme of municipal social house building. My big misgiving is that I doubt if the money would be forthcoming to pay for it.
"...The Council considers that it is not appropriate to set a
local plan target for new housing to ensure that the 314 new affordable homes
needed a year are delivered...if Waverley were to theoretically meet
a figure of 314 new affordable dwellings a year, then overall 897 new homes a
year would be required in Waverley (based on a theoretical policy requirement
of 35% of new homes on all housing developments to be affordable). This
would not be realistic as it would result in delivery rates higher than anywhere
across England (over a sustained period) over the last 15 years, or over the
pre-recession decade."
I'm about to criticise this on social media, but thought I'd check with the brains trust here first.
And that's why working through developers is ultimately a bad way of building affordable housing. For a slight increase in costs, they can build something that will have thrice the value. Obviously, therefore, they will fight to build for the upper end. That means somebody who has to be willing to accept a lower financial return needs to step in - be that housing associations, the local council, or local employers.
A large hoard of cash has been found at the home of Sudan's ousted president Omar al-Bashir and he is now being investigated for money laundering, prosecutors say.
How much you ask...a few grand....a few hundred grands perhaps ...£100 million.
The window cleaner must charge a fortune to need to have that much cash on hand
A more pertinent question might be, how has a man who was living in one of the poorest countries on earth amassed that amount of money in the first place? I'm guessing it wasn't saved out of his housekeeping...
https://tinyurl.com/y6kzfwtp
Basically Woking Borough Council have borrowed £500m to build three tower blocks in the centre of the town. They argue that either they do this or they'll have to let developers build on the green belt. It's interesting to read @NickPalmer say that other parts of Surrey don't feel compelled to do the same.
Personally I don't care about house prices being high around where I live. I think immigration has been too high and interest rates are too low, but I don't see why local tax payers should be on the hook for mismanagement by national politicians.
In practice thereafter, many development proposals would come in just under that unit threshold (even to the extent of developing a large site in stages, each below the threshold). Or, where a large development was being proposed, the developer would come along to the council and say "look, we don't really make any money from these affordable housing units, and putting a bunch of 'council flats' in the middle of our luxury development will make the private units much less attractive. So how about we give you some money to build some affordable housing somewhere else, and in return you waive the criteria?"
And the council would say "yes, here is our sort code and account number", and a six figure sum of money (known as a "commuted housing payment") would drop into the council's accounts, and the developer would go ahead and not build any affordable housing. In theory, the money the council received was to provide affordable housing elsewhere, but in practice, partly because councils are so strapped for cash and partly because they were so restricted in developing their own housing, the cash simply disappeared into the budget and was never seen again.
Burn the witch.
I went through there on a train at Christmas for the first time in a decade or so, and there are dozens of new tower blocks there, of what look like nice apartments aimed at commuters.
Basingstoke was very much the same.
My reading is that they have to put an affordable housing percentage into the Local Plan. They're quoting 35% which is typical but unambitious. If you try putting (say) 80% in there then it'll get thrown out by the Inspector, so you need to find a percentage that will pass muster, given that all the developers will be lobbying against it at the inspection hearings. Our local plan (West Oxfordshire) is 40% in most of the district, 50% in the wealthiest rural areas, 35% only in the poorest area.
The problem is that if the Local Plan says "we need 8 gazillion new houses", evidenced by a well-reasoned SHMA, and if it then says "35% of these must be affordable", then it becomes very hard for the planning authority to turn down applications that accord with that. Ultimately the landowners are going to sell to the developers who offer the highest returns, so if Enlightened All-Affordable Developer and Rapacious Spivs Inc are competing for the same land, most landowners will sell to the latter.
So my campaigning suggestion would be to get a higher target, say 50%, in the Local Plan. You can point at other authorities and say "they have 50%, why has our sh-tty council adopted such a low figure". This depends on the state of adoption of your Local Plan, of course. There's nothing to stop an adopted Local Plan being modified but I guess you'd need to go through the inspection stage again for a significant modification like this, otherwise, again, the developers will haul you through the courts.
(not an expert, but represented our town council at the inspection hearing and went through a lot of the consultation palaver)
Some things never change. Switched on BBC1 to find Charlie and Duffy on Casualty.
What's interesting about Woking is that back in 2012 it had a fairly decent net internal immigration (i.e. for people already resident in England and Wales). It's now got net emigration to the rest of England and Wales meaning that, like London, it's population would be falling were it not for immigration from outside of England and Wales.
But again that's a policy thing - NP can promise "no commuted housing payments will be accepted" as part of his programme if he wants. Might not be the snappiest slogan.
The thing I find most sad is all the middle-class lefty Remainers who bleat about the super-rich 1% supposedly being evil Leavers to con the poor into voting for them.
One of them wrote back saying they completely understood and they agreed with my views on May.
I suspect they all know due to May refusing to resign, they are going to get a pumelling in the locals and a near extinction event in the Euro one
tlg86: the Woking issue is cited in the plan as a reason to build more (not necessarily affordable) housing, out of solidarity with Woking: "...as Waverley and Guildford are within the West Surrey Housing Market Area they are expected, where possible, to meet Woking’s unmet housing need."
So again I say it strikes me as pretty fair bollocks.
Housing is a fairly pure market. Where there are well paid jobs, houses are expensive. Where there are not, housing is cheap.
So despite Leicester' population expanding at about 2% per year for the last 2 decades because we are the City with the second lowest Gross Household Disposeable income, housing is quite reasonable. Fox jr rents a good condition 2 bed terraced in fashionable Clarendon Park for £700 pcm inclusive.
https://www.zoopla.co.uk/discover/featured-homes/top-10-most-affordable-places-to-live/
Edit/ noting the possible bias in my experience having been a councillor in London.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-stoke-staffordshire-22247663
https://www.signal1.co.uk/news/local/applications-open-for-second-stoke-on-trent-1-house-scheme/
Of course, it may be that affordability is a more sensible measure than cash price.
To be honest, I find housing a bit strange. How do you define Woking's housing need? Who has the right to live there? Whilst the council would never admit it, I reckon they're comfortable racking up a lot of debt because they know the national government will always find someone on the social to put in those tower blocks if they can't rent them commercially.
If I do get in (60% chance IMO), maybe I can be PB's experimental councillor - I suspect the Labour group will be rather small (it's currently 0), so I may have lots of scope to try out new ideas.
https://www.conservativehome.com/parliament/2019/04/exclusive-the-full-list-of-conservative-mep-candidates.html
I can’t imagine that anyone bar Daniel Hannan thinks they’re safe.
I wish I could source the info to give more info as I'd love to see if the scheme worked in the medium-term, but one street was saved from demolition under Pathfinder by a canny developer. He bought the street for next to nothing, and looked into why the houses are unpopular. Reasons were (from memory) things like lack of tranport, car parking, and the quality of the houses.
So the developer renovated up most of the houses, but demolished one in three or four, and made the footprint into residents' parking. They also did a deal with the local council that would mean the street got a bus service for a certain number of years.
All fairly cheap (compared to building new houses), and much better environmentally than building new. It wouldn't work everywhere, but demolition and rebuilding is often the too easy answer (and I'm saying that as someone whose dad was in demo and building).
Maybe it should be a day of reflection from our politicians about what’s really important, and whether everyone being a little more polite, civil and constructive with each other might be a better way to live their lives.
I agree with the jumping-up-and-down over climate change, but if those doing so don't know what they're talking about then there's a problem.
There's much more scientific nonsense that is spouted about climate change.
(Small caveat here - I might be wrong - I'm not an expert on any of this. )
I am coming around to the idea that some form of PR for district and county councils is a good idea. Having councils where >90% of councillors are from one party almost inevitably leads to serious accountability problems, especially if the makeup stays the same for decades as is the case in somewhere like Surrey or Manchester.
"Labour will never defeat Nigel Farage if it continues to “sit on the fence” over Brexit and offers only “mealy-mouthed” support for a second referendum, the party’s deputy leader says today.
In an extraordinary intervention that exposes the tensions at the top of the party over Brexit strategy, Tom Watson warns that Labour will lose to Farage’s new “far right” Brexit party in May’s European elections if it continues to give the impression that “we half agree with him”.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/apr/20/second-eu-referendum-only-way-to-beat-farage-says-watson
PS Anyone miss the expenses scandal on Radio 4 yesterday well worth listening to on play it again. The duck pond is by no means the funniest bit...
"Britons experienced the hottest day of the year so far on Saturday, and the hottest Easter bank holiday weekend for 70 years, as the temperature hit 25.5C (77.9F) in Gosport in Hampshire.
The temperature is expected to rise even further on Monday to 27C, making the sunniest spots in the UK warmer than most of Europe, Algeria and Morocco."
I still think labour should win the EPs as a result, although coming second to Farage is probably the best outcome the Tories could hope for given their likely humiliation.
Tory vote-share in 1979 = 43.9%
Tory vote-share in 1982 = 43.4%
As I understand it the Tories offered all the current MEPs the opportunity to re-stand in their existing list positions (as they’re hoping to either not have the election at all, or the MEPs all to be redundant in a few months’ time).
As you say, the problem now is that, in avoiding a selection row with the candidates, they’ve left ‘EU natives’ at the top of a few lists - which is going to embolden anyone pro-Brexit in those areas to vote for Farage instead.
I seriously think we could be down to less than a handful of re-elections; no-one except Hannan, top of a list of 10, is safe.
It's good fun - in my ward, I'm on my second canvass of every home, and the other candidates aren't canvassing at all, merely putting out leaflets. Will it make a difference? Dunno!
The best example comes from Soviet Russia - concerned at the levels of deaths in hospitals, the USSR required all hospitals to report their levels of inpatient mortality, with the usual severe consequences for the worst offenders. The upshot was that it became common for patients thought to be nearing their end to be wheeled out onto the street so that they could die off hospital premises.