The way the Conservatives have hung leaseholders out to dry over the cladding scandal is a national disgrace.
There are people who bought 25% of a flat under a shared ownership scheme with deposits as little as 35k who are now expected to pony up twice that to fix defects they weren't responsible for while the developers who caused them get off scot free. For a flat they "own" quarter of yet are responsible for 100% of the bills.
1.3 million flats in the UK are currently unmortgageable, people's lives are on hold, and MPs have voted five times now not to protect leaseholders from costs that will likely bankrupt them.
While I'm not directly affected by any of this I know people who are and I was close to buying a property that is affected by all of this - so it's a bit of a "there but for the grace of god go I" thing for me.
It sucks but I can understand why owners need to pay upkeep, even unexpected upkeep. It happens, you gain when the property goes up in value, but have to pay maintenance. But this is the first I've heard that shared ownership, one owner has to pay the full costs and the other owner does not. That makes no sense at all to me.
If a tenant is renting, their landlord has to pay maintenance. If 25% shared ownership why doesn't the 25% owner pay 25% of the cost, and the 75% owner the other 75%? That seems utterly illogical, to be able to own but not be responsible for upkeep.
This isn't maintenance though is it — the thing hasn't been built properly.
A lot of people don't realise they have pretty much zero "consumer protection" when buying newly built houses or flats.
Not really true - NHBC protection covers you against most structural defects. The cladding issue is unfortunate in that it was often applied to existing builds, and of course there is a significant leaseholder vs freeholder conflict of interest.
The concept of leasehold seems utterly, utterly stupid and I have never seen a good explanation of why it shouldn't just be abolished. Use share of freehold arrangements if you absolutely must have some communal arrangements within a block or development.
The way the Conservatives have hung leaseholders out to dry over the cladding scandal is a national disgrace.
There are people who bought 25% of a flat under a shared ownership scheme with deposits as little as 35k who are now expected to pony up twice that to fix defects they weren't responsible for while the developers who caused them get off scot free. For a flat they "own" quarter of yet are responsible for 100% of the bills.
1.3 million flats in the UK are currently unmortgageable, people's lives are on hold, and MPs have voted five times now not to protect leaseholders from costs that will likely bankrupt them.
While I'm not directly affected by any of this I know people who are and I was close to buying a property that is affected by all of this - so it's a bit of a "there but for the grace of god go I" thing for me.
It sucks but I can understand why owners need to pay upkeep, even unexpected upkeep. It happens, you gain when the property goes up in value, but have to pay maintenance. But this is the first I've heard that shared ownership, one owner has to pay the full costs and the other owner does not. That makes no sense at all to me.
If a tenant is renting, their landlord has to pay maintenance. If 25% shared ownership why doesn't the 25% owner pay 25% of the cost, and the 75% owner the other 75%? That seems utterly illogical, to be able to own but not be responsible for upkeep.
This isn't maintenance though is it — the thing hasn't been built properly.
A lot of people don't realise they have pretty much zero "consumer protection" when buying newly built houses or flats.
As far as I understand it was built properly to the standards of the day, but the standards have been tightened post-Grenfell. So yes its maintenance, because it needs an upgrade to newer standards.
Jeremy Corbyn on twitter. ________________________________________ Proud to vote Labour today for a kinder, fairer, more sustainable world. _______________________________________
Fuck me, what a fucking classy bloke. Worth more than the rest of them put together.
I would sit and laugh at Kieth I would be bitter and loving his failure, I would be working my ass off to get my own back.
I just don't understand how the hell he does it but I admire the hell out of it.
Also SUPER IMPORTANT CLARIFICATION: I am not voting Labour that was just Corbyn's words.
So you're refusing to vote Labour because of how they treated Jeremy Corbyn, even though Corbyn himself is "proud" to do so?
God, I hope there are millions more of you in this country. Sort of.
Definitely brisk in my Bucks village (Thames Valley PCC & Bucks County Council). I had to queue for a few minutes to get my voting sheet.
I'm a traditional Tory voter but not entirely happy with how they run things locally and don't want to ever give a vote to Labour or the Lib Dems. Voted Tory for PCC and independent as 2nd choice for PCC. I was on the verge of giving several votes to the Greens until I realised that 2 of their candidates either was "somewhere in Bucks" or not local. Gave the Green candidate who lived in the village my vote along with 2 other very local Tories.
I think the Greens will do very well in my area. Lots of posters up and I think there is a recognition that they have campaigned well locally. I'd never vote for them in a general election but they have had their first ever vote from me today.
I'm disappointed, of course however you vote is up to you. The Greens are the biggest single danger to our democratic prosperous society. They can be contagious with their hysteria. Theyll have your local council diverting funds to employing their friends, oops, i mean climate change consultants away from the things that you might think are bread and butter important stuff.
They are a poison in the body politic, the dear old lady in the bobble hat who seems a bit intense may seem harmless. But their creed will damage all of us.
Having seen the Tories wave through a number of very poorly thought out housing developments (primarily encouraging local car travel by making walking/cycling dangerous/difficult) against significant local opposition I think they need a bit of a wake-up call. I think they should consider themselves lucky that most of the opposition was even more unpalatable than them.
All and every housing development has 'significant local opposition'. And when that development is occupied it will be full of people who provide the significant local opposition to the next one.
Your new Green councillor if elected will be pressuring your council to go for a zero growth economy.
The way the Conservatives have hung leaseholders out to dry over the cladding scandal is a national disgrace.
There are people who bought 25% of a flat under a shared ownership scheme with deposits as little as 35k who are now expected to pony up twice that to fix defects they weren't responsible for while the developers who caused them get off scot free. For a flat they "own" quarter of yet are responsible for 100% of the bills.
1.3 million flats in the UK are currently unmortgageable, people's lives are on hold, and MPs have voted five times now not to protect leaseholders from costs that will likely bankrupt them.
While I'm not directly affected by any of this I know people who are and I was close to buying a property that is affected by all of this - so it's a bit of a "there but for the grace of god go I" thing for me.
It sucks but I can understand why owners need to pay upkeep, even unexpected upkeep. It happens, you gain when the property goes up in value, but have to pay maintenance. But this is the first I've heard that shared ownership, one owner has to pay the full costs and the other owner does not. That makes no sense at all to me.
If a tenant is renting, their landlord has to pay maintenance. If 25% shared ownership why doesn't the 25% owner pay 25% of the cost, and the 75% owner the other 75%? That seems utterly illogical, to be able to own but not be responsible for upkeep.
This isn't maintenance though is it — the thing hasn't been built properly.
A lot of people don't realise they have pretty much zero "consumer protection" when buying newly built houses or flats.
As far as I understand it was built properly to the standards of the day, but the standards have been tightened post-Grenfell. So yes its maintenance, because it needs an upgrade to newer standards.
Imagine you buy a new car and it turned out that there was a problem with the way the brakes were made (as opposed to wear and tear) that would cause the car to fail its MOT. Would you find it acceptable for the owner to have to cough up the money to fix that issue?
Why on earth are we talking about housing and not THIS
"Disclose.tv P @disclosetv NEW - "We're ready for war. We can bring Jersey to its knees", head of the Normandy sea authority says. Macron sends military boat racing towards Jersey for stand-off with Royal Navy warships. 10:57 AM · May 6, 2021"
It will be over by Christmas
Because that's much ado about nothing.
People here like to bet on politics. This incident hammers the final nail on the coffin of Remainerism/Rejoinerism and by extension means the Tories can ride out the 2020s with majority government if they wish to.
As someone fairly close to the coal face on this thread, there's a LOT going on to get first time buyers in to new homes. First of all wherever I drive around our local towns and villages, there are housing estates galore going up, Tring, Aylesbury, Leighton Buzzard and thousands on the new M1 junction behind Houghton Regis for example.
Then there's the LISA and HTB ISA, the rebirth of 95% LTV mortgages (and lots of 90%) plus new initiatives like Nationwide's Helping Hand criteria just launched where income multiples of circa 5.5x are now possible for long term fixes for FTBs. I've client's children who've not been able to get on the ladder due to affordability constraints but having mustered a bit of a deposit but who now can with these things happening. It's very exciting for them (and for me!) to have good news now.
Only a small snippet but that's my perspective.
Cons are hitting the barriers with nimbys.
Yes. This is their problem.
Cons: "we have a housing problem, so let's build millions of new houses." LD/Green: "oh no you don't."
It's exacerbated by the fact the new developments are so bloody awful. Round here there's a supposed "Green Belt" around Oxford (which in reality is half gravel pits and unappealing flatland). This means the massive new overspill estate is going literally 10 metres from the outer edge of the Green Belt - on the other side of the road that forms the boundary. So everyone who lives there will have an unnecessary 15-mile round trip to work along the most congested road in the county.
In related news, the LDs are going to take the relevant county council division off the Tories today, and very possibly (in coalition) the entire county.
Building a development usually comes with loads of ballast around "affordable housing" and new houses have tiny windows to meet green bollocks regulations.
Priority should be brownfield sites - there are plenty of those around.
That's not always the case, and theyre not always in the places that people want to live, and they often require substantial funds to clean up whatever made them brownfield in the first place.
The way the Conservatives have hung leaseholders out to dry over the cladding scandal is a national disgrace.
There are people who bought 25% of a flat under a shared ownership scheme with deposits as little as 35k who are now expected to pony up twice that to fix defects they weren't responsible for while the developers who caused them get off scot free. For a flat they "own" quarter of yet are responsible for 100% of the bills.
1.3 million flats in the UK are currently unmortgageable, people's lives are on hold, and MPs have voted five times now not to protect leaseholders from costs that will likely bankrupt them.
While I'm not directly affected by any of this I know people who are and I was close to buying a property that is affected by all of this - so it's a bit of a "there but for the grace of god go I" thing for me.
It sucks but I can understand why owners need to pay upkeep, even unexpected upkeep. It happens, you gain when the property goes up in value, but have to pay maintenance. But this is the first I've heard that shared ownership, one owner has to pay the full costs and the other owner does not. That makes no sense at all to me.
If a tenant is renting, their landlord has to pay maintenance. If 25% shared ownership why doesn't the 25% owner pay 25% of the cost, and the 75% owner the other 75%? That seems utterly illogical, to be able to own but not be responsible for upkeep.
This isn't maintenance though is it — the thing hasn't been built properly.
A lot of people don't realise they have pretty much zero "consumer protection" when buying newly built houses or flats.
As far as I understand it was built properly to the standards of the day, but the standards have been tightened post-Grenfell. So yes its maintenance, because it needs an upgrade to newer standards.
Imagine you buy a new car and it turned out that there was a problem with the way the brakes were made (as opposed to wear and tear) that would cause the car to fail its MOT. Would you find it acceptable for the owner to have to cough up the money to fix that issue?
I find it extraordinary that anyone can think this mess is the leaseholders’ responsibility to clean up.
The way the Conservatives have hung leaseholders out to dry over the cladding scandal is a national disgrace.
There are people who bought 25% of a flat under a shared ownership scheme with deposits as little as 35k who are now expected to pony up twice that to fix defects they weren't responsible for while the developers who caused them get off scot free. For a flat they "own" quarter of yet are responsible for 100% of the bills.
1.3 million flats in the UK are currently unmortgageable, people's lives are on hold, and MPs have voted five times now not to protect leaseholders from costs that will likely bankrupt them.
While I'm not directly affected by any of this I know people who are and I was close to buying a property that is affected by all of this - so it's a bit of a "there but for the grace of god go I" thing for me.
It sucks but I can understand why owners need to pay upkeep, even unexpected upkeep. It happens, you gain when the property goes up in value, but have to pay maintenance. But this is the first I've heard that shared ownership, one owner has to pay the full costs and the other owner does not. That makes no sense at all to me.
If a tenant is renting, their landlord has to pay maintenance. If 25% shared ownership why doesn't the 25% owner pay 25% of the cost, and the 75% owner the other 75%? That seems utterly illogical, to be able to own but not be responsible for upkeep.
This isn't maintenance though is it — the thing hasn't been built properly.
A lot of people don't realise they have pretty much zero "consumer protection" when buying newly built houses or flats.
As far as I understand it was built properly to the standards of the day, but the standards have been tightened post-Grenfell. So yes its maintenance, because it needs an upgrade to newer standards.
I'm not 100% sure if the standards have changed since but there are a lot of places where the cladding should never have been installed to begin with (as it didn't meet the standards of the time).
But the issue is that you can't sue the people involved as that won't cover the costs required to put things right..
Jeremy Corbyn on twitter. ________________________________________ Proud to vote Labour today for a kinder, fairer, more sustainable world. _______________________________________
Fuck me, what a fucking classy bloke. Worth more than the rest of them put together.
I would sit and laugh at Kieth I would be bitter and loving his failure, I would be working my ass off to get my own back.
I just don't understand how the hell he does it but I admire the hell out of it.
Also SUPER IMPORTANT CLARIFICATION: I am not voting Labour that was just Corbyn's words.
More sinned against than sinning, no question. And I really think you should take a leaf - VOTE LABOUR.
Because Starmer failing is unlikely to lead to the party giving Corbynism another whirl.
Jeremy Corbyn on twitter. ________________________________________ Proud to vote Labour today for a kinder, fairer, more sustainable world. _______________________________________
Fuck me, what a fucking classy bloke. Worth more than the rest of them put together.
I would sit and laugh at Kieth I would be bitter and loving his failure, I would be working my ass off to get my own back.
I just don't understand how the hell he does it but I admire the hell out of it.
Also SUPER IMPORTANT CLARIFICATION: I am not voting Labour that was just Corbyn's words.
So you're refusing to vote Labour because of how they treated Jeremy Corbyn, even though Corbyn himself is "proud" to do so?
God, I hope there are millions more of you in this country. Sort of.
There are lots of reasons why I am not voting Labour Corbyn would be involved in a chunk of it but not the only reasons.
Corbyn's a forgiving person, I am more of a treat them how they treat you kinda guy, also not as if Corbyn is the only victim in all this, I am pissed at them for what they did to me and others not just Corbyn.
The way the Conservatives have hung leaseholders out to dry over the cladding scandal is a national disgrace.
There are people who bought 25% of a flat under a shared ownership scheme with deposits as little as 35k who are now expected to pony up twice that to fix defects they weren't responsible for while the developers who caused them get off scot free. For a flat they "own" quarter of yet are responsible for 100% of the bills.
1.3 million flats in the UK are currently unmortgageable, people's lives are on hold, and MPs have voted five times now not to protect leaseholders from costs that will likely bankrupt them.
While I'm not directly affected by any of this I know people who are and I was close to buying a property that is affected by all of this - so it's a bit of a "there but for the grace of god go I" thing for me.
It sucks but I can understand why owners need to pay upkeep, even unexpected upkeep. It happens, you gain when the property goes up in value, but have to pay maintenance. But this is the first I've heard that shared ownership, one owner has to pay the full costs and the other owner does not. That makes no sense at all to me.
If a tenant is renting, their landlord has to pay maintenance. If 25% shared ownership why doesn't the 25% owner pay 25% of the cost, and the 75% owner the other 75%? That seems utterly illogical, to be able to own but not be responsible for upkeep.
This isn't maintenance though is it — the thing hasn't been built properly.
A lot of people don't realise they have pretty much zero "consumer protection" when buying newly built houses or flats.
As far as I understand it was built properly to the standards of the day, but the standards have been tightened post-Grenfell. So yes its maintenance, because it needs an upgrade to newer standards.
Imagine you buy a new car and it turned out that there was a problem with the way the brakes were made (as opposed to wear and tear) that would cause the car to fail its MOT. Would you find it acceptable for the owner to have to cough up the money to fix that issue?
Surely more that the brakes were not fitted as per specs and legal requirements.
As someone fairly close to the coal face on this thread, there's a LOT going on to get first time buyers in to new homes. First of all wherever I drive around our local towns and villages, there are housing estates galore going up, Tring, Aylesbury, Leighton Buzzard and thousands on the new M1 junction behind Houghton Regis for example.
Then there's the LISA and HTB ISA, the rebirth of 95% LTV mortgages (and lots of 90%) plus new initiatives like Nationwide's Helping Hand criteria just launched where income multiples of circa 5.5x are now possible for long term fixes for FTBs. I've client's children who've not been able to get on the ladder due to affordability constraints but having mustered a bit of a deposit but who now can with these things happening. It's very exciting for them (and for me!) to have good news now.
Only a small snippet but that's my perspective.
Cons are hitting the barriers with nimbys.
Yes. This is their problem.
Cons: "we have a housing problem, so let's build millions of new houses." LD/Green: "oh no you don't."
It's exacerbated by the fact the new developments are so bloody awful. Round here there's a supposed "Green Belt" around Oxford (which in reality is half gravel pits and unappealing flatland). This means the massive new overspill estate is going literally 10 metres from the outer edge of the Green Belt - on the other side of the road that forms the boundary. So everyone who lives there will have an unnecessary 15-mile round trip to work along the most congested road in the county.
In related news, the LDs are going to take the relevant county council division off the Tories today, and very possibly (in coalition) the entire county.
Building a development usually comes with loads of ballast around "affordable housing" and new houses have tiny windows to meet green bollocks regulations.
Priority should be brownfield sites - there are plenty of those around.
That's not always the case, and theyre not always in the places that people want to live, and they often require substantial funds to clean up whatever made them brownfield in the first place.
Do councils have the power to say no more greenfield developments until the brownfield sites are used up ?
Question. Is it legal to park a car literally plastered in party logos directly outside the door of the polling station?
I remember in the Sedgefield by-election of 2007 the Labour car drove up and down the street on which I lived at least once an hour proclaiming "Vote Labour!" from a PA system with party logos all over it. We had a polling station on the next street, but not actually on ours so I wonder if it was to try and persuade those on the way without getting too close.
The way the Conservatives have hung leaseholders out to dry over the cladding scandal is a national disgrace.
There are people who bought 25% of a flat under a shared ownership scheme with deposits as little as 35k who are now expected to pony up twice that to fix defects they weren't responsible for while the developers who caused them get off scot free. For a flat they "own" quarter of yet are responsible for 100% of the bills.
1.3 million flats in the UK are currently unmortgageable, people's lives are on hold, and MPs have voted five times now not to protect leaseholders from costs that will likely bankrupt them.
While I'm not directly affected by any of this I know people who are and I was close to buying a property that is affected by all of this - so it's a bit of a "there but for the grace of god go I" thing for me.
It sucks but I can understand why owners need to pay upkeep, even unexpected upkeep. It happens, you gain when the property goes up in value, but have to pay maintenance. But this is the first I've heard that shared ownership, one owner has to pay the full costs and the other owner does not. That makes no sense at all to me.
If a tenant is renting, their landlord has to pay maintenance. If 25% shared ownership why doesn't the 25% owner pay 25% of the cost, and the 75% owner the other 75%? That seems utterly illogical, to be able to own but not be responsible for upkeep.
This isn't maintenance though is it — the thing hasn't been built properly.
A lot of people don't realise they have pretty much zero "consumer protection" when buying newly built houses or flats.
As far as I understand it was built properly to the standards of the day, but the standards have been tightened post-Grenfell. So yes its maintenance, because it needs an upgrade to newer standards.
Imagine you buy a new car and it turned out that there was a problem with the way the brakes were made (as opposed to wear and tear) that would cause the car to fail its MOT. Would you find it acceptable for the owner to have to cough up the money to fix that issue?
Its complicated isn't it? It depends, if there were any dishonesty or failure then it should be subject to a recall.
If its because the MOT requirements have tightened up, so what was legally OK in the past is not now, that's a different matter isn't it?
If a government decreed that from 2025 every car that is not zero emissions would fail its MOT, then petrol and diesel cars would become worthless overnight. But should they be recalled because of that?
Right, leaving now to go and do my patriotic chore. I'm picking up a groundswell of support for Binface but I won't be arsing about like that. I vote Labour. So that's Sadiq. 1st pref and only pref.
Given the guarantee Labour get to the final round not much point in a second prefer anyway I guess.
As someone fairly close to the coal face on this thread, there's a LOT going on to get first time buyers in to new homes. First of all wherever I drive around our local towns and villages, there are housing estates galore going up, Tring, Aylesbury, Leighton Buzzard and thousands on the new M1 junction behind Houghton Regis for example.
Then there's the LISA and HTB ISA, the rebirth of 95% LTV mortgages (and lots of 90%) plus new initiatives like Nationwide's Helping Hand criteria just launched where income multiples of circa 5.5x are now possible for long term fixes for FTBs. I've client's children who've not been able to get on the ladder due to affordability constraints but having mustered a bit of a deposit but who now can with these things happening. It's very exciting for them (and for me!) to have good news now.
Only a small snippet but that's my perspective.
Cons are hitting the barriers with nimbys.
Yes. This is their problem.
Cons: "we have a housing problem, so let's build millions of new houses." LD/Green: "oh no you don't."
It's exacerbated by the fact the new developments are so bloody awful. Round here there's a supposed "Green Belt" around Oxford (which in reality is half gravel pits and unappealing flatland). This means the massive new overspill estate is going literally 10 metres from the outer edge of the Green Belt - on the other side of the road that forms the boundary. So everyone who lives there will have an unnecessary 15-mile round trip to work along the most congested road in the county.
In related news, the LDs are going to take the relevant county council division off the Tories today, and very possibly (in coalition) the entire county.
Building a development usually comes with loads of ballast around "affordable housing" and new houses have tiny windows to meet green bollocks regulations.
Priority should be brownfield sites - there are plenty of those around.
The area between Colchester and Chelmsford Is rapidly approaching, in housing, that West of Southend.
The way the Conservatives have hung leaseholders out to dry over the cladding scandal is a national disgrace.
There are people who bought 25% of a flat under a shared ownership scheme with deposits as little as 35k who are now expected to pony up twice that to fix defects they weren't responsible for while the developers who caused them get off scot free. For a flat they "own" quarter of yet are responsible for 100% of the bills.
1.3 million flats in the UK are currently unmortgageable, people's lives are on hold, and MPs have voted five times now not to protect leaseholders from costs that will likely bankrupt them.
While I'm not directly affected by any of this I know people who are and I was close to buying a property that is affected by all of this - so it's a bit of a "there but for the grace of god go I" thing for me.
It sucks but I can understand why owners need to pay upkeep, even unexpected upkeep. It happens, you gain when the property goes up in value, but have to pay maintenance. But this is the first I've heard that shared ownership, one owner has to pay the full costs and the other owner does not. That makes no sense at all to me.
If a tenant is renting, their landlord has to pay maintenance. If 25% shared ownership why doesn't the 25% owner pay 25% of the cost, and the 75% owner the other 75%? That seems utterly illogical, to be able to own but not be responsible for upkeep.
This isn't maintenance though is it — the thing hasn't been built properly.
A lot of people don't realise they have pretty much zero "consumer protection" when buying newly built houses or flats.
As far as I understand it was built properly to the standards of the day, but the standards have been tightened post-Grenfell. So yes its maintenance, because it needs an upgrade to newer standards.
Imagine you buy a new car and it turned out that there was a problem with the way the brakes were made (as opposed to wear and tear) that would cause the car to fail its MOT. Would you find it acceptable for the owner to have to cough up the money to fix that issue?
Its complicated isn't it? It depends, if there were any dishonesty or failure then it should be subject to a recall.
If its because the MOT requirements have tightened up, so what was legally OK in the past is not now, that's a different matter isn't it?
If a government decreed that from 2025 every car that is not zero emissions would fail its MOT, then petrol and diesel cars would become worthless overnight. But should they be recalled because of that?
Well, on that last point, there's a whole load of pain coming down the road for the government of the day as and when they decide that we ought to have stopped using the ICE.
My problem is the distinction on height. Why is the government paying the bill for buildings over 18m? What difference does it make? If it's about safety, then simply say that on buildings below 18m, what's already been built can stay as it is.
Definitely brisk in my Bucks village (Thames Valley PCC & Bucks County Council). I had to queue for a few minutes to get my voting sheet.
I'm a traditional Tory voter but not entirely happy with how they run things locally and don't want to ever give a vote to Labour or the Lib Dems. Voted Tory for PCC and independent as 2nd choice for PCC. I was on the verge of giving several votes to the Greens until I realised that 2 of their candidates either was "somewhere in Bucks" or not local. Gave the Green candidate who lived in the village my vote along with 2 other very local Tories.
I think the Greens will do very well in my area. Lots of posters up and I think there is a recognition that they have campaigned well locally. I'd never vote for them in a general election but they have had their first ever vote from me today.
I'm disappointed, of course however you vote is up to you. The Greens are the biggest single danger to our democratic prosperous society. They can be contagious with their hysteria. Theyll have your local council diverting funds to employing their friends, oops, i mean climate change consultants away from the things that you might think are bread and butter important stuff.
They are a poison in the body politic, the dear old lady in the bobble hat who seems a bit intense may seem harmless. But their creed will damage all of us.
Having seen the Tories wave through a number of very poorly thought out housing developments (primarily encouraging local car travel by making walking/cycling dangerous/difficult) against significant local opposition I think they need a bit of a wake-up call. I think they should consider themselves lucky that most of the opposition was even more unpalatable than them.
Cllrs dont have much leeway due to national policy. A lot of the time they could refuse something to make people feel better, but it just gets approved on appeal so now it's there and cost locals out of their council tax to boot. Party banner wont make much difference.
As someone fairly close to the coal face on this thread, there's a LOT going on to get first time buyers in to new homes. First of all wherever I drive around our local towns and villages, there are housing estates galore going up, Tring, Aylesbury, Leighton Buzzard and thousands on the new M1 junction behind Houghton Regis for example.
Then there's the LISA and HTB ISA, the rebirth of 95% LTV mortgages (and lots of 90%) plus new initiatives like Nationwide's Helping Hand criteria just launched where income multiples of circa 5.5x are now possible for long term fixes for FTBs. I've client's children who've not been able to get on the ladder due to affordability constraints but having mustered a bit of a deposit but who now can with these things happening. It's very exciting for them (and for me!) to have good news now.
Only a small snippet but that's my perspective.
Cons are hitting the barriers with nimbys.
Yes. This is their problem.
Cons: "we have a housing problem, so let's build millions of new houses." LD/Green: "oh no you don't."
It's exacerbated by the fact the new developments are so bloody awful. Round here there's a supposed "Green Belt" around Oxford (which in reality is half gravel pits and unappealing flatland). This means the massive new overspill estate is going literally 10 metres from the outer edge of the Green Belt - on the other side of the road that forms the boundary. So everyone who lives there will have an unnecessary 15-mile round trip to work along the most congested road in the county.
In related news, the LDs are going to take the relevant county council division off the Tories today, and very possibly (in coalition) the entire county.
Building a development usually comes with loads of ballast around "affordable housing" and new houses have tiny windows to meet green bollocks regulations.
Priority should be brownfield sites - there are plenty of those around.
That's not always the case, and theyre not always in the places that people want to live, and they often require substantial funds to clean up whatever made them brownfield in the first place.
"Brownfield" is such a preposterous excuse used by NIMBYs.
Brownfield land that is available is used. But the simple reality is that there isn't and never will be enough brownfield land to match population growth, why would there be?
Its absolutely ridiculous. The population of London has increased by a sixth in the past decade, was 16% of London undeveloped and available "brownfield" land awaiting development a decade ago? Of course not!
People need somewhere to live. More people = more land needed. That can only long term come from greenfield.
Why on earth are we talking about housing and not THIS
"Disclose.tv P @disclosetv NEW - "We're ready for war. We can bring Jersey to its knees", head of the Normandy sea authority says. Macron sends military boat racing towards Jersey for stand-off with Royal Navy warships. 10:57 AM · May 6, 2021"
It will be over by Christmas
Because that's much ado about nothing.
Willy waving it may well be, but those waving them don't get a pass just because it's all talk.
As someone fairly close to the coal face on this thread, there's a LOT going on to get first time buyers in to new homes. First of all wherever I drive around our local towns and villages, there are housing estates galore going up, Tring, Aylesbury, Leighton Buzzard and thousands on the new M1 junction behind Houghton Regis for example.
Then there's the LISA and HTB ISA, the rebirth of 95% LTV mortgages (and lots of 90%) plus new initiatives like Nationwide's Helping Hand criteria just launched where income multiples of circa 5.5x are now possible for long term fixes for FTBs. I've client's children who've not been able to get on the ladder due to affordability constraints but having mustered a bit of a deposit but who now can with these things happening. It's very exciting for them (and for me!) to have good news now.
Only a small snippet but that's my perspective.
So much life wished away to buy a new build clone. This obsession with getting on the market no matter the cost will stagnate the young. You can't have a dynamic economy if your peoples lives are dedicated to propping up Taylor Wimpey's balance sheet. 5.5x multiples, fucking madness. What next signing up your unborn for another 25 years of servitude to Barratt. The fuckers in government have already been floating the use of what limited DC pensions we have to prop up the sick economy we will inherit.
The way the Conservatives have hung leaseholders out to dry over the cladding scandal is a national disgrace.
There are people who bought 25% of a flat under a shared ownership scheme with deposits as little as 35k who are now expected to pony up twice that to fix defects they weren't responsible for while the developers who caused them get off scot free. For a flat they "own" quarter of yet are responsible for 100% of the bills.
1.3 million flats in the UK are currently unmortgageable, people's lives are on hold, and MPs have voted five times now not to protect leaseholders from costs that will likely bankrupt them.
While I'm not directly affected by any of this I know people who are and I was close to buying a property that is affected by all of this - so it's a bit of a "there but for the grace of god go I" thing for me.
It sucks but I can understand why owners need to pay upkeep, even unexpected upkeep. It happens, you gain when the property goes up in value, but have to pay maintenance. But this is the first I've heard that shared ownership, one owner has to pay the full costs and the other owner does not. That makes no sense at all to me.
If a tenant is renting, their landlord has to pay maintenance. If 25% shared ownership why doesn't the 25% owner pay 25% of the cost, and the 75% owner the other 75%? That seems utterly illogical, to be able to own but not be responsible for upkeep.
This isn't maintenance though is it — the thing hasn't been built properly.
A lot of people don't realise they have pretty much zero "consumer protection" when buying newly built houses or flats.
As far as I understand it was built properly to the standards of the day, but the standards have been tightened post-Grenfell. So yes its maintenance, because it needs an upgrade to newer standards.
Imagine you buy a new car and it turned out that there was a problem with the way the brakes were made (as opposed to wear and tear) that would cause the car to fail its MOT. Would you find it acceptable for the owner to have to cough up the money to fix that issue?
Its complicated isn't it? It depends, if there were any dishonesty or failure then it should be subject to a recall.
If its because the MOT requirements have tightened up, so what was legally OK in the past is not now, that's a different matter isn't it?
If a government decreed that from 2025 every car that is not zero emissions would fail its MOT, then petrol and diesel cars would become worthless overnight. But should they be recalled because of that?
Well, on that last point, there's a whole load of pain coming down the road for the government of the day as and when they decide that we ought to have stopped using the ICE.
My problem is the distinction on height. Why is the government paying the bill for buildings over 18m? What difference does it make? If it's about safety, then simply say that on buildings below 18m, what's already been built can stay as it is.
I was certainly fortunate in being able to get a foot on the ladder. A former new town, built with plenty of then social housing for single people. A one bed flat at a very affordable rent with secure tenancy, then a local council initiative to get appropriate tenants out of council properties into first time buyer new builds.
Plus, of course, an earlier decision of my own not to buy a car. Even given all the other advantages, that was the crucial issue.
I'm not so sure that the government will be caught out. There was a decline in home ownership levels after 2007, but it seems to have bottomed out in 2015. Construction output has risen by 30% since 2013, and quite a lot of new builds have come through.
The premise, however, that high levels of home ownership correlate with high levels of Conservative support is entirely correct.
As someone fairly close to the coal face on this thread, there's a LOT going on to get first time buyers in to new homes. First of all wherever I drive around our local towns and villages, there are housing estates galore going up, Tring, Aylesbury, Leighton Buzzard and thousands on the new M1 junction behind Houghton Regis for example.
Then there's the LISA and HTB ISA, the rebirth of 95% LTV mortgages (and lots of 90%) plus new initiatives like Nationwide's Helping Hand criteria just launched where income multiples of circa 5.5x are now possible for long term fixes for FTBs. I've client's children who've not been able to get on the ladder due to affordability constraints but having mustered a bit of a deposit but who now can with these things happening. It's very exciting for them (and for me!) to have good news now.
Only a small snippet but that's my perspective.
Cons are hitting the barriers with nimbys.
Yes. This is their problem.
Cons: "we have a housing problem, so let's build millions of new houses." LD/Green: "oh no you don't."
It's exacerbated by the fact the new developments are so bloody awful. Round here there's a supposed "Green Belt" around Oxford (which in reality is half gravel pits and unappealing flatland). This means the massive new overspill estate is going literally 10 metres from the outer edge of the Green Belt - on the other side of the road that forms the boundary. So everyone who lives there will have an unnecessary 15-mile round trip to work along the most congested road in the county.
In related news, the LDs are going to take the relevant county council division off the Tories today, and very possibly (in coalition) the entire county.
Building a development usually comes with loads of ballast around "affordable housing" and new houses have tiny windows to meet green bollocks regulations.
Priority should be brownfield sites - there are plenty of those around.
That's not always the case, and theyre not always in the places that people want to live, and they often require substantial funds to clean up whatever made them brownfield in the first place.
Golf courses.
I'm (mostly) serious. You could go a long way to solving Oxford's housing under-supply by building houses on the two golf courses within the ring road, and I suspect it's not the only city where that's the case.
As someone fairly close to the coal face on this thread, there's a LOT going on to get first time buyers in to new homes. First of all wherever I drive around our local towns and villages, there are housing estates galore going up, Tring, Aylesbury, Leighton Buzzard and thousands on the new M1 junction behind Houghton Regis for example.
Then there's the LISA and HTB ISA, the rebirth of 95% LTV mortgages (and lots of 90%) plus new initiatives like Nationwide's Helping Hand criteria just launched where income multiples of circa 5.5x are now possible for long term fixes for FTBs. I've client's children who've not been able to get on the ladder due to affordability constraints but having mustered a bit of a deposit but who now can with these things happening. It's very exciting for them (and for me!) to have good news now.
Only a small snippet but that's my perspective.
Cons are hitting the barriers with nimbys.
Yes. This is their problem.
Cons: "we have a housing problem, so let's build millions of new houses." LD/Green: "oh no you don't."
It's exacerbated by the fact the new developments are so bloody awful. Round here there's a supposed "Green Belt" around Oxford (which in reality is half gravel pits and unappealing flatland). This means the massive new overspill estate is going literally 10 metres from the outer edge of the Green Belt - on the other side of the road that forms the boundary. So everyone who lives there will have an unnecessary 15-mile round trip to work along the most congested road in the county.
In related news, the LDs are going to take the relevant county council division off the Tories today, and very possibly (in coalition) the entire county.
Building a development usually comes with loads of ballast around "affordable housing" and new houses have tiny windows to meet green bollocks regulations.
Priority should be brownfield sites - there are plenty of those around.
That's not always the case, and theyre not always in the places that people want to live, and they often require substantial funds to clean up whatever made them brownfield in the first place.
"Brownfield" is such a preposterous excuse used by NIMBYs.
Brownfield land that is available is used. But the simple reality is that there isn't and never will be enough brownfield land to match population growth, why would there be?
Its absolutely ridiculous. The population of London has increased by a sixth in the past decade, was 16% of London undeveloped and available "brownfield" land awaiting development a decade ago? Of course not!
People need somewhere to live. More people = more land needed. That can only long term come from greenfield.
Canary Wharf could be a brownfield site soonish - swathes of empty office space - perfect for housing.
Definitely brisk in my Bucks village (Thames Valley PCC & Bucks County Council). I had to queue for a few minutes to get my voting sheet.
I'm a traditional Tory voter but not entirely happy with how they run things locally and don't want to ever give a vote to Labour or the Lib Dems. Voted Tory for PCC and independent as 2nd choice for PCC. I was on the verge of giving several votes to the Greens until I realised that 2 of their candidates either was "somewhere in Bucks" or not local. Gave the Green candidate who lived in the village my vote along with 2 other very local Tories.
I think the Greens will do very well in my area. Lots of posters up and I think there is a recognition that they have campaigned well locally. I'd never vote for them in a general election but they have had their first ever vote from me today.
I'm disappointed, of course however you vote is up to you. The Greens are the biggest single danger to our democratic prosperous society. They can be contagious with their hysteria. Theyll have your local council diverting funds to employing their friends, oops, i mean climate change consultants away from the things that you might think are bread and butter important stuff.
They are a poison in the body politic, the dear old lady in the bobble hat who seems a bit intense may seem harmless. But their creed will damage all of us.
Having seen the Tories wave through a number of very poorly thought out housing developments (primarily encouraging local car travel by making walking/cycling dangerous/difficult) against significant local opposition I think they need a bit of a wake-up call. I think they should consider themselves lucky that most of the opposition was even more unpalatable than them.
Cllrs dont have much leeway due to national policy. A lot of the time they could refuse something to make people feel better, but it just gets approved on appeal so now it's there and cost locals out of their council tax to boot. Party banner wont make much difference.
On @AlistairM's specific point, the national walking and cycling policy is really surprisingly good (thanks Andrew Gilligan), but again, it's the local officials who are the roadblock - still regurgitating the same old risk-averse, car-centric solutions that were de rigeur when they did their planning training in the '80s. If all councillors and officials followed national policy on walking and cycling, we would be in a much better place.
As someone fairly close to the coal face on this thread, there's a LOT going on to get first time buyers in to new homes. First of all wherever I drive around our local towns and villages, there are housing estates galore going up, Tring, Aylesbury, Leighton Buzzard and thousands on the new M1 junction behind Houghton Regis for example.
Then there's the LISA and HTB ISA, the rebirth of 95% LTV mortgages (and lots of 90%) plus new initiatives like Nationwide's Helping Hand criteria just launched where income multiples of circa 5.5x are now possible for long term fixes for FTBs. I've client's children who've not been able to get on the ladder due to affordability constraints but having mustered a bit of a deposit but who now can with these things happening. It's very exciting for them (and for me!) to have good news now.
Only a small snippet but that's my perspective.
Cons are hitting the barriers with nimbys.
Yes. This is their problem.
Cons: "we have a housing problem, so let's build millions of new houses." LD/Green: "oh no you don't."
It's exacerbated by the fact the new developments are so bloody awful. Round here there's a supposed "Green Belt" around Oxford (which in reality is half gravel pits and unappealing flatland). This means the massive new overspill estate is going literally 10 metres from the outer edge of the Green Belt - on the other side of the road that forms the boundary. So everyone who lives there will have an unnecessary 15-mile round trip to work along the most congested road in the county.
In related news, the LDs are going to take the relevant county council division off the Tories today, and very possibly (in coalition) the entire county.
Building a development usually comes with loads of ballast around "affordable housing" and new houses have tiny windows to meet green bollocks regulations.
Priority should be brownfield sites - there are plenty of those around.
That's not always the case, and theyre not always in the places that people want to live, and they often require substantial funds to clean up whatever made them brownfield in the first place.
Brownfield is not the solution to everything. Cllrs peddle that it alone will, and is very cynical since they know belching out the word brownfield reflexively doesnt solve everything.
Planning is a mess. Developers blame councils even if they are at fault, and councils blame government even if they are at fault, and people blame councils no matter who is fault.
As someone fairly close to the coal face on this thread, there's a LOT going on to get first time buyers in to new homes. First of all wherever I drive around our local towns and villages, there are housing estates galore going up, Tring, Aylesbury, Leighton Buzzard and thousands on the new M1 junction behind Houghton Regis for example.
Then there's the LISA and HTB ISA, the rebirth of 95% LTV mortgages (and lots of 90%) plus new initiatives like Nationwide's Helping Hand criteria just launched where income multiples of circa 5.5x are now possible for long term fixes for FTBs. I've client's children who've not been able to get on the ladder due to affordability constraints but having mustered a bit of a deposit but who now can with these things happening. It's very exciting for them (and for me!) to have good news now.
Only a small snippet but that's my perspective.
So much life wished away to buy a new build clone. This obsession with getting on the market no matter the cost will stagnate the young. You can't have a dynamic economy if your peoples lives are dedicated to propping up Taylor Wimpey's balance sheet. 5.5x multiples, fucking madness. What next signing up your unborn for another 25 years of servitude to Barratt. The fuckers in government have already been floating the use of what limited DC pensions we have to prop up the sick economy we will inherit.
If Barratt and Taylor Wimpey didn't exist we'd be looking at 10x multiples not 5.5x ones.
As someone fairly close to the coal face on this thread, there's a LOT going on to get first time buyers in to new homes. First of all wherever I drive around our local towns and villages, there are housing estates galore going up, Tring, Aylesbury, Leighton Buzzard and thousands on the new M1 junction behind Houghton Regis for example.
Then there's the LISA and HTB ISA, the rebirth of 95% LTV mortgages (and lots of 90%) plus new initiatives like Nationwide's Helping Hand criteria just launched where income multiples of circa 5.5x are now possible for long term fixes for FTBs. I've client's children who've not been able to get on the ladder due to affordability constraints but having mustered a bit of a deposit but who now can with these things happening. It's very exciting for them (and for me!) to have good news now.
Only a small snippet but that's my perspective.
Cons are hitting the barriers with nimbys.
Yes. This is their problem.
Cons: "we have a housing problem, so let's build millions of new houses." LD/Green: "oh no you don't."
It's exacerbated by the fact the new developments are so bloody awful. Round here there's a supposed "Green Belt" around Oxford (which in reality is half gravel pits and unappealing flatland). This means the massive new overspill estate is going literally 10 metres from the outer edge of the Green Belt - on the other side of the road that forms the boundary. So everyone who lives there will have an unnecessary 15-mile round trip to work along the most congested road in the county.
In related news, the LDs are going to take the relevant county council division off the Tories today, and very possibly (in coalition) the entire county.
Building a development usually comes with loads of ballast around "affordable housing" and new houses have tiny windows to meet green bollocks regulations.
Priority should be brownfield sites - there are plenty of those around.
That's not always the case, and theyre not always in the places that people want to live, and they often require substantial funds to clean up whatever made them brownfield in the first place.
Golf courses.
I'm (mostly) serious. You could go a long way to solving Oxford's housing under-supply by building houses on the two golf courses within the ring road, and I suspect it's not the only city where that's the case.
Is the site up for sale? If not it would require a compulsory purchase.
As someone fairly close to the coal face on this thread, there's a LOT going on to get first time buyers in to new homes. First of all wherever I drive around our local towns and villages, there are housing estates galore going up, Tring, Aylesbury, Leighton Buzzard and thousands on the new M1 junction behind Houghton Regis for example.
Then there's the LISA and HTB ISA, the rebirth of 95% LTV mortgages (and lots of 90%) plus new initiatives like Nationwide's Helping Hand criteria just launched where income multiples of circa 5.5x are now possible for long term fixes for FTBs. I've client's children who've not been able to get on the ladder due to affordability constraints but having mustered a bit of a deposit but who now can with these things happening. It's very exciting for them (and for me!) to have good news now.
Only a small snippet but that's my perspective.
Cons are hitting the barriers with nimbys.
Yes. This is their problem.
Cons: "we have a housing problem, so let's build millions of new houses." LD/Green: "oh no you don't."
It's exacerbated by the fact the new developments are so bloody awful. Round here there's a supposed "Green Belt" around Oxford (which in reality is half gravel pits and unappealing flatland). This means the massive new overspill estate is going literally 10 metres from the outer edge of the Green Belt - on the other side of the road that forms the boundary. So everyone who lives there will have an unnecessary 15-mile round trip to work along the most congested road in the county.
In related news, the LDs are going to take the relevant county council division off the Tories today, and very possibly (in coalition) the entire county.
Building a development usually comes with loads of ballast around "affordable housing" and new houses have tiny windows to meet green bollocks regulations.
Priority should be brownfield sites - there are plenty of those around.
That's not always the case, and theyre not always in the places that people want to live, and they often require substantial funds to clean up whatever made them brownfield in the first place.
"Brownfield" is such a preposterous excuse used by NIMBYs.
Brownfield land that is available is used. But the simple reality is that there isn't and never will be enough brownfield land to match population growth, why would there be?
Its absolutely ridiculous. The population of London has increased by a sixth in the past decade, was 16% of London undeveloped and available "brownfield" land awaiting development a decade ago? Of course not!
People need somewhere to live. More people = more land needed. That can only long term come from greenfield.
Canary Wharf could be a brownfield site soonish - swathes of empty office space - perfect for housing.
large wide tower blocks built for large internal shared office spaces and few windows aren't really the things best suited for transformation into housing.
There is a reason why in Hudson Yards New York the residential blocks are very different in design from the office blocks.
As someone fairly close to the coal face on this thread, there's a LOT going on to get first time buyers in to new homes. First of all wherever I drive around our local towns and villages, there are housing estates galore going up, Tring, Aylesbury, Leighton Buzzard and thousands on the new M1 junction behind Houghton Regis for example.
Then there's the LISA and HTB ISA, the rebirth of 95% LTV mortgages (and lots of 90%) plus new initiatives like Nationwide's Helping Hand criteria just launched where income multiples of circa 5.5x are now possible for long term fixes for FTBs. I've client's children who've not been able to get on the ladder due to affordability constraints but having mustered a bit of a deposit but who now can with these things happening. It's very exciting for them (and for me!) to have good news now.
Only a small snippet but that's my perspective.
Cons are hitting the barriers with nimbys.
Yes. This is their problem.
Cons: "we have a housing problem, so let's build millions of new houses." LD/Green: "oh no you don't."
It's exacerbated by the fact the new developments are so bloody awful. Round here there's a supposed "Green Belt" around Oxford (which in reality is half gravel pits and unappealing flatland). This means the massive new overspill estate is going literally 10 metres from the outer edge of the Green Belt - on the other side of the road that forms the boundary. So everyone who lives there will have an unnecessary 15-mile round trip to work along the most congested road in the county.
In related news, the LDs are going to take the relevant county council division off the Tories today, and very possibly (in coalition) the entire county.
Building a development usually comes with loads of ballast around "affordable housing" and new houses have tiny windows to meet green bollocks regulations.
Priority should be brownfield sites - there are plenty of those around.
That's not always the case, and theyre not always in the places that people want to live, and they often require substantial funds to clean up whatever made them brownfield in the first place.
Golf courses.
I'm (mostly) serious. You could go a long way to solving Oxford's housing under-supply by building houses on the two golf courses within the ring road, and I suspect it's not the only city where that's the case.
Golf courses are closing down at quite the rate in the Uk. Many more on the brink.
The days of blokes having 5 hrs to spare at the weekend is over.
Worth remembering that a big stand-off with the UK is as beneficial to Macron politically as a big stand-off with France is to Johnson. That means both sides have every reason to escalate, sabre rattle and generally behave ridiculously. This one will run and run!
As someone fairly close to the coal face on this thread, there's a LOT going on to get first time buyers in to new homes. First of all wherever I drive around our local towns and villages, there are housing estates galore going up, Tring, Aylesbury, Leighton Buzzard and thousands on the new M1 junction behind Houghton Regis for example.
Then there's the LISA and HTB ISA, the rebirth of 95% LTV mortgages (and lots of 90%) plus new initiatives like Nationwide's Helping Hand criteria just launched where income multiples of circa 5.5x are now possible for long term fixes for FTBs. I've client's children who've not been able to get on the ladder due to affordability constraints but having mustered a bit of a deposit but who now can with these things happening. It's very exciting for them (and for me!) to have good news now.
Only a small snippet but that's my perspective.
Cons are hitting the barriers with nimbys.
Yes. This is their problem.
Cons: "we have a housing problem, so let's build millions of new houses." LD/Green: "oh no you don't."
It's exacerbated by the fact the new developments are so bloody awful. Round here there's a supposed "Green Belt" around Oxford (which in reality is half gravel pits and unappealing flatland). This means the massive new overspill estate is going literally 10 metres from the outer edge of the Green Belt - on the other side of the road that forms the boundary. So everyone who lives there will have an unnecessary 15-mile round trip to work along the most congested road in the county.
In related news, the LDs are going to take the relevant county council division off the Tories today, and very possibly (in coalition) the entire county.
Building a development usually comes with loads of ballast around "affordable housing" and new houses have tiny windows to meet green bollocks regulations.
Priority should be brownfield sites - there are plenty of those around.
That's not always the case, and theyre not always in the places that people want to live, and they often require substantial funds to clean up whatever made them brownfield in the first place.
Do councils have the power to say no more greenfield developments until the brownfield sites are used up ?
I wrote a long post that i managed to delete. Essentially no, councils through their local plan need to make available land for housing (by make available, designate it as suitable and the yield). It will mix green and brown, but the brown wont be sufficient to meet the demand. Failure to make enough land available creates a wild west allowing any housing developer to put in applications on sites and claim the council is failing to make land available.
As someone fairly close to the coal face on this thread, there's a LOT going on to get first time buyers in to new homes. First of all wherever I drive around our local towns and villages, there are housing estates galore going up, Tring, Aylesbury, Leighton Buzzard and thousands on the new M1 junction behind Houghton Regis for example.
Then there's the LISA and HTB ISA, the rebirth of 95% LTV mortgages (and lots of 90%) plus new initiatives like Nationwide's Helping Hand criteria just launched where income multiples of circa 5.5x are now possible for long term fixes for FTBs. I've client's children who've not been able to get on the ladder due to affordability constraints but having mustered a bit of a deposit but who now can with these things happening. It's very exciting for them (and for me!) to have good news now.
Only a small snippet but that's my perspective.
Cons are hitting the barriers with nimbys.
Yes. This is their problem.
Cons: "we have a housing problem, so let's build millions of new houses." LD/Green: "oh no you don't."
It's exacerbated by the fact the new developments are so bloody awful. Round here there's a supposed "Green Belt" around Oxford (which in reality is half gravel pits and unappealing flatland). This means the massive new overspill estate is going literally 10 metres from the outer edge of the Green Belt - on the other side of the road that forms the boundary. So everyone who lives there will have an unnecessary 15-mile round trip to work along the most congested road in the county.
In related news, the LDs are going to take the relevant county council division off the Tories today, and very possibly (in coalition) the entire county.
Building a development usually comes with loads of ballast around "affordable housing" and new houses have tiny windows to meet green bollocks regulations.
Priority should be brownfield sites - there are plenty of those around.
That's not always the case, and theyre not always in the places that people want to live, and they often require substantial funds to clean up whatever made them brownfield in the first place.
Brownfield is not the solution to everything. Cllrs peddle that it alone will, and is very cynical since they know belching out the word brownfield reflexively doesnt solve everything.
Planning is a mess. Developers blame councils even if they are at fault, and councils blame government even if they are at fault, and people blame councils no matter who is fault.
As someone fairly close to the coal face on this thread, there's a LOT going on to get first time buyers in to new homes. First of all wherever I drive around our local towns and villages, there are housing estates galore going up, Tring, Aylesbury, Leighton Buzzard and thousands on the new M1 junction behind Houghton Regis for example.
Then there's the LISA and HTB ISA, the rebirth of 95% LTV mortgages (and lots of 90%) plus new initiatives like Nationwide's Helping Hand criteria just launched where income multiples of circa 5.5x are now possible for long term fixes for FTBs. I've client's children who've not been able to get on the ladder due to affordability constraints but having mustered a bit of a deposit but who now can with these things happening. It's very exciting for them (and for me!) to have good news now.
Only a small snippet but that's my perspective.
Cons are hitting the barriers with nimbys.
Yes. This is their problem.
Cons: "we have a housing problem, so let's build millions of new houses." LD/Green: "oh no you don't."
It's exacerbated by the fact the new developments are so bloody awful. Round here there's a supposed "Green Belt" around Oxford (which in reality is half gravel pits and unappealing flatland). This means the massive new overspill estate is going literally 10 metres from the outer edge of the Green Belt - on the other side of the road that forms the boundary. So everyone who lives there will have an unnecessary 15-mile round trip to work along the most congested road in the county.
In related news, the LDs are going to take the relevant county council division off the Tories today, and very possibly (in coalition) the entire county.
Building a development usually comes with loads of ballast around "affordable housing" and new houses have tiny windows to meet green bollocks regulations.
Priority should be brownfield sites - there are plenty of those around.
That's not always the case, and theyre not always in the places that people want to live, and they often require substantial funds to clean up whatever made them brownfield in the first place.
Do councils have the power to say no more greenfield developments until the brownfield sites are used up ?
Pretty sure no, though they can have policies to make greenfield (and certainly Greenfield) harder, and if it is not an allocated site and there is a 5 year housing land supply building on random green boundaries can be pretty easy to refuse I believe.
That's something that infuriates councils. Big sites with outline permission not built out, lose the 5 year supply figure, government rules then require you grant more speculative housing is sites people consider unsuitable but developers are keener on.
Worth remembering that a big stand-off with the UK is as beneficial to Macron politically as a big stand-off with France is to Johnson. That means both sides have every reason to escalate, sabre rattle and generally behave ridiculously. This one will run and run!
Sabre rattling? Have you had a look at the ships involved? The HMS Tamar is a machinegun armed patrol vessel - it's only one step up from a rib. The PM41 Themis is even weedier. This is pencil case rattling. It's ridiculous, alright.
The way the Conservatives have hung leaseholders out to dry over the cladding scandal is a national disgrace.
There are people who bought 25% of a flat under a shared ownership scheme with deposits as little as 35k who are now expected to pony up twice that to fix defects they weren't responsible for while the developers who caused them get off scot free. For a flat they "own" quarter of yet are responsible for 100% of the bills.
1.3 million flats in the UK are currently unmortgageable, people's lives are on hold, and MPs have voted five times now not to protect leaseholders from costs that will likely bankrupt them.
While I'm not directly affected by any of this I know people who are and I was close to buying a property that is affected by all of this - so it's a bit of a "there but for the grace of god go I" thing for me.
In the shared ownership case you quote, who owns the other 75% and why do they not share the liability if the owner is to be liable?
Is it a matter of a questionable categorisation as "maintenance" and the person who lives there signed up to pay maintenance?
Jeremy Corbyn on twitter. ________________________________________ Proud to vote Labour today for a kinder, fairer, more sustainable world. _______________________________________
Fuck me, what a fucking classy bloke. Worth more than the rest of them put together.
I would sit and laugh at Kieth I would be bitter and loving his failure, I would be working my ass off to get my own back.
I just don't understand how the hell he does it but I admire the hell out of it.
Also SUPER IMPORTANT CLARIFICATION: I am not voting Labour that was just Corbyn's words.
Have you ever thought about putting yourself forward for some sort of clinical psychological study? I find people with blind loyalty to political figures very interesting. Some posters on here who are blindly loyal to Boris Johnson are definitely a bit odd, with all his faults and failings and that, but they do at least have the comeback that he appears to win elections as a redeeming feature (for them at least). Salmond is another interesting one. But Corbyn? Really? Not only is he the man that gave Johnson a free ride on pretty much everything, he does not have even one element that suggests he is leadership material. Add to that he is as thick as plank, and has the gravitas and the planning ability of Baldrick. Interesting person for you to show such loyalty to. Oh, and I forgot, either he is megathick (possible) or he is an anti-Semite, but more likely both. How was your childhood? Please let us know.
Question. Is it legal to park a car literally plastered in party logos directly outside the door of the polling station?
Yes , so long as it is outside the precinct
There is a statuary distance of, from memory, 50 yards, unless it's on private property. You need to talk to the Presiding Officer or the RO or their Deputy.
I dont think there's statutory limit. 100 m is sometimes mentioned , but this is just RO guidance to local political parties.
As someone fairly close to the coal face on this thread, there's a LOT going on to get first time buyers in to new homes. First of all wherever I drive around our local towns and villages, there are housing estates galore going up, Tring, Aylesbury, Leighton Buzzard and thousands on the new M1 junction behind Houghton Regis for example.
Then there's the LISA and HTB ISA, the rebirth of 95% LTV mortgages (and lots of 90%) plus new initiatives like Nationwide's Helping Hand criteria just launched where income multiples of circa 5.5x are now possible for long term fixes for FTBs. I've client's children who've not been able to get on the ladder due to affordability constraints but having mustered a bit of a deposit but who now can with these things happening. It's very exciting for them (and for me!) to have good news now.
Only a small snippet but that's my perspective.
Cons are hitting the barriers with nimbys.
Yes. This is their problem.
Cons: "we have a housing problem, so let's build millions of new houses." LD/Green: "oh no you don't."
It's exacerbated by the fact the new developments are so bloody awful. Round here there's a supposed "Green Belt" around Oxford (which in reality is half gravel pits and unappealing flatland). This means the massive new overspill estate is going literally 10 metres from the outer edge of the Green Belt - on the other side of the road that forms the boundary. So everyone who lives there will have an unnecessary 15-mile round trip to work along the most congested road in the county.
In related news, the LDs are going to take the relevant county council division off the Tories today, and very possibly (in coalition) the entire county.
Building a development usually comes with loads of ballast around "affordable housing" and new houses have tiny windows to meet green bollocks regulations.
Priority should be brownfield sites - there are plenty of those around.
That's not always the case, and theyre not always in the places that people want to live, and they often require substantial funds to clean up whatever made them brownfield in the first place.
"Brownfield" is such a preposterous excuse used by NIMBYs.
Brownfield land that is available is used. But the simple reality is that there isn't and never will be enough brownfield land to match population growth, why would there be?
Its absolutely ridiculous. The population of London has increased by a sixth in the past decade, was 16% of London undeveloped and available "brownfield" land awaiting development a decade ago? Of course not!
People need somewhere to live. More people = more land needed. That can only long term come from greenfield.
Canary Wharf could be a brownfield site soonish - swathes of empty office space - perfect for housing.
Worth remembering that a big stand-off with the UK is as beneficial to Macron politically as a big stand-off with France is to Johnson. That means both sides have every reason to escalate, sabre rattle and generally behave ridiculously. This one will run and run!
Indeed, the Daily Mail pages are filling up with excited commenters hoping to sink French ships.
As someone fairly close to the coal face on this thread, there's a LOT going on to get first time buyers in to new homes. First of all wherever I drive around our local towns and villages, there are housing estates galore going up, Tring, Aylesbury, Leighton Buzzard and thousands on the new M1 junction behind Houghton Regis for example.
Then there's the LISA and HTB ISA, the rebirth of 95% LTV mortgages (and lots of 90%) plus new initiatives like Nationwide's Helping Hand criteria just launched where income multiples of circa 5.5x are now possible for long term fixes for FTBs. I've client's children who've not been able to get on the ladder due to affordability constraints but having mustered a bit of a deposit but who now can with these things happening. It's very exciting for them (and for me!) to have good news now.
Only a small snippet but that's my perspective.
So much life wished away to buy a new build clone. This obsession with getting on the market no matter the cost will stagnate the young. You can't have a dynamic economy if your peoples lives are dedicated to propping up Taylor Wimpey's balance sheet. 5.5x multiples, fucking madness. What next signing up your unborn for another 25 years of servitude to Barratt. The fuckers in government have already been floating the use of what limited DC pensions we have to prop up the sick economy we will inherit.
If Barratt and Taylor Wimpey didn't exist we'd be looking at 10x multiples not 5.5x ones.
Really good trolling. The house builders have helped keep prices down, fucking brilliant. Coming up next Persimmon have a vested interest in building affordable housing.
let 10x multiples happen, make housing truly unaffordable to the majority. We'll just be skipping another 15 years of conservative policy to end up with it anyway. And maybe a few suckers will have avoided the ponzi scheme.
Its time investing in productive assets was made government policy. We could all fund a chip industry at least it will fucking make something and we will be less beholden to the house builders.
Worth remembering that a big stand-off with the UK is as beneficial to Macron politically as a big stand-off with France is to Johnson. That means both sides have every reason to escalate, sabre rattle and generally behave ridiculously. This one will run and run!
Sabre rattling? Have you had a look at the ships involved? The HMS Tamar is a machinegun armed patrol vessel - it's only one step up from a rib. The PM41 Themis is even weedier. This is pencil case rattling. It's ridiculous, alright.
Sabres aren't much use in naval engagements, either...
Nice header from Robert - and I agree. However, to capitalise, Labour (or indeed, anyone else) has got to come up with some answers to the problem. Not necessarily answers that work, but answers that, well, would look good on the side of a bus. I don't see any evidence of that - yet.
As someone fairly close to the coal face on this thread, there's a LOT going on to get first time buyers in to new homes. First of all wherever I drive around our local towns and villages, there are housing estates galore going up, Tring, Aylesbury, Leighton Buzzard and thousands on the new M1 junction behind Houghton Regis for example.
Then there's the LISA and HTB ISA, the rebirth of 95% LTV mortgages (and lots of 90%) plus new initiatives like Nationwide's Helping Hand criteria just launched where income multiples of circa 5.5x are now possible for long term fixes for FTBs. I've client's children who've not been able to get on the ladder due to affordability constraints but having mustered a bit of a deposit but who now can with these things happening. It's very exciting for them (and for me!) to have good news now.
Only a small snippet but that's my perspective.
Cons are hitting the barriers with nimbys.
Yes. This is their problem.
Cons: "we have a housing problem, so let's build millions of new houses." LD/Green: "oh no you don't."
It's exacerbated by the fact the new developments are so bloody awful. Round here there's a supposed "Green Belt" around Oxford (which in reality is half gravel pits and unappealing flatland). This means the massive new overspill estate is going literally 10 metres from the outer edge of the Green Belt - on the other side of the road that forms the boundary. So everyone who lives there will have an unnecessary 15-mile round trip to work along the most congested road in the county.
In related news, the LDs are going to take the relevant county council division off the Tories today, and very possibly (in coalition) the entire county.
Building a development usually comes with loads of ballast around "affordable housing" and new houses have tiny windows to meet green bollocks regulations.
Priority should be brownfield sites - there are plenty of those around.
That's not always the case, and theyre not always in the places that people want to live, and they often require substantial funds to clean up whatever made them brownfield in the first place.
Golf courses.
I'm (mostly) serious. You could go a long way to solving Oxford's housing under-supply by building houses on the two golf courses within the ring road, and I suspect it's not the only city where that's the case.
Golf courses are closing down at quite the rate in the Uk. Many more on the brink.
The days of blokes having 5 hrs to spare at the weekend is over.
Round here GPS keep them busy as their fifteen month extended holiday goes on.
As someone fairly close to the coal face on this thread, there's a LOT going on to get first time buyers in to new homes. First of all wherever I drive around our local towns and villages, there are housing estates galore going up, Tring, Aylesbury, Leighton Buzzard and thousands on the new M1 junction behind Houghton Regis for example.
Then there's the LISA and HTB ISA, the rebirth of 95% LTV mortgages (and lots of 90%) plus new initiatives like Nationwide's Helping Hand criteria just launched where income multiples of circa 5.5x are now possible for long term fixes for FTBs. I've client's children who've not been able to get on the ladder due to affordability constraints but having mustered a bit of a deposit but who now can with these things happening. It's very exciting for them (and for me!) to have good news now.
Only a small snippet but that's my perspective.
So much life wished away to buy a new build clone. This obsession with getting on the market no matter the cost will stagnate the young. You can't have a dynamic economy if your peoples lives are dedicated to propping up Taylor Wimpey's balance sheet. 5.5x multiples, fucking madness. What next signing up your unborn for another 25 years of servitude to Barratt. The fuckers in government have already been floating the use of what limited DC pensions we have to prop up the sick economy we will inherit.
If Barratt and Taylor Wimpey didn't exist we'd be looking at 10x multiples not 5.5x ones.
Really good trolling. The house builders have helped keep prices down, fucking brilliant. Coming up next Persimmon have a vested interest in building affordable housing.
let 10x multiples happen, make housing truly unaffordable to the majority. We'll just be skipping another 15 years of conservative policy to end up with it anyway. And maybe a few suckers will have avoided the ponzi scheme.
Its time investing in productive assets was made government policy. We could all fund a chip industry at least it will fucking make something and we will be less beholden to the house builders.
Next -"de Beers help keep the price of diamonds down..."
Definitely brisk in my Bucks village (Thames Valley PCC & Bucks County Council). I had to queue for a few minutes to get my voting sheet.
I'm a traditional Tory voter but not entirely happy with how they run things locally and don't want to ever give a vote to Labour or the Lib Dems. Voted Tory for PCC and independent as 2nd choice for PCC. I was on the verge of giving several votes to the Greens until I realised that 2 of their candidates either was "somewhere in Bucks" or not local. Gave the Green candidate who lived in the village my vote along with 2 other very local Tories.
I think the Greens will do very well in my area. Lots of posters up and I think there is a recognition that they have campaigned well locally. I'd never vote for them in a general election but they have had their first ever vote from me today.
I'm disappointed, of course however you vote is up to you. The Greens are the biggest single danger to our democratic prosperous society. They can be contagious with their hysteria. Theyll have your local council diverting funds to employing their friends, oops, i mean climate change consultants away from the things that you might think are bread and butter important stuff.
They are a poison in the body politic, the dear old lady in the bobble hat who seems a bit intense may seem harmless. But their creed will damage all of us.
Having seen the Tories wave through a number of very poorly thought out housing developments (primarily encouraging local car travel by making walking/cycling dangerous/difficult) against significant local opposition I think they need a bit of a wake-up call. I think they should consider themselves lucky that most of the opposition was even more unpalatable than them.
To face humiliation is one thing. To need humiliation — for your own good — is quite another. And what Labour needs from the voters today is a truly terrifying result. A threat of extinction, in fact. Losing Hartlepool would be an excellent start.
Yet with the Downing Street clown show doing its best to sabotage the Conservative campaign, it could still be Boris on the ropes by Monday, not Sir Keir, and that would be an absolute disaster… for the Labour Party. If voters deliver a mixed message, then Labour won’t understand it.
Labour won’t find the answers until they accept a second home truth, which is that Jeremy Corbyn and Keir Starmer are equal co-authors of the party’s misfortune. The heated debate between the Corbynites and Starmerites as to which side is to blame overlooks the possibility that they both are. Labour is polarised between two kinds of wrong and unelectable — the tendencies represented by Momentum on the one hand and the People’s Vote campaign on the other. Both are failed projects, and they’ve left Labour revolving uselessly around an axis of feeble. The party cannot make progress until it declares both groups a busted flush and moves on.
.. the third, and most difficult, home truth that the party has to accept: it can’t defeat the Tories alone.
Denmark provides an example of how it can work. There, the main centre-left party are the Social Democrats, who govern with the support of several smaller progressive groups. Denmark is one of the last places in western European with a significant centre-left to speak of.
But can we really imagine Labour embarking upon such a radically different future? Yes — but only if it has no other option, and knows it faces oblivion. Given a choice between seizing the day or clutching at straws, it will always go for the straws. It’s easier, it’s less painful, and it’s ultimately disastrous. If Labour are humiliated today, it will be the wake-up call they need.
Skybet currently have Berry (green) to finish in third place and Fox to be in top 5 for London Mayor at 10/3 (100 /30 old school) --- Considerign Berry is odds on to finish 3rd and Fox is the favourite in the also rans (excluding the big 4 parties) this is good value imho . Obviously Fox is in a battle for fifth with Omilana but you can get a bit of insurance at Ladbrokes with 6/4 for Omilana to beat Fox . Might even both bets pay off if LDs have a crap election
Jeremy Corbyn on twitter. ________________________________________ Proud to vote Labour today for a kinder, fairer, more sustainable world. _______________________________________
Fuck me, what a fucking classy bloke. Worth more than the rest of them put together.
I would sit and laugh at Kieth I would be bitter and loving his failure, I would be working my ass off to get my own back.
I just don't understand how the hell he does it but I admire the hell out of it.
Also SUPER IMPORTANT CLARIFICATION: I am not voting Labour that was just Corbyn's words.
Did Starmer* ever, while Corbyn was leader, tweet on an election day: "Sheepishly voting Labour today, even with that wazzock Corbyn in charge. What a loser, lol"
*Or, indeed, any Labour MP, including those who voted no confidence in Corbyn
Worth remembering that a big stand-off with the UK is as beneficial to Macron politically as a big stand-off with France is to Johnson. That means both sides have every reason to escalate, sabre rattle and generally behave ridiculously. This one will run and run!
Sabre rattling? Have you had a look at the ships involved? The HMS Tamar is a machinegun armed patrol vessel - it's only one step up from a rib. The PM41 Themis is even weedier. This is pencil case rattling. It's ridiculous, alright.
Sabres aren't much use in naval engagements, either...
Voted. My franchise has been well and truly exercised with three ballot papers.
No tellers; one chap in a council hi-vis outside, presumably to marshal the non-existent crowds. One young family was taking selfies by the polling station sign in the car park.
No queues; four of us voting when I was there.
Two things I don't remember seeing before: all three ballot papers went into the same ballot box; and a firm instruction not to fold the (A4 size) ballot papers.
Definitely brisk in my Bucks village (Thames Valley PCC & Bucks County Council). I had to queue for a few minutes to get my voting sheet.
I'm a traditional Tory voter but not entirely happy with how they run things locally and don't want to ever give a vote to Labour or the Lib Dems. Voted Tory for PCC and independent as 2nd choice for PCC. I was on the verge of giving several votes to the Greens until I realised that 2 of their candidates either was "somewhere in Bucks" or not local. Gave the Green candidate who lived in the village my vote along with 2 other very local Tories.
I think the Greens will do very well in my area. Lots of posters up and I think there is a recognition that they have campaigned well locally. I'd never vote for them in a general election but they have had their first ever vote from me today.
I'm disappointed, of course however you vote is up to you. The Greens are the biggest single danger to our democratic prosperous society. They can be contagious with their hysteria. Theyll have your local council diverting funds to employing their friends, oops, i mean climate change consultants away from the things that you might think are bread and butter important stuff.
They are a poison in the body politic, the dear old lady in the bobble hat who seems a bit intense may seem harmless. But their creed will damage all of us.
Having seen the Tories wave through a number of very poorly thought out housing developments (primarily encouraging local car travel by making walking/cycling dangerous/difficult) against significant local opposition I think they need a bit of a wake-up call. I think they should consider themselves lucky that most of the opposition was even more unpalatable than them.
To face humiliation is one thing. To need humiliation — for your own good — is quite another. And what Labour needs from the voters today is a truly terrifying result. A threat of extinction, in fact. Losing Hartlepool would be an excellent start.
Yet with the Downing Street clown show doing its best to sabotage the Conservative campaign, it could still be Boris on the ropes by Monday, not Sir Keir, and that would be an absolute disaster… for the Labour Party. If voters deliver a mixed message, then Labour won’t understand it.
Labour won’t find the answers until they accept a second home truth, which is that Jeremy Corbyn and Keir Starmer are equal co-authors of the party’s misfortune. The heated debate between the Corbynites and Starmerites as to which side is to blame overlooks the possibility that they both are. Labour is polarised between two kinds of wrong and unelectable — the tendencies represented by Momentum on the one hand and the People’s Vote campaign on the other. Both are failed projects, and they’ve left Labour revolving uselessly around an axis of feeble. The party cannot make progress until it declares both groups a busted flush and moves on.
.. the third, and most difficult, home truth that the party has to accept: it can’t defeat the Tories alone.
Denmark provides an example of how it can work. There, the main centre-left party are the Social Democrats, who govern with the support of several smaller progressive groups. Denmark is one of the last places in western European with a significant centre-left to speak of.
But can we really imagine Labour embarking upon such a radically different future? Yes — but only if it has no other option, and knows it faces oblivion. Given a choice between seizing the day or clutching at straws, it will always go for the straws. It’s easier, it’s less painful, and it’s ultimately disastrous. If Labour are humiliated today, it will be the wake-up call they need.
Lovely argument but I don't believe Denmark has a First past the post electoral system - so how elections work there doesn't help parties in the UK
Jeremy Corbyn on twitter. ________________________________________ Proud to vote Labour today for a kinder, fairer, more sustainable world. _______________________________________
Fuck me, what a fucking classy bloke. Worth more than the rest of them put together.
I would sit and laugh at Kieth I would be bitter and loving his failure, I would be working my ass off to get my own back.
I just don't understand how the hell he does it but I admire the hell out of it.
Also SUPER IMPORTANT CLARIFICATION: I am not voting Labour that was just Corbyn's words.
Yes, classy from Corbyn. It shows that his desire to get rid of the Tories is significantly greater than yours.
Definitely brisk in my Bucks village (Thames Valley PCC & Bucks County Council). I had to queue for a few minutes to get my voting sheet.
I'm a traditional Tory voter but not entirely happy with how they run things locally and don't want to ever give a vote to Labour or the Lib Dems. Voted Tory for PCC and independent as 2nd choice for PCC. I was on the verge of giving several votes to the Greens until I realised that 2 of their candidates either was "somewhere in Bucks" or not local. Gave the Green candidate who lived in the village my vote along with 2 other very local Tories.
I think the Greens will do very well in my area. Lots of posters up and I think there is a recognition that they have campaigned well locally. I'd never vote for them in a general election but they have had their first ever vote from me today.
I'm disappointed, of course however you vote is up to you. The Greens are the biggest single danger to our democratic prosperous society. They can be contagious with their hysteria. Theyll have your local council diverting funds to employing their friends, oops, i mean climate change consultants away from the things that you might think are bread and butter important stuff.
They are a poison in the body politic, the dear old lady in the bobble hat who seems a bit intense may seem harmless. But their creed will damage all of us.
Having seen the Tories wave through a number of very poorly thought out housing developments (primarily encouraging local car travel by making walking/cycling dangerous/difficult) against significant local opposition I think they need a bit of a wake-up call. I think they should consider themselves lucky that most of the opposition was even more unpalatable than them.
To face humiliation is one thing. To need humiliation — for your own good — is quite another. And what Labour needs from the voters today is a truly terrifying result. A threat of extinction, in fact. Losing Hartlepool would be an excellent start.
Yet with the Downing Street clown show doing its best to sabotage the Conservative campaign, it could still be Boris on the ropes by Monday, not Sir Keir, and that would be an absolute disaster… for the Labour Party. If voters deliver a mixed message, then Labour won’t understand it.
Labour won’t find the answers until they accept a second home truth, which is that Jeremy Corbyn and Keir Starmer are equal co-authors of the party’s misfortune. The heated debate between the Corbynites and Starmerites as to which side is to blame overlooks the possibility that they both are. Labour is polarised between two kinds of wrong and unelectable — the tendencies represented by Momentum on the one hand and the People’s Vote campaign on the other. Both are failed projects, and they’ve left Labour revolving uselessly around an axis of feeble. The party cannot make progress until it declares both groups a busted flush and moves on.
.. the third, and most difficult, home truth that the party has to accept: it can’t defeat the Tories alone.
Denmark provides an example of how it can work. There, the main centre-left party are the Social Democrats, who govern with the support of several smaller progressive groups. Denmark is one of the last places in western European with a significant centre-left to speak of.
But can we really imagine Labour embarking upon such a radically different future? Yes — but only if it has no other option, and knows it faces oblivion. Given a choice between seizing the day or clutching at straws, it will always go for the straws. It’s easier, it’s less painful, and it’s ultimately disastrous. If Labour are humiliated today, it will be the wake-up call they need.
Definitely brisk in my Bucks village (Thames Valley PCC & Bucks County Council). I had to queue for a few minutes to get my voting sheet.
I'm a traditional Tory voter but not entirely happy with how they run things locally and don't want to ever give a vote to Labour or the Lib Dems. Voted Tory for PCC and independent as 2nd choice for PCC. I was on the verge of giving several votes to the Greens until I realised that 2 of their candidates either was "somewhere in Bucks" or not local. Gave the Green candidate who lived in the village my vote along with 2 other very local Tories.
I think the Greens will do very well in my area. Lots of posters up and I think there is a recognition that they have campaigned well locally. I'd never vote for them in a general election but they have had their first ever vote from me today.
I'm disappointed, of course however you vote is up to you. The Greens are the biggest single danger to our democratic prosperous society. They can be contagious with their hysteria. Theyll have your local council diverting funds to employing their friends, oops, i mean climate change consultants away from the things that you might think are bread and butter important stuff.
They are a poison in the body politic, the dear old lady in the bobble hat who seems a bit intense may seem harmless. But their creed will damage all of us.
Having seen the Tories wave through a number of very poorly thought out housing developments (primarily encouraging local car travel by making walking/cycling dangerous/difficult) against significant local opposition I think they need a bit of a wake-up call. I think they should consider themselves lucky that most of the opposition was even more unpalatable than them.
To face humiliation is one thing. To need humiliation — for your own good — is quite another. And what Labour needs from the voters today is a truly terrifying result. A threat of extinction, in fact. Losing Hartlepool would be an excellent start.
Yet with the Downing Street clown show doing its best to sabotage the Conservative campaign, it could still be Boris on the ropes by Monday, not Sir Keir, and that would be an absolute disaster… for the Labour Party. If voters deliver a mixed message, then Labour won’t understand it.
Labour won’t find the answers until they accept a second home truth, which is that Jeremy Corbyn and Keir Starmer are equal co-authors of the party’s misfortune. The heated debate between the Corbynites and Starmerites as to which side is to blame overlooks the possibility that they both are. Labour is polarised between two kinds of wrong and unelectable — the tendencies represented by Momentum on the one hand and the People’s Vote campaign on the other. Both are failed projects, and they’ve left Labour revolving uselessly around an axis of feeble. The party cannot make progress until it declares both groups a busted flush and moves on.
.. the third, and most difficult, home truth that the party has to accept: it can’t defeat the Tories alone.
Denmark provides an example of how it can work. There, the main centre-left party are the Social Democrats, who govern with the support of several smaller progressive groups. Denmark is one of the last places in western European with a significant centre-left to speak of.
But can we really imagine Labour embarking upon such a radically different future? Yes — but only if it has no other option, and knows it faces oblivion. Given a choice between seizing the day or clutching at straws, it will always go for the straws. It’s easier, it’s less painful, and it’s ultimately disastrous. If Labour are humiliated today, it will be the wake-up call they need.
Worth remembering that a big stand-off with the UK is as beneficial to Macron politically as a big stand-off with France is to Johnson. That means both sides have every reason to escalate, sabre rattle and generally behave ridiculously. This one will run and run!
As someone fairly close to the coal face on this thread, there's a LOT going on to get first time buyers in to new homes. First of all wherever I drive around our local towns and villages, there are housing estates galore going up, Tring, Aylesbury, Leighton Buzzard and thousands on the new M1 junction behind Houghton Regis for example.
Then there's the LISA and HTB ISA, the rebirth of 95% LTV mortgages (and lots of 90%) plus new initiatives like Nationwide's Helping Hand criteria just launched where income multiples of circa 5.5x are now possible for long term fixes for FTBs. I've client's children who've not been able to get on the ladder due to affordability constraints but having mustered a bit of a deposit but who now can with these things happening. It's very exciting for them (and for me!) to have good news now.
Only a small snippet but that's my perspective.
So much life wished away to buy a new build clone. This obsession with getting on the market no matter the cost will stagnate the young. You can't have a dynamic economy if your peoples lives are dedicated to propping up Taylor Wimpey's balance sheet. 5.5x multiples, fucking madness. What next signing up your unborn for another 25 years of servitude to Barratt. The fuckers in government have already been floating the use of what limited DC pensions we have to prop up the sick economy we will inherit.
If Barratt and Taylor Wimpey didn't exist we'd be looking at 10x multiples not 5.5x ones.
Really good trolling. The house builders have helped keep prices down, fucking brilliant. Coming up next Persimmon have a vested interest in building affordable housing.
let 10x multiples happen, make housing truly unaffordable to the majority. We'll just be skipping another 15 years of conservative policy to end up with it anyway. And maybe a few suckers will have avoided the ponzi scheme.
Its time investing in productive assets was made government policy. We could all fund a chip industry at least it will fucking make something and we will be less beholden to the house builders.
No trolling. Absolutely 100% yes the house builders have helped keep prices down, and absolutely 100% yes Persimmon do have a vested interest in building affordable housing. If their homes are unaffordable, they won't get sold, they won't make a profit.
The sole issue is that population has risen much faster than housing - and that the amount of land dripped out to be able to be built in is in many areas insufficient to keep up with population demands. That's not the house builders fault.
If any and all land could be built on, outside of very tightly defined protected areas, then we could have much greater housing capacity, more houses built and more affordable ones too. Trying to constrain land supply is the issue.
I thought it was interesting that the banners by footie fans were more pithy and effective than the sopping wet McTory campaign who probably paid some agency a large sum.
As someone fairly close to the coal face on this thread, there's a LOT going on to get first time buyers in to new homes. First of all wherever I drive around our local towns and villages, there are housing estates galore going up, Tring, Aylesbury, Leighton Buzzard and thousands on the new M1 junction behind Houghton Regis for example.
Then there's the LISA and HTB ISA, the rebirth of 95% LTV mortgages (and lots of 90%) plus new initiatives like Nationwide's Helping Hand criteria just launched where income multiples of circa 5.5x are now possible for long term fixes for FTBs. I've client's children who've not been able to get on the ladder due to affordability constraints but having mustered a bit of a deposit but who now can with these things happening. It's very exciting for them (and for me!) to have good news now.
Only a small snippet but that's my perspective.
So much life wished away to buy a new build clone. This obsession with getting on the market no matter the cost will stagnate the young. You can't have a dynamic economy if your peoples lives are dedicated to propping up Taylor Wimpey's balance sheet. 5.5x multiples, fucking madness. What next signing up your unborn for another 25 years of servitude to Barratt. The fuckers in government have already been floating the use of what limited DC pensions we have to prop up the sick economy we will inherit.
If Barratt and Taylor Wimpey didn't exist we'd be looking at 10x multiples not 5.5x ones.
Really good trolling. The house builders have helped keep prices down, fucking brilliant. Coming up next Persimmon have a vested interest in building affordable housing.
let 10x multiples happen, make housing truly unaffordable to the majority. We'll just be skipping another 15 years of conservative policy to end up with it anyway. And maybe a few suckers will have avoided the ponzi scheme.
Its time investing in productive assets was made government policy. We could all fund a chip industry at least it will fucking make something and we will be less beholden to the house builders.
What the hell are you on about? Increasing income multiples on offer by mortgage providers makes housing more affordable, not less.
Worth remembering that a big stand-off with the UK is as beneficial to Macron politically as a big stand-off with France is to Johnson. That means both sides have every reason to escalate, sabre rattle and generally behave ridiculously. This one will run and run!
Sabre rattling? Have you had a look at the ships involved? The HMS Tamar is a machinegun armed patrol vessel - it's only one step up from a rib. The PM41 Themis is even weedier. This is pencil case rattling. It's ridiculous, alright.
Sabres aren't much use in naval engagements, either...
On the contrary. What else is a cutlass? Still issued in the Andrew till 1936 (and allegedly if incredibly used to board the Altmark in 1940).
Worth remembering that a big stand-off with the UK is as beneficial to Macron politically as a big stand-off with France is to Johnson. That means both sides have every reason to escalate, sabre rattle and generally behave ridiculously. This one will run and run!
Sabre rattling? Have you had a look at the ships involved? The HMS Tamar is a machinegun armed patrol vessel - it's only one step up from a rib. The PM41 Themis is even weedier. This is pencil case rattling. It's ridiculous, alright.
Sabres aren't much use in naval engagements, either...
My sword has a 30.5" Toledo blade and a pattern solid hilt. I reckon I could fuck somebody up with it. White fish skin grip for extra dash.
The sole issue is that population has risen much faster than housing - and that the amount of land dripped out to be able to be built in is in many areas insufficient to keep up with population demands. That's not the house builders fault.
As someone fairly close to the coal face on this thread, there's a LOT going on to get first time buyers in to new homes. First of all wherever I drive around our local towns and villages, there are housing estates galore going up, Tring, Aylesbury, Leighton Buzzard and thousands on the new M1 junction behind Houghton Regis for example.
Then there's the LISA and HTB ISA, the rebirth of 95% LTV mortgages (and lots of 90%) plus new initiatives like Nationwide's Helping Hand criteria just launched where income multiples of circa 5.5x are now possible for long term fixes for FTBs. I've client's children who've not been able to get on the ladder due to affordability constraints but having mustered a bit of a deposit but who now can with these things happening. It's very exciting for them (and for me!) to have good news now.
Only a small snippet but that's my perspective.
So much life wished away to buy a new build clone. This obsession with getting on the market no matter the cost will stagnate the young. You can't have a dynamic economy if your peoples lives are dedicated to propping up Taylor Wimpey's balance sheet. 5.5x multiples, fucking madness. What next signing up your unborn for another 25 years of servitude to Barratt. The fuckers in government have already been floating the use of what limited DC pensions we have to prop up the sick economy we will inherit.
If Barratt and Taylor Wimpey didn't exist we'd be looking at 10x multiples not 5.5x ones.
Really good trolling. The house builders have helped keep prices down, fucking brilliant. Coming up next Persimmon have a vested interest in building affordable housing.
let 10x multiples happen, make housing truly unaffordable to the majority. We'll just be skipping another 15 years of conservative policy to end up with it anyway. And maybe a few suckers will have avoided the ponzi scheme.
Its time investing in productive assets was made government policy. We could all fund a chip industry at least it will fucking make something and we will be less beholden to the house builders.
What the hell are you on about? Increasing income multiples on offer by mortgage providers makes housing more affordable, not less.
Not when the issue is that banks have affordability criteria based on spending that stop you qualifying for a £600 a month mortgage when the bank statements clearly show zero problems paying £1000 a month in rent.
As someone fairly close to the coal face on this thread, there's a LOT going on to get first time buyers in to new homes. First of all wherever I drive around our local towns and villages, there are housing estates galore going up, Tring, Aylesbury, Leighton Buzzard and thousands on the new M1 junction behind Houghton Regis for example.
Then there's the LISA and HTB ISA, the rebirth of 95% LTV mortgages (and lots of 90%) plus new initiatives like Nationwide's Helping Hand criteria just launched where income multiples of circa 5.5x are now possible for long term fixes for FTBs. I've client's children who've not been able to get on the ladder due to affordability constraints but having mustered a bit of a deposit but who now can with these things happening. It's very exciting for them (and for me!) to have good news now.
Only a small snippet but that's my perspective.
So much life wished away to buy a new build clone. This obsession with getting on the market no matter the cost will stagnate the young. You can't have a dynamic economy if your peoples lives are dedicated to propping up Taylor Wimpey's balance sheet. 5.5x multiples, fucking madness. What next signing up your unborn for another 25 years of servitude to Barratt. The fuckers in government have already been floating the use of what limited DC pensions we have to prop up the sick economy we will inherit.
If Barratt and Taylor Wimpey didn't exist we'd be looking at 10x multiples not 5.5x ones.
Really good trolling. The house builders have helped keep prices down, fucking brilliant. Coming up next Persimmon have a vested interest in building affordable housing.
let 10x multiples happen, make housing truly unaffordable to the majority. We'll just be skipping another 15 years of conservative policy to end up with it anyway. And maybe a few suckers will have avoided the ponzi scheme.
Its time investing in productive assets was made government policy. We could all fund a chip industry at least it will fucking make something and we will be less beholden to the house builders.
Next -"de Beers help keep the price of diamonds down..."
Since de Beers mine diamonds, they do. If de Beers didn't exist, with nothing replacing it, then diamonds would go up in cost. Its like supply and demand is an alien concept to you.
The issue isn't the supply, its the lack of other suppliers too. The lack of supply on housing is by design of those who vote to constrain land availability - not builders who build on the scraps of land made available to them. It would be easy enough to release ever more land to even more builders - but the Councils by and large don't want to do that. So easier to blame the builders than blame the Councils or voters.
Worth remembering that a big stand-off with the UK is as beneficial to Macron politically as a big stand-off with France is to Johnson. That means both sides have every reason to escalate, sabre rattle and generally behave ridiculously. This one will run and run!
Sabre rattling? Have you had a look at the ships involved? The HMS Tamar is a machinegun armed patrol vessel - it's only one step up from a rib. The PM41 Themis is even weedier. This is pencil case rattling. It's ridiculous, alright.
Decades of Tory defence cuts coming home to roost. Aren't we due to scrap whatever ships we have left because we can use drones instead?
As someone fairly close to the coal face on this thread, there's a LOT going on to get first time buyers in to new homes. First of all wherever I drive around our local towns and villages, there are housing estates galore going up, Tring, Aylesbury, Leighton Buzzard and thousands on the new M1 junction behind Houghton Regis for example.
Then there's the LISA and HTB ISA, the rebirth of 95% LTV mortgages (and lots of 90%) plus new initiatives like Nationwide's Helping Hand criteria just launched where income multiples of circa 5.5x are now possible for long term fixes for FTBs. I've client's children who've not been able to get on the ladder due to affordability constraints but having mustered a bit of a deposit but who now can with these things happening. It's very exciting for them (and for me!) to have good news now.
Only a small snippet but that's my perspective.
So much life wished away to buy a new build clone. This obsession with getting on the market no matter the cost will stagnate the young. You can't have a dynamic economy if your peoples lives are dedicated to propping up Taylor Wimpey's balance sheet. 5.5x multiples, fucking madness. What next signing up your unborn for another 25 years of servitude to Barratt. The fuckers in government have already been floating the use of what limited DC pensions we have to prop up the sick economy we will inherit.
If Barratt and Taylor Wimpey didn't exist we'd be looking at 10x multiples not 5.5x ones.
Really good trolling. The house builders have helped keep prices down, fucking brilliant. Coming up next Persimmon have a vested interest in building affordable housing.
let 10x multiples happen, make housing truly unaffordable to the majority. We'll just be skipping another 15 years of conservative policy to end up with it anyway. And maybe a few suckers will have avoided the ponzi scheme.
Its time investing in productive assets was made government policy. We could all fund a chip industry at least it will fucking make something and we will be less beholden to the house builders.
What the hell are you on about? Increasing income multiples on offer by mortgage providers makes housing more affordable, not less.
Not when the issue is that banks have affordability criteria based on spending that stop you qualifying for a £600 a month mortgage when the bank statements clearly show zero problems paying £1000 a month in rent.
Arguable, sure, but all else being equal multiples going up is good for buyers, not bad.
I thought it was interesting that the banners by footie fans were more pithy and effective than the sopping wet McTory campaign who probably paid some agency a large sum.
I suppose they had to think of a new slogan after Baroness-to-maybe-be Davidson departed.
Another leg of the Tories’ Scotland strategy will be the timing of the next British general election. Although insiders insist no substantive discussion about the date has taken place, there are signs that Johnson is keen to keep open the option of holding the contest in 2023 rather than 2024, when his term would run out.
This would require him to repeal the Fixed-terms Parliament Act, but the thinking goes that year difference would make it easier to hold off calls for a second Scottish referendum. Johnson will be hoping that the SNP loses seats in a general election and that the Tories sweep back to power on a manifesto pledging to retain the union — allowing him to claim a fresher mandate than that provided to the SNP by today’s vote.
As someone fairly close to the coal face on this thread, there's a LOT going on to get first time buyers in to new homes. First of all wherever I drive around our local towns and villages, there are housing estates galore going up, Tring, Aylesbury, Leighton Buzzard and thousands on the new M1 junction behind Houghton Regis for example.
Then there's the LISA and HTB ISA, the rebirth of 95% LTV mortgages (and lots of 90%) plus new initiatives like Nationwide's Helping Hand criteria just launched where income multiples of circa 5.5x are now possible for long term fixes for FTBs. I've client's children who've not been able to get on the ladder due to affordability constraints but having mustered a bit of a deposit but who now can with these things happening. It's very exciting for them (and for me!) to have good news now.
Only a small snippet but that's my perspective.
So much life wished away to buy a new build clone. This obsession with getting on the market no matter the cost will stagnate the young. You can't have a dynamic economy if your peoples lives are dedicated to propping up Taylor Wimpey's balance sheet. 5.5x multiples, fucking madness. What next signing up your unborn for another 25 years of servitude to Barratt. The fuckers in government have already been floating the use of what limited DC pensions we have to prop up the sick economy we will inherit.
If Barratt and Taylor Wimpey didn't exist we'd be looking at 10x multiples not 5.5x ones.
Really good trolling. The house builders have helped keep prices down, fucking brilliant. Coming up next Persimmon have a vested interest in building affordable housing.
let 10x multiples happen, make housing truly unaffordable to the majority. We'll just be skipping another 15 years of conservative policy to end up with it anyway. And maybe a few suckers will have avoided the ponzi scheme.
Its time investing in productive assets was made government policy. We could all fund a chip industry at least it will fucking make something and we will be less beholden to the house builders.
What the hell are you on about? Increasing income multiples on offer by mortgage providers makes housing more affordable, not less.
Affordable for a moment though? The longer the loan the more the interest compounds and the greater the effect on the buyer.
At what point does ratcheting up multiples become unsustainable? What percentage of young peoples lives does it become politically unacceptable to ask them to borrow beyond. Will we be borrowing till we take what limited pension we have and are then reliant on our children to pay of the damn thing?
Every time a 'help to buy scheme' drops the prices go up. Each scheme IMO helps the few able to buy at the time and distorts the market for anyone coming after.
Definitely brisk in my Bucks village (Thames Valley PCC & Bucks County Council). I had to queue for a few minutes to get my voting sheet.
I'm a traditional Tory voter but not entirely happy with how they run things locally and don't want to ever give a vote to Labour or the Lib Dems. Voted Tory for PCC and independent as 2nd choice for PCC. I was on the verge of giving several votes to the Greens until I realised that 2 of their candidates either was "somewhere in Bucks" or not local. Gave the Green candidate who lived in the village my vote along with 2 other very local Tories.
I think the Greens will do very well in my area. Lots of posters up and I think there is a recognition that they have campaigned well locally. I'd never vote for them in a general election but they have had their first ever vote from me today.
I'm disappointed, of course however you vote is up to you. The Greens are the biggest single danger to our democratic prosperous society. They can be contagious with their hysteria. Theyll have your local council diverting funds to employing their friends, oops, i mean climate change consultants away from the things that you might think are bread and butter important stuff.
They are a poison in the body politic, the dear old lady in the bobble hat who seems a bit intense may seem harmless. But their creed will damage all of us.
Having seen the Tories wave through a number of very poorly thought out housing developments (primarily encouraging local car travel by making walking/cycling dangerous/difficult) against significant local opposition I think they need a bit of a wake-up call. I think they should consider themselves lucky that most of the opposition was even more unpalatable than them.
To face humiliation is one thing. To need humiliation — for your own good — is quite another. And what Labour needs from the voters today is a truly terrifying result. A threat of extinction, in fact. Losing Hartlepool would be an excellent start.
Yet with the Downing Street clown show doing its best to sabotage the Conservative campaign, it could still be Boris on the ropes by Monday, not Sir Keir, and that would be an absolute disaster… for the Labour Party. If voters deliver a mixed message, then Labour won’t understand it.
Labour won’t find the answers until they accept a second home truth, which is that Jeremy Corbyn and Keir Starmer are equal co-authors of the party’s misfortune. The heated debate between the Corbynites and Starmerites as to which side is to blame overlooks the possibility that they both are. Labour is polarised between two kinds of wrong and unelectable — the tendencies represented by Momentum on the one hand and the People’s Vote campaign on the other. Both are failed projects, and they’ve left Labour revolving uselessly around an axis of feeble. The party cannot make progress until it declares both groups a busted flush and moves on.
.. the third, and most difficult, home truth that the party has to accept: it can’t defeat the Tories alone.
Denmark provides an example of how it can work. There, the main centre-left party are the Social Democrats, who govern with the support of several smaller progressive groups. Denmark is one of the last places in western European with a significant centre-left to speak of.
But can we really imagine Labour embarking upon such a radically different future? Yes — but only if it has no other option, and knows it faces oblivion. Given a choice between seizing the day or clutching at straws, it will always go for the straws. It’s easier, it’s less painful, and it’s ultimately disastrous. If Labour are humiliated today, it will be the wake-up call they need.
The idea parties need a humiliation to wake up to some hard truths is rather disproved by how long it takes parties in the doldrums to realise they need to turn things around in a major way. If such is needed, only time provides it, not a bad result in an election - they've already had that!
And the idea Boris could be on the ropes from a bad set of local elections, given his majority, is pretty risible.
I presume we have had lots of reports of voting being brisk....
Mine was steady, not brisk. With a queue created not by numbers but by a polling clerk asking every voter whether they wanted to bother voting in the PCC and Town Council elections or not. Which needed a phone call to the town hall to stop.
Comments
The concept of leasehold seems utterly, utterly stupid and I have never seen a good explanation of why it shouldn't just be abolished. Use share of freehold arrangements if you absolutely must have some communal arrangements within a block or development.
God, I hope there are millions more of you in this country. Sort of.
Your new Green councillor if elected will be pressuring your council to go for a zero growth economy.
Secretly supply them with guns and stout, take over France from the inside
All Remoaners will have to be interned on Jura, as potential fifth columnists
I'm not 100% sure if the standards have changed since but there are a lot of places where the cladding should never have been installed to begin with (as it didn't meet the standards of the time).
But the issue is that you can't sue the people involved as that won't cover the costs required to put things right..
Because Starmer failing is unlikely to lead to the party giving Corbynism another whirl.
Corbyn's a forgiving person, I am more of a treat them how they treat you kinda guy, also not as if Corbyn is the only victim in all this, I am pissed at them for what they did to me and others not just Corbyn.
If its because the MOT requirements have tightened up, so what was legally OK in the past is not now, that's a different matter isn't it?
If a government decreed that from 2025 every car that is not zero emissions would fail its MOT, then petrol and diesel cars would become worthless overnight. But should they be recalled because of that?
https://twitter.com/UKCovid19Stats/status/1390256283857661955
My problem is the distinction on height. Why is the government paying the bill for buildings over 18m? What difference does it make? If it's about safety, then simply say that on buildings below 18m, what's already been built can stay as it is.
Brownfield land that is available is used. But the simple reality is that there isn't and never will be enough brownfield land to match population growth, why would there be?
Its absolutely ridiculous. The population of London has increased by a sixth in the past decade, was 16% of London undeveloped and available "brownfield" land awaiting development a decade ago? Of course not!
People need somewhere to live. More people = more land needed. That can only long term come from greenfield.
GET READY
@rcs1000 Many thanks, an interesting header.
I was certainly fortunate in being able to get a foot on the ladder. A former new town, built with plenty of then social housing for single people. A one bed flat at a very affordable rent with secure tenancy, then a local council initiative to get appropriate tenants out of council properties into first time buyer new builds.
Plus, of course, an earlier decision of my own not to buy a car. Even given all the other advantages, that was the crucial issue.
Good morning, everyone.
The premise, however, that high levels of home ownership correlate with high levels of Conservative support is entirely correct.
I'm (mostly) serious. You could go a long way to solving Oxford's housing under-supply by building houses on the two golf courses within the ring road, and I suspect it's not the only city where that's the case.
NEW: A government official has said that French President Emmanuel Macron has “small dick energy.”
Via
@POLITICOEurope"
https://www.thescottishsun.co.uk/sport/football/7068747/rangers-union-bears-anti-snp-independence-banners-election/
https://www.thescottishsun.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2021/05/union.jpeg?w=620
Planning is a mess. Developers blame councils even if they are at fault, and councils blame government even if they are at fault, and people blame councils no matter who is fault.
There is a reason why in Hudson Yards New York the residential blocks are very different in design from the office blocks.
The days of blokes having 5 hrs to spare at the weekend is over.
That's something that infuriates councils. Big sites with outline permission not built out, lose the 5 year supply figure, government rules then require you grant more speculative housing is sites people consider unsuitable but developers are keener on.
Is it a matter of a questionable categorisation as "maintenance" and the person who lives there signed up to pay maintenance?
Thanks
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rzzyatiDeWw
@AntoineBondaz
On rappellera cependant que l’expression utilisée était « small dick energy » qui signifie être vantard sans avoir les moyens d’assurer derrière.
https://twitter.com/AntoineBondaz/status/1390246777626968068?s=20
Llanelli Labour hold
Rhondda Labour gain
Good night for Tories
Poorish night for Labour
Bad night for Plaidm
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-56888615
let 10x multiples happen, make housing truly unaffordable to the majority. We'll just be skipping another 15 years of conservative policy to end up with it anyway. And maybe a few suckers will have avoided the ponzi scheme.
Its time investing in productive assets was made government policy. We could all fund a chip industry at least it will fucking make something and we will be less beholden to the house builders.
https://unherd.com/2021/05/labour-needs-to-be-humiliated/?tl_inbound=1&tl_groups[0]=18743&tl_period_type=3&mc_cid=baba49950c&mc_eid=836634e34b
To face humiliation is one thing. To need humiliation — for your own good — is quite another. And what Labour needs from the voters today is a truly terrifying result. A threat of extinction, in fact. Losing Hartlepool would be an excellent start.
Yet with the Downing Street clown show doing its best to sabotage the Conservative campaign, it could still be Boris on the ropes by Monday, not Sir Keir, and that would be an absolute disaster… for the Labour Party. If voters deliver a mixed message, then Labour won’t understand it.
Labour won’t find the answers until they accept a second home truth, which is that Jeremy Corbyn and Keir Starmer are equal co-authors of the party’s misfortune. The heated debate between the Corbynites and Starmerites as to which side is to blame overlooks the possibility that they both are. Labour is polarised between two kinds of wrong and unelectable — the tendencies represented by Momentum on the one hand and the People’s Vote campaign on the other. Both are failed projects, and they’ve left Labour revolving uselessly around an axis of feeble. The party cannot make progress until it declares both groups a busted flush and moves on.
.. the third, and most difficult, home truth that the party has to accept: it can’t defeat the Tories alone.
Denmark provides an example of how it can work. There, the main centre-left party are the Social Democrats, who govern with the support of several smaller progressive groups. Denmark is one of the last places in western European with a significant centre-left to speak of.
But can we really imagine Labour embarking upon such a radically different future? Yes — but only if it has no other option, and knows it faces oblivion. Given a choice between seizing the day or clutching at straws, it will always go for the straws. It’s easier, it’s less painful, and it’s ultimately disastrous. If Labour are humiliated today, it will be the wake-up call they need.
Skybet currently have Berry (green) to finish in third place and Fox to be in top 5 for London Mayor at 10/3 (100 /30 old school) --- Considerign Berry is odds on to finish 3rd and Fox is the favourite in the also rans (excluding the big 4 parties) this is good value imho . Obviously Fox is in a battle for fifth with Omilana but you can get a bit of insurance at Ladbrokes with 6/4 for Omilana to beat Fox . Might even both bets pay off if LDs have a crap election
"Sheepishly voting Labour today, even with that wazzock Corbyn in charge. What a loser, lol"
*Or, indeed, any Labour MP, including those who voted no confidence in Corbyn
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Lepanto
No tellers; one chap in a council hi-vis outside, presumably to marshal the non-existent crowds. One young family was taking selfies by the polling station sign in the car park.
No queues; four of us voting when I was there.
Two things I don't remember seeing before: all three ballot papers went into the same ballot box; and a firm instruction not to fold the (A4 size) ballot papers.
The sole issue is that population has risen much faster than housing - and that the amount of land dripped out to be able to be built in is in many areas insufficient to keep up with population demands. That's not the house builders fault.
If any and all land could be built on, outside of very tightly defined protected areas, then we could have much greater housing capacity, more houses built and more affordable ones too. Trying to constrain land supply is the issue.
.
The issue isn't the supply, its the lack of other suppliers too. The lack of supply on housing is by design of those who vote to constrain land availability - not builders who build on the scraps of land made available to them. It would be easy enough to release ever more land to even more builders - but the Councils by and large don't want to do that. So easier to blame the builders than blame the Councils or voters.
This would require him to repeal the Fixed-terms Parliament Act, but the thinking goes that year difference would make it easier to hold off calls for a second Scottish referendum. Johnson will be hoping that the SNP loses seats in a general election and that the Tories sweep back to power on a manifesto pledging to retain the union — allowing him to claim a fresher mandate than that provided to the SNP by today’s vote.
https://www.politico.eu/article/boris-johnson-scotland-headache-independence-referendum-elections/
At what point does ratcheting up multiples become unsustainable? What percentage of young peoples lives does it become politically unacceptable to ask them to borrow beyond. Will we be borrowing till we take what limited pension we have and are then reliant on our children to pay of the damn thing?
Every time a 'help to buy scheme' drops the prices go up. Each scheme IMO helps the few able to buy at the time and distorts the market for anyone coming after.
And the idea Boris could be on the ropes from a bad set of local elections, given his majority, is pretty risible.