I've been surprised by how little discussion there has been on here and generally on these proposed planning "reforms" which seem to have been a formula for (even greater) corruption in politics regarding planning permission.
Could something like this work for big housing developments:
Government compulsorily purchases land at 2-3x price without planning permission Government auctions off same land with planning permission
That way the existing landowner gets a significant but smaller windfall, but it both raises tax revenue and takes out the corruption from the process.
Interesting - I hadn't seen that.
What problem is that proposal designed to address?
I agree that existing CPO powers are extensive, which iirc (not my absolute specialist subject) are quite draconian? See for example how Camden used them in in the late 70s.
I think there is quite a lot of stuff in the postwar planning legislation which is quite powerful if used.
My main issue there would be question whether that will address the problem.
I dont know enough about planning to know if it would work or not. Its simply a better way to deal with the windfall gains around planning permission - most of it should go to the public (probably weighted to the local community), but still keeping enough incentive for the landowner and developer to build. Currently is shared by the landowner, developer and corrupt politicians and officials - clearly sub optimal.
Why should the state take the profit from a landowner developing the land (over and above normal taxes)
That is a completely different issue. The problem with Jenrick's course of action is that he went out of his way to ensure someone, who would have been due a tax bill, avoided that bill. The rights and wrongs of the tax in question don't enter that argument.
If you're on the left and you quit the Labour party, you're doing nothing but delighting the right and disenfranchising yourself, not least from the upcoming NEC elections.
The contrast between the condemnation of people going to the beach and people going to Anfield is stratling. I'm thoroughly pissed off this morning. People should kick off if the beaches are closed.
Yes it struck me too and won't have gone unnoticed with most people! The contrast also won't have gone completely unnoticed with Greater Manchester Police restricting its involvement with two illegal "quarantine raves" in Failsworth and Carrington and yet the Met Police deciding to attempt to disperse crowds at illegal parties in Brixton, Notting Hill & Streatham in the last two days with the resulting headlines.
I hope we don't see more community tensions flare in London this weekend with the Met Police "enhanced policing operation" across the capital? This weekend should have also been the Pride in London festival when vast numbers swell onto the streets and parties are held. Veterans from the Gay Liberation Front are expected to march in London to mark their 50th anniversary.
Look at it as a way of building herd immunity.
And its better for herd immunity to be built on the stupid being infected.
Well, anyone who thought Keir a bit drippy got a surprise. Clearly a new broom, and antisemitism will not be tolerated.
Might make for an interesting relationship with the Deputy Leader, RLB's housemate.
I disagree. He’s been brutal, and that’s politics. But he’s also been unjust and that’s more important.
At the end of the day RLB shared an Independent interview with a constituent of her’s. An MP should be able to do something like that without having their reputation trashed.
It’s not the sacking that matters. RLB will be remembered in history* as being sacked for forwarding an anti-Semitic article. I don’t think that’s right.
(* to the extent that she is at all)
Amazing how those who complained Labour didnt address antisemitism now say Labour is too harsh dealing with antisemitism. An observer might almost think that their issue was with Labour rather than antisemitism.
Whilst I don't care particularly about this, I do have a smidgen of sympathy for the view that retweeting an Independent article doesn't seem the most grievous of crimes. It does feel like Starmer was looking for an excuse to sack RLB. Perhaps stuff went on behind the scenes yesterday that we didn't hear about, but a statement by RLB saying specifically that she considered the line about Israel to be antisemitic would seem enough to me.
But like I say, I don't care all that much.
AIUI she was offered the chance to delete the tweet but wouldnt do it. Doesnt seem particularly harsh, she didnt have to grovel, just stop promoting lies about Israel?
If that's the case, then she deserves everything she gets. It's quite funny that Peake and the Independent have rowed back on the claim and Amnesty have disowned it too.
Her press release said she tweeted a disavowal agreed with Starmer’s office
Yes, I saw that, which is interesting if strictly true. You would think they would have asked her to be explicit in calling out the anti-Israel conspiracy theory. Something like "I retweeted the article without reading it fully, it has since been brought to my attention that the article contained support for an antisemitic conspiracy theory - I completely reject that". The actual qualification was a bit insipid and did not actively condemn that part of the article. Poor judgement from the leadership office if they agreed to that (or cynicism if they agreed to it with a view to then sacking her). On the other hand, I would not be surprised if an agreement was made to distance herself from the original tweet and article and it was the vague and insipid tweet, not even stating what she might disagree with in he article, that sealed her fate.
I support her sacking anyway, for being generally useless, but if (big if) what she says about the tweet is true then it's a little bit odd.
That article would be more effective if it didn't turn into a deranged spityle-flecked rant essentially accusing everyone on the left of anti-Semitism. If the RLB incident teaches us anything it is the importance of being measured and precise when discussing contentious issues, and this article is the exact opposite of that.
Well, anyone who thought Keir a bit drippy got a surprise. Clearly a new broom, and antisemitism will not be tolerated.
Might make for an interesting relationship with the Deputy Leader, RLB's housemate.
I disagree. He’s been brutal, and that’s politics. But he’s also been unjust and that’s more important.
At the end of the day RLB shared an Independent interview with a constituent of her’s. An MP should be able to do something like that without having their reputation trashed.
It’s not the sacking that matters. RLB will be remembered in history* as being sacked for forwarding an anti-Semitic article. I don’t think that’s right.
(* to the extent that she is at all)
Come off it. You would have been amongst the first calling out Starmer's weakness and indecision if she'd stayed.
It is the one single issue that Starmer cannot be seen to be tolerant over. He had forewarned the Party, and he acted accordingly.
Granted, RLB's indescretion was minor in comparison to Robert Jenrick's antics, but I would like to think, when faced with the same issue, namely brazen corruption, Starmer will be equally forthright.
As for Jenrick? Haven't looked properly at the details but although whichever minister it was got criticised for saying it, if you are a member of the Party and/or a donor of course you get better access to MPs and ministers because you will attend functions which they are invited to.
This is not news.
Oh, it is and it should be. Jenrick furiously worked at saving Tory donor and pornographer, Richard Desmond just shy of a £50m tax bill to Tower Hamlets Council. The fact that in return Jenrick's campaign was rewarded with around a paltry £10,000 is almost irrelevant.
It's completely relevant - I'm shocked that the Tory party could be bought for so little.
Well, anyone who thought Keir a bit drippy got a surprise. Clearly a new broom, and antisemitism will not be tolerated.
Might make for an interesting relationship with the Deputy Leader, RLB's housemate.
I disagree. He’s been brutal, and that’s politics. But he’s also been unjust and that’s more important.
At the end of the day RLB shared an Independent interview with a constituent of her’s. An MP should be able to do something like that without having their reputation trashed.
It’s not the sacking that matters. RLB will be remembered in history* as being sacked for forwarding an anti-Semitic article. I don’t think that’s right.
(* to the extent that she is at all)
Amazing how those who complained Labour didnt address antisemitism now say Labour is too harsh dealing with antisemitism. An observer might almost think that their issue was with Labour rather than antisemitism.
Amazing how people who want to make partisan attacks make partisan attacks.
I’m not convinced RLB had read this interview or was forwarding it because it contained an anti Semitic myth.
An interview in the Independent with a well recognised actress - that’s a reasonable thing to forward.
I have voted Tory and Labour about equally in my life, expect to do so in the future and have never been a member of a political party. It was not a partisan attack, just an observation.
If it was simply she hadnt read it, why did she refuse to delete it and keep her job?
Ok. A personal attack then.
I’m not sure that makes you look better
If RLB can't follow the simple rule of not (whether accidentally or not) linking to anything anti-semitic then of course Starmer should sack her from the shadow cabinet. It's an obvious priority for the Labour party right now, and her behaviour a clear challenge to Starmer's authority.
If she deserves being remembered by history it won't be for anything she's done up to now.
I agree with all of that.
My point is that tweeting an article from a mainstream newspaper should be a safe harbour. It’s a reasonable assumption for someone to make that the Independent doesn’t peddle crackpot anti-Semitic conspiracy theories as a matter of course.
I've been surprised by how little discussion there has been on here and generally on these proposed planning "reforms" which seem to have been a formula for (even greater) corruption in politics regarding planning permission.
Could something like this work for big housing developments:
Government compulsorily purchases land at 2-3x price without planning permission Government auctions off same land with planning permission
That way the existing landowner gets a significant but smaller windfall, but it both raises tax revenue and takes out the corruption from the process.
Interesting - I hadn't seen that.
What problem is that proposal designed to address?
I agree that existing CPO powers are extensive, which iirc (not my absolute specialist subject) are quite draconian? See for example how Camden used them in in the late 70s.
I think there is quite a lot of stuff in the postwar planning legislation which is quite powerful if used.
My main issue there would be question whether that will address the problem.
I dont know enough about planning to know if it would work or not. Its simply a better way to deal with the windfall gains around planning permission - most of it should go to the public (probably weighted to the local community), but still keeping enough incentive for the landowner and developer to build. Currently is shared by the landowner, developer and corrupt politicians and officials - clearly sub optimal.
Why should the state take the profit from a landowner developing the land (over and above normal taxes)
Why shouldn't a council make the profit from a change in planning rights rather than the land owner.
Around here the next big estate is the conversion of 2 farms into houses. One is owned by the local developer (and has been for years), the other is owned by the council.
I've been surprised by how little discussion there has been on here and generally on these proposed planning "reforms" which seem to have been a formula for (even greater) corruption in politics regarding planning permission.
Could something like this work for big housing developments:
Government compulsorily purchases land at 2-3x price without planning permission Government auctions off same land with planning permission
That way the existing landowner gets a significant but smaller windfall, but it both raises tax revenue and takes out the corruption from the process.
Interesting - I hadn't seen that.
What problem is that proposal designed to address?
I agree that existing CPO powers are extensive, which iirc (not my absolute specialist subject) are quite draconian? See for example how Camden used them in in the late 70s.
I think there is quite a lot of stuff in the postwar planning legislation which is quite powerful if used.
My main issue there would be question whether that will address the problem.
I dont know enough about planning to know if it would work or not. Its simply a better way to deal with the windfall gains around planning permission - most of it should go to the public (probably weighted to the local community), but still keeping enough incentive for the landowner and developer to build. Currently is shared by the landowner, developer and corrupt politicians and officials - clearly sub optimal.
Why should the state take the profit from a landowner developing the land (over and above normal taxes)
That is a completely different issue. The problem with Jenrick's course of action is that he went out of his way to ensure someone, who would have been due a tax bill, avoided that bill. The rights and wrongs of the tax in question don't enter that argument.
Umm. Yes. It’s a different discussion that is not about Jenrick at all 🤷♂️
Well, anyone who thought Keir a bit drippy got a surprise. Clearly a new broom, and antisemitism will not be tolerated.
Might make for an interesting relationship with the Deputy Leader, RLB's housemate.
I disagree. He’s been brutal, and that’s politics. But he’s also been unjust and that’s more important.
At the end of the day RLB shared an Independent interview with a constituent of her’s. An MP should be able to do something like that without having their reputation trashed.
It’s not the sacking that matters. RLB will be remembered in history* as being sacked for forwarding an anti-Semitic article. I don’t think that’s right.
(* to the extent that she is at all)
Amazing how those who complained Labour didnt address antisemitism now say Labour is too harsh dealing with antisemitism. An observer might almost think that their issue was with Labour rather than antisemitism.
Amazing how people who want to make partisan attacks make partisan attacks.
I’m not convinced RLB had read this interview or was forwarding it because it contained an anti Semitic myth.
An interview in the Independent with a well recognised actress - that’s a reasonable thing to forward.
I have voted Tory and Labour about equally in my life, expect to do so in the future and have never been a member of a political party. It was not a partisan attack, just an observation.
If it was simply she hadnt read it, why did she refuse to delete it and keep her job?
Ok. A personal attack then.
I’m not sure that makes you look better
If RLB can't follow the simple rule of not (whether accidentally or not) linking to anything anti-semitic then of course Starmer should sack her from the shadow cabinet. It's an obvious priority for the Labour party right now, and her behaviour a clear challenge to Starmer's authority.
If she deserves being remembered by history it won't be for anything she's done up to now.
I agree with all of that.
My point is that tweeting an article from a mainstream newspaper should be a safe harbour. It’s a reasonable assumption for someone to make that the Independent doesn’t peddle crackpot anti-Semitic conspiracy theories as a matter of course.
Yes that is an interesting point. Plus has Maxine Peake commented on the whole thing? Would be interested to understand her view.
I've been surprised by how little discussion there has been on here and generally on these proposed planning "reforms" which seem to have been a formula for (even greater) corruption in politics regarding planning permission.
Could something like this work for big housing developments:
Government compulsorily purchases land at 2-3x price without planning permission Government auctions off same land with planning permission
That way the existing landowner gets a significant but smaller windfall, but it both raises tax revenue and takes out the corruption from the process.
Interesting - I hadn't seen that.
What problem is that proposal designed to address?
I agree that existing CPO powers are extensive, which iirc (not my absolute specialist subject) are quite draconian? See for example how Camden used them in in the late 70s.
I think there is quite a lot of stuff in the postwar planning legislation which is quite powerful if used.
My main issue there would be question whether that will address the problem.
I dont know enough about planning to know if it would work or not. Its simply a better way to deal with the windfall gains around planning permission - most of it should go to the public (probably weighted to the local community), but still keeping enough incentive for the landowner and developer to build. Currently is shared by the landowner, developer and corrupt politicians and officials - clearly sub optimal.
Why should the state take the profit from a landowner developing the land (over and above normal taxes)
The planning system in this country is a disgrace.
Yes someone developing land should get a profit from doing so but that isn't what our planning system leads to.
Instead in this country with planning permission being so hard to get simply getting consent to build (but not yet bothering to do so) raises dramatically the value of land. So companies can look to "flip" land without doing any actual development simply by purchasing it, getting consent then looking to sell it on with existing consent.
That's not a problem that needs fixing in the market though. It's the market finding a solution to deal with a failing of the state itself. The problem that needs fixing is the inability to easily and readily get planning permission. If the planning process was streamlined, quick, simple and easy then getting consent would no longer be valuable. Instead the state and the awful power of NIMBYs means that simply getting permission is sometimes more valuable than actually bothering to develop the land.
While I think the summation may be right on this occasion, in actual fact that form of words is utterly standard when it comes to planning. The importance of avoiding even the appearance of bias is talked about as just not having bias may not be enough to prevent successful challenge.
It's hardly a smoking gun, is it?
There may be a gun here, it's a drip feed of him being at best careless and at worse crossing thr line, but I dont think Jolyon may be an expert on these matters to take bog standard holding responses and extrapolate them. You're even allowed to favour one side in your comments so long as you keep an open mind, that was a deliberate clarification in the law.
An open mind is always healthy. But this looks venal. It looks like corruption.
You're missing the point entirely. I think hes crossed a line too. But Jolyon pretending that wording is proof of that wont fly. If he attempted to make that argument it would not work. It might be demonstrated his actions did not match his words but thats the opposite argument.
Am I the only person who hates the use of staycation to mean holiday in the UK? I am certain when it was first used it meant staying at home and taking day-trips. A holiday in the UK for me is a holiday! Its what I do almost all years.
Imagine thinking that a holiday in the UK is good.
The ambiguity of the forum post. Cannot decide whether to be offended because I DO think a UK holiday is good, or if you are mocking those who cannot imagine that!
The contrast between the condemnation of people going to the beach and people going to Anfield is stratling. I'm thoroughly pissed off this morning. People should kick off if the beaches are closed.
Yes it struck me too and won't have gone unnoticed with most people! The contrast also won't have gone completely unnoticed with Greater Manchester Police restricting its involvement with two illegal "quarantine raves" in Failsworth and Carrington and yet the Met Police deciding to attempt to disperse crowds at illegal parties in Brixton, Notting Hill & Streatham in the last two days with the resulting headlines.
I hope we don't see more community tensions flare in London this weekend with the Met Police "enhanced policing operation" across the capital? This weekend should have also been the Pride in London festival when vast numbers swell onto the streets and parties are held. Veterans from the Gay Liberation Front are expected to march in London to mark their 50th anniversary.
In contrast to racial equality protesters, Liverpool fans and sundry beach goers I think the gay community has been very responsible indeed by not holding a big Pride rally this year. Probably has much to do with their learned experience of another virus, HIV, which hit them so hard for many years.
Well, anyone who thought Keir a bit drippy got a surprise. Clearly a new broom, and antisemitism will not be tolerated.
Might make for an interesting relationship with the Deputy Leader, RLB's housemate.
I disagree. He’s been brutal, and that’s politics. But he’s also been unjust and that’s more important.
At the end of the day RLB shared an Independent interview with a constituent of her’s. An MP should be able to do something like that without having their reputation trashed.
It’s not the sacking that matters. RLB will be remembered in history* as being sacked for forwarding an anti-Semitic article. I don’t think that’s right.
(* to the extent that she is at all)
Come off it. You would have been amongst the first calling out Starmer's weakness and indecision if she'd stayed.
It is the one single issue that Starmer cannot be seen to be tolerant over. He had forewarned the Party, and he acted accordingly.
Granted, RLB's indescretion was minor in comparison to Robert Jenrick's antics, but I would like to think, when faced with the same issue, namely brazen corruption, Starmer will be equally forthright.
As for Jenrick? Haven't looked properly at the details but although whichever minister it was got criticised for saying it, if you are a member of the Party and/or a donor of course you get better access to MPs and ministers because you will attend functions which they are invited to.
This is not news.
Oh, it is and it should be. Jenrick furiously worked at saving Tory donor and pornographer, Richard Desmond just shy of a £50m tax bill to Tower Hamlets Council. The fact that in return Jenrick's campaign was rewarded with around a paltry £10,000 is almost irrelevant.
As I say I have no idea of the details of this case. But the principle of access? Not a party activist or member, I take it? Those disgusting soggy chicken dinners, barbecues, hell even MPs' talks? All for local association members and all if they possibly can, with an invited MP the senior the better.
I understand your point. That is not to say it is not unacceptable.
As someone these days, more inclined to the Starmer side of the argument, I would still be outraged if Starmer failed to fire a minister who had engaged themselves as Jenrick has clearly done.
a) bloody love the three negatives in your first para. Reminds me of those financial services exam questions - when wouldn't you not advise an investor not to delay investing in XXX; and
b) yes it sounds like it was something of note as @Charles has also pointed out; but
c) the principle of access applies across all parties. I bet it's a catch if the Worksop & District Labour Party nabs Lisa Nandy for their Summer barbecue?
Point a) I try my best.
Point b) Agreed.
Point c) I don't have a problem with Jenrick and Desmond attending a rubber chicken dinner, at vast cost to the latter. I do object to Jenrick's subsequent course of action. Where it really starts to smell unpleasant is the financial implications of Jenrick's course of action. From being a minor, "you scratch my back, I'll scratch yours" issue to something that looks, in principle, at least, reminiscent of T. Dan Smith or John Poulson
Well, anyone who thought Keir a bit drippy got a surprise. Clearly a new broom, and antisemitism will not be tolerated.
Might make for an interesting relationship with the Deputy Leader, RLB's housemate.
I disagree. He’s been brutal, and that’s politics. But he’s also been unjust and that’s more important.
At the end of the day RLB shared an Independent interview with a constituent of her’s. An MP should be able to do something like that without having their reputation trashed.
It’s not the sacking that matters. RLB will be remembered in history* as being sacked for forwarding an anti-Semitic article. I don’t think that’s right.
(* to the extent that she is at all)
Amazing how those who complained Labour didnt address antisemitism now say Labour is too harsh dealing with antisemitism. An observer might almost think that their issue was with Labour rather than antisemitism.
Amazing how people who want to make partisan attacks make partisan attacks.
I’m not convinced RLB had read this interview or was forwarding it because it contained an anti Semitic myth.
An interview in the Independent with a well recognised actress - that’s a reasonable thing to forward.
I have voted Tory and Labour about equally in my life, expect to do so in the future and have never been a member of a political party. It was not a partisan attack, just an observation.
If it was simply she hadnt read it, why did she refuse to delete it and keep her job?
Ok. A personal attack then.
I’m not sure that makes you look better
Its a discussion board.
You didn’t address my point.
You accused me of having double standards.
I pointed out you have been critical of Labour turning a blind eye to antisemites but then are now criticising them for being too harsh when a shadow minister refuses to be delete a retweet of a blatantly anti-semitic meme. It does not seem a consistent position.
I've been surprised by how little discussion there has been on here and generally on these proposed planning "reforms" which seem to have been a formula for (even greater) corruption in politics regarding planning permission.
Could something like this work for big housing developments:
Government compulsorily purchases land at 2-3x price without planning permission Government auctions off same land with planning permission
That way the existing landowner gets a significant but smaller windfall, but it both raises tax revenue and takes out the corruption from the process.
Interesting - I hadn't seen that.
What problem is that proposal designed to address?
I agree that existing CPO powers are extensive, which iirc (not my absolute specialist subject) are quite draconian? See for example how Camden used them in in the late 70s.
I think there is quite a lot of stuff in the postwar planning legislation which is quite powerful if used.
My main issue there would be question whether that will address the problem.
I dont know enough about planning to know if it would work or not. Its simply a better way to deal with the windfall gains around planning permission - most of it should go to the public (probably weighted to the local community), but still keeping enough incentive for the landowner and developer to build. Currently is shared by the landowner, developer and corrupt politicians and officials - clearly sub optimal.
Why should the state take the profit from a landowner developing the land (over and above normal taxes)
Why shouldn't a council make the profit from a change in planning rights rather than the land owner.
Around here the next big estate is the conversion of 2 farms into houses. One is owned by the local developer (and has been for years), the other is owned by the council.
If the council owns the land anyway that’s fine (although in theory it shouldn’t influence the planning decision)
But what is being suggested here is the permission is granted then the council buys it for under the market value to capture the gain for the state.
Well, anyone who thought Keir a bit drippy got a surprise. Clearly a new broom, and antisemitism will not be tolerated.
Might make for an interesting relationship with the Deputy Leader, RLB's housemate.
I disagree. He’s been brutal, and that’s politics. But he’s also been unjust and that’s more important.
At the end of the day RLB shared an Independent interview with a constituent of her’s. An MP should be able to do something like that without having their reputation trashed.
It’s not the sacking that matters. RLB will be remembered in history* as being sacked for forwarding an anti-Semitic article. I don’t think that’s right.
(* to the extent that she is at all)
Amazing how those who complained Labour didnt address antisemitism now say Labour is too harsh dealing with antisemitism. An observer might almost think that their issue was with Labour rather than antisemitism.
Amazing how people who want to make partisan attacks make partisan attacks.
I’m not convinced RLB had read this interview or was forwarding it because it contained an anti Semitic myth.
An interview in the Independent with a well recognised actress - that’s a reasonable thing to forward.
I have voted Tory and Labour about equally in my life, expect to do so in the future and have never been a member of a political party. It was not a partisan attack, just an observation.
If it was simply she hadnt read it, why did she refuse to delete it and keep her job?
Ok. A personal attack then.
I’m not sure that makes you look better
If RLB can't follow the simple rule of not (whether accidentally or not) linking to anything anti-semitic then of course Starmer should sack her from the shadow cabinet. It's an obvious priority for the Labour party right now, and her behaviour a clear challenge to Starmer's authority.
If she deserves being remembered by history it won't be for anything she's done up to now.
I agree with all of that.
My point is that tweeting an article from a mainstream newspaper should be a safe harbour. It’s a reasonable assumption for someone to make that the Independent doesn’t peddle crackpot anti-Semitic conspiracy theories as a matter of course.
Yes that is an interesting point. Plus has Maxine Peake commented on the whole thing? Would be interested to understand her view.
Someone said she’d walked back from it - I think she hadn’t done her research or something
Well, anyone who thought Keir a bit drippy got a surprise. Clearly a new broom, and antisemitism will not be tolerated.
Might make for an interesting relationship with the Deputy Leader, RLB's housemate.
I disagree. He’s been brutal, and that’s politics. But he’s also been unjust and that’s more important.
At the end of the day RLB shared an Independent interview with a constituent of her’s. An MP should be able to do something like that without having their reputation trashed.
It’s not the sacking that matters. RLB will be remembered in history* as being sacked for forwarding an anti-Semitic article. I don’t think that’s right.
(* to the extent that she is at all)
Amazing how those who complained Labour didnt address antisemitism now say Labour is too harsh dealing with antisemitism. An observer might almost think that their issue was with Labour rather than antisemitism.
Whilst I don't care particularly about this, I do have a smidgen of sympathy for the view that retweeting an Independent article doesn't seem the most grievous of crimes. It does feel like Starmer was looking for an excuse to sack RLB. Perhaps stuff went on behind the scenes yesterday that we didn't hear about, but a statement by RLB saying specifically that she considered the line about Israel to be antisemitic would seem enough to me.
But like I say, I don't care all that much.
AIUI she was offered the chance to delete the tweet but wouldnt do it. Doesnt seem particularly harsh, she didnt have to grovel, just stop promoting lies about Israel?
If that's the case, then she deserves everything she gets. It's quite funny that Peake and the Independent have rowed back on the claim and Amnesty have disowned it too.
Her press release said she tweeted a disavowal agreed with Starmer’s office
She didn't. Starmer's office demanded she deleted the Tweet linking to the article. Despite now realising (if she didn't before) the article was antisemitic she refused to do so.
Refusing to follow instructions like that is standard grounds for removing from the Shadow Cabinet.
You're missing the point entirely. I think hes crossed a line too. But Jolyon pretending that wording is proof of that wont fly. If he attempted to make that argument it would not work. It might be demonstrated his actions did not match his words but thats the opposite argument.
I think you are reading too much into Jolyon's tweet, as you are accusing him of reading too much into Jenrick's statement
I don't think Jo is saying the wording is proof of Jenrick's guilt.
I think other things not listed in the tweet are evidence of Jenrick's guilt.
Jo is merely stating that in light of other evidence, Jenrick's statement could be more accurately worded
Well, anyone who thought Keir a bit drippy got a surprise. Clearly a new broom, and antisemitism will not be tolerated.
Might make for an interesting relationship with the Deputy Leader, RLB's housemate.
I disagree. He’s been brutal, and that’s politics. But he’s also been unjust and that’s more important.
At the end of the day RLB shared an Independent interview with a constituent of her’s. An MP should be able to do something like that without having their reputation trashed.
It’s not the sacking that matters. RLB will be remembered in history* as being sacked for forwarding an anti-Semitic article. I don’t think that’s right.
(* to the extent that she is at all)
Amazing how those who complained Labour didnt address antisemitism now say Labour is too harsh dealing with antisemitism. An observer might almost think that their issue was with Labour rather than antisemitism.
Amazing how people who want to make partisan attacks make partisan attacks.
I’m not convinced RLB had read this interview or was forwarding it because it contained an anti Semitic myth.
An interview in the Independent with a well recognised actress - that’s a reasonable thing to forward.
I have voted Tory and Labour about equally in my life, expect to do so in the future and have never been a member of a political party. It was not a partisan attack, just an observation.
If it was simply she hadnt read it, why did she refuse to delete it and keep her job?
Ok. A personal attack then.
I’m not sure that makes you look better
If RLB can't follow the simple rule of not (whether accidentally or not) linking to anything anti-semitic then of course Starmer should sack her from the shadow cabinet. It's an obvious priority for the Labour party right now, and her behaviour a clear challenge to Starmer's authority.
If she deserves being remembered by history it won't be for anything she's done up to now.
I agree with all of that.
My point is that tweeting an article from a mainstream newspaper should be a safe harbour. It’s a reasonable assumption for someone to make that the Independent doesn’t peddle crackpot anti-Semitic conspiracy theories as a matter of course.
Yes that is an interesting point. Plus has Maxine Peake commented on the whole thing? Would be interested to understand her view.
She has, as reported by the New Statesman and included in an article which also says this:
Well, anyone who thought Keir a bit drippy got a surprise. Clearly a new broom, and antisemitism will not be tolerated.
Might make for an interesting relationship with the Deputy Leader, RLB's housemate.
I disagree. He’s been brutal, and that’s politics. But he’s also been unjust and that’s more important.
At the end of the day RLB shared an Independent interview with a constituent of her’s. An MP should be able to do something like that without having their reputation trashed.
It’s not the sacking that matters. RLB will be remembered in history* as being sacked for forwarding an anti-Semitic article. I don’t think that’s right.
(* to the extent that she is at all)
Amazing how those who complained Labour didnt address antisemitism now say Labour is too harsh dealing with antisemitism. An observer might almost think that their issue was with Labour rather than antisemitism.
Amazing how people who want to make partisan attacks make partisan attacks.
I’m not convinced RLB had read this interview or was forwarding it because it contained an anti Semitic myth.
An interview in the Independent with a well recognised actress - that’s a reasonable thing to forward.
I have voted Tory and Labour about equally in my life, expect to do so in the future and have never been a member of a political party. It was not a partisan attack, just an observation.
If it was simply she hadnt read it, why did she refuse to delete it and keep her job?
Ok. A personal attack then.
I’m not sure that makes you look better
If RLB can't follow the simple rule of not (whether accidentally or not) linking to anything anti-semitic then of course Starmer should sack her from the shadow cabinet. It's an obvious priority for the Labour party right now, and her behaviour a clear challenge to Starmer's authority.
If she deserves being remembered by history it won't be for anything she's done up to now.
I agree with all of that.
My point is that tweeting an article from a mainstream newspaper should be a safe harbour. It’s a reasonable assumption for someone to make that the Independent doesn’t peddle crackpot anti-Semitic conspiracy theories as a matter of course.
It was an interview with a celebrity...
But generally I think shadow ministers have to read things before forwarding and praising them. "I thought it must be good because it was in a newspaper" is a really crap defence.
Anyway, I'm not sure I get you - you agree that Starmer was right to sack her, but you don't think her reputation as an MP should be trashed? Fair enough.
I've been surprised by how little discussion there has been on here and generally on these proposed planning "reforms" which seem to have been a formula for (even greater) corruption in politics regarding planning permission.
Could something like this work for big housing developments:
Government compulsorily purchases land at 2-3x price without planning permission Government auctions off same land with planning permission
That way the existing landowner gets a significant but smaller windfall, but it both raises tax revenue and takes out the corruption from the process.
Interesting - I hadn't seen that.
What problem is that proposal designed to address?
I agree that existing CPO powers are extensive, which iirc (not my absolute specialist subject) are quite draconian? See for example how Camden used them in in the late 70s.
I think there is quite a lot of stuff in the postwar planning legislation which is quite powerful if used.
My main issue there would be question whether that will address the problem.
I dont know enough about planning to know if it would work or not. Its simply a better way to deal with the windfall gains around planning permission - most of it should go to the public (probably weighted to the local community), but still keeping enough incentive for the landowner and developer to build. Currently is shared by the landowner, developer and corrupt politicians and officials - clearly sub optimal.
Why should the state take the profit from a landowner developing the land (over and above normal taxes)
That is a completely different issue. The problem with Jenrick's course of action is that he went out of his way to ensure someone, who would have been due a tax bill, avoided that bill. The rights and wrongs of the tax in question don't enter that argument.
Umm. Yes. It’s a different discussion that is not about Jenrick at all 🤷♂️
Yes, I am glad you agree, that what you consider to be an unjust tax is a different kettle of fish to something completely irrelevant, that just looks and smells like corruption.
Well, anyone who thought Keir a bit drippy got a surprise. Clearly a new broom, and antisemitism will not be tolerated.
Might make for an interesting relationship with the Deputy Leader, RLB's housemate.
I disagree. He’s been brutal, and that’s politics. But he’s also been unjust and that’s more important.
At the end of the day RLB shared an Independent interview with a constituent of her’s. An MP should be able to do something like that without having their reputation trashed.
It’s not the sacking that matters. RLB will be remembered in history* as being sacked for forwarding an anti-Semitic article. I don’t think that’s right.
(* to the extent that she is at all)
Amazing how those who complained Labour didnt address antisemitism now say Labour is too harsh dealing with antisemitism. An observer might almost think that their issue was with Labour rather than antisemitism.
Amazing how people who want to make partisan attacks make partisan attacks.
I’m not convinced RLB had read this interview or was forwarding it because it contained an anti Semitic myth.
An interview in the Independent with a well recognised actress - that’s a reasonable thing to forward.
I have voted Tory and Labour about equally in my life, expect to do so in the future and have never been a member of a political party. It was not a partisan attack, just an observation.
If it was simply she hadnt read it, why did she refuse to delete it and keep her job?
Ok. A personal attack then.
I’m not sure that makes you look better
Its a discussion board.
You didn’t address my point.
You accused me of having double standards.
I pointed out you have been critical of Labour turning a blind eye to antisemites but then are now criticising them for being too harsh when a shadow minister refuses to be delete a retweet of a blatantly anti-semitic meme. It does not seem a consistent position.
It was an article in the Independent. She tweeted an agreed disavowel.
Platelet Gene Expression and Function in COVID-19 Patients https://ashpublications.org/blood/article/doi/10.1182/blood.2020007214/461106/Platelet-Gene-Expression-and-Function-in-COVID-19 There is an urgent need to understand the pathogenesis of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). In particular, thrombotic complications in patients with COVID-19 are common and contribute to organ failure and mortality. Patients with severe COVID-19 present with hemostatic abnormalities that mimic disseminated intravascular coagulopathy associated with sepsis with the major difference being increased risk of thrombosis rather than bleeding. However, whether SARS-CoV-2 infection alters platelet function to contribute to the pathophysiology of COVID-19 remains unknown. In this study, we report altered platelet gene expression and functional responses in patients infected with SARS-CoV-2. RNA sequencing demonstrated distinct changes in the gene expression profile of circulating platelets of COVID-19 patients. Pathway analysis revealed differential gene expression changes in pathways associated with protein ubiquitination, antigen presentation and mitochondrial dysfunction. The receptor for SARS-CoV-2 binding, ACE2, was not detected by mRNA or protein in platelets. Surprisingly, mRNA from the SARS-CoV-2 N1 gene was detected in platelets from 2/25 COVID-19 patients, suggesting platelets may take-up SARS-COV-2 mRNA independent of ACE2. Resting platelets from COVID-19 patients had increased P-selectin expression basally and upon activation. Circulating platelet-neutrophil, -monocyte, and -T-cell aggregates were all significantly elevated in COVID-19 patients compared to healthy donors. Furthermore, platelets from COVID-19 patients aggregated faster and showed increased spreading on both fibrinogen and collagen. The increase in platelet activation and aggregation could partially be attributed to increased MAPK pathway activation and thromboxane generation. These findings demonstrate that SARS-CoV-2 infection is associated with platelet hyperreactivity which may contribute to COVID-19 pathophysiology.
Thanks Nigel, that's very interesting.
When briefly hospitalised with C-19 the other half was given anti-coagulants as a precaution. We were surprised at the time because she is generally exceptionally fit and healthy. This little extract helps explain why the drugs were applied.
She was fortunate to be treated at The Royal Free Hospital, which has been very much at the front line and offered first class treatment.
I hope she is well on the way to recovery, as I'm aware it can be a long haul.
On topic Sir Kneel Starmer has made very few mis-steps to date. Nothing he has done has been rocket science but after the blundering incoherence of the Corbyn regime it seems remarkable.
In contrast the government is struggling with the virus and its aftermath with a physically weakened PM and several mediocrities around the Cabinet table. Boris needs a reshuffle. Williamson has to go for sheer incompetence and Jenrick needs to go for pure dumbness and a void in his ethics bank. Ideally Boris would reach out to the likes of Hunt and Javid but that is not really his style. When you fall out with Boris it tends to be for keeps (Gove being a notable exception).
The current cabinet would be improved considerably by the addition of a few mediocrities.
Well, anyone who thought Keir a bit drippy got a surprise. Clearly a new broom, and antisemitism will not be tolerated.
Might make for an interesting relationship with the Deputy Leader, RLB's housemate.
I disagree. He’s been brutal, and that’s politics. But he’s also been unjust and that’s more important.
At the end of the day RLB shared an Independent interview with a constituent of her’s. An MP should be able to do something like that without having their reputation trashed.
It’s not the sacking that matters. RLB will be remembered in history* as being sacked for forwarding an anti-Semitic article. I don’t think that’s right.
(* to the extent that she is at all)
Come off it. You would have been amongst the first calling out Starmer's weakness and indecision if she'd stayed.
It is the one single issue that Starmer cannot be seen to be tolerant over. He had forewarned the Party, and he acted accordingly.
Granted, RLB's indescretion was minor in comparison to Robert Jenrick's antics, but I would like to think, when faced with the same issue, namely brazen corruption, Starmer will be equally forthright.
As for Jenrick? Haven't looked properly at the details but although whichever minister it was got criticised for saying it, if you are a member of the Party and/or a donor of course you get better access to MPs and ministers because you will attend functions which they are invited to.
This is not news.
The issue for me was accelerating the decision to avoid the £40m community contribution (or whatever it was).
The decision should have been given in its own time. I think it was a £1.5bn project, so the owners probably expected to make about £300-400m profit. £40m is a decent chunk of that, but not the difference between viability/unviability.
That’s a minister intervening directly in the interests of someone who had just lobbied him when he was acting in a quasi-judicial role.
Everything else is just fluff.
“Legally all land in England, Wales, and Scotland belongs to the Crown. Freehold is ownership of an estate in land rather than the land itself. This distinction dates back to the Middle Ages and makes relatively little difference nowadays, so legal authorities often do not bother to distinguish between ownership of the land and ownership of an estate. Its effect is most notable when property becomes ownerless at which point it reverts to the monarch (as the owner of the superior interest) under a process known as escheat.” - https://www.thecrownestate.co.uk/en-gb/resources/faqs/
In the strict legal sense and in the moral sense that such payments benefit the wider community, the Government has every right to put whatever conditions it likes on the disposal of an estate in land that the Crown, in the name of which it governs, ultimately owns. Unlawfully or otherwise conspiring to deprive the taxpayers and residents of Tower Hamlets of the benefit of such disposal is, legally and morally, and at the very least, a resigning matter.
Well, anyone who thought Keir a bit drippy got a surprise. Clearly a new broom, and antisemitism will not be tolerated.
Might make for an interesting relationship with the Deputy Leader, RLB's housemate.
But he’s also been unjust and that’s more important.
Long-Bailey was asked to take down her tweet and to apologise. Instead, she retweeted her original message with a clarification that she had not endorsed the entire Peake article. This was a form of words that she later claimed was agreed with the leader’s office (which is disputed). But this only caused more anger, and she was repeatedly told that Starmer wanted her to delete the message and issue a full apology.
HuffPost UK has been told Long-Bailey refused to take phone calls from the leader’s office, and after being given four hours to comply with his wishes, Starmer decided enough was enough. Having given her a way out, he felt he was left with no option but to fire her as shadow education secretary.
Well, anyone who thought Keir a bit drippy got a surprise. Clearly a new broom, and antisemitism will not be tolerated.
Might make for an interesting relationship with the Deputy Leader, RLB's housemate.
I disagree. He’s been brutal, and that’s politics. But he’s also been unjust and that’s more important.
At the end of the day RLB shared an Independent interview with a constituent of her’s. An MP should be able to do something like that without having their reputation trashed.
It’s not the sacking that matters. RLB will be remembered in history* as being sacked for forwarding an anti-Semitic article. I don’t think that’s right.
(* to the extent that she is at all)
Amazing how those who complained Labour didnt address antisemitism now say Labour is too harsh dealing with antisemitism. An observer might almost think that their issue was with Labour rather than antisemitism.
Amazing how people who want to make partisan attacks make partisan attacks.
I’m not convinced RLB had read this interview or was forwarding it because it contained an anti Semitic myth.
An interview in the Independent with a well recognised actress - that’s a reasonable thing to forward.
I have voted Tory and Labour about equally in my life, expect to do so in the future and have never been a member of a political party. It was not a partisan attack, just an observation.
If it was simply she hadnt read it, why did she refuse to delete it and keep her job?
Ok. A personal attack then.
I’m not sure that makes you look better
Its a discussion board.
You didn’t address my point.
You accused me of having double standards.
I pointed out you have been critical of Labour turning a blind eye to antisemites but then are now criticising them for being too harsh when a shadow minister refuses to be delete a retweet of a blatantly anti-semitic meme. It does not seem a consistent position.
It was an article in the Independent. She tweeted an agreed disavowel.
She didn't. Agreed would have entailed deleting the Tweet sharing the racist article. She refused to do so
Well, anyone who thought Keir a bit drippy got a surprise. Clearly a new broom, and antisemitism will not be tolerated.
Might make for an interesting relationship with the Deputy Leader, RLB's housemate.
I disagree. He’s been brutal, and that’s politics. But he’s also been unjust and that’s more important.
At the end of the day RLB shared an Independent interview with a constituent of her’s. An MP should be able to do something like that without having their reputation trashed.
It’s not the sacking that matters. RLB will be remembered in history* as being sacked for forwarding an anti-Semitic article. I don’t think that’s right.
(* to the extent that she is at all)
Come off it. You would have been amongst the first calling out Starmer's weakness and indecision if she'd stayed.
It is the one single issue that Starmer cannot be seen to be tolerant over. He had forewarned the Party, and he acted accordingly.
Granted, RLB's indescretion was minor in comparison to Robert Jenrick's antics, but I would like to think, when faced with the same issue, namely brazen corruption, Starmer will be equally forthright.
As for Jenrick? Haven't looked properly at the details but although whichever minister it was got criticised for saying it, if you are a member of the Party and/or a donor of course you get better access to MPs and ministers because you will attend functions which they are invited to.
This is not news.
The issue for me was accelerating the decision to avoid the £40m community contribution (or whatever it was).
The decision should have been given in its own time. I think it was a £1.5bn project, so the owners probably expected to make about £300-400m profit. £40m is a decent chunk of that, but not the difference between viability/unviability.
That’s a minister intervening directly in the interests of someone who had just lobbied him when he was acting in a quasi-judicial role.
Everything else is just fluff.
I agree. The correspondence released indicates that Desmond threatened to pull out of the development all together if permission was not granted in time to avoid the £40M charge ( a charge that would contribute to the extra local services needed as a result of the scheme). This is tantamount to blackmail, and Jenrick is guilty of expediting the scheme to avoid the charge. Desmond was being greedy - for the reasons you say, I doubt he would have really pulled out just because of the £40M dent in his profits, which as a proportion of his wealth is mere pocket money.
I've been surprised by how little discussion there has been on here and generally on these proposed planning "reforms" which seem to have been a formula for (even greater) corruption in politics regarding planning permission.
Could something like this work for big housing developments:
Government compulsorily purchases land at 2-3x price without planning permission Government auctions off same land with planning permission
That way the existing landowner gets a significant but smaller windfall, but it both raises tax revenue and takes out the corruption from the process.
Interesting - I hadn't seen that.
What problem is that proposal designed to address?
I agree that existing CPO powers are extensive, which iirc (not my absolute specialist subject) are quite draconian? See for example how Camden used them in in the late 70s.
I think there is quite a lot of stuff in the postwar planning legislation which is quite powerful if used.
My main issue there would be question whether that will address the problem.
I dont know enough about planning to know if it would work or not. Its simply a better way to deal with the windfall gains around planning permission - most of it should go to the public (probably weighted to the local community), but still keeping enough incentive for the landowner and developer to build. Currently is shared by the landowner, developer and corrupt politicians and officials - clearly sub optimal.
Why should the state take the profit from a landowner developing the land (over and above normal taxes)
The planning system in this country is a disgrace.
Yes someone developing land should get a profit from doing so but that isn't what our planning system leads to.
Instead in this country with planning permission being so hard to get simply getting consent to build (but not yet bothering to do so) raises dramatically the value of land. So companies can look to "flip" land without doing any actual development simply by purchasing it, getting consent then looking to sell it on with existing consent.
That's not a problem that needs fixing in the market though. It's the market finding a solution to deal with a failing of the state itself. The problem that needs fixing is the inability to easily and readily get planning permission. If the planning process was streamlined, quick, simple and easy then getting consent would no longer be valuable. Instead the state and the awful power of NIMBYs means that simply getting permission is sometimes more valuable than actually bothering to develop the land.
Fix the real problem and the market will follow.
No one is a NIMBY until the value of their own backyard is threatened. Then everyone becomes a NIMBY.
Your points on the system are well made. A while ago I attended a District Council planning session and was shocked at the lack of proper analysis and process. The councillors (from all parties) were clearly not listening to any logic and based their decisions on whether they liked the development or did not, and were clearly influenced by who was on the board of the company applying for the development. It is a system that is open to abuse and ripe for structural reform.
Starmer spent yesterday on the road in Stevenage, part of a series of self-flagellatory visits aimed at repairing Labour’s relationship with another group Corbynism alienated from the party: swing voters. Around 11am he told Long Bailey to delete her praise of Peake — which, remarkably, is still online now — and apologise. She did neither, instead offering a clarification that she did not agree with everything Peake had said.
There followed a painful period of four hours in which Long Bailey did not take calls from the leader’s office. At 3pm she was finished. Starmer, a keen footballer, has been likened by friends to the combative and often gratuitously violent Roy Keane. Long Bailey’s sacking, swift and brutal as it was, is redolent of one of his meatier two-footed challenges. It delighted the faithful on the right of the party but it could yet make life harder for his team.
Well, anyone who thought Keir a bit drippy got a surprise. Clearly a new broom, and antisemitism will not be tolerated.
Might make for an interesting relationship with the Deputy Leader, RLB's housemate.
I disagree. He’s been brutal, and that’s politics. But he’s also been unjust and that’s more important.
At the end of the day RLB shared an Independent interview with a constituent of her’s. An MP should be able to do something like that without having their reputation trashed.
It’s not the sacking that matters. RLB will be remembered in history* as being sacked for forwarding an anti-Semitic article. I don’t think that’s right.
(* to the extent that she is at all)
Amazing how those who complained Labour didnt address antisemitism now say Labour is too harsh dealing with antisemitism. An observer might almost think that their issue was with Labour rather than antisemitism.
Amazing how people who want to make partisan attacks make partisan attacks.
I’m not convinced RLB had read this interview or was forwarding it because it contained an anti Semitic myth.
An interview in the Independent with a well recognised actress - that’s a reasonable thing to forward.
I have voted Tory and Labour about equally in my life, expect to do so in the future and have never been a member of a political party. It was not a partisan attack, just an observation.
If it was simply she hadnt read it, why did she refuse to delete it and keep her job?
Ok. A personal attack then.
I’m not sure that makes you look better
Its a discussion board.
You didn’t address my point.
You accused me of having double standards.
I pointed out you have been critical of Labour turning a blind eye to antisemites but then are now criticising them for being too harsh when a shadow minister refuses to be delete a retweet of a blatantly anti-semitic meme. It does not seem a consistent position.
It was an article in the Independent. She tweeted an agreed disavowel.
But she couldnt in "her own good conscience" delete the tweet - that is what she was sacked for. A defence of not having read the article or what the source was is irrelevant.
You're missing the point entirely. I think hes crossed a line too. But Jolyon pretending that wording is proof of that wont fly. If he attempted to make that argument it would not work. It might be demonstrated his actions did not match his words but thats the opposite argument.
I think you are reading too much into Jolyon's tweet, as you are accusing him of reading too much into Jenrick's statement
I don't think Jo is saying the wording is proof of Jenrick's guilt.
I think other things not listed in the tweet are evidence of Jenrick's guilt.
Jo is merely stating that in light of other evidence, Jenrick's statement could be more accurately worded
I dont see how I am reading too much into his tweet when he directly claims a much worse meaning for the words in question than can be reasonably be inferred from them. Hes not just saying it could be more accurately worded hes saying it means effectively the opposite of what it says, which is too strong a statement to make. I agree other things not listed may be evidence of guilt, Jenrick has to my mind already gotten to a point most councillors would know not to, but Jolyon is pretending boilerplate wording is proof and it isnt in any way and if hes as smart as he thinks he must know that.
The thing about the Jenrick episode that makes it really bad for me (as pro-housebuilding councillor):
In my experience, you have three groups of anti-developers:
1 - BANANAs (Build Absolutely Nothing Anywhere Near Anyone). These are actually fewer than you'd fear.
2 - Knee-jerk NIMBYs. Don't want anything built because it would spoil their view/reduce their house prices/get too many people in the neighbourhood/spoil the ambience they came here for.
3 - Rational NIMBYs. These are by far the largest cohort, in my experience, and it's hard to be annoyed at them if they have a decent reason: the roads are already gridlocked, what will the effect be of another thousand households here? The school here is oversubscribed already and the waiting list for the doctors surgery is impossible and you're proposing overloading it more? The kids have nothing to do and now we'll have twice as many hanging around the bus stop looking for ways to take out their boredom? You already can't get a seat on the bus into town; how will doubling the number of people using it help?
Sometimes you might suspect those in category three of being in category two but looking for a decent excuse - but I've found many people who say "No more houses!" do, when you chat about extra infrastructure, within five minutes are pointing out where entire new estates could go with the right roads and other infrastructure. Chatting to one, he went from "We've got to block more housing" to suggesting a 50% expansion of the village.
If we want a load more housing so our younger generation can actually afford to get houses, we need to bring people along with us. Which is where things like S106 and the Community Infrastructure Levy and conditions that developments provide sports facilities, sports fields, surgeries, schools and green spaces come in.
I've already seen resistance drop to more development when such things accompany them - and increase in other areas when developers either fail to provide what was promised or manage to wriggle out of conditions completely.
Developers will want to provide simply a load of rabbit hutches and then bugger off. Maximum profit. Spreading them out, providing green spaces and other facilities - that's all in the category of income lost. Providing funding for the extra facilities and infrastructure - again, that's money off the bottom line.
So if you can short that out by bunging a few quid to the Tory Party coffers via a dodgy Cabinet Minister - that's a win.
Except for the failure to provide the facilities to accompany development and the shift of normal people into Category 3 above - and pressing those already in Category 3 into Category 2 and into Category 1.
And then you get the electorate consistently (and rationally) voting any politicians who support housebuilding out of office.
She understandably has cut lose from Rebecca Lightweight Bailey. Perhaps worried that being seen as an anti-Semite (and her comment was clearly prejudiced) might damage her chances of getting her next role. Perhaps it might make luvvies think a little bit more about broader issues and engaging their brains before opening their gobs.
While I think the summation may be right on this occasion, in actual fact that form of words is utterly standard when it comes to planning. The importance of avoiding even the appearance of bias is talked about as just not having bias may not be enough to prevent successful challenge.
Indeed. Maugham is once again being utterly disingenuous here. It is not enough that there is no bias, it is important that there is no appearance of bias either. That is all that statement is saying and as a QC he knows that perfectly well. But Jenrick failed on both counts, actual and appearance, and he should have gone.
That does appear likely.
I see Maugham as being more about getting attention in the media to leverage into politics.
How many cases has the Good Law Project actually won?
Well, anyone who thought Keir a bit drippy got a surprise. Clearly a new broom, and antisemitism will not be tolerated.
Might make for an interesting relationship with the Deputy Leader, RLB's housemate.
I disagree. He’s been brutal, and that’s politics. But he’s also been unjust and that’s more important.
At the end of the day RLB shared an Independent interview with a constituent of her’s. An MP should be able to do something like that without having their reputation trashed.
It’s not the sacking that matters. RLB will be remembered in history* as being sacked for forwarding an anti-Semitic article. I don’t think that’s right.
(* to the extent that she is at all)
Amazing how those who complained Labour didnt address antisemitism now say Labour is too harsh dealing with antisemitism. An observer might almost think that their issue was with Labour rather than antisemitism.
Amazing how people who want to make partisan attacks make partisan attacks.
I’m not convinced RLB had read this interview or was forwarding it because it contained an anti Semitic myth.
An interview in the Independent with a well recognised actress - that’s a reasonable thing to forward.
I have voted Tory and Labour about equally in my life, expect to do so in the future and have never been a member of a political party. It was not a partisan attack, just an observation.
If it was simply she hadnt read it, why did she refuse to delete it and keep her job?
Ok. A personal attack then.
I’m not sure that makes you look better
Its a discussion board.
You didn’t address my point.
You accused me of having double standards.
I pointed out you have been critical of Labour turning a blind eye to antisemites but then are now criticising them for being too harsh when a shadow minister refuses to be delete a retweet of a blatantly anti-semitic meme. It does not seem a consistent position.
It was an article in the Independent. She tweeted an agreed disavowel.
But she couldnt in "her own good conscience" delete the tweet - that is what she was sacked for. A defence of not having read the article or what the source was is irrelevant.
Had she deleted the link and apologised she would still be in her post.
Instead she flagrantly refused to and is STILL sharing it even now. She refused to meet the leaders demands and that gives the leader only two choices: sack her, or cave and lose all credibility. Only one of those is a real option.
Well, anyone who thought Keir a bit drippy got a surprise. Clearly a new broom, and antisemitism will not be tolerated.
Might make for an interesting relationship with the Deputy Leader, RLB's housemate.
I disagree. He’s been brutal, and that’s politics. But he’s also been unjust and that’s more important.
At the end of the day RLB shared an Independent interview with a constituent of her’s. An MP should be able to do something like that without having their reputation trashed.
It’s not the sacking that matters. RLB will be remembered in history* as being sacked for forwarding an anti-Semitic article. I don’t think that’s right.
(* to the extent that she is at all)
Amazing how those who complained Labour didnt address antisemitism now say Labour is too harsh dealing with antisemitism. An observer might almost think that their issue was with Labour rather than antisemitism.
Amazing how people who want to make partisan attacks make partisan attacks.
I’m not convinced RLB had read this interview or was forwarding it because it contained an anti Semitic myth.
An interview in the Independent with a well recognised actress - that’s a reasonable thing to forward.
I think that Long-Bailey knew what she was doing, which was to be deliberately provocative by associating herself with Peake's views. That's basically signalling that she has her own views and she'll be damned if she'll be constrained by any notions of Shadow Cabinet collective responsibility. The article wasn't that long and unless Long-Bailey is grossly incompetant she would have read it. If Long-Bailey wasn't endorsing the comments on Israel, what was she agreeing with?
It contained other nuggets such as:
"It’s about 10 minutes into our conversation that Maxine Peake first calls for the destruction of capitalism. “We’ve got to save humanity,” says the venerated actor and activist, who in her youth was a card-carrying communist. “We’re being ruled by capitalist, fascist dictators. It’s entrenched, isn’t it? We’ve got to the point where protecting capital is much more important than anybody’s life. How do we dig out of that? How do we change?”.......
and
There’s a lot of people who should hang their heads in shame. People going, ‘Oh, I can join the Labour Party again because Keir Starmer’s there,’ well shame on you.”.....
So you have an apparently unreconstructed Marxist calling for the overthrow of capitalism and indulging in factional denouncing of people who are rejoining the Labour Party because they find the Keir Starmer infinitely better than his predecessor, and then being retweeted as "an absolute diamond".
RLB put Starmer in a very difficult position, was offered the chance to defuse the situation by deleting the whole tweet, and refused. I think that Starmer had no alternative but to act.
I've been surprised by how little discussion there has been on here and generally on these proposed planning "reforms" which seem to have been a formula for (even greater) corruption in politics regarding planning permission.
Could something like this work for big housing developments:
Government compulsorily purchases land at 2-3x price without planning permission Government auctions off same land with planning permission
That way the existing landowner gets a significant but smaller windfall, but it both raises tax revenue and takes out the corruption from the process.
Interesting - I hadn't seen that.
What problem is that proposal designed to address?
I agree that existing CPO powers are extensive, which iirc (not my absolute specialist subject) are quite draconian? See for example how Camden used them in in the late 70s.
I think there is quite a lot of stuff in the postwar planning legislation which is quite powerful if used.
My main issue there would be question whether that will address the problem.
I dont know enough about planning to know if it would work or not. Its simply a better way to deal with the windfall gains around planning permission - most of it should go to the public (probably weighted to the local community), but still keeping enough incentive for the landowner and developer to build. Currently is shared by the landowner, developer and corrupt politicians and officials - clearly sub optimal.
Why should the state take the profit from a landowner developing the land (over and above normal taxes)
That is a completely different issue. The problem with Jenrick's course of action is that he went out of his way to ensure someone, who would have been due a tax bill, avoided that bill. The rights and wrongs of the tax in question don't enter that argument.
Umm. Yes. It’s a different discussion that is not about Jenrick at all 🤷♂️
Personally I would be more supportive of such a regime attached to eg released Green Belt around London rather than replacing normal development processes, and like everything in Planning Law it needs to be done carefully for the very long term otherwise it will be a mess.
Well, anyone who thought Keir a bit drippy got a surprise. Clearly a new broom, and antisemitism will not be tolerated.
Might make for an interesting relationship with the Deputy Leader, RLB's housemate.
I disagree. He’s been brutal, and that’s politics. But he’s also been unjust and that’s more important.
At the end of the day RLB shared an Independent interview with a constituent of her’s. An MP should be able to do something like that without having their reputation trashed.
It’s not the sacking that matters. RLB will be remembered in history* as being sacked for forwarding an anti-Semitic article. I don’t think that’s right.
(* to the extent that she is at all)
Amazing how those who complained Labour didnt address antisemitism now say Labour is too harsh dealing with antisemitism. An observer might almost think that their issue was with Labour rather than antisemitism.
Amazing how people who want to make partisan attacks make partisan attacks.
I’m not convinced RLB had read this interview or was forwarding it because it contained an anti Semitic myth.
An interview in the Independent with a well recognised actress - that’s a reasonable thing to forward.
I have voted Tory and Labour about equally in my life, expect to do so in the future and have never been a member of a political party. It was not a partisan attack, just an observation.
If it was simply she hadnt read it, why did she refuse to delete it and keep her job?
Ok. A personal attack then.
I’m not sure that makes you look better
Its a discussion board.
You didn’t address my point.
You accused me of having double standards.
I pointed out you have been critical of Labour turning a blind eye to antisemites but then are now criticising them for being too harsh when a shadow minister refuses to be delete a retweet of a blatantly anti-semitic meme. It does not seem a consistent position.
It was an article in the Independent. She tweeted an agreed disavowel.
But she couldnt in "her own good conscience" delete the tweet - that is what she was sacked for. A defence of not having read the article or what the source was is irrelevant.
Shows how politically stupid she is. She had a way out, such as this: " I re-read the article and noticed what I had not noticed before: a reference that could be interpreted as ant-semitic. As I fully engage with the Labour Party's position of intolerance of anti-Semitism I have deleted the offending tweet" . Fecking easy, but not for Lightweight Bailey apparently.
The thing about the Jenrick episode that makes it really bad for me (as pro-housebuilding councillor):
In my experience, you have three groups of anti-developers:
1 - BANANAs (Build Absolutely Nothing Anywhere Near Anyone). These are actually fewer than you'd fear.
2 - Knee-jerk NIMBYs. Don't want anything built because it would spoil their view/reduce their house prices/get too many people in the neighbourhood/spoil the ambience they came here for.
3 - Rational NIMBYs. These are by far the largest cohort, in my experience, and it's hard to be annoyed at them if they have a decent reason: the roads are already gridlocked, what will the effect be of another thousand households here? The school here is oversubscribed already and the waiting list for the doctors surgery is impossible and you're proposing overloading it more? The kids have nothing to do and now we'll have twice as many hanging around the bus stop looking for ways to take out their boredom? You already can't get a seat on the bus into town; how will doubling the number of people using it help?
Sometimes you might suspect those in category three of being in category two but looking for a decent excuse - but I've found many people who say "No more houses!" do, when you chat about extra infrastructure, within five minutes are pointing out where entire new estates could go with the right roads and other infrastructure. Chatting to one, he went from "We've got to block more housing" to suggesting a 50% expansion of the village.
If we want a load more housing so our younger generation can actually afford to get houses, we need to bring people along with us. Which is where things like S106 and the Community Infrastructure Levy and conditions that developments provide sports facilities, sports fields, surgeries, schools and green spaces come in.
I've already seen resistance drop to more development when such things accompany them - and increase in other areas when developers either fail to provide what was promised or manage to wriggle out of conditions completely.
Developers will want to provide simply a load of rabbit hutches and then bugger off. Maximum profit. Spreading them out, providing green spaces and other facilities - that's all in the category of income lost. Providing funding for the extra facilities and infrastructure - again, that's money off the bottom line.
So if you can short that out by bunging a few quid to the Tory Party coffers via a dodgy Cabinet Minister - that's a win.
Except for the failure to provide the facilities to accompany development and the shift of normal people into Category 3 above - and pressing those already in Category 3 into Category 2 and into Category 1.
And then you get the electorate consistently (and rationally) voting any politicians who support housebuilding out of office.
Very good comment (as it should be from a councillor!)
Another issue (implicit in what you say) is that in order to fulfil the obligations for green space, EVAs, community areas, social housing, affordable housing, etc, and still make a return on investment above the required hurdle rate, the number of units for sale has to increase which means the size of the development must increase which means it brings out many more who object to what by this time has likely become an "eyesore".
Well, anyone who thought Keir a bit drippy got a surprise. Clearly a new broom, and antisemitism will not be tolerated.
Might make for an interesting relationship with the Deputy Leader, RLB's housemate.
I disagree. He’s been brutal, and that’s politics. But he’s also been unjust and that’s more important.
At the end of the day RLB shared an Independent interview with a constituent of her’s. An MP should be able to do something like that without having their reputation trashed.
It’s not the sacking that matters. RLB will be remembered in history* as being sacked for forwarding an anti-Semitic article. I don’t think that’s right.
(* to the extent that she is at all)
Amazing how those who complained Labour didnt address antisemitism now say Labour is too harsh dealing with antisemitism. An observer might almost think that their issue was with Labour rather than antisemitism.
Amazing how people who want to make partisan attacks make partisan attacks.
I’m not convinced RLB had read this interview or was forwarding it because it contained an anti Semitic myth.
An interview in the Independent with a well recognised actress - that’s a reasonable thing to forward.
I have voted Tory and Labour about equally in my life, expect to do so in the future and have never been a member of a political party. It was not a partisan attack, just an observation.
If it was simply she hadnt read it, why did she refuse to delete it and keep her job?
Ok. A personal attack then.
I’m not sure that makes you look better
Its a discussion board.
You didn’t address my point.
You accused me of having double standards.
I pointed out you have been critical of Labour turning a blind eye to antisemites but then are now criticising them for being too harsh when a shadow minister refuses to be delete a retweet of a blatantly anti-semitic meme. It does not seem a consistent position.
It was an article in the Independent. She tweeted an agreed disavowel.
But she couldnt in "her own good conscience" delete the tweet - that is what she was sacked for. A defence of not having read the article or what the source was is irrelevant.
Shows how politically stupid she is. She had a way out, such as this: " I re-read the article and noticed what I had not noticed before: a reference that could be interpreted as ant-semitic. As I fully engage with the Labour Party's position of intolerance of anti-Semitism I have deleted the offending tweet" . Fecking easy, but not for Lightweight Bailey apparently.
It's worse than that though. It wasn't difficulty that stopped her, even knowing it was antisemitic she has chosen to keep it up. She could have just quietly deleted it and put up a meally mouthed non apology and probably gotten away with it.
But she actually wants to be associated with an antisemitic article. Withdrawing the whip would be a better response but sacking her was the least he had to do.
Fantastic. For Sir Keir. Kills any number of birds with one stone. First he boots out the Corbynite, and then he gets to show his true colours to Corbyn himself. I mean we knew Jezza was politically naive but this really is schoolboy avoidance stuff.
Well, anyone who thought Keir a bit drippy got a surprise. Clearly a new broom, and antisemitism will not be tolerated.
Might make for an interesting relationship with the Deputy Leader, RLB's housemate.
I disagree. He’s been brutal, and that’s politics. But he’s also been unjust and that’s more important.
At the end of the day RLB shared an Independent interview with a constituent of her’s. An MP should be able to do something like that without having their reputation trashed.
It’s not the sacking that matters. RLB will be remembered in history* as being sacked for forwarding an anti-Semitic article. I don’t think that’s right.
(* to the extent that she is at all)
Amazing how those who complained Labour didnt address antisemitism now say Labour is too harsh dealing with antisemitism. An observer might almost think that their issue was with Labour rather than antisemitism.
Amazing how people who want to make partisan attacks make partisan attacks.
I’m not convinced RLB had read this interview or was forwarding it because it contained an anti Semitic myth.
An interview in the Independent with a well recognised actress - that’s a reasonable thing to forward.
I have voted Tory and Labour about equally in my life, expect to do so in the future and have never been a member of a political party. It was not a partisan attack, just an observation.
If it was simply she hadnt read it, why did she refuse to delete it and keep her job?
Ok. A personal attack then.
I’m not sure that makes you look better
Its a discussion board.
You didn’t address my point.
You accused me of having double standards.
I pointed out you have been critical of Labour turning a blind eye to antisemites but then are now criticising them for being too harsh when a shadow minister refuses to be delete a retweet of a blatantly anti-semitic meme. It does not seem a consistent position.
It was an article in the Independent. She tweeted an agreed disavowel.
But she couldnt in "her own good conscience" delete the tweet - that is what she was sacked for. A defence of not having read the article or what the source was is irrelevant.
Shows how politically stupid she is. She had a way out, such as this: " I re-read the article and noticed what I had not noticed before: a reference that could be interpreted as ant-semitic. As I fully engage with the Labour Party's position of intolerance of anti-Semitism I have deleted the offending tweet" . Fecking easy, but not for Lightweight Bailey apparently.
It's worse than that though. It wasn't difficulty that stopped her, even knowing it was antisemitic she has chosen to keep it up. She could have just quietly deleted it and put up a meally mouthed non apology and probably gotten away with it.
But she actually wants to be associated with an antisemitic article. Withdrawing the whip would be a better response but sacking her was the least he had to do.
I suspect there is a world of pain coming from the forthcoming report. Better to have everyone in place so you can deal with it at the appropriate time rather than piecemeal.
It may well be the RLB staying protects the party as x guilty parties are thrown out.,
Apparently Maxine Peake has a net worth of $1M, which is not much for a high profile actor. Perhaps she believes capitalism has failed because it doesn't pay her enough!
Well, anyone who thought Keir a bit drippy got a surprise. Clearly a new broom, and antisemitism will not be tolerated.
Might make for an interesting relationship with the Deputy Leader, RLB's housemate.
I disagree. He’s been brutal, and that’s politics. But he’s also been unjust and that’s more important.
At the end of the day RLB shared an Independent interview with a constituent of her’s. An MP should be able to do something like that without having their reputation trashed.
It’s not the sacking that matters. RLB will be remembered in history* as being sacked for forwarding an anti-Semitic article. I don’t think that’s right.
(* to the extent that she is at all)
Come off it. You would have been amongst the first calling out Starmer's weakness and indecision if she'd stayed.
It is the one single issue that Starmer cannot be seen to be tolerant over. He had forewarned the Party, and he acted accordingly.
Granted, RLB's indescretion was minor in comparison to Robert Jenrick's antics, but I would like to think, when faced with the same issue, namely brazen corruption, Starmer will be equally forthright.
As for Jenrick? Haven't looked properly at the details but although whichever minister it was got criticised for saying it, if you are a member of the Party and/or a donor of course you get better access to MPs and ministers because you will attend functions which they are invited to.
This is not news.
The issue for me was accelerating the decision to avoid the £40m community contribution (or whatever it was).
The decision should have been given in its own time. I think it was a £1.5bn project, so the owners probably expected to make about £300-400m profit. £40m is a decent chunk of that, but not the difference between viability/unviability.
That’s a minister intervening directly in the interests of someone who had just lobbied him when he was acting in a quasi-judicial role.
Everything else is just fluff.
But it's not Charles. What we have is a Minister exercising his discretion to tip the balance in favour of a developer. I am happy to accept for present purposes that he was satisfied that this development of social housing was exactly what Tower Hamlets needed, that he had been persuaded (when and how he was persuaded is the first problem) that this development of social housing was marginal (and the profits of such are normally lower than a conventional development) and that the £40m would make the difference and that he made that decision in good faith.
That is not nearly enough. A moment's thought should have made him realise that he was exercising that discretion in favour of someone who was a known donor to his party, whom he had met and discussed the development with very recently at a social event and who had had privileged access to the Minister. He would then have realised that he simply couldn't exercise his discretion in favour of such a developer because it would not appear to be impartial.
No doubt he rationalised it to himself by concluding that he would have treated any developer in Desmond's position the same and for the same reasons. He may even have gone so far as to conclude that it would be unfair to Desmond to decide differently because he knew him and had dined with him. But these principles of being seen to be impartial are important and there for good reasons and he was completely wrong to conclude otherwise.
No doubt he was advised of that in very clear terms as a result of which he quashed his own decision. But failing to realise this upfront really makes him completely unsuitable for his position. It was a significant error of judgment and he should have quit or been fired.
The thing about the Jenrick episode that makes it really bad for me (as pro-housebuilding councillor):
In my experience, you have three groups of anti-developers:
1 - BANANAs (Build Absolutely Nothing Anywhere Near Anyone). These are actually fewer than you'd fear.
2 - Knee-jerk NIMBYs. Don't want anything built because it would spoil their view/reduce their house prices/get too many people in the neighbourhood/spoil the ambience they came here for.
3 - Rational NIMBYs. These are by far the largest cohort, in my experience, and it's hard to be annoyed at them if they have a decent reason: the roads are already gridlocked, what will the effect be of another thousand households here? The school here is oversubscribed already and the waiting list for the doctors surgery is impossible and you're proposing overloading it more? The kids have nothing to do and now we'll have twice as many hanging around the bus stop looking for ways to take out their boredom? You already can't get a seat on the bus into town; how will doubling the number of people using it help?
Sometimes you might suspect those in category three of being in category two but looking for a decent excuse - but I've found many people who say "No more houses!" do, when you chat about extra infrastructure, within five minutes are pointing out where entire new estates could go with the right roads and other infrastructure. Chatting to one, he went from "We've got to block more housing" to suggesting a 50% expansion of the village.
If we want a load more housing so our younger generation can actually afford to get houses, we need to bring people along with us. Which is where things like S106 and the Community Infrastructure Levy and conditions that developments provide sports facilities, sports fields, surgeries, schools and green spaces come in.
I've already seen resistance drop to more development when such things accompany them - and increase in other areas when developers either fail to provide what was promised or manage to wriggle out of conditions completely.
Developers will want to provide simply a load of rabbit hutches and then bugger off. Maximum profit. Spreading them out, providing green spaces and other facilities - that's all in the category of income lost. Providing funding for the extra facilities and infrastructure - again, that's money off the bottom line.
So if you can short that out by bunging a few quid to the Tory Party coffers via a dodgy Cabinet Minister - that's a win.
Except for the failure to provide the facilities to accompany development and the shift of normal people into Category 3 above - and pressing those already in Category 3 into Category 2 and into Category 1.
And then you get the electorate consistently (and rationally) voting any politicians who support housebuilding out of office.
Generally agree with most of that.
I have seen "Rational NIMBYs" become very irrational when faced with a reality that a road or a junction is not at capacity according to professionally done models / surveys, or suddenly become incredibly interested in foxes and trees the minute a potential development is mooted.
In the case of the case I mentioned yesterday, the (Lib Dem) Councillor (name of Zadrozny ) leafleted 300 houses 3 days before the Planning Committee meeting to position himself as head NIMBY.
It got what I call a "political no", overruling a recommendation to approve from the Planning Officer, and then went through Appeal in record time (5-6 weeks). The consequence was 10-15k extra expense spent on planning bureaucracy by the Applicant, and whatever it cost the Council for doing their doomed-to-fail side of the Appeal.
Well, anyone who thought Keir a bit drippy got a surprise. Clearly a new broom, and antisemitism will not be tolerated.
Might make for an interesting relationship with the Deputy Leader, RLB's housemate.
I disagree. He’s been brutal, and that’s politics. But he’s also been unjust and that’s more important.
At the end of the day RLB shared an Independent interview with a constituent of her’s. An MP should be able to do something like that without having their reputation trashed.
It’s not the sacking that matters. RLB will be remembered in history* as being sacked for forwarding an anti-Semitic article. I don’t think that’s right.
(* to the extent that she is at all)
Amazing how those who complained Labour didnt address antisemitism now say Labour is too harsh dealing with antisemitism. An observer might almost think that their issue was with Labour rather than antisemitism.
Amazing how people who want to make partisan attacks make partisan attacks.
I’m not convinced RLB had read this interview or was forwarding it because it contained an anti Semitic myth.
An interview in the Independent with a well recognised actress - that’s a reasonable thing to forward.
I think that Long-Bailey knew what she was doing, which was to be deliberately provocative by associating herself with Peake's views. That's basically signalling that she has her own views and she'll be damned if she'll be constrained by any notions of Shadow Cabinet collective responsibility. The article wasn't that long and unless Long-Bailey is grossly incompetant she would have read it. If Long-Bailey wasn't endorsing the comments on Israel, what was she agreeing with?
It contained other nuggets such as:
"It’s about 10 minutes into our conversation that Maxine Peake first calls for the destruction of capitalism. “We’ve got to save humanity,” says the venerated actor and activist, who in her youth was a card-carrying communist. “We’re being ruled by capitalist, fascist dictators. It’s entrenched, isn’t it? We’ve got to the point where protecting capital is much more important than anybody’s life. How do we dig out of that? How do we change?”.......
and
There’s a lot of people who should hang their heads in shame. People going, ‘Oh, I can join the Labour Party again because Keir Starmer’s there,’ well shame on you.”.....
So you have an apparently unreconstructed Marxist calling for the overthrow of capitalism and indulging in factional denouncing of people who are rejoining the Labour Party because they find the Keir Starmer infinitely better than his predecessor, and then being retweeted as "an absolute diamond".
RLB put Starmer in a very difficult position, was offered the chance to defuse the situation by deleting the whole tweet, and refused. I think that Starmer had no alternative but to act.
SKS has to get a few million Tories to vote for him. RBL and the left have no interest in this subject, content to increase the majority in Bootle and Knowsley.
Am I the only person who hates the use of staycation to mean holiday in the UK? I am certain when it was first used it meant staying at home and taking day-trips. A holiday in the UK for me is a holiday! Its what I do almost all years.
I agree. It also doesn't make much sense because we don't call a holiday a 'vacation' anyway.
Good to see some real leadership form one of our party leaders. It is a shame it is for the party that I have opposed all my adult life, but credit where credit is due.
Starmer has set quite a low bar for resignations. It will be interesting to see if that changes if someone he doesn't want to lose gets into trouble.
Not really. It's a low bar on the specific issue of anti-semitism. Any front bencher who can be perceived to be seen issuing or spreading anti-semitic tropes will be out on their ear; this has been made clear to them.
As it happens, the self-discipline in the shadow cabinet is already impressive: all are on message and are avoiding putting their foot in it, other than the RLB incident, which will strengthen the message further. I was a bit worried about David Lammy, but despite some naff things he's said in the past, since his appointment to shadow justice he has been loyal, sensible and cautious.
Well, anyone who thought Keir a bit drippy got a surprise. Clearly a new broom, and antisemitism will not be tolerated.
Might make for an interesting relationship with the Deputy Leader, RLB's housemate.
I disagree. He’s been brutal, and that’s politics. But he’s also been unjust and that’s more important.
At the end of the day RLB shared an Independent interview with a constituent of her’s. An MP should be able to do something like that without having their reputation trashed.
It’s not the sacking that matters. RLB will be remembered in history* as being sacked for forwarding an anti-Semitic article. I don’t think that’s right.
(* to the extent that she is at all)
Amazing how those who complained Labour didnt address antisemitism now say Labour is too harsh dealing with antisemitism. An observer might almost think that their issue was with Labour rather than antisemitism.
Amazing how people who want to make partisan attacks make partisan attacks.
I’m not convinced RLB had read this interview or was forwarding it because it contained an anti Semitic myth.
An interview in the Independent with a well recognised actress - that’s a reasonable thing to forward.
No, it's not. That would be to suggest that politicians bear no responsibility for retweeting unacceptable views because they haven't read what they share. Your line also suggests that you'd be happier to be called a fascist if your accuser were a "well recognised actress". Which I'm sure can't be right.
They are by extension endorsing what she did. Withdraw the whip hehe.
We finally agree on something! 😂
I agreed further down thread on your comment on planning, but pleased don't get used to it. My comment on removal of the whip is highly ironic. If party leaders remove the whip of MPs for expressing inconvenient opinions then we are further down the road to dictatorship. Johnson/Cummings behaviour was that of the tin-pot dictator (with emphasis on the tin-pot). Most of the headbanging contingent of the Tory party that supported Johnson's inappropriate elevation had rebelled many times, including the unthinking man's hero, the forever braindead Ian Duncan Smith. Our system works best when governments and oppositions have an awkward squad.
Well, anyone who thought Keir a bit drippy got a surprise. Clearly a new broom, and antisemitism will not be tolerated.
Might make for an interesting relationship with the Deputy Leader, RLB's housemate.
I disagree. He’s been brutal, and that’s politics. But he’s also been unjust and that’s more important.
At the end of the day RLB shared an Independent interview with a constituent of her’s. An MP should be able to do something like that without having their reputation trashed.
It’s not the sacking that matters. RLB will be remembered in history* as being sacked for forwarding an anti-Semitic article. I don’t think that’s right.
(* to the extent that she is at all)
Come off it. You would have been amongst the first calling out Starmer's weakness and indecision if she'd stayed.
It is the one single issue that Starmer cannot be seen to be tolerant over. He had forewarned the Party, and he acted accordingly.
Granted, RLB's indescretion was minor in comparison to Robert Jenrick's antics, but I would like to think, when faced with the same issue, namely brazen corruption, Starmer will be equally forthright.
As for Jenrick? Haven't looked properly at the details but although whichever minister it was got criticised for saying it, if you are a member of the Party and/or a donor of course you get better access to MPs and ministers because you will attend functions which they are invited to.
This is not news.
Oh, it is and it should be. Jenrick furiously worked at saving Tory donor and pornographer, Richard Desmond just shy of a £50m tax bill to Tower Hamlets Council. The fact that in return Jenrick's campaign was rewarded with around a paltry £10,000 is almost irrelevant.
As I say I have no idea of the details of this case. But the principle of access? Not a party activist or member, I take it? Those disgusting soggy chicken dinners, barbecues, hell even MPs' talks? All for local association members and all if they possibly can, with an invited MP the senior the better.
I understand your point. That is not to say it is not unacceptable.
As someone these days, more inclined to the Starmer side of the argument, I would still be outraged if Starmer failed to fire a minister who had engaged themselves as Jenrick has clearly done.
a) bloody love the three negatives in your first para. Reminds me of those financial services exam questions - when wouldn't you not advise an investor not to delay investing in XXX; and
b) yes it sounds like it was something of note as @Charles has also pointed out; but
c) the principle of access applies across all parties. I bet it's a catch if the Worksop & District Labour Party nabs Lisa Nandy for their Summer barbecue?
Point a) I try my best.
Point b) Agreed.
Point c) I don't have a problem with Jenrick and Desmond attending a rubber chicken dinner, at vast cost to the latter. I do object to Jenrick's subsequent course of action. Where it really starts to smell unpleasant is the financial implications of Jenrick's course of action. From being a minor, "you scratch my back, I'll scratch yours" issue to something that looks, in principle, at least, reminiscent of T. Dan Smith or John Poulson
On point c) I don't have any objection to the dinner. I do though strongly unbent to the remarks of the Minister yesterday morning... Zahawi wasn't it...... who suggested that if one wanted to bend the ear of planning committee chairs etc one should be a subscriber to Tory fund-raising events.
They are by extension endorsing what she did. Withdraw the whip hehe.
We finally agree on something! 😂
I agreed further down thread on your comment on planning, but pleased don't get used to it. My comment on removal of the whip is highly ironic. If party leaders remove the whip of MPs for expressing inconvenient opinions then we are further down the road to dictatorship. Johnson/Cummings behaviour was that of the tin-pot dictator (with emphasis on the tin-pot). Most of the headbanging contingent of the Tory party that supported Johnson's inappropriate elevation had rebelled many times, including the unthinking man's hero, the forever braindead Ian Duncan Smith. Our system works best when governments and oppositions have an awkward squad.
Indeed. And I will agree here again, an awkward squad is useful. Hunt can play that role nicely now for us, especially as Chair of the Health Select Committee.
An antisemitic and racist squad is not.
I have no qualms purging them from the party - the Tories have ruthlessly purged anyone equivalent for decades who could be considered "far right" but the left have myopically believed the far right are the problem and the far left are not. The far left and far right are two cheeks of the same arse, they're both racist extremists and should have no place within either of our mainstream parties.
If the far left or far right wish to set up their own party they should be free to do so but I wouldn't want them in my party.
Apparently Maxine Peake has a net worth of $1M, which is not much for a high profile actor. Perhaps she believes capitalism has failed because it doesn't pay her enough!
a) The net worth info that is published on people is generally nonsense. Other than the value of the house you own there is precious little info on most people and how much research is actually done?.
b) I wouldn't put her in the high profile actor category. Except for the elite and the celebrities there aren't very high wages, particularly in theatre, for most actors. I imagine she will make a comfortable living.
The thing about the Jenrick episode that makes it really bad for me (as pro-housebuilding councillor):
In my experience, you have three groups of anti-developers:
1 - BANANAs (Build Absolutely Nothing Anywhere Near Anyone). These are actually fewer than you'd fear.
2 - Knee-jerk NIMBYs. Don't want anything built because it would spoil their view/reduce their house prices/get too many people in the neighbourhood/spoil the ambience they came here for.
3 - Rational NIMBYs. These are by far the largest cohort, in my experience, and it's hard to be annoyed at them if they have a decent reason: the roads are already gridlocked, what will the effect be of another thousand households here? The school here is oversubscribed already and the waiting list for the doctors surgery is impossible and you're proposing overloading it more? The kids have nothing to do and now we'll have twice as many hanging around the bus stop looking for ways to take out their boredom? You already can't get a seat on the bus into town; how will doubling the number of people using it help?
Sometimes you might suspect those in category three of being in category two but looking for a decent excuse - but I've found many people who say "No more houses!" do, when you chat about extra infrastructure, within five minutes are pointing out where entire new estates could go with the right roads and other infrastructure. Chatting to one, he went from "We've got to block more housing" to suggesting a 50% expansion of the village.
If we want a load more housing so our younger generation can actually afford to get houses, we need to bring people along with us. Which is where things like S106 and the Community Infrastructure Levy and conditions that developments provide sports facilities, sports fields, surgeries, schools and green spaces come in.
I've already seen resistance drop to more development when such things accompany them - and increase in other areas when developers either fail to provide what was promised or manage to wriggle out of conditions completely.
Developers will want to provide simply a load of rabbit hutches and then bugger off. Maximum profit. Spreading them out, providing green spaces and other facilities - that's all in the category of income lost. Providing funding for the extra facilities and infrastructure - again, that's money off the bottom line.
So if you can short that out by bunging a few quid to the Tory Party coffers via a dodgy Cabinet Minister - that's a win.
Except for the failure to provide the facilities to accompany development and the shift of normal people into Category 3 above - and pressing those already in Category 3 into Category 2 and into Category 1.
And then you get the electorate consistently (and rationally) voting any politicians who support housebuilding out of office.
Well, anyone who thought Keir a bit drippy got a surprise. Clearly a new broom, and antisemitism will not be tolerated.
Might make for an interesting relationship with the Deputy Leader, RLB's housemate.
I disagree. He’s been brutal, and that’s politics. But he’s also been unjust and that’s more important.
At the end of the day RLB shared an Independent interview with a constituent of her’s. An MP should be able to do something like that without having their reputation trashed.
It’s not the sacking that matters. RLB will be remembered in history* as being sacked for forwarding an anti-Semitic article. I don’t think that’s right.
(* to the extent that she is at all)
Amazing how those who complained Labour didnt address antisemitism now say Labour is too harsh dealing with antisemitism. An observer might almost think that their issue was with Labour rather than antisemitism.
Amazing how people who want to make partisan attacks make partisan attacks.
I’m not convinced RLB had read this interview or was forwarding it because it contained an anti Semitic myth.
An interview in the Independent with a well recognised actress - that’s a reasonable thing to forward.
I think that Long-Bailey knew what she was doing, which was to be deliberately provocative by associating herself with Peake's views. That's basically signalling that she has her own views and she'll be damned if she'll be constrained by any notions of Shadow Cabinet collective responsibility. The article wasn't that long and unless Long-Bailey is grossly incompetant she would have read it. If Long-Bailey wasn't endorsing the comments on Israel, what was she agreeing with?
It contained other nuggets such as:
"It’s about 10 minutes into our conversation that Maxine Peake first calls for the destruction of capitalism. “We’ve got to save humanity,” says the venerated actor and activist, who in her youth was a card-carrying communist. “We’re being ruled by capitalist, fascist dictators. It’s entrenched, isn’t it? We’ve got to the point where protecting capital is much more important than anybody’s life. How do we dig out of that? How do we change?”.......
and
There’s a lot of people who should hang their heads in shame. People going, ‘Oh, I can join the Labour Party again because Keir Starmer’s there,’ well shame on you.”.....
So you have an apparently unreconstructed Marxist calling for the overthrow of capitalism and indulging in factional denouncing of people who are rejoining the Labour Party because they find the Keir Starmer infinitely better than his predecessor, and then being retweeted as "an absolute diamond".
RLB put Starmer in a very difficult position, was offered the chance to defuse the situation by deleting the whole tweet, and refused. I think that Starmer had no alternative but to act.
SKS has to get a few million Tories to vote for him. RBL and the left have no interest in this subject, content to increase the majority in Bootle and Knowsley.
I think for the time being it makes it more likely that reluctant Tory voters who voted to keep Corbyn out will feel comfortable not voting Tory and that is a good start for Starmer. In order to manage a Blair like change he will need to address what might make those voters either vote LD or Labour. So far he is doing a good job. Decisive and somewhat ruthless political leadership is admired by a large part of the electorate.
As I said the other day, I personally find him a good deal less irritating than Tony Blair was in 1997, so I would feel more comfortable with a Starmer premiership than I ever felt about a Blair one.
On planning I'm always reminded of the time, long ago now, when my (then) family firm wanted to do some major alterations to one of our pharmacies, and the local planning officer refused access to the plans held at the Council 'because the architect might object'. The building was at least 60 years old then, so the chances of the architect being alive were low to infinitesimal. In any event neither he nor we we knew who he (assumption) was. However the planning officer was firm. Policy was no alterations to any existing building with out the architect being involved. And no he couldn't/wouldn't help with contacting said architect
At that point one of us asked the PO about the local 11th C church, which had just had some major alterations. How had the architect been contacted? Very grudgingly the officer gave permission for our chap to look at the plans held by the council.
Well, anyone who thought Keir a bit drippy got a surprise. Clearly a new broom, and antisemitism will not be tolerated.
Might make for an interesting relationship with the Deputy Leader, RLB's housemate.
I disagree. He’s been brutal, and that’s politics. But he’s also been unjust and that’s more important.
At the end of the day RLB shared an Independent interview with a constituent of her’s. An MP should be able to do something like that without having their reputation trashed.
It’s not the sacking that matters. RLB will be remembered in history* as being sacked for forwarding an anti-Semitic article. I don’t think that’s right.
(* to the extent that she is at all)
Come off it. You would have been amongst the first calling out Starmer's weakness and indecision if she'd stayed.
It is the one single issue that Starmer cannot be seen to be tolerant over. He had forewarned the Party, and he acted accordingly.
Granted, RLB's indescretion was minor in comparison to Robert Jenrick's antics, but I would like to think, when faced with the same issue, namely brazen corruption, Starmer will be equally forthright.
As for Jenrick? Haven't looked properly at the details but although whichever minister it was got criticised for saying it, if you are a member of the Party and/or a donor of course you get better access to MPs and ministers because you will attend functions which they are invited to.
This is not news.
Oh, it is and it should be. Jenrick furiously worked at saving Tory donor and pornographer, Richard Desmond just shy of a £50m tax bill to Tower Hamlets Council. The fact that in return Jenrick's campaign was rewarded with around a paltry £10,000 is almost irrelevant.
As I say I have no idea of the details of this case. But the principle of access? Not a party activist or member, I take it? Those disgusting soggy chicken dinners, barbecues, hell even MPs' talks? All for local association members and all if they possibly can, with an invited MP the senior the better.
I understand your point. That is not to say it is not unacceptable.
As someone these days, more inclined to the Starmer side of the argument, I would still be outraged if Starmer failed to fire a minister who had engaged themselves as Jenrick has clearly done.
a) bloody love the three negatives in your first para. Reminds me of those financial services exam questions - when wouldn't you not advise an investor not to delay investing in XXX; and
b) yes it sounds like it was something of note as @Charles has also pointed out; but
c) the principle of access applies across all parties. I bet it's a catch if the Worksop & District Labour Party nabs Lisa Nandy for their Summer barbecue?
Point a) I try my best.
Point b) Agreed.
Point c) I don't have a problem with Jenrick and Desmond attending a rubber chicken dinner, at vast cost to the latter. I do object to Jenrick's subsequent course of action. Where it really starts to smell unpleasant is the financial implications of Jenrick's course of action. From being a minor, "you scratch my back, I'll scratch yours" issue to something that looks, in principle, at least, reminiscent of T. Dan Smith or John Poulson
On point c) I don't have any objection to the dinner. I do though strongly unbent to the remarks of the Minister yesterday morning... Zahawi wasn't it...... who suggested that if one wanted to bend the ear of planning committee chairs etc one should be a subscriber to Tory fund-raising events.
Agreed. That is implying corruption is OK. I would wager Zahawi didn't have anything positive to say about Blair during the cash for honours enquiry either.
Yet another paper demonstrating that speed and frequency of testing if of more importance than absolute accuracy.
Surveillance testing of SARS-CoV-2 https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.06.22.20136309v1 ...Because SARS-CoV-2 can spread from individuals with pre-symptomatic, symptomatic, and asymptomatic infections, the re-opening of societies and the control of virus spread will be facilitated by robust surveillance, for which virus testing will often be central. After infection, individuals undergo a period of incubation during which viral titers are usually too low to detect, followed by an exponential growth of virus, leading to a peak viral load and infectiousness, and ending with declining viral levels and clearance. Given the pattern of viral load kinetics, we model surveillance effectiveness considering test sensitivities, frequency, and sample-to-answer reporting time. These results demonstrate that effective surveillance, including time to first detection and outbreak control, depends largely on frequency of testing and the speed of reporting, and is only marginally improved by high test sensitivity. We therefore conclude that surveillance should prioritize accessibility, frequency, and sample-to-answer time; analytical limits of detection should be secondary....
They are by extension endorsing what she did. Withdraw the whip hehe.
We finally agree on something! 😂
I agreed further down thread on your comment on planning, but pleased don't get used to it. My comment on removal of the whip is highly ironic. If party leaders remove the whip of MPs for expressing inconvenient opinions then we are further down the road to dictatorship. Johnson/Cummings behaviour was that of the tin-pot dictator (with emphasis on the tin-pot). Most of the headbanging contingent of the Tory party that supported Johnson's inappropriate elevation had rebelled many times, including the unthinking man's hero, the forever braindead Ian Duncan Smith. Our system works best when governments and oppositions have an awkward squad.
Indeed. And I will agree here again, an awkward squad is useful. Hunt can play that role nicely now for us, especially as Chair of the Health Select Committee.
An antisemitic and racist squad is not.
I have no qualms purging them from the party - the Tories have ruthlessly purged anyone equivalent for decades who could be considered "far right" but the left have myopically believed the far right are the problem and the far left are not. The far left and far right are two cheeks of the same arse, they're both racist extremists and should have no place within either of our mainstream parties.
If the far left or far right wish to set up their own party they should be free to do so but I wouldn't want them in my party.
I agree to a point, but my belief is that elements of the far right (I consider UKIP/Brexit party to be the BNP in tweed) have taken over the Conservatives. Peter Bone, Mark Francois and the ridiculous Rees-Mogg would be very comfortable in UKIP, and I suspect if they were put on a lie detector and questioned their true beliefs would shock many. These people are just as far right as Corbyn is far left. They are a cancer in the Conservative Party and their ascendency, together with their foolhardy appointment of their puppet PM, is equally as much a reason for my resignation for the Conservative Party as my belief in the wrongheadedness of Brexit.
They are by extension endorsing what she did. Withdraw the whip hehe.
We finally agree on something! 😂
I agreed further down thread on your comment on planning, but pleased don't get used to it. My comment on removal of the whip is highly ironic. If party leaders remove the whip of MPs for expressing inconvenient opinions then we are further down the road to dictatorship. Johnson/Cummings behaviour was that of the tin-pot dictator (with emphasis on the tin-pot). Most of the headbanging contingent of the Tory party that supported Johnson's inappropriate elevation had rebelled many times, including the unthinking man's hero, the forever braindead Ian Duncan Smith. Our system works best when governments and oppositions have an awkward squad.
Indeed. And I will agree here again, an awkward squad is useful. Hunt can play that role nicely now for us, especially as Chair of the Health Select Committee.
An antisemitic and racist squad is not.
I have no qualms purging them from the party - the Tories have ruthlessly purged anyone equivalent for decades who could be considered "far right" but the left have myopically believed the far right are the problem and the far left are not. The far left and far right are two cheeks of the same arse, they're both racist extremists and should have no place within either of our mainstream parties.
If the far left or far right wish to set up their own party they should be free to do so but I wouldn't want them in my party.
There are currently 36 members of the socialist campaign group. If Starmer becomes PM in conjunction with the LDs or SNP then they could become a real thorn in his side. He needs to try to whittle the numbers down a bit. The boundary changes could help here and he also needs to make sure if Corbyn and some of the older members of the left retire that they are not replaced by like-minded figures.
Am I the only person who hates the use of staycation to mean holiday in the UK? I am certain when it was first used it meant staying at home and taking day-trips. A holiday in the UK for me is a holiday! Its what I do almost all years.
I agree. It also doesn't make much sense because we don't call a holiday a 'vacation' anyway.
'homiday'? I jest, I'm not a fan of portmanteaux, until they become accepted as proper words and I no longer notice. I was horrified by 'Brexit' (and still am, to be fair, but no longer by the word itself).
Yet another paper demonstrating that speed and frequency of testing if of more importance than absolute accuracy.
Surveillance testing of SARS-CoV-2 https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.06.22.20136309v1 ...Because SARS-CoV-2 can spread from individuals with pre-symptomatic, symptomatic, and asymptomatic infections, the re-opening of societies and the control of virus spread will be facilitated by robust surveillance, for which virus testing will often be central. After infection, individuals undergo a period of incubation during which viral titers are usually too low to detect, followed by an exponential growth of virus, leading to a peak viral load and infectiousness, and ending with declining viral levels and clearance. Given the pattern of viral load kinetics, we model surveillance effectiveness considering test sensitivities, frequency, and sample-to-answer reporting time. These results demonstrate that effective surveillance, including time to first detection and outbreak control, depends largely on frequency of testing and the speed of reporting, and is only marginally improved by high test sensitivity. We therefore conclude that surveillance should prioritize accessibility, frequency, and sample-to-answer time; analytical limits of detection should be secondary....
Is there reporting of % results back within 24 hours? I havent seen any or heard them discussed. The aim on the govt website is only 48-72 hours! That is half the infection period!
They are by extension endorsing what she did. Withdraw the whip hehe.
We finally agree on something! 😂
I agreed further down thread on your comment on planning, but pleased don't get used to it. My comment on removal of the whip is highly ironic. If party leaders remove the whip of MPs for expressing inconvenient opinions then we are further down the road to dictatorship. Johnson/Cummings behaviour was that of the tin-pot dictator (with emphasis on the tin-pot). Most of the headbanging contingent of the Tory party that supported Johnson's inappropriate elevation had rebelled many times, including the unthinking man's hero, the forever braindead Ian Duncan Smith. Our system works best when governments and oppositions have an awkward squad.
Indeed. And I will agree here again, an awkward squad is useful. Hunt can play that role nicely now for us, especially as Chair of the Health Select Committee.
An antisemitic and racist squad is not.
I have no qualms purging them from the party - the Tories have ruthlessly purged anyone equivalent for decades who could be considered "far right" but the left have myopically believed the far right are the problem and the far left are not. The far left and far right are two cheeks of the same arse, they're both racist extremists and should have no place within either of our mainstream parties.
If the far left or far right wish to set up their own party they should be free to do so but I wouldn't want them in my party.
I agree to a point, but my belief is that elements of the far right (I consider UKIP/Brexit party to be the BNP in tweed) have taken over the Conservatives. Peter Bone, Mark Francois and the ridiculous Rees-Mogg would be very comfortable in UKIP, and I suspect if they were put on a lie detector and questioned their true beliefs would shock many. These people are just as far right as Corbyn is far left. They are a cancer in the Conservative Party and their ascendency, together with their foolhardy appointment of their puppet PM, is equally as much a reason for my resignation for the Conservative Party as my belief in the wrongheadedness of Brexit.
Corbyn has decades of unrepentant racism.
I dislike Bone, Francois and Rees-Mogg but don't think they have anything similar? And if they had shared the stage with and endorsed Holocaust Deniers etc then I think they'd have been kicked out of the party already.
Apparently Maxine Peake has a net worth of $1M, which is not much for a high profile actor. Perhaps she believes capitalism has failed because it doesn't pay her enough!
a) The net worth info that is published on people is generally nonsense. Other than the value of the house you own there is precious little info on most people and how much research is actually done?.
b) I wouldn't put her in the high profile actor category. Except for the elite and the celebrities there aren't very high wages, particularly in theatre, for most actors. I imagine she will make a comfortable living.
I would say even being able to make a living as an actor you've 'made it'.
The issue for me was accelerating the decision to avoid the £40m community contribution (or whatever it was).
The decision should have been given in its own time. I think it was a £1.5bn project, so the owners probably expected to make about £300-400m profit. £40m is a decent chunk of that, but not the difference between viability/unviability.
Disagreeing on the detail.
This one was up against the viability buffers, and the normal assumption aiui is a margin of 15% or so.
It had been appealed due to non-determination, so the Council were already out of time.
I would say it should have been left to the Planning Inspectorate.
I am not sure what process with evident "clean hands" would be available at Minister Level.
While I think the summation may be right on this occasion, in actual fact that form of words is utterly standard when it comes to planning. The importance of avoiding even the appearance of bias is talked about as just not having bias may not be enough to prevent successful challenge.
It's hardly a smoking gun, is it?
There may be a gun here, it's a drip feed of him being at best careless and at worse crossing thr line, but I dont think Jolyon may be an expert on these matters to take bog standard holding responses and extrapolate them. You're even allowed to favour one side in your comments so long as you keep an open mind, that was a deliberate clarification in the law.
An open mind is always healthy. But this looks venal. It looks like corruption.
You're missing the point entirely. I think hes crossed a line too. But Jolyon pretending that wording is proof of that wont fly. If he attempted to make that argument it would not work. It might be demonstrated his actions did not match his words but thats the opposite argument.
I'm not missing that point. It is obviously correct.
An interesting paper with empirical results on the use of masks.
A survey of over 20k healthcare workers, 80% of them working in non-Covid settings, after Duke Health mandated that all employees wear masks at work:
Universal Masking is an Effective Strategy to Flatten the SARS-CoV-2 Healthcare Worker Epidemiologic Curve https://www.cambridge.org/core/services/aop-cambridge-core/content/view/9301E77612122039190A29CB7223F9C4/S0899823X2000313Xa.pdf/universal_masking_is_an_effective_strategy_to_flatten_the_sarscov2_healthcare_worker_epidemiologic_curve.pdf ...Of the healthcare-associated cases, 70% were related to unmasked exposure to another HCW for more than 10 minutes less than 6 feet apart and 30% were thought to be secondary to direct care of SARS- CoV-2 positive patients One week following the implementation of universal masking on March 31, 2020, we observed a significant decrease in the cumulative incidence rate of healthcare-acquired SARS-CoV-2 infections among HCWs (Figure) (LRT 4.38, p-value 0.03). The cumulative incidence rates in community-acquired cases and cases with no clear source of acquisition did not significantly change, however, and continued to mirror the cumulative incidence rates of SARS-CoV-2 in the communities surrounding Duke Health....
They are by extension endorsing what she did. Withdraw the whip hehe.
We finally agree on something! 😂
I agreed further down thread on your comment on planning, but pleased don't get used to it. My comment on removal of the whip is highly ironic. If party leaders remove the whip of MPs for expressing inconvenient opinions then we are further down the road to dictatorship. Johnson/Cummings behaviour was that of the tin-pot dictator (with emphasis on the tin-pot). Most of the headbanging contingent of the Tory party that supported Johnson's inappropriate elevation had rebelled many times, including the unthinking man's hero, the forever braindead Ian Duncan Smith. Our system works best when governments and oppositions have an awkward squad.
Indeed. And I will agree here again, an awkward squad is useful. Hunt can play that role nicely now for us, especially as Chair of the Health Select Committee.
An antisemitic and racist squad is not.
I have no qualms purging them from the party - the Tories have ruthlessly purged anyone equivalent for decades who could be considered "far right" but the left have myopically believed the far right are the problem and the far left are not. The far left and far right are two cheeks of the same arse, they're both racist extremists and should have no place within either of our mainstream parties.
If the far left or far right wish to set up their own party they should be free to do so but I wouldn't want them in my party.
I agree to a point, but my belief is that elements of the far right (I consider UKIP/Brexit party to be the BNP in tweed) have taken over the Conservatives. Peter Bone, Mark Francois and the ridiculous Rees-Mogg would be very comfortable in UKIP, and I suspect if they were put on a lie detector and questioned their true beliefs would shock many. These people are just as far right as Corbyn is far left. They are a cancer in the Conservative Party and their ascendency, together with their foolhardy appointment of their puppet PM, is equally as much a reason for my resignation for the Conservative Party as my belief in the wrongheadedness of Brexit.
Corbyn has decades of unrepentant racism.
I dislike Bone, Francois and Rees-Mogg but don't think they have anything similar? And if they had shared the stage with and endorsed Holocaust Deniers etc then I think they'd have been kicked out of the party already.
Rees-Mogg has given credence to the George Soros conspiracy theory at least.
On planning I'm always reminded of the time, long ago now, when my (then) family firm wanted to do some major alterations to one of our pharmacies, and the local planning officer refused access to the plans held at the Council 'because the architect might object'. The building was at least 60 years old then, so the chances of the architect being alive were low to infinitesimal. In any event neither he nor we we knew who he (assumption) was. However the planning officer was firm. Policy was no alterations to any existing building with out the architect being involved. And no he couldn't/wouldn't help with contacting said architect
At that point one of us asked the PO about the local 11th C church, which had just had some major alterations. How had the architect been contacted? Very grudgingly the officer gave permission for our chap to look at the plans held by the council.
My dad started as a Council Architect and got out after a very few years - they just demolished the swimming pool centre he designed.
He had some interesting fulminations about planning and councillors, including mining types arguing that mains gas and insulation wouldn't ever be necessary as so many people had free coal for life.
Well, anyone who thought Keir a bit drippy got a surprise. Clearly a new broom, and antisemitism will not be tolerated.
Might make for an interesting relationship with the Deputy Leader, RLB's housemate.
I disagree. He’s been brutal, and that’s politics. But he’s also been unjust and that’s more important.
At the end of the day RLB shared an Independent interview with a constituent of her’s. An MP should be able to do something like that without having their reputation trashed.
It’s not the sacking that matters. RLB will be remembered in history* as being sacked for forwarding an anti-Semitic article. I don’t think that’s right.
(* to the extent that she is at all)
Come off it. You would have been amongst the first calling out Starmer's weakness and indecision if she'd stayed.
It is the one single issue that Starmer cannot be seen to be tolerant over. He had forewarned the Party, and he acted accordingly.
Granted, RLB's indescretion was minor in comparison to Robert Jenrick's antics, but I would like to think, when faced with the same issue, namely brazen corruption, Starmer will be equally forthright.
As for Jenrick? Haven't looked properly at the details but although whichever minister it was got criticised for saying it, if you are a member of the Party and/or a donor of course you get better access to MPs and ministers because you will attend functions which they are invited to.
This is not news.
Oh, it is and it should be. Jenrick furiously worked at saving Tory donor and pornographer, Richard Desmond just shy of a £50m tax bill to Tower Hamlets Council. The fact that in return Jenrick's campaign was rewarded with around a paltry £10,000 is almost irrelevant.
As I say I have no idea of the details of this case. But the principle of access? Not a party activist or member, I take it? Those disgusting soggy chicken dinners, barbecues, hell even MPs' talks? All for local association members and all if they possibly can, with an invited MP the senior the better.
I understand your point. That is not to say it is not unacceptable.
As someone these days, more inclined to the Starmer side of the argument, I would still be outraged if Starmer failed to fire a minister who had engaged themselves as Jenrick has clearly done.
a) bloody love the three negatives in your first para. Reminds me of those financial services exam questions - when wouldn't you not advise an investor not to delay investing in XXX; and
b) yes it sounds like it was something of note as @Charles has also pointed out; but
c) the principle of access applies across all parties. I bet it's a catch if the Worksop & District Labour Party nabs Lisa Nandy for their Summer barbecue?
Point a) I try my best.
Point b) Agreed.
Point c) I don't have a problem with Jenrick and Desmond attending a rubber chicken dinner, at vast cost to the latter. I do object to Jenrick's subsequent course of action. Where it really starts to smell unpleasant is the financial implications of Jenrick's course of action. From being a minor, "you scratch my back, I'll scratch yours" issue to something that looks, in principle, at least, reminiscent of T. Dan Smith or John Poulson
On point c) I don't have any objection to the dinner. I do though strongly unbent to the remarks of the Minister yesterday morning... Zahawi wasn't it...... who suggested that if one wanted to bend the ear of planning committee chairs etc one should be a subscriber to Tory fund-raising events.
Agreed. That is implying corruption is OK. I would wager Zahawi didn't have anything positive to say about Blair during the cash for honours enquiry either.
Many years ago I was in a small Commonwealth country as part of a professional delegation, and we met with people from the then Opposition. They complained bitterly about 'corruption' but as they complained I became more and more convinced that it wasn't 'corruption' per se to which they objected, but the fact that they were out of office, and unable to 'benefit' therefrom.
The links are a bit more than a hug at a dinner. The original application was approved by Boris’s Deputy Mayor for Planning, Sir Edward Lister, who is now at No 10 as a Strategic Advisor.
Apparently Maxine Peake has a net worth of $1M, which is not much for a high profile actor. Perhaps she believes capitalism has failed because it doesn't pay her enough!
a) The net worth info that is published on people is generally nonsense. Other than the value of the house you own there is precious little info on most people and how much research is actually done?.
b) I wouldn't put her in the high profile actor category. Except for the elite and the celebrities there aren't very high wages, particularly in theatre, for most actors. I imagine she will make a comfortable living.
I would say even being able to make a living as an actor you've 'made it'.
My wife's sister and her husband are actors with one Olivier Award nomination under his belt as a West End musical lead. You will not know them but will have seen them on the TV quite a bit. They relied on other work to make a living (teaching, exam marking, marketing work, etc).
Yet another paper demonstrating that speed and frequency of testing if of more importance than absolute accuracy.
Surveillance testing of SARS-CoV-2 https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.06.22.20136309v1 ...Because SARS-CoV-2 can spread from individuals with pre-symptomatic, symptomatic, and asymptomatic infections, the re-opening of societies and the control of virus spread will be facilitated by robust surveillance, for which virus testing will often be central. After infection, individuals undergo a period of incubation during which viral titers are usually too low to detect, followed by an exponential growth of virus, leading to a peak viral load and infectiousness, and ending with declining viral levels and clearance. Given the pattern of viral load kinetics, we model surveillance effectiveness considering test sensitivities, frequency, and sample-to-answer reporting time. These results demonstrate that effective surveillance, including time to first detection and outbreak control, depends largely on frequency of testing and the speed of reporting, and is only marginally improved by high test sensitivity. We therefore conclude that surveillance should prioritize accessibility, frequency, and sample-to-answer time; analytical limits of detection should be secondary....
Is there reporting of % results back within 24 hours? I havent seen any or heard them discussed. The aim on the govt website is only 48-72 hours! That is half the infection period!
I think that has markedly improved in recent weeks, though figures are hard to come by. Anecdotally, I got my own recent test results (from a drive in centre) within 24 hours. Frequency of testing presumably refers to testing contacts of traced cases multiple times over a number of days. No idea if this is being done.
Comments
The anti-semites?
And its better for herd immunity to be built on the stupid being infected.
I support her sacking anyway, for being generally useless, but if (big if) what she says about the tweet is true then it's a little bit odd.
They met, possibly by chance, but likely because Desmond asked someone in the Treasurer’s office to put Jenrick at his table.
Jenrick sent a bog standard text message.
His secretary set up a meeting
Jenrick realised / someone told him he was being an idiot so he cancelled the meeting.
I don’t think that’s the issue. The issue is the acceleration of the decision.
My point is that tweeting an article from a mainstream newspaper should be a safe harbour. It’s a reasonable assumption for someone to make that the Independent doesn’t peddle crackpot anti-Semitic conspiracy theories as a matter of course.
Around here the next big estate is the conversion of 2 farms into houses. One is owned by the local developer (and has been for years), the other is owned by the council.
Yes someone developing land should get a profit from doing so but that isn't what our planning system leads to.
Instead in this country with planning permission being so hard to get simply getting consent to build (but not yet bothering to do so) raises dramatically the value of land. So companies can look to "flip" land without doing any actual development simply by purchasing it, getting consent then looking to sell it on with existing consent.
That's not a problem that needs fixing in the market though. It's the market finding a solution to deal with a failing of the state itself. The problem that needs fixing is the inability to easily and readily get planning permission. If the planning process was streamlined, quick, simple and easy then getting consent would no longer be valuable. Instead the state and the awful power of NIMBYs means that simply getting permission is sometimes more valuable than actually bothering to develop the land.
Fix the real problem and the market will follow.
How did Jenrick and or his adviser's allow Desmond to get so physically close. Lots of horror stories from the past around.
Point b) Agreed.
Point c) I don't have a problem with Jenrick and Desmond attending a rubber chicken dinner, at vast cost to the latter. I do object to Jenrick's subsequent course of action. Where it really starts to smell unpleasant is the financial implications of Jenrick's course of action. From being a minor, "you scratch my back, I'll scratch yours" issue to something that looks, in principle, at least, reminiscent of T. Dan Smith or John Poulson
But what is being suggested here is the permission is granted then the council buys it for under the market value to capture the gain for the state.
Refusing to follow instructions like that is standard grounds for removing from the Shadow Cabinet.
I don't think Jo is saying the wording is proof of Jenrick's guilt.
I think other things not listed in the tweet are evidence of Jenrick's guilt.
Jo is merely stating that in light of other evidence, Jenrick's statement could be more accurately worded
Those who find this allegation anti-Semitic do not dispute that international police forces share training in a manner of deep concern to international human rights watchdogs. What they do object to is the singling out of Israel in this allegation, when there is nothing to suggest that Israel played any greater part in Floyd’s death than the many other countries that share training with the US, and which also use aggressive restraining techniques. Why is the tragic killing of a black man at the hands of the police, in a country with a long history of racial discrimination and excessive force in policing, now being blamed on the world’s only Jewish-majority state, they ask?
But generally I think shadow ministers have to read things before forwarding and praising them. "I thought it must be good because it was in a newspaper" is a really crap defence.
Anyway, I'm not sure I get you - you agree that Starmer was right to sack her, but you don't think her reputation as an MP should be trashed? Fair enough.
In the strict legal sense and in the moral sense that such payments benefit the wider community, the Government has every right to put whatever conditions it likes on the disposal of an estate in land that the Crown, in the name of which it governs, ultimately owns. Unlawfully or otherwise conspiring to deprive the taxpayers and residents of Tower Hamlets of the benefit of such disposal is, legally and morally, and at the very least, a resigning matter.
HuffPost UK has been told Long-Bailey refused to take phone calls from the leader’s office, and after being given four hours to comply with his wishes, Starmer decided enough was enough. Having given her a way out, he felt he was left with no option but to fire her as shadow education secretary.
https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/keir-starmer-rebecca-long-bailey_uk_5ef50f91c5b6acab283efcb2
Your points on the system are well made. A while ago I attended a District Council planning session and was shocked at the lack of proper analysis and process. The councillors (from all parties) were clearly not listening to any logic and based their decisions on whether they liked the development or did not, and were clearly influenced by who was on the board of the company applying for the development. It is a system that is open to abuse and ripe for structural reform.
There followed a painful period of four hours in which Long Bailey did not take calls from the leader’s office. At 3pm she was finished. Starmer, a keen footballer, has been likened by friends to the combative and often gratuitously violent Roy Keane. Long Bailey’s sacking, swift and brutal as it was, is redolent of one of his meatier two-footed challenges. It delighted the faithful on the right of the party but it could yet make life harder for his team.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/a7ef180e-b780-11ea-82eb-1588bf47a52f
In my experience, you have three groups of anti-developers:
1 - BANANAs (Build Absolutely Nothing Anywhere Near Anyone). These are actually fewer than you'd fear.
2 - Knee-jerk NIMBYs. Don't want anything built because it would spoil their view/reduce their house prices/get too many people in the neighbourhood/spoil the ambience they came here for.
3 - Rational NIMBYs. These are by far the largest cohort, in my experience, and it's hard to be annoyed at them if they have a decent reason: the roads are already gridlocked, what will the effect be of another thousand households here? The school here is oversubscribed already and the waiting list for the doctors surgery is impossible and you're proposing overloading it more? The kids have nothing to do and now we'll have twice as many hanging around the bus stop looking for ways to take out their boredom? You already can't get a seat on the bus into town; how will doubling the number of people using it help?
Sometimes you might suspect those in category three of being in category two but looking for a decent excuse - but I've found many people who say "No more houses!" do, when you chat about extra infrastructure, within five minutes are pointing out where entire new estates could go with the right roads and other infrastructure. Chatting to one, he went from "We've got to block more housing" to suggesting a 50% expansion of the village.
If we want a load more housing so our younger generation can actually afford to get houses, we need to bring people along with us. Which is where things like S106 and the Community Infrastructure Levy and conditions that developments provide sports facilities, sports fields, surgeries, schools and green spaces come in.
I've already seen resistance drop to more development when such things accompany them - and increase in other areas when developers either fail to provide what was promised or manage to wriggle out of conditions completely.
Developers will want to provide simply a load of rabbit hutches and then bugger off. Maximum profit. Spreading them out, providing green spaces and other facilities - that's all in the category of income lost. Providing funding for the extra facilities and infrastructure - again, that's money off the bottom line.
So if you can short that out by bunging a few quid to the Tory Party coffers via a dodgy Cabinet Minister - that's a win.
Except for the failure to provide the facilities to accompany development and the shift of normal people into Category 3 above - and pressing those already in Category 3 into Category 2 and into Category 1.
And then you get the electorate consistently (and rationally) voting any politicians who support housebuilding out of office.
How many cases has the Good Law Project actually won?
Instead she flagrantly refused to and is STILL sharing it even now. She refused to meet the leaders demands and that gives the leader only two choices: sack her, or cave and lose all credibility. Only one of those is a real option.
It contained other nuggets such as:
"It’s about 10 minutes into our conversation that Maxine Peake first calls for the destruction of capitalism. “We’ve got to save humanity,” says the venerated actor and activist, who in her youth was a card-carrying communist. “We’re being ruled by capitalist, fascist dictators. It’s entrenched, isn’t it? We’ve got to the point where protecting capital is much more important than anybody’s life. How do we dig out of that? How do we change?”.......
and
There’s a lot of people who should hang their heads in shame. People going, ‘Oh, I can join the Labour Party again because Keir Starmer’s there,’ well shame on you.”.....
So you have an apparently unreconstructed Marxist calling for the overthrow of capitalism and indulging in factional denouncing of people who are rejoining the Labour Party because they find the Keir Starmer infinitely better than his predecessor, and then being retweeted as "an absolute diamond".
RLB put Starmer in a very difficult position, was offered the chance to defuse the situation by deleting the whole tweet, and refused. I think that Starmer had no alternative but to act.
And dependent on the impact of Corona.
Another issue (implicit in what you say) is that in order to fulfil the obligations for green space, EVAs, community areas, social housing, affordable housing, etc, and still make a return on investment above the required hurdle rate, the number of units for sale has to increase which means the size of the development must increase which means it brings out many more who object to what by this time has likely become an "eyesore".
But she actually wants to be associated with an antisemitic article. Withdrawing the whip would be a better response but sacking her was the least he had to do.
It may well be the RLB staying protects the party as x guilty parties are thrown out.,
That is not nearly enough. A moment's thought should have made him realise that he was exercising that discretion in favour of someone who was a known donor to his party, whom he had met and discussed the development with very recently at a social event and who had had privileged access to the Minister. He would then have realised that he simply couldn't exercise his discretion in favour of such a developer because it would not appear to be impartial.
No doubt he rationalised it to himself by concluding that he would have treated any developer in Desmond's position the same and for the same reasons. He may even have gone so far as to conclude that it would be unfair to Desmond to decide differently because he knew him and had dined with him. But these principles of being seen to be impartial are important and there for good reasons and he was completely wrong to conclude otherwise.
No doubt he was advised of that in very clear terms as a result of which he quashed his own decision. But failing to realise this upfront really makes him completely unsuitable for his position. It was a significant error of judgment and he should have quit or been fired.
I have seen "Rational NIMBYs" become very irrational when faced with a reality that a road or a junction is not at capacity according to professionally done models / surveys, or suddenly become incredibly interested in foxes and trees the minute a potential development is mooted.
In the case of the case I mentioned yesterday, the (Lib Dem) Councillor (name of Zadrozny
It got what I call a "political no", overruling a recommendation to approve from the Planning Officer, and then went through Appeal in record time (5-6 weeks). The consequence was 10-15k extra expense spent on planning bureaucracy by the Applicant, and whatever it cost the Council for doing their doomed-to-fail side of the Appeal.
He agreed to meet them today. He set the terms.
As it happens, the self-discipline in the shadow cabinet is already impressive: all are on message and are avoiding putting their foot in it, other than the RLB incident, which will strengthen the message further. I was a bit worried about David Lammy, but despite some naff things he's said in the past, since his appointment to shadow justice he has been loyal, sensible and cautious.
That would be to suggest that politicians bear no responsibility for retweeting unacceptable views because they haven't read what they share.
Your line also suggests that you'd be happier to be called a fascist if your accuser were a "well recognised actress". Which I'm sure can't be right.
My comment on removal of the whip is highly ironic. If party leaders remove the whip of MPs for expressing inconvenient opinions then we are further down the road to dictatorship. Johnson/Cummings behaviour was that of the tin-pot dictator (with emphasis on the tin-pot). Most of the headbanging contingent of the Tory party that supported Johnson's inappropriate elevation had rebelled many times, including the unthinking man's hero, the forever braindead Ian Duncan Smith. Our system works best when governments and oppositions have an awkward squad.
An antisemitic and racist squad is not.
I have no qualms purging them from the party - the Tories have ruthlessly purged anyone equivalent for decades who could be considered "far right" but the left have myopically believed the far right are the problem and the far left are not. The far left and far right are two cheeks of the same arse, they're both racist extremists and should have no place within either of our mainstream parties.
If the far left or far right wish to set up their own party they should be free to do so but I wouldn't want them in my party.
b) I wouldn't put her in the high profile actor category. Except for the elite and the celebrities there aren't very high wages, particularly in theatre, for most actors. I imagine she will make a comfortable living.
As I said the other day, I personally find him a good deal less irritating than Tony Blair was in 1997, so I would feel more comfortable with a Starmer premiership than I ever felt about a Blair one.
Me and Owen.
At that point one of us asked the PO about the local 11th C church, which had just had some major alterations. How had the architect been contacted?
Very grudgingly the officer gave permission for our chap to look at the plans held by the council.
https://next-media-api.ft.com/renditions/15931272760960/1280x720.mp4
Surveillance testing of SARS-CoV-2
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.06.22.20136309v1
...Because SARS-CoV-2 can spread from individuals with pre-symptomatic, symptomatic, and asymptomatic infections, the re-opening of societies and the control of virus spread will be facilitated by robust surveillance, for which virus testing will often be central. After infection, individuals undergo a period of incubation during which viral titers are usually too low to detect, followed by an exponential growth of virus, leading to a peak viral load and infectiousness, and ending with declining viral levels and clearance. Given the pattern of viral load kinetics, we model surveillance effectiveness considering test sensitivities, frequency, and sample-to-answer reporting time. These results demonstrate that effective surveillance, including time to first detection and outbreak control, depends largely on frequency of testing and the speed of reporting, and is only marginally improved by high test sensitivity. We therefore conclude that surveillance should prioritize accessibility, frequency, and sample-to-answer time; analytical limits of detection should be secondary....
I dislike Bone, Francois and Rees-Mogg but don't think they have anything similar? And if they had shared the stage with and endorsed Holocaust Deniers etc then I think they'd have been kicked out of the party already.
This one was up against the viability buffers, and the normal assumption aiui is a margin of 15% or so.
It had been appealed due to non-determination, so the Council were already out of time.
I would say it should have been left to the Planning Inspectorate.
I am not sure what process with evident "clean hands" would be available at Minister Level.
The docs are here btw. All 400 of them.
https://development.towerhamlets.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=documents&keyVal=DCAPR_126178
A survey of over 20k healthcare workers, 80% of them working in non-Covid settings, after Duke Health mandated that all employees wear masks at work:
Universal Masking is an Effective Strategy to Flatten the SARS-CoV-2 Healthcare Worker Epidemiologic Curve
https://www.cambridge.org/core/services/aop-cambridge-core/content/view/9301E77612122039190A29CB7223F9C4/S0899823X2000313Xa.pdf/universal_masking_is_an_effective_strategy_to_flatten_the_sarscov2_healthcare_worker_epidemiologic_curve.pdf
...Of the healthcare-associated cases, 70% were related to unmasked exposure to another HCW for more than 10 minutes less than 6 feet apart and 30% were thought to be secondary to direct care of SARS- CoV-2 positive patients
One week following the implementation of universal masking on March 31, 2020, we observed a significant decrease in the cumulative incidence rate of healthcare-acquired SARS-CoV-2 infections among HCWs (Figure) (LRT 4.38, p-value 0.03). The cumulative incidence rates in community-acquired cases and cases with no clear source of acquisition did not significantly change, however, and continued to mirror the cumulative incidence rates of SARS-CoV-2 in the communities surrounding Duke Health....
CUL anyway. I must go outside. Can be put off no longer.
He had some interesting fulminations about planning and councillors, including mining types arguing that mains gas and insulation wouldn't ever be necessary as so many people had free coal for life.
Frequency of testing presumably refers to testing contacts of traced cases multiple times over a number of days. No idea if this is being done.