I'm keen for professional reasons to know details of the Aussie trade deal as soon as they are announced (apparently "about now"). If anyone sees a link, please say... I've seen the BBC24 clip just now.
I'd guess, without checking the demography, that the UK differs more from France when it comes to obesity than age.
Both. In addition I have heard it said that we have large numbers of elderly people in poor health relative to other countries. But that is hard to verify.
Also minority groups. We know that COVID hits minorities harder. The UK has a bigger minority population than many other European countries.
It's certainly a live issue in the constituency. An old friend of mine lives on the edge of Amersham and will never vote for the party again, solely because of HS2.
The timing of the lockdown farce yesterday as well as Brexit starting to unravel over the Northern Ireland protocol are also tarnishing Brand Boris. Even an announcement on a UK-Australia trade deal may not help as it is not going down well with British farmers, who feel the Aussies have an unfair advantage. In a seat that was pro-Remain these things still matter.
I'm on the LibDems with good odds following Mike's tip. It's a bet I expect to lose but stranger things have happened in by-elections.
It would be very droll if, having captured the north, the tories lost their homeland.
The LibDems are throwing everything at the by-election. It might possibly win them the seat, but I don't expect it. This is a Government in its 20th month, so I probably should be expecting it (at least, on the basis of the ramping of their chances on here - LibDems to win it in a "landslide", I recall one poster saying).
But, the LibDems are close on 40% behind the government in national polling. Plus, for decade after decade, the Tory vote has been very predictable in this seat - between 50-odd percent and 60-odd percent. Safe, but never massively so.
The LibDems are also saddling themselves with the Nimby label. Bollocks to Brexit, now Bollocks to Building. They are very keen on pushing a humanitarian agenda - as long as once people get here they don't mind living under trees.
Oh, and not THOSE trees. They are ancient woodland. Can't have people shitting in those...
And they are very keen on people using trains. Just, not THAT train.
They are starting to build up internal contradictions that again show they aren't a party of serious decisions required of government. Just say whatever it takes to win a seat. But their opponents will be watching, storing up posters and leaflets with which to whack them around the head.
It goes beyond NIMBYism to what a national planning policy should be. Objecting to building houses in places they shouldn't be built is a valid battle to fight. The NPPF has allowed planners to overrule everyone including councillors the council and the MP. I myself have fought some NIMBY not those trees battles because the proposal was utterly stupid.
There are a lot of people out there who think the same way. With the Tories now openly corrupt and donations flowing to the party from developers there is a valid line of opposition to take. I don't agree with the battle against HS2 then again they aren't building it near me...
It's not a case of NIMBYism, it's a case of poor planning. Developers building vast estates of houses at £500,000 and above is not going to solve the housing crisis. If I was starting again as a small family I couldn't afford a mortgage for one of those. I think the boarded up shops and office blocks of the town centres should be the first target, constructing 3 and 2 bedroom houses or flats for people to start climbing the ladder on. This would provide much-needed accomodation and possibly the chance to save and plan for the next stage. In my old home town centre of Stafford there are many disused shops and office blocks which could be used first for housing before spoiling the countryside around first.
They are the only kind of houses developers want to build. They get planning permission, don't use it, and then force a shortage of houses being built to be able to build what they want when they want. The NPPF has been dubbed the developers charter and you can see why.
As a matter of fact the government have basically removed the requirement for planning permission for shops and offices to residential. It has delievered a lot of housing but there is a problem with the quality of it due to the flexibility offered by the legislation, some people (like the town and country planning association) argue that it is just slum housing thus exacerbating the prevailing housing inequality in society. It also leads to the loss of important economic assets (ie small shops), which has a social and economic consequence.
WRT to large housing, developers add new builds to the market which are sold at a sometimes enormous premium. But they increase the overall supply thus easing pressure on other parts of the housing market. They build as much as the market can absorb whilst maximising their profits, that is what they have to do; as they are businesses. They say that they need to have a large land bank (Ie houses with permission, ready to go) to support them in this, that is probably true.
The best ways of moving past this problem may be through building more social / council housing by the state, who are not so constrained by market forces. Most private developers would probably agree with this. There is an aversion to actual town planning, which is seen by many conservatives as a not entirely abolished relic of the pre thatcher era. But better planning is the solution to all these problems.
It's certainly a live issue in the constituency. An old friend of mine lives on the edge of Amersham and will never vote for the party again, solely because of HS2.
The timing of the lockdown farce yesterday as well as Brexit starting to unravel over the Northern Ireland protocol are also tarnishing Brand Boris. Even an announcement on a UK-Australia trade deal may not help as it is not going down well with British farmers, who feel the Aussies have an unfair advantage. In a seat that was pro-Remain these things still matter.
I'm on the LibDems with good odds following Mike's tip. It's a bet I expect to lose but stranger things have happened in by-elections.
It would be very droll if, having captured the north, the tories lost their homeland.
The LibDems are throwing everything at the by-election. It might possibly win them the seat, but I don't expect it. This is a Government in its 20th month, so I probably should be expecting it (at least, on the basis of the ramping of their chances on here - LibDems to win it in a "landslide", I recall one poster saying).
But, the LibDems are close on 40% behind the government in national polling. Plus, for decade after decade, the Tory vote has been very predictable in this seat - between 50-odd percent and 60-odd percent. Safe, but never massively so.
The LibDems are also saddling themselves with the Nimby label. Bollocks to Brexit, now Bollocks to Building. They are very keen on pushing a humanitarian agenda - as long as once people get here they don't mind living under trees.
Oh, and not THOSE trees. They are ancient woodland. Can't have people shitting in those...
And they are very keen on people using trains. Just, not THAT train.
They are starting to build up internal contradictions that again show they aren't a party of serious decisions required of government. Just say whatever it takes to win a seat. But their opponents will be watching, storing up posters and leaflets with which to whack them around the head.
There you go again! That is obviously the approved line from your Tory Party bosses.
The Lib Dems are not opposed to building. But Lib Dems are very much opposed to having decisions taken by a small clique around Johnson, who think they can dictate policy and impose it on the rest of us. Especially, of course, when bribery and corruption are also involved.
From what I have read about the C & A campaign, local people do not take kindly to being bossed about and told what they must do. I for my part most certainly want planning and development near me to be decided locally, not by a gang of incompetents in London, who are set on arranging for their powerful donors to make immense fortunes. And it appears that a lot of people in the constituency agree with the Liberal Democrat approach.
"I for my part most certainly want planning and development near me to be decided locally, not by a gang of incompetents in London".
I'm not quite sure what planet you inhabit if you aren't aware that across the land, local planning is decided by a gang of incompetents in local offices, burdened with planet-sized egos and a disconcerting amount of corruption.
And the notion of me being given my lines to trot out amuses me no end - because I would just tell "them" to piss off. You though? Such a partisan hack, I do have my doubts...
So you have no substantive response to @RochdalePioneers’s point, which is that local decisions should be made locally.
Perhaps because more detailed logic is indeed missing from your crib sheet.
Having been a town councillor looking at planning proposals and married to a borough councillor doing the same I am well aware of what local planning officers and committees can do. I'd have said "galaxy-sized" egos but I take his point.
Thing is that if planning decisions get made locally then its far easier to have direct accountability than when the council is overruled by the Secretary of State. Yes donations get made even at local level that raise eyebrows but that doesn't change the democratic mandate they have to seek.
It is far far easier to remove councillors of questionable decision-making prowess and/or morality than it is a Secretary of State. We need more power and accountability at local level, not less.
If PB Tories doesn't understand that then more fool them. Not everyone with an interest in politics inhabits the same moral cesspit as Johnson's Tory Party.
The farmers can get in the long queue to have their arseholes slayed by Johnson's suppurating cock. Behind Arcuri, "business", the fisherpeople, Arcuri again on the couch and the one with the violin.
It's certainly a live issue in the constituency. An old friend of mine lives on the edge of Amersham and will never vote for the party again, solely because of HS2.
The timing of the lockdown farce yesterday as well as Brexit starting to unravel over the Northern Ireland protocol are also tarnishing Brand Boris. Even an announcement on a UK-Australia trade deal may not help as it is not going down well with British farmers, who feel the Aussies have an unfair advantage. In a seat that was pro-Remain these things still matter.
I'm on the LibDems with good odds following Mike's tip. It's a bet I expect to lose but stranger things have happened in by-elections.
It would be very droll if, having captured the north, the tories lost their homeland.
The LibDems are throwing everything at the by-election. It might possibly win them the seat, but I don't expect it. This is a Government in its 20th month, so I probably should be expecting it (at least, on the basis of the ramping of their chances on here - LibDems to win it in a "landslide", I recall one poster saying).
But, the LibDems are close on 40% behind the government in national polling. Plus, for decade after decade, the Tory vote has been very predictable in this seat - between 50-odd percent and 60-odd percent. Safe, but never massively so.
The LibDems are also saddling themselves with the Nimby label. Bollocks to Brexit, now Bollocks to Building. They are very keen on pushing a humanitarian agenda - as long as once people get here they don't mind living under trees.
Oh, and not THOSE trees. They are ancient woodland. Can't have people shitting in those...
And they are very keen on people using trains. Just, not THAT train.
They are starting to build up internal contradictions that again show they aren't a party of serious decisions required of government. Just say whatever it takes to win a seat. But their opponents will be watching, storing up posters and leaflets with which to whack them around the head.
It goes beyond NIMBYism to what a national planning policy should be. Objecting to building houses in places they shouldn't be built is a valid battle to fight. The NPPF has allowed planners to overrule everyone including councillors the council and the MP. I myself have fought some NIMBY not those trees battles because the proposal was utterly stupid.
There are a lot of people out there who think the same way. With the Tories now openly corrupt and donations flowing to the party from developers there is a valid line of opposition to take. I don't agree with the battle against HS2 then again they aren't building it near me...
Each time you make these allegations I suggest you provide evidence. Or make a report to the police.
The fact that you never do tells me that you prefer to smear from the shadows
I am reporting The Times. The facts are as reported and not being contested. I am very confident that the donations are on the legal side of the line. My point is that it is improper for your party to be seen accepting such donations. You can sit there and sneer if you feel morally comfortable with your party taking a £150k donation from a developer days after overruling local councils plural in favour of the developer. That is your call.
The proper Conservative Party wouldn't have accepted that kind of donation. What sever has it and its members sunk into?
Absolutely if it's legal it's proper.
As for your complaints, if you desire politicians to get involved with consent then it encourages this kind of alleged corruption.
If the market decides without any political involvement, then there can't be any alleged corruption.
The only reason there's a perceived conflict of interest is that consent is valuable. If as you allege consent were to be automatically granted it would cease to be valuable.
It's certainly a live issue in the constituency. An old friend of mine lives on the edge of Amersham and will never vote for the party again, solely because of HS2.
The timing of the lockdown farce yesterday as well as Brexit starting to unravel over the Northern Ireland protocol are also tarnishing Brand Boris. Even an announcement on a UK-Australia trade deal may not help as it is not going down well with British farmers, who feel the Aussies have an unfair advantage. In a seat that was pro-Remain these things still matter.
I'm on the LibDems with good odds following Mike's tip. It's a bet I expect to lose but stranger things have happened in by-elections.
It would be very droll if, having captured the north, the tories lost their homeland.
The LibDems are throwing everything at the by-election. It might possibly win them the seat, but I don't expect it. This is a Government in its 20th month, so I probably should be expecting it (at least, on the basis of the ramping of their chances on here - LibDems to win it in a "landslide", I recall one poster saying).
But, the LibDems are close on 40% behind the government in national polling. Plus, for decade after decade, the Tory vote has been very predictable in this seat - between 50-odd percent and 60-odd percent. Safe, but never massively so.
The LibDems are also saddling themselves with the Nimby label. Bollocks to Brexit, now Bollocks to Building. They are very keen on pushing a humanitarian agenda - as long as once people get here they don't mind living under trees.
Oh, and not THOSE trees. They are ancient woodland. Can't have people shitting in those...
And they are very keen on people using trains. Just, not THAT train.
They are starting to build up internal contradictions that again show they aren't a party of serious decisions required of government. Just say whatever it takes to win a seat. But their opponents will be watching, storing up posters and leaflets with which to whack them around the head.
There you go again! That is obviously the approved line from your Tory Party bosses.
The Lib Dems are not opposed to building. But Lib Dems are very much opposed to having decisions taken by a small clique around Johnson, who think they can dictate policy and impose it on the rest of us. Especially, of course, when bribery and corruption are also involved.
From what I have read about the C & A campaign, local people do not take kindly to being bossed about and told what they must do. I for my part most certainly want planning and development near me to be decided locally, not by a gang of incompetents in London, who are set on arranging for their powerful donors to make immense fortunes. And it appears that a lot of people in the constituency agree with the Liberal Democrat approach.
"I for my part most certainly want planning and development near me to be decided locally, not by a gang of incompetents in London".
I'm not quite sure what planet you inhabit if you aren't aware that across the land, local planning is decided by a gang of incompetents in local offices, burdened with planet-sized egos and a disconcerting amount of corruption.
And the notion of me being given my lines to trot out amuses me no end - because I would just tell "them" to piss off. You though? Such a partisan hack, I do have my doubts...
So you have no substantive response to @RochdalePioneers’s point, which is that local decisions should be made locally.
Perhaps because more detailed logic is indeed missing from your crib sheet.
Having been a town councillor looking at planning proposals and married to a borough councillor doing the same I am well aware of what local planning officers and committees can do. I'd have said "galaxy-sized" egos but I take his point.
Thing is that if planning decisions get made locally then its far easier to have direct accountability than when the council is overruled by the Secretary of State. Yes donations get made even at local level that raise eyebrows but that doesn't change the democratic mandate they have to seek.
It is far far easier to remove councillors of questionable decision-making prowess and/or morality than it is a Secretary of State. We need more power and accountability at local level, not less.
If PB Tories doesn't understand that then more fool them. Not everyone with an interest in politics inhabits the same moral cesspit as Johnson's Tory Party.
So you want all planning decisions to be taken by locally elected councillors, with no right of appeal. What would happen if they never approved any development?
I'm reading Michael Klarman's magisterial account of the process which led to the US Constitution. The framers originally favoured three year terms for the legislature. I think that might not be such a bad idea for the UK. It is, after all, what Britain had after the Restoration.
We have this in NZ, but we also don’t have an Upper House.
It tends to exacerbate short-termism, in my view.
I'm not so sure that need be the case. Apart from anything else it ought to make fiscal bribes in election years more difficult to manage ?
(And of course it was the English parliament after the Restoration; post 1801 the aristocracy decided that seven year terms would make the whole democracy thing less inconvenient.)
Newspapers contradicting themselves, even within the same issue, is as old an issue as MPs complaining about government announcements not being made first in Parliament.
(FWIW, yesterday’s announcement really should have been in Parliament, Hoyle was right).
Except that Vallence and Whitty can’t speak in parliament
I don’t think there is anything intrinsically wrong about the PM speaking directly to the electorate on major issues provided that it is rapidly followed up with a discussion in parliament
I agree. I thought in the circumstances with Boris in Brussels for NATO Hoyle was being a bit silly yesterday but in fairness he has been provoked on this issue before.
It's a breach of the Ministerial Code. Given that he was in London in the evening (dining with the Australian PM) the Brussels excuse is a red herring, and there would have been nothing to stop him making the announcement today instead of yesterday. What we're seeing is the grid (extension one day, trade deal the next) overriding the rules.
He was agreeing a trade deal last night with the Australian PM and the announcement for yesterday has been a set date and he had no choice but to deliver it yesterday
The meeting with the 30 Nato leaders in Brussels did not finish until 2.30 so how he was to address Parliament before his public announcement in view of the time limits was unreasonable
It could be argued he should have arranged it with Hoyle beforehand but they didn't
But they should have. Neither NATO nor this announcement were unexpected, timing-wise.
I do not disagree but it did not happen and there were exceptional circumstances
An argument that may pass if this was a first offence. It is not. The Prime Minister and his government have repeatedly held the Commons in contempt, the Speaker is fed up with it and I assume will now seek sanctions.
You excuse it all you like. I have to ask - is there anything this government could do that you wouldn't excuse?
I am content with HMG at present, and the question opponents need to ask is why are they not cutting through and persuading the populace to their cause
Yep. It doesn't matter how godawful they are and whether they are doing things that would have you raging at any other government, they have an 80 seat majority and thus can do what they like.
But labour and lib dems would be worse , so time for them to up their game and policies
FFS Big G is that the best you can do? This is YOUR party. YOUR government. It isn't about the perceived standards or performance elsewhere its about you and yours. Yes I agree that a Corbyn government would have been a Bad Thing. That is not free license for the Johnson government to be incompetent and profligate in waste and making all kinds of morally questionable financial decisions.
Whatever happened to standards in public office? Basic decency? Morality? The government broke the ministerial code again yesterday. Openly lied to parliament and the speaker. In any other government of any party heads would have to roll. In your cesspit government nobody cares. Because people like you provide succour to it.
In the space of 10 hours yesterday, we went from Edward Argar on @BBCBreakfast justifying the extension of restrictions by promising >10m second doses in 4 weeks, to Boris Johnson promising ~3.5m UK second doses in 5 weeks.
With target easily exceeded, pompoms out, Boris saves the day.
The last sentence is completely wrong. The Gov'ts remaining targets are ludicrously easy, particularly the second dose one and imply a slowdown of the rollout.
But rollout could well slow down from here.
Our current vaccination rate is roughly made up of AZ for second doses on forty and fiftysomethings and Pfizer + Moderna for first doses on younger people.
Until something else is approved and delivered, or the second Pfizer order starts, that's it, because that's what we've got. And the AZ programme hasn't got that many more arms to jab.
If we look at England, use NIMS data and aim for 90% first/second, as of the 10th June release we have
to go, until all adults are done. Which addd up to 8.6 million dosses required for over 40s - for England only. So well over 9 million for the whole country.
True, though it is estimated/alleged that there are 6 million or so doses of AZ in various reservoirs in the vaccination system, so we don't need that much more AZ than we already have.
And there are about 22 million jabs to be done for which current policy is to use not-AZ. And I think current supply for those is about 220k per day, 1.5 million or so a week.
If so, it's a fairly nasty supply-demand mismatch.
The vaccine pipelines are long - months. So when people talk about 6 million doses, do they mean - manufactured, tested, finished...... etc etc, delivered, stored in a freezer? This is what causes the silly stories in Italy etc about vaccine "hoards" - which all turned out to be vaccine in the pipeline.
The 24 million above to actually complete 2 doses for all 18-30 assumes 90% take-up.
It's certainly a live issue in the constituency. An old friend of mine lives on the edge of Amersham and will never vote for the party again, solely because of HS2.
The timing of the lockdown farce yesterday as well as Brexit starting to unravel over the Northern Ireland protocol are also tarnishing Brand Boris. Even an announcement on a UK-Australia trade deal may not help as it is not going down well with British farmers, who feel the Aussies have an unfair advantage. In a seat that was pro-Remain these things still matter.
I'm on the LibDems with good odds following Mike's tip. It's a bet I expect to lose but stranger things have happened in by-elections.
It would be very droll if, having captured the north, the tories lost their homeland.
The LibDems are throwing everything at the by-election. It might possibly win them the seat, but I don't expect it. This is a Government in its 20th month, so I probably should be expecting it (at least, on the basis of the ramping of their chances on here - LibDems to win it in a "landslide", I recall one poster saying).
But, the LibDems are close on 40% behind the government in national polling. Plus, for decade after decade, the Tory vote has been very predictable in this seat - between 50-odd percent and 60-odd percent. Safe, but never massively so.
The LibDems are also saddling themselves with the Nimby label. Bollocks to Brexit, now Bollocks to Building. They are very keen on pushing a humanitarian agenda - as long as once people get here they don't mind living under trees.
Oh, and not THOSE trees. They are ancient woodland. Can't have people shitting in those...
And they are very keen on people using trains. Just, not THAT train.
They are starting to build up internal contradictions that again show they aren't a party of serious decisions required of government. Just say whatever it takes to win a seat. But their opponents will be watching, storing up posters and leaflets with which to whack them around the head.
There you go again! That is obviously the approved line from your Tory Party bosses.
The Lib Dems are not opposed to building. But Lib Dems are very much opposed to having decisions taken by a small clique around Johnson, who think they can dictate policy and impose it on the rest of us. Especially, of course, when bribery and corruption are also involved.
From what I have read about the C & A campaign, local people do not take kindly to being bossed about and told what they must do. I for my part most certainly want planning and development near me to be decided locally, not by a gang of incompetents in London, who are set on arranging for their powerful donors to make immense fortunes. And it appears that a lot of people in the constituency agree with the Liberal Democrat approach.
"I for my part most certainly want planning and development near me to be decided locally, not by a gang of incompetents in London".
I'm not quite sure what planet you inhabit if you aren't aware that across the land, local planning is decided by a gang of incompetents in local offices, burdened with planet-sized egos and a disconcerting amount of corruption.
And the notion of me being given my lines to trot out amuses me no end - because I would just tell "them" to piss off. You though? Such a partisan hack, I do have my doubts...
So you have no substantive response to @RochdalePioneers’s point, which is that local decisions should be made locally.
Perhaps because more detailed logic is indeed missing from your crib sheet.
Having been a town councillor looking at planning proposals and married to a borough councillor doing the same I am well aware of what local planning officers and committees can do. I'd have said "galaxy-sized" egos but I take his point.
Thing is that if planning decisions get made locally then its far easier to have direct accountability than when the council is overruled by the Secretary of State. Yes donations get made even at local level that raise eyebrows but that doesn't change the democratic mandate they have to seek.
It is far far easier to remove councillors of questionable decision-making prowess and/or morality than it is a Secretary of State. We need more power and accountability at local level, not less.
If PB Tories doesn't understand that then more fool them. Not everyone with an interest in politics inhabits the same moral cesspit as Johnson's Tory Party.
So you want all planning decisions to be taken by locally elected councillors, with no right of appeal. What would happen if they never approved any development?
I didn't say no right of appeal. I want a planning system that isn't rigged to the developers and against councils. I keep having to make the same point - the only way to stop developers building houses is to let developers build houses. Unless your local plan has enough houses being built then developers win every appeal by default. And how many houses are being built is up to the developers who sit on planning permission given without always actually building.
Let them appeal against a planning system not built to favour them. And an end to the government that takes significant donations from developers overruling everyone.
I'm keen for professional reasons to know details of the Aussie trade deal as soon as they are announced (apparently "about now"). If anyone sees a link, please say... I've seen the BBC24 clip just now.
Newspapers contradicting themselves, even within the same issue, is as old an issue as MPs complaining about government announcements not being made first in Parliament.
(FWIW, yesterday’s announcement really should have been in Parliament, Hoyle was right).
Except that Vallence and Whitty can’t speak in parliament
I don’t think there is anything intrinsically wrong about the PM speaking directly to the electorate on major issues provided that it is rapidly followed up with a discussion in parliament
I agree. I thought in the circumstances with Boris in Brussels for NATO Hoyle was being a bit silly yesterday but in fairness he has been provoked on this issue before.
It's a breach of the Ministerial Code. Given that he was in London in the evening (dining with the Australian PM) the Brussels excuse is a red herring, and there would have been nothing to stop him making the announcement today instead of yesterday. What we're seeing is the grid (extension one day, trade deal the next) overriding the rules.
What we are seeing in Covid is that it is much more important that the government gets clear messages out to the general pubic direct with suitable expert support from the likes of Whitty and Valance than it is that they have some yah boo nonsense in the HoC that only obsessives like us pay much attention to. Governments have found the way to get unintermediated contact with the electorate and they love it. Nicola does the same as does Drakeford. Hoyle is deluding himself if he thinks that this is going to change for as long as the pandemic continues.
Absolutely shocking post.
You deserve neither safety nor liberty.
Well of course David you do because you're one of the good ones but jesus read your post over again. Parliament be damned, there is important stuff going on. FFS.
In the space of 10 hours yesterday, we went from Edward Argar on @BBCBreakfast justifying the extension of restrictions by promising >10m second doses in 4 weeks, to Boris Johnson promising ~3.5m UK second doses in 5 weeks.
With target easily exceeded, pompoms out, Boris saves the day.
The last sentence is completely wrong. The Gov'ts remaining targets are ludicrously easy, particularly the second dose one and imply a slowdown of the rollout.
But rollout could well slow down from here.
Our current vaccination rate is roughly made up of AZ for second doses on forty and fiftysomethings and Pfizer + Moderna for first doses on younger people.
Until something else is approved and delivered, or the second Pfizer order starts, that's it, because that's what we've got. And the AZ programme hasn't got that many more arms to jab.
If we look at England, use NIMS data and aim for 90% first/second, as of the 10th June release we have
to go, until all adults are done. Which addd up to 8.6 million dosses required for over 40s - for England only. So well over 9 million for the whole country.
True, though it is estimated/alleged that there are 6 million or so doses of AZ in various reservoirs in the vaccination system, so we don't need that much more AZ than we already have.
And there are about 22 million jabs to be done for which current policy is to use not-AZ. And I think current supply for those is about 220k per day, 1.5 million or so a week.
If so, it's a fairly nasty supply-demand mismatch.
The vaccine pipelines are long - months. So when people talk about 6 million doses, do they mean - manufactured, tested, finished...... etc etc, delivered, stored in a freezer? This is what causes the silly stories in Italy etc about vaccine "hoards" - which all turned out to be vaccine in the pipeline.
The 24 million above to actually complete 2 doses for all 18-30 assumes 90% take-up.
Sure. But that doesn't alter the big picture. As far as we know (e.g. from the Yellow Card data), the UK is currently getting more AZ than not-AZ each week, in a ratio of roughly 2:1. If we look at the jabs still to be done, under current rules we need more not-AZ than AZ, in a ratio of roughly 3:1. That's going to slow things down.
It's certainly a live issue in the constituency. An old friend of mine lives on the edge of Amersham and will never vote for the party again, solely because of HS2.
The timing of the lockdown farce yesterday as well as Brexit starting to unravel over the Northern Ireland protocol are also tarnishing Brand Boris. Even an announcement on a UK-Australia trade deal may not help as it is not going down well with British farmers, who feel the Aussies have an unfair advantage. In a seat that was pro-Remain these things still matter.
I'm on the LibDems with good odds following Mike's tip. It's a bet I expect to lose but stranger things have happened in by-elections.
It would be very droll if, having captured the north, the tories lost their homeland.
The LibDems are throwing everything at the by-election. It might possibly win them the seat, but I don't expect it. This is a Government in its 20th month, so I probably should be expecting it (at least, on the basis of the ramping of their chances on here - LibDems to win it in a "landslide", I recall one poster saying).
But, the LibDems are close on 40% behind the government in national polling. Plus, for decade after decade, the Tory vote has been very predictable in this seat - between 50-odd percent and 60-odd percent. Safe, but never massively so.
The LibDems are also saddling themselves with the Nimby label. Bollocks to Brexit, now Bollocks to Building. They are very keen on pushing a humanitarian agenda - as long as once people get here they don't mind living under trees.
Oh, and not THOSE trees. They are ancient woodland. Can't have people shitting in those...
And they are very keen on people using trains. Just, not THAT train.
They are starting to build up internal contradictions that again show they aren't a party of serious decisions required of government. Just say whatever it takes to win a seat. But their opponents will be watching, storing up posters and leaflets with which to whack them around the head.
There you go again! That is obviously the approved line from your Tory Party bosses.
The Lib Dems are not opposed to building. But Lib Dems are very much opposed to having decisions taken by a small clique around Johnson, who think they can dictate policy and impose it on the rest of us. Especially, of course, when bribery and corruption are also involved.
From what I have read about the C & A campaign, local people do not take kindly to being bossed about and told what they must do. I for my part most certainly want planning and development near me to be decided locally, not by a gang of incompetents in London, who are set on arranging for their powerful donors to make immense fortunes. And it appears that a lot of people in the constituency agree with the Liberal Democrat approach.
"I for my part most certainly want planning and development near me to be decided locally, not by a gang of incompetents in London".
I'm not quite sure what planet you inhabit if you aren't aware that across the land, local planning is decided by a gang of incompetents in local offices, burdened with planet-sized egos and a disconcerting amount of corruption.
And the notion of me being given my lines to trot out amuses me no end - because I would just tell "them" to piss off. You though? Such a partisan hack, I do have my doubts...
So you have no substantive response to @RochdalePioneers’s point, which is that local decisions should be made locally.
Perhaps because more detailed logic is indeed missing from your crib sheet.
Having been a town councillor looking at planning proposals and married to a borough councillor doing the same I am well aware of what local planning officers and committees can do. I'd have said "galaxy-sized" egos but I take his point.
Thing is that if planning decisions get made locally then its far easier to have direct accountability than when the council is overruled by the Secretary of State. Yes donations get made even at local level that raise eyebrows but that doesn't change the democratic mandate they have to seek.
It is far far easier to remove councillors of questionable decision-making prowess and/or morality than it is a Secretary of State. We need more power and accountability at local level, not less.
If PB Tories doesn't understand that then more fool them. Not everyone with an interest in politics inhabits the same moral cesspit as Johnson's Tory Party.
So you want all planning decisions to be taken by locally elected councillors, with no right of appeal. What would happen if they never approved any development?
I didn't say no right of appeal. I want a planning system that isn't rigged to the developers and against councils. I keep having to make the same point - the only way to stop developers building houses is to let developers build houses. Unless your local plan has enough houses being built then developers win every appeal by default. And how many houses are being built is up to the developers who sit on planning permission given without always actually building.
Let them appeal against a planning system not built to favour them. And an end to the government that takes significant donations from developers overruling everyone.
So you want allegedly corrupt Councillors being able to make the decisions?
Either you want politicians to make the decisions, in which case there will always be the possibility for alleged corruption.
Or you want decisions made automatically by predetermined standards or by supply and demand or something else, in which case politicians aren't involved and there can't be alleged corruption.
It's certainly a live issue in the constituency. An old friend of mine lives on the edge of Amersham and will never vote for the party again, solely because of HS2.
The timing of the lockdown farce yesterday as well as Brexit starting to unravel over the Northern Ireland protocol are also tarnishing Brand Boris. Even an announcement on a UK-Australia trade deal may not help as it is not going down well with British farmers, who feel the Aussies have an unfair advantage. In a seat that was pro-Remain these things still matter.
I'm on the LibDems with good odds following Mike's tip. It's a bet I expect to lose but stranger things have happened in by-elections.
It would be very droll if, having captured the north, the tories lost their homeland.
The LibDems are throwing everything at the by-election. It might possibly win them the seat, but I don't expect it. This is a Government in its 20th month, so I probably should be expecting it (at least, on the basis of the ramping of their chances on here - LibDems to win it in a "landslide", I recall one poster saying).
But, the LibDems are close on 40% behind the government in national polling. Plus, for decade after decade, the Tory vote has been very predictable in this seat - between 50-odd percent and 60-odd percent. Safe, but never massively so.
The LibDems are also saddling themselves with the Nimby label. Bollocks to Brexit, now Bollocks to Building. They are very keen on pushing a humanitarian agenda - as long as once people get here they don't mind living under trees.
Oh, and not THOSE trees. They are ancient woodland. Can't have people shitting in those...
And they are very keen on people using trains. Just, not THAT train.
They are starting to build up internal contradictions that again show they aren't a party of serious decisions required of government. Just say whatever it takes to win a seat. But their opponents will be watching, storing up posters and leaflets with which to whack them around the head.
It goes beyond NIMBYism to what a national planning policy should be. Objecting to building houses in places they shouldn't be built is a valid battle to fight. The NPPF has allowed planners to overrule everyone including councillors the council and the MP. I myself have fought some NIMBY not those trees battles because the proposal was utterly stupid.
There are a lot of people out there who think the same way. With the Tories now openly corrupt and donations flowing to the party from developers there is a valid line of opposition to take. I don't agree with the battle against HS2 then again they aren't building it near me...
Each time you make these allegations I suggest you provide evidence. Or make a report to the police.
The fact that you never do tells me that you prefer to smear from the shadows
I am reporting The Times. The facts are as reported and not being contested. I am very confident that the donations are on the legal side of the line. My point is that it is improper for your party to be seen accepting such donations. You can sit there and sneer if you feel morally comfortable with your party taking a £150k donation from a developer days after overruling local councils plural in favour of the developer. That is your call.
The proper Conservative Party wouldn't have accepted that kind of donation. What sever has it and its members sunk into?
It is how Tories work, of course they are happy with bungs.
As opposed to those paragons of virtue the SNP, lol. Oh, of course it is "Alba" you support. The vanity project party run by the fat little toad that was described by his own QC as a "bully and sex pest".
I am no fan of the Tories at present, but Scots Nats are in no position to throw stones, particularly Salmond fanbois.
I’m afraid I still laugh out loud at the description of restrictions as “lockdown”. With the honourable exception of those working in the travel and hospitality industries, they really are no more than a minor inconvenience at this point.
And the Performing Arts, Music etc. All the things that make life enjoyable over an English Summer.
Oh indeed.
Reports this morning of frantic lobbying by Wimbledon, Silverstone and Wembley, to allow full crowds at outdoor events in July.
Silverstone have almost sold out 150k tickets for the F1 on 18th July (although I had to return mine, rolled over from last year ).
“ As a 550-acre outdoor site, Silverstone is the largest major sporting venue in the UK, with its 70,000 grandstand seats spread around a 3.6-mile track.
“ The vast majority of the 120,000-plus spectators who usually attend a Grand Prix weekend also travel to the circuit by car.
“ That would avoid the prospect of thousands being crammed in together on public transport – something seen as far more likely to spread Covid-19 than a relaxation of social distancing in an outdoor grandstand.
“ Silverstone has been selling tickets on the basis of being at capacity and the Telegraph has been told it is close to a sell-out.
“ Having lost millions of pounds last year by staging back-to-back grands prix behind closed doors, it is desperate to avoid another major shortfall by being forced to cap attendance next month. “
Why the absolute fuck should they be allowed this and my Daughter cannot be allowed to serve her customers at the bar so that her premises too are packed and a sell-out?
I’m afraid I still laugh out loud at the description of restrictions as “lockdown”. With the honourable exception of those working in the travel and hospitality industries, they really are no more than a minor inconvenience at this point.
This comment is a total insult. Tell that to all the small businesses going to the wall from lack of casual trade due to mask wearing. The families split between more than two households. My friend that will miss her father’s funeral tomorrow because she cannot get in and out the country. The kids missing yet more weeks of education because one of their number has a sniffle.
That’s not what I’m saying, my point is of the media twisting language so that relatively minor restriction are still being described as “lockdown”.
Yes, of course certain people and industries are still badly affected by the remaining restrictions, but for most people they are a relatively minor inconvenience to their everyday lives.
There you go again. “Minor inconvenience”.
We live in a Toquevellian tyranny of the majority. I’m alright Jack. With my triple lock pension and indexed final salary scheme. Or my well paid job with no commute costs now. My house with a garden. My wealth, family and memories already built.
For 16 months now, the young - my Daughter / her brothers have not been able to go out, have fun, meet new people, make friends, have relationships – casual or permanent, to fall in love, out of it, have sex, travel, have adventures, just live. The serendipity of life – when you are young, beautiful (in the way the young are), feel invincible, are fizzing with ideas and excitement and the possibilities of life, has largely been denied to them. They have lost jobs and found it hard to get others which are worthwhile. Daughter has worked and worked and worked to save her business and is being kicked in the teeth time and time again.
This nightmare is continuing. These are not minor restrictions and it's frankly insulting to the young to describe them as such.
The Zoomocracy need to have a special Covid tax applied to the savings they have accumulated during this period to pay for the costs they're willing to impose on others.
It's certainly a live issue in the constituency. An old friend of mine lives on the edge of Amersham and will never vote for the party again, solely because of HS2.
The timing of the lockdown farce yesterday as well as Brexit starting to unravel over the Northern Ireland protocol are also tarnishing Brand Boris. Even an announcement on a UK-Australia trade deal may not help as it is not going down well with British farmers, who feel the Aussies have an unfair advantage. In a seat that was pro-Remain these things still matter.
I'm on the LibDems with good odds following Mike's tip. It's a bet I expect to lose but stranger things have happened in by-elections.
It would be very droll if, having captured the north, the tories lost their homeland.
The LibDems are throwing everything at the by-election. It might possibly win them the seat, but I don't expect it. This is a Government in its 20th month, so I probably should be expecting it (at least, on the basis of the ramping of their chances on here - LibDems to win it in a "landslide", I recall one poster saying).
But, the LibDems are close on 40% behind the government in national polling. Plus, for decade after decade, the Tory vote has been very predictable in this seat - between 50-odd percent and 60-odd percent. Safe, but never massively so.
The LibDems are also saddling themselves with the Nimby label. Bollocks to Brexit, now Bollocks to Building. They are very keen on pushing a humanitarian agenda - as long as once people get here they don't mind living under trees.
Oh, and not THOSE trees. They are ancient woodland. Can't have people shitting in those...
And they are very keen on people using trains. Just, not THAT train.
They are starting to build up internal contradictions that again show they aren't a party of serious decisions required of government. Just say whatever it takes to win a seat. But their opponents will be watching, storing up posters and leaflets with which to whack them around the head.
There you go again! That is obviously the approved line from your Tory Party bosses.
The Lib Dems are not opposed to building. But Lib Dems are very much opposed to having decisions taken by a small clique around Johnson, who think they can dictate policy and impose it on the rest of us. Especially, of course, when bribery and corruption are also involved.
From what I have read about the C & A campaign, local people do not take kindly to being bossed about and told what they must do. I for my part most certainly want planning and development near me to be decided locally, not by a gang of incompetents in London, who are set on arranging for their powerful donors to make immense fortunes. And it appears that a lot of people in the constituency agree with the Liberal Democrat approach.
"I for my part most certainly want planning and development near me to be decided locally, not by a gang of incompetents in London".
I'm not quite sure what planet you inhabit if you aren't aware that across the land, local planning is decided by a gang of incompetents in local offices, burdened with planet-sized egos and a disconcerting amount of corruption.
And the notion of me being given my lines to trot out amuses me no end - because I would just tell "them" to piss off. You though? Such a partisan hack, I do have my doubts...
So you have no substantive response to @RochdalePioneers’s point, which is that local decisions should be made locally.
Perhaps because more detailed logic is indeed missing from your crib sheet.
Having been a town councillor looking at planning proposals and married to a borough councillor doing the same I am well aware of what local planning officers and committees can do. I'd have said "galaxy-sized" egos but I take his point.
Thing is that if planning decisions get made locally then its far easier to have direct accountability than when the council is overruled by the Secretary of State. Yes donations get made even at local level that raise eyebrows but that doesn't change the democratic mandate they have to seek.
It is far far easier to remove councillors of questionable decision-making prowess and/or morality than it is a Secretary of State. We need more power and accountability at local level, not less.
If PB Tories doesn't understand that then more fool them. Not everyone with an interest in politics inhabits the same moral cesspit as Johnson's Tory Party.
So you want all planning decisions to be taken by locally elected councillors, with no right of appeal. What would happen if they never approved any development?
I didn't say no right of appeal. I want a planning system that isn't rigged to the developers and against councils. I keep having to make the same point - the only way to stop developers building houses is to let developers build houses. Unless your local plan has enough houses being built then developers win every appeal by default. And how many houses are being built is up to the developers who sit on planning permission given without always actually building.
Let them appeal against a planning system not built to favour them. And an end to the government that takes significant donations from developers overruling everyone.
So, decisions have to be taken locally, but there needs to be a right of appeal. For a right of appeal to be meaningful, there have to be objective rules about what can and cannot be allowed. These rules are set by local decision makers, following a process set out in law by central government, which takes account of information on how much development is needed. The right of appeal is to the secretary of state, who ultimately has decision making authority. They must provide reasons why something is or is not allowed, and if these are inadequate or irrational then they can be overturned in the courts.
That is the system that already exists. By all means the structure of the system can be changed and it constantly is, and is going to be again in the forthcoming planning bill. But my point is that it is no answer to give absolute power to local decision makers, just as it is no answer to remove all controls on development.
I suspect if the weather remains as lovely as it has been recently then lockdown ends well before Boris Johnson says it does.
Have to admit I am concerned that it will last long past July 19th.
19 July is the "terminus date" for England's remaining coronavirus restrictions and it would take an "unprecedented and remarkable" change in circumstances to derail that, Michael Gove has told Sky News.
It's certainly a live issue in the constituency. An old friend of mine lives on the edge of Amersham and will never vote for the party again, solely because of HS2.
The timing of the lockdown farce yesterday as well as Brexit starting to unravel over the Northern Ireland protocol are also tarnishing Brand Boris. Even an announcement on a UK-Australia trade deal may not help as it is not going down well with British farmers, who feel the Aussies have an unfair advantage. In a seat that was pro-Remain these things still matter.
I'm on the LibDems with good odds following Mike's tip. It's a bet I expect to lose but stranger things have happened in by-elections.
It would be very droll if, having captured the north, the tories lost their homeland.
The LibDems are throwing everything at the by-election. It might possibly win them the seat, but I don't expect it. This is a Government in its 20th month, so I probably should be expecting it (at least, on the basis of the ramping of their chances on here - LibDems to win it in a "landslide", I recall one poster saying).
But, the LibDems are close on 40% behind the government in national polling. Plus, for decade after decade, the Tory vote has been very predictable in this seat - between 50-odd percent and 60-odd percent. Safe, but never massively so.
The LibDems are also saddling themselves with the Nimby label. Bollocks to Brexit, now Bollocks to Building. They are very keen on pushing a humanitarian agenda - as long as once people get here they don't mind living under trees.
Oh, and not THOSE trees. They are ancient woodland. Can't have people shitting in those...
And they are very keen on people using trains. Just, not THAT train.
They are starting to build up internal contradictions that again show they aren't a party of serious decisions required of government. Just say whatever it takes to win a seat. But their opponents will be watching, storing up posters and leaflets with which to whack them around the head.
There you go again! That is obviously the approved line from your Tory Party bosses.
The Lib Dems are not opposed to building. But Lib Dems are very much opposed to having decisions taken by a small clique around Johnson, who think they can dictate policy and impose it on the rest of us. Especially, of course, when bribery and corruption are also involved.
From what I have read about the C & A campaign, local people do not take kindly to being bossed about and told what they must do. I for my part most certainly want planning and development near me to be decided locally, not by a gang of incompetents in London, who are set on arranging for their powerful donors to make immense fortunes. And it appears that a lot of people in the constituency agree with the Liberal Democrat approach.
"I for my part most certainly want planning and development near me to be decided locally, not by a gang of incompetents in London".
I'm not quite sure what planet you inhabit if you aren't aware that across the land, local planning is decided by a gang of incompetents in local offices, burdened with planet-sized egos and a disconcerting amount of corruption.
And the notion of me being given my lines to trot out amuses me no end - because I would just tell "them" to piss off. You though? Such a partisan hack, I do have my doubts...
So you have no substantive response to @RochdalePioneers’s point, which is that local decisions should be made locally.
Perhaps because more detailed logic is indeed missing from your crib sheet.
Having been a town councillor looking at planning proposals and married to a borough councillor doing the same I am well aware of what local planning officers and committees can do. I'd have said "galaxy-sized" egos but I take his point.
Thing is that if planning decisions get made locally then its far easier to have direct accountability than when the council is overruled by the Secretary of State. Yes donations get made even at local level that raise eyebrows but that doesn't change the democratic mandate they have to seek.
It is far far easier to remove councillors of questionable decision-making prowess and/or morality than it is a Secretary of State. We need more power and accountability at local level, not less.
If PB Tories doesn't understand that then more fool them. Not everyone with an interest in politics inhabits the same moral cesspit as Johnson's Tory Party.
So you want all planning decisions to be taken by locally elected councillors, with no right of appeal. What would happen if they never approved any development?
I didn't say no right of appeal. I want a planning system that isn't rigged to the developers and against councils. I keep having to make the same point - the only way to stop developers building houses is to let developers build houses. Unless your local plan has enough houses being built then developers win every appeal by default. And how many houses are being built is up to the developers who sit on planning permission given without always actually building.
Let them appeal against a planning system not built to favour them. And an end to the government that takes significant donations from developers overruling everyone.
So you want allegedly corrupt Councillors being able to make the decisions?
Either you want politicians to make the decisions, in which case there will always be the possibility for alleged corruption.
Or you want decisions made automatically by predetermined standards or by supply and demand or something else, in which case politicians aren't involved and there can't be alleged corruption.
Which is it?
Which is it? I think its Philip strawman number 3,754.
If you want an open market let the developers build in your personal garden then why not go and campaign for it? You won't get elected.
It seems obvious in hindsight that the reason for an explosion in cases in India was the delta variant. However my recollection was that many thought it was due to things such as 50,000 at the cricket etc in a largely unvaccinated country. I know people like to blame the government for this one, and it will I am sure be looked at in the inquiry, but I don't think it is quite the slam dunk people think it is.
It's certainly a live issue in the constituency. An old friend of mine lives on the edge of Amersham and will never vote for the party again, solely because of HS2.
The timing of the lockdown farce yesterday as well as Brexit starting to unravel over the Northern Ireland protocol are also tarnishing Brand Boris. Even an announcement on a UK-Australia trade deal may not help as it is not going down well with British farmers, who feel the Aussies have an unfair advantage. In a seat that was pro-Remain these things still matter.
I'm on the LibDems with good odds following Mike's tip. It's a bet I expect to lose but stranger things have happened in by-elections.
It would be very droll if, having captured the north, the tories lost their homeland.
The LibDems are throwing everything at the by-election. It might possibly win them the seat, but I don't expect it. This is a Government in its 20th month, so I probably should be expecting it (at least, on the basis of the ramping of their chances on here - LibDems to win it in a "landslide", I recall one poster saying).
But, the LibDems are close on 40% behind the government in national polling. Plus, for decade after decade, the Tory vote has been very predictable in this seat - between 50-odd percent and 60-odd percent. Safe, but never massively so.
The LibDems are also saddling themselves with the Nimby label. Bollocks to Brexit, now Bollocks to Building. They are very keen on pushing a humanitarian agenda - as long as once people get here they don't mind living under trees.
Oh, and not THOSE trees. They are ancient woodland. Can't have people shitting in those...
And they are very keen on people using trains. Just, not THAT train.
They are starting to build up internal contradictions that again show they aren't a party of serious decisions required of government. Just say whatever it takes to win a seat. But their opponents will be watching, storing up posters and leaflets with which to whack them around the head.
There you go again! That is obviously the approved line from your Tory Party bosses.
The Lib Dems are not opposed to building. But Lib Dems are very much opposed to having decisions taken by a small clique around Johnson, who think they can dictate policy and impose it on the rest of us. Especially, of course, when bribery and corruption are also involved.
From what I have read about the C & A campaign, local people do not take kindly to being bossed about and told what they must do. I for my part most certainly want planning and development near me to be decided locally, not by a gang of incompetents in London, who are set on arranging for their powerful donors to make immense fortunes. And it appears that a lot of people in the constituency agree with the Liberal Democrat approach.
"I for my part most certainly want planning and development near me to be decided locally, not by a gang of incompetents in London".
I'm not quite sure what planet you inhabit if you aren't aware that across the land, local planning is decided by a gang of incompetents in local offices, burdened with planet-sized egos and a disconcerting amount of corruption.
And the notion of me being given my lines to trot out amuses me no end - because I would just tell "them" to piss off. You though? Such a partisan hack, I do have my doubts...
So you have no substantive response to @RochdalePioneers’s point, which is that local decisions should be made locally.
Perhaps because more detailed logic is indeed missing from your crib sheet.
Having been a town councillor looking at planning proposals and married to a borough councillor doing the same I am well aware of what local planning officers and committees can do. I'd have said "galaxy-sized" egos but I take his point.
Thing is that if planning decisions get made locally then its far easier to have direct accountability than when the council is overruled by the Secretary of State. Yes donations get made even at local level that raise eyebrows but that doesn't change the democratic mandate they have to seek.
It is far far easier to remove councillors of questionable decision-making prowess and/or morality than it is a Secretary of State. We need more power and accountability at local level, not less.
If PB Tories doesn't understand that then more fool them. Not everyone with an interest in politics inhabits the same moral cesspit as Johnson's Tory Party.
So you want all planning decisions to be taken by locally elected councillors, with no right of appeal. What would happen if they never approved any development?
I didn't say no right of appeal. I want a planning system that isn't rigged to the developers and against councils. I keep having to make the same point - the only way to stop developers building houses is to let developers build houses. Unless your local plan has enough houses being built then developers win every appeal by default. And how many houses are being built is up to the developers who sit on planning permission given without always actually building.
Let them appeal against a planning system not built to favour them. And an end to the government that takes significant donations from developers overruling everyone.
So, decisions have to be taken locally, but there needs to be a right of appeal. For a right of appeal to be meaningful, there have to be objective rules about what can and cannot be allowed. These rules are set by local decision makers, following a process set out in law by central government, which takes account of information on how much development is needed. The right of appeal is to the secretary of state, who ultimately has decision making authority. They must provide reasons why something is or is not allowed, and if these are inadequate or irrational then they can be overturned in the courts.
That is the system that already exists. By all means the structure of the system can be changed and it constantly is, and is going to be again in the forthcoming planning bill. But my point is that it is no answer to give absolute power to local decision makers, just as it is no answer to remove all controls on development.
I agree with you! However you are making a point that I was not, so in agreeing with not giving absolute power to councils I am not arguing against my actual point.
It's certainly a live issue in the constituency. An old friend of mine lives on the edge of Amersham and will never vote for the party again, solely because of HS2.
The timing of the lockdown farce yesterday as well as Brexit starting to unravel over the Northern Ireland protocol are also tarnishing Brand Boris. Even an announcement on a UK-Australia trade deal may not help as it is not going down well with British farmers, who feel the Aussies have an unfair advantage. In a seat that was pro-Remain these things still matter.
I'm on the LibDems with good odds following Mike's tip. It's a bet I expect to lose but stranger things have happened in by-elections.
It would be very droll if, having captured the north, the tories lost their homeland.
The LibDems are throwing everything at the by-election. It might possibly win them the seat, but I don't expect it. This is a Government in its 20th month, so I probably should be expecting it (at least, on the basis of the ramping of their chances on here - LibDems to win it in a "landslide", I recall one poster saying).
But, the LibDems are close on 40% behind the government in national polling. Plus, for decade after decade, the Tory vote has been very predictable in this seat - between 50-odd percent and 60-odd percent. Safe, but never massively so.
The LibDems are also saddling themselves with the Nimby label. Bollocks to Brexit, now Bollocks to Building. They are very keen on pushing a humanitarian agenda - as long as once people get here they don't mind living under trees.
Oh, and not THOSE trees. They are ancient woodland. Can't have people shitting in those...
And they are very keen on people using trains. Just, not THAT train.
They are starting to build up internal contradictions that again show they aren't a party of serious decisions required of government. Just say whatever it takes to win a seat. But their opponents will be watching, storing up posters and leaflets with which to whack them around the head.
There you go again! That is obviously the approved line from your Tory Party bosses.
The Lib Dems are not opposed to building. But Lib Dems are very much opposed to having decisions taken by a small clique around Johnson, who think they can dictate policy and impose it on the rest of us. Especially, of course, when bribery and corruption are also involved.
From what I have read about the C & A campaign, local people do not take kindly to being bossed about and told what they must do. I for my part most certainly want planning and development near me to be decided locally, not by a gang of incompetents in London, who are set on arranging for their powerful donors to make immense fortunes. And it appears that a lot of people in the constituency agree with the Liberal Democrat approach.
"I for my part most certainly want planning and development near me to be decided locally, not by a gang of incompetents in London".
I'm not quite sure what planet you inhabit if you aren't aware that across the land, local planning is decided by a gang of incompetents in local offices, burdened with planet-sized egos and a disconcerting amount of corruption.
And the notion of me being given my lines to trot out amuses me no end - because I would just tell "them" to piss off. You though? Such a partisan hack, I do have my doubts...
So you have no substantive response to @RochdalePioneers’s point, which is that local decisions should be made locally.
Perhaps because more detailed logic is indeed missing from your crib sheet.
Having been a town councillor looking at planning proposals and married to a borough councillor doing the same I am well aware of what local planning officers and committees can do. I'd have said "galaxy-sized" egos but I take his point.
Thing is that if planning decisions get made locally then its far easier to have direct accountability than when the council is overruled by the Secretary of State. Yes donations get made even at local level that raise eyebrows but that doesn't change the democratic mandate they have to seek.
It is far far easier to remove councillors of questionable decision-making prowess and/or morality than it is a Secretary of State. We need more power and accountability at local level, not less.
If PB Tories doesn't understand that then more fool them. Not everyone with an interest in politics inhabits the same moral cesspit as Johnson's Tory Party.
So you want all planning decisions to be taken by locally elected councillors, with no right of appeal. What would happen if they never approved any development?
I didn't say no right of appeal. I want a planning system that isn't rigged to the developers and against councils. I keep having to make the same point - the only way to stop developers building houses is to let developers build houses. Unless your local plan has enough houses being built then developers win every appeal by default. And how many houses are being built is up to the developers who sit on planning permission given without always actually building.
Let them appeal against a planning system not built to favour them. And an end to the government that takes significant donations from developers overruling everyone.
So, decisions have to be taken locally, but there needs to be a right of appeal. For a right of appeal to be meaningful, there have to be objective rules about what can and cannot be allowed. These rules are set by local decision makers, following a process set out in law by central government, which takes account of information on how much development is needed. The right of appeal is to the secretary of state, who ultimately has decision making authority. They must provide reasons why something is or is not allowed, and if these are inadequate or irrational then they can be overturned in the courts.
That is the system that already exists. By all means the structure of the system can be changed and it constantly is, and is going to be again in the forthcoming planning bill. But my point is that it is no answer to give absolute power to local decision makers, just as it is no answer to remove all controls on development.
Well indeed.
Rochdale is getting himself tied into knots because he hates the Tories and is wilfully trying to twist everything so that he can end up at his predetermined outcome of "Tories = Bad"
Politicians get involved? How dare you! Tories bad. Politicians get taken out of the equation? How dare you! Tories bad.
Newspapers contradicting themselves, even within the same issue, is as old an issue as MPs complaining about government announcements not being made first in Parliament.
(FWIW, yesterday’s announcement really should have been in Parliament, Hoyle was right).
Except that Vallence and Whitty can’t speak in parliament
I don’t think there is anything intrinsically wrong about the PM speaking directly to the electorate on major issues provided that it is rapidly followed up with a discussion in parliament
I agree. I thought in the circumstances with Boris in Brussels for NATO Hoyle was being a bit silly yesterday but in fairness he has been provoked on this issue before.
It's a breach of the Ministerial Code. Given that he was in London in the evening (dining with the Australian PM) the Brussels excuse is a red herring, and there would have been nothing to stop him making the announcement today instead of yesterday. What we're seeing is the grid (extension one day, trade deal the next) overriding the rules.
What we are seeing in Covid is that it is much more important that the government gets clear messages out to the general pubic direct with suitable expert support from the likes of Whitty and Valance than it is that they have some yah boo nonsense in the HoC that only obsessives like us pay much attention to. Governments have found the way to get unintermediated contact with the electorate and they love it. Nicola does the same as does Drakeford. Hoyle is deluding himself if he thinks that this is going to change for as long as the pandemic continues.
Absolutely shocking post.
You deserve neither safety nor liberty.
Well of course David you do because you're one of the good ones but jesus read your post over again. Parliament be damned, there is important stuff going on. FFS.
Indeed, and it further underlines why it is happening. It is not a coincidence that Johnson, Drakeford and Sturgeon are doing well in terms of polling. They are being allowed regular party political broadcasts at primetime with no comeback or scrutiny that an announcement to parliament would result in. It is an abuse of power and an attempt to by-pass parliament.
It seems obvious in hindsight that the reason for an explosion in cases in India was the delta variant. However my recollection was that many thought it was due to things such as 50,000 at the cricket etc in a largely unvaccinated country. I know people like to blame the government for this one, and it will I am sure be looked at in the inquiry, but I don't think it is quite the slam dunk people think it is.
Here's a simple question, why did the government put Pakistan and Bangladesh on the red list before India despite them having fewer cases than India?
The farmers can get in the long queue to have their arseholes slayed by Johnson's suppurating cock. Behind Arcuri, "business", the fisherpeople, Arcuri again on the couch and the one with the violin.
Not at all, farmers have plenty of opportunity now to export their produce more easily to the Australian market.
Fisherpeople of course are now out of the CFP the SNP wanted to keep them in
I’m afraid I still laugh out loud at the description of restrictions as “lockdown”. With the honourable exception of those working in the travel and hospitality industries, they really are no more than a minor inconvenience at this point.
And the Performing Arts, Music etc. All the things that make life enjoyable over an English Summer.
Oh indeed.
Reports this morning of frantic lobbying by Wimbledon, Silverstone and Wembley, to allow full crowds at outdoor events in July.
Silverstone have almost sold out 150k tickets for the F1 on 18th July (although I had to return mine, rolled over from last year ).
“ As a 550-acre outdoor site, Silverstone is the largest major sporting venue in the UK, with its 70,000 grandstand seats spread around a 3.6-mile track.
“ The vast majority of the 120,000-plus spectators who usually attend a Grand Prix weekend also travel to the circuit by car.
“ That would avoid the prospect of thousands being crammed in together on public transport – something seen as far more likely to spread Covid-19 than a relaxation of social distancing in an outdoor grandstand.
“ Silverstone has been selling tickets on the basis of being at capacity and the Telegraph has been told it is close to a sell-out.
“ Having lost millions of pounds last year by staging back-to-back grands prix behind closed doors, it is desperate to avoid another major shortfall by being forced to cap attendance next month. “
Why the absolute fuck should they be allowed this and my Daughter cannot be allowed to serve her customers at the bar so that her premises too are packed and a sell-out?
Why? Because money and influence. They have it, you don't. They have a majority of 82 don't you know, Suck It Up.
The Delta variant looks to be capable of getting measured infection rates to around 500 per 100k quite widely in both urban and rural bits of the North West, under current vaccination rates and restrictions. It has also shown quick geographic spread, the core high infection area runs inland from north of Lancaster to Leek and is creeping it's way coastward towards Merseyside now . Elsewhere it's more patchy and the same pattern hasn't been seen, but that doesn't mean it's not possible.
I think not only was there a very bad government miss in not restricting India sooner, and thus holding off the Delta wave a few weeks till vaccination rates were somewhat higher. I think the government was horribly complacent to think that the same track and trace that failed last summer could be deployed as the sole tool at the stage things had got to - rapid acceleration of vaccination very locally in Bolton/Blackburn could have suppressed the outward spread from source and provided a model for defeating Delta. Things could have looked rather different.
Bolton STILL lags the national rate for both first and second vaccinations by over 5% after over a month of this. I mean WTAF. There may still be lower uptake for some sections, but I hardly think they have run out of willing recipients. They just barely bothered, that's all there is to it.
And now there are just too many hotspots and not enough supply to run area vaccination in that same way. You would be chasing Delta not stopping it. Perhaps there is still merit in taking vaccination faster in certain areas, but it is less obviously so than when I proposed it in May.
Controversial thought from me - I don't think Covid can be suppressed with Track and Trace because of the long period of spread before symptoms (if any show up). Its almost perfect as a tactic. In diseases where you are only infectious with symptoms, yes tracking cases will work.
I’m afraid I still laugh out loud at the description of restrictions as “lockdown”. With the honourable exception of those working in the travel and hospitality industries, they really are no more than a minor inconvenience at this point.
And the Performing Arts, Music etc. All the things that make life enjoyable over an English Summer.
Oh indeed.
Reports this morning of frantic lobbying by Wimbledon, Silverstone and Wembley, to allow full crowds at outdoor events in July.
Silverstone have almost sold out 150k tickets for the F1 on 18th July (although I had to return mine, rolled over from last year ).
“ As a 550-acre outdoor site, Silverstone is the largest major sporting venue in the UK, with its 70,000 grandstand seats spread around a 3.6-mile track.
“ The vast majority of the 120,000-plus spectators who usually attend a Grand Prix weekend also travel to the circuit by car.
“ That would avoid the prospect of thousands being crammed in together on public transport – something seen as far more likely to spread Covid-19 than a relaxation of social distancing in an outdoor grandstand.
“ Silverstone has been selling tickets on the basis of being at capacity and the Telegraph has been told it is close to a sell-out.
“ Having lost millions of pounds last year by staging back-to-back grands prix behind closed doors, it is desperate to avoid another major shortfall by being forced to cap attendance next month. “
Why the absolute fuck should they be allowed this and my Daughter cannot be allowed to serve her customers at the bar so that her premises too are packed and a sell-out?
I’m afraid I still laugh out loud at the description of restrictions as “lockdown”. With the honourable exception of those working in the travel and hospitality industries, they really are no more than a minor inconvenience at this point.
This comment is a total insult. Tell that to all the small businesses going to the wall from lack of casual trade due to mask wearing. The families split between more than two households. My friend that will miss her father’s funeral tomorrow because she cannot get in and out the country. The kids missing yet more weeks of education because one of their number has a sniffle.
That’s not what I’m saying, my point is of the media twisting language so that relatively minor restriction are still being described as “lockdown”.
Yes, of course certain people and industries are still badly affected by the remaining restrictions, but for most people they are a relatively minor inconvenience to their everyday lives.
There you go again. “Minor inconvenience”.
We live in a Toquevellian tyranny of the majority. I’m alright Jack. With my triple lock pension and indexed final salary scheme. Or my well paid job with no commute costs now. My house with a garden. My wealth, family and memories already built.
For 16 months now, the young - my Daughter / her brothers have not been able to go out, have fun, meet new people, make friends, have relationships – casual or permanent, to fall in love, out of it, have sex, travel, have adventures, just live. The serendipity of life – when you are young, beautiful (in the way the young are), feel invincible, are fizzing with ideas and excitement and the possibilities of life, has largely been denied to them. They have lost jobs and found it hard to get others which are worthwhile. Daughter has worked and worked and worked to save her business and is being kicked in the teeth time and time again.
This nightmare is continuing. These are not minor restrictions and it's frankly insulting to the young to describe them as such.
The Zoomocracy need to have a special Covid tax applied to the savings they have accumulated during this period to pay for the costs they're willing to impose on others.
I suspect a lot of the "zoomocracy" believe that by WFH they are (a) simply following government advice and (b) helping to prevent the spread of Covid and protecting the NHS. They probably already pay more tax than the average person too and will no doubt be called upon further to repair the public finances post-Covid. I understand your frustration but they are not the problem here.
It seems obvious in hindsight that the reason for an explosion in cases in India was the delta variant. However my recollection was that many thought it was due to things such as 50,000 at the cricket etc in a largely unvaccinated country. I know people like to blame the government for this one, and it will I am sure be looked at in the inquiry, but I don't think it is quite the slam dunk people think it is.
Here's a simple question, why did the government put Pakistan and Bangladesh on the red list before India despite them having fewer cases than India?
Forgive me for answering a rhetorical, but I think the reason is clear. Johnson wanted to suck up to India in the hope of securing politically eye catching trade deals.
In the space of 10 hours yesterday, we went from Edward Argar on @BBCBreakfast justifying the extension of restrictions by promising >10m second doses in 4 weeks, to Boris Johnson promising ~3.5m UK second doses in 5 weeks.
The PM wanted a photo op in India, which he considered more important than preventing/reducing the import of the latest variant into the UK.
On your other post: I agree. Public compliance will decline significantly with nice weather and dispute over the Government's extension of lockdown, such as it is.
This won't help businesses too much which are still affected and a cheap shot for rozzers. Although maybe they can identify as BLM-owned and the police will be too busy running away or kneeling to actually do anything.
Newspapers contradicting themselves, even within the same issue, is as old an issue as MPs complaining about government announcements not being made first in Parliament.
(FWIW, yesterday’s announcement really should have been in Parliament, Hoyle was right).
Except that Vallence and Whitty can’t speak in parliament
I don’t think there is anything intrinsically wrong about the PM speaking directly to the electorate on major issues provided that it is rapidly followed up with a discussion in parliament
I agree. I thought in the circumstances with Boris in Brussels for NATO Hoyle was being a bit silly yesterday but in fairness he has been provoked on this issue before.
It's a breach of the Ministerial Code. Given that he was in London in the evening (dining with the Australian PM) the Brussels excuse is a red herring, and there would have been nothing to stop him making the announcement today instead of yesterday. What we're seeing is the grid (extension one day, trade deal the next) overriding the rules.
What we are seeing in Covid is that it is much more important that the government gets clear messages out to the general pubic direct with suitable expert support from the likes of Whitty and Valance than it is that they have some yah boo nonsense in the HoC that only obsessives like us pay much attention to. Governments have found the way to get unintermediated contact with the electorate and they love it. Nicola does the same as does Drakeford. Hoyle is deluding himself if he thinks that this is going to change for as long as the pandemic continues.
Governments love it because they can avoid scrutiny. The result is higher polling for Johnson, Sturgeon and Drakeford.
So yeah, it’s great for fans of one-party states.
I don't disagree. It is notable how so many in positions of authority did well in the latest round of elections as a result. It becomes increasingly difficult for oppositions to be heard. I just think that it is irresistible to ministers of whatever government.
It is. It also explains (to some extent) Ardern’s astonishing landslide victory in NZ last year.
But, it is clearly detrimental to democratic process.
We spend a lot of time on here, rightly, worrying about the ongoing restriction in our personal liberties, but we are also witnessing impairment to our democratic systems.
Not really.
There is often a "cling to nurse" factor during crises but that can often be rapidly overturned or even end up in the opposite if the crisis is mishandled or drags on in a way the public lose patience with.
Don't forget in the financial crisis there was an initial cling to nurse effect in polls, helping Browns bounce "no time for a novice" but in the end effectively every major western democracy apart from Germany saw the government tossed out. Even Germany had only relatively recently seen a change in government too.
Within about a five year span from 2005 I believe every major western democracy on the planet tossed out it's government.
Nope.
What is new is that our democratic conventions are interacting with pandemic restrictions in new and unhealthy ways.
Leaders are monopolising the “bully pulpit” afforded by the crisis and thereby dominating media communications in a way we have not seen before.
This was ok, perhaps, when the crisis was thought to be “over by Christmas”, but we are now nearly 18 months into this thing.
Keir is useless, but this issue is probably worth 5%+ to the governing party.
Governments always have a bully pulpit. If they screw up though, they get the blame.
The Great Clunking Fist of Gordon Brown used his bully pulpit to say that it was no time for a novice during the financial crisis. He still got chucked out.
Donald Trump used his bully pulpit to dominate much of the media. He still got chucked out.
The bully pulpit only helps you so far and if the public loses its patience then you're out on your ear. The buck stops with the government. If the public hasn't lost its patience then its not because of a bully pulpit, its because the public still thinks the government is doing a good job in the circumstances.
It's certainly a live issue in the constituency. An old friend of mine lives on the edge of Amersham and will never vote for the party again, solely because of HS2.
The timing of the lockdown farce yesterday as well as Brexit starting to unravel over the Northern Ireland protocol are also tarnishing Brand Boris. Even an announcement on a UK-Australia trade deal may not help as it is not going down well with British farmers, who feel the Aussies have an unfair advantage. In a seat that was pro-Remain these things still matter.
I'm on the LibDems with good odds following Mike's tip. It's a bet I expect to lose but stranger things have happened in by-elections.
It would be very droll if, having captured the north, the tories lost their homeland.
The LibDems are throwing everything at the by-election. It might possibly win them the seat, but I don't expect it. This is a Government in its 20th month, so I probably should be expecting it (at least, on the basis of the ramping of their chances on here - LibDems to win it in a "landslide", I recall one poster saying).
But, the LibDems are close on 40% behind the government in national polling. Plus, for decade after decade, the Tory vote has been very predictable in this seat - between 50-odd percent and 60-odd percent. Safe, but never massively so.
The LibDems are also saddling themselves with the Nimby label. Bollocks to Brexit, now Bollocks to Building. They are very keen on pushing a humanitarian agenda - as long as once people get here they don't mind living under trees.
Oh, and not THOSE trees. They are ancient woodland. Can't have people shitting in those...
And they are very keen on people using trains. Just, not THAT train.
They are starting to build up internal contradictions that again show they aren't a party of serious decisions required of government. Just say whatever it takes to win a seat. But their opponents will be watching, storing up posters and leaflets with which to whack them around the head.
It goes beyond NIMBYism to what a national planning policy should be. Objecting to building houses in places they shouldn't be built is a valid battle to fight. The NPPF has allowed planners to overrule everyone including councillors the council and the MP. I myself have fought some NIMBY not those trees battles because the proposal was utterly stupid.
There are a lot of people out there who think the same way. With the Tories now openly corrupt and donations flowing to the party from developers there is a valid line of opposition to take. I don't agree with the battle against HS2 then again they aren't building it near me...
It's not a case of NIMBYism, it's a case of poor planning. Developers building vast estates of houses at £500,000 and above is not going to solve the housing crisis. If I was starting again as a small family I couldn't afford a mortgage for one of those. I think the boarded up shops and office blocks of the town centres should be the first target, constructing 3 and 2 bedroom houses or flats for people to start climbing the ladder on. This would provide much-needed accomodation and possibly the chance to save and plan for the next stage. In my old home town centre of Stafford there are many disused shops and office blocks which could be used first for housing before spoiling the countryside around first.
They are the only kind of houses developers want to build. They get planning permission, don't use it, and then force a shortage of houses being built to be able to build what they want when they want. The NPPF has been dubbed the developers charter and you can see why.
Have a free market and this issue goes away. If developers don't build houses people want then the public can build their own homes as they want (something incredibly common in most of the world and almost unheard of here with our draconian planning regime). Or competition can arise so other developers develop the homes people want.
Unless you're concerned that the developers ARE developing the homes people want.
One problem that's very frustrating is one that came up recently. We were approving a huge development of several thousand houses - which would sort out a considerable amount of the significant housing need here.
Developer "And we intend to build this site out over the next twenty-five years..."
Me, "Wait, what? Twenty-five years?" (As we need housing ASAP)
Developer: "Yes; that's what our market assessment says to meet our targeted values" (In essence: they don't want to build quickly enough to drive house prices down. Their intent is to ensure they have an income stream and acceptable profit margin for as long as possible. So 25 years of building out on a large site suits them down to the ground. And will not help with house prices, other than either slowing the increase or maybe flattening it out)
The only solution I can see is to get building social housing - which bypasses that limitation (and those developers who have the 25-year massive projects may see the value of these decline, what a pity).
There should be a German compound noun for the feeling of: watching your government make a terrible, obvious, lethally stupid and easily avoidable mistake.
It seems obvious in hindsight that the reason for an explosion in cases in India was the delta variant. However my recollection was that many thought it was due to things such as 50,000 at the cricket etc in a largely unvaccinated country. I know people like to blame the government for this one, and it will I am sure be looked at in the inquiry, but I don't think it is quite the slam dunk people think it is.
Here's a simple question, why did the government put Pakistan and Bangladesh on the red list before India despite them having fewer cases than India?
Yes, India is a slam dunk. There is no explanation for this that is not entirely mortifying for Boris, and literally mortifying for thousands of Brits who will now die, who might otherwise have lived, because he didn't close the Indian border
Why shut down flights to Pakistan, but NOT India? Well, Boris, what is it? Trade deal, Indian voters, anything else? There is nothing else
We are now fucked because Boris was basically incompetent and/or stupidly devious. I do not believe all restrictions will end on July 19
It seems obvious in hindsight that the reason for an explosion in cases in India was the delta variant. However my recollection was that many thought it was due to things such as 50,000 at the cricket etc in a largely unvaccinated country. I know people like to blame the government for this one, and it will I am sure be looked at in the inquiry, but I don't think it is quite the slam dunk people think it is.
Here's a simple question, why did the government put Pakistan and Bangladesh on the red list before India despite them having fewer cases than India?
Forgive me for answering a rhetorical, but I think the reason is clear. Johnson wanted to suck up to India in the hope of securing politically eye catching trade deals.
...and the other question that needs answering is how come 20000+ people travelled into UK from India when we are supposed to be having travel restrictions in a pandemic! 20000! Criminal incompetence.
It's certainly a live issue in the constituency. An old friend of mine lives on the edge of Amersham and will never vote for the party again, solely because of HS2.
The timing of the lockdown farce yesterday as well as Brexit starting to unravel over the Northern Ireland protocol are also tarnishing Brand Boris. Even an announcement on a UK-Australia trade deal may not help as it is not going down well with British farmers, who feel the Aussies have an unfair advantage. In a seat that was pro-Remain these things still matter.
I'm on the LibDems with good odds following Mike's tip. It's a bet I expect to lose but stranger things have happened in by-elections.
It would be very droll if, having captured the north, the tories lost their homeland.
The LibDems are throwing everything at the by-election. It might possibly win them the seat, but I don't expect it. This is a Government in its 20th month, so I probably should be expecting it (at least, on the basis of the ramping of their chances on here - LibDems to win it in a "landslide", I recall one poster saying).
But, the LibDems are close on 40% behind the government in national polling. Plus, for decade after decade, the Tory vote has been very predictable in this seat - between 50-odd percent and 60-odd percent. Safe, but never massively so.
The LibDems are also saddling themselves with the Nimby label. Bollocks to Brexit, now Bollocks to Building. They are very keen on pushing a humanitarian agenda - as long as once people get here they don't mind living under trees.
Oh, and not THOSE trees. They are ancient woodland. Can't have people shitting in those...
And they are very keen on people using trains. Just, not THAT train.
They are starting to build up internal contradictions that again show they aren't a party of serious decisions required of government. Just say whatever it takes to win a seat. But their opponents will be watching, storing up posters and leaflets with which to whack them around the head.
There you go again! That is obviously the approved line from your Tory Party bosses.
The Lib Dems are not opposed to building. But Lib Dems are very much opposed to having decisions taken by a small clique around Johnson, who think they can dictate policy and impose it on the rest of us. Especially, of course, when bribery and corruption are also involved.
From what I have read about the C & A campaign, local people do not take kindly to being bossed about and told what they must do. I for my part most certainly want planning and development near me to be decided locally, not by a gang of incompetents in London, who are set on arranging for their powerful donors to make immense fortunes. And it appears that a lot of people in the constituency agree with the Liberal Democrat approach.
"I for my part most certainly want planning and development near me to be decided locally, not by a gang of incompetents in London".
I'm not quite sure what planet you inhabit if you aren't aware that across the land, local planning is decided by a gang of incompetents in local offices, burdened with planet-sized egos and a disconcerting amount of corruption.
And the notion of me being given my lines to trot out amuses me no end - because I would just tell "them" to piss off. You though? Such a partisan hack, I do have my doubts...
So you have no substantive response to @RochdalePioneers’s point, which is that local decisions should be made locally.
Perhaps because more detailed logic is indeed missing from your crib sheet.
Having been a town councillor looking at planning proposals and married to a borough councillor doing the same I am well aware of what local planning officers and committees can do. I'd have said "galaxy-sized" egos but I take his point.
Thing is that if planning decisions get made locally then its far easier to have direct accountability than when the council is overruled by the Secretary of State. Yes donations get made even at local level that raise eyebrows but that doesn't change the democratic mandate they have to seek.
It is far far easier to remove councillors of questionable decision-making prowess and/or morality than it is a Secretary of State. We need more power and accountability at local level, not less.
If PB Tories doesn't understand that then more fool them. Not everyone with an interest in politics inhabits the same moral cesspit as Johnson's Tory Party.
So you want all planning decisions to be taken by locally elected councillors, with no right of appeal. What would happen if they never approved any development?
I didn't say no right of appeal. I want a planning system that isn't rigged to the developers and against councils. I keep having to make the same point - the only way to stop developers building houses is to let developers build houses. Unless your local plan has enough houses being built then developers win every appeal by default. And how many houses are being built is up to the developers who sit on planning permission given without always actually building.
Let them appeal against a planning system not built to favour them. And an end to the government that takes significant donations from developers overruling everyone.
So you want allegedly corrupt Councillors being able to make the decisions?
Either you want politicians to make the decisions, in which case there will always be the possibility for alleged corruption.
Or you want decisions made automatically by predetermined standards or by supply and demand or something else, in which case politicians aren't involved and there can't be alleged corruption.
Which is it?
Which is it? I think its Philip strawman number 3,754.
If you want an open market let the developers build in your personal garden then why not go and campaign for it? You won't get elected.
If its my personal garden and I own the land then it would be my choice as to whether they develop or not. What's the issue with that? If I choose to let people build in my land then that's my choice and who should I complain to that I permitted a building and now I'm not happy with that?
If its not land you own, its not your personal garden is it?
There should be a German compound noun for the feeling of: watching your government make a terrible, obvious, lethally stupid and easily avoidable mistake.
We already have a word for that.
Brexit
No, that is OUR mistake - if it is a mistake. We voted for it. The British people. Deal with it and move on
This is a different beast. Everyone in the country was screaming for Boris to close down flights from India. He did not
Shadow home secretary @NickTorfaen says Tory govt to blame for Freedom Day delay. “They have allowed the Delta variant, first identified in India to take hold here. Let’s call it what it is. Let’s put the blame where it should lie. “In this country – it’s the Johnson Variant." https://twitter.com/paulwaugh/status/1404720858644500483
There should be a German compound noun for the feeling of: watching your government make a terrible, obvious, lethally stupid and easily avoidable mistake.
We already have a word for that.
Brexit
No, that is OUR mistake - if it is a mistake. We voted for it. The British people. Deal with it and move on
This is a different beast. Everyone in the country was screaming for Boris to close down flights from India. He did not
Shadow home secretary @NickTorfaen says Tory govt to blame for Freedom Day delay. “They have allowed the Delta variant, first identified in India to take hold here. Let’s call it what it is. Let’s put the blame where it should lie. “In this country – it’s the Johnson Variant." https://twitter.com/paulwaugh/status/1404720858644500483
It's certainly a live issue in the constituency. An old friend of mine lives on the edge of Amersham and will never vote for the party again, solely because of HS2.
The timing of the lockdown farce yesterday as well as Brexit starting to unravel over the Northern Ireland protocol are also tarnishing Brand Boris. Even an announcement on a UK-Australia trade deal may not help as it is not going down well with British farmers, who feel the Aussies have an unfair advantage. In a seat that was pro-Remain these things still matter.
I'm on the LibDems with good odds following Mike's tip. It's a bet I expect to lose but stranger things have happened in by-elections.
It would be very droll if, having captured the north, the tories lost their homeland.
The LibDems are throwing everything at the by-election. It might possibly win them the seat, but I don't expect it. This is a Government in its 20th month, so I probably should be expecting it (at least, on the basis of the ramping of their chances on here - LibDems to win it in a "landslide", I recall one poster saying).
But, the LibDems are close on 40% behind the government in national polling. Plus, for decade after decade, the Tory vote has been very predictable in this seat - between 50-odd percent and 60-odd percent. Safe, but never massively so.
The LibDems are also saddling themselves with the Nimby label. Bollocks to Brexit, now Bollocks to Building. They are very keen on pushing a humanitarian agenda - as long as once people get here they don't mind living under trees.
Oh, and not THOSE trees. They are ancient woodland. Can't have people shitting in those...
And they are very keen on people using trains. Just, not THAT train.
They are starting to build up internal contradictions that again show they aren't a party of serious decisions required of government. Just say whatever it takes to win a seat. But their opponents will be watching, storing up posters and leaflets with which to whack them around the head.
There you go again! That is obviously the approved line from your Tory Party bosses.
The Lib Dems are not opposed to building. But Lib Dems are very much opposed to having decisions taken by a small clique around Johnson, who think they can dictate policy and impose it on the rest of us. Especially, of course, when bribery and corruption are also involved.
From what I have read about the C & A campaign, local people do not take kindly to being bossed about and told what they must do. I for my part most certainly want planning and development near me to be decided locally, not by a gang of incompetents in London, who are set on arranging for their powerful donors to make immense fortunes. And it appears that a lot of people in the constituency agree with the Liberal Democrat approach.
"I for my part most certainly want planning and development near me to be decided locally, not by a gang of incompetents in London".
I'm not quite sure what planet you inhabit if you aren't aware that across the land, local planning is decided by a gang of incompetents in local offices, burdened with planet-sized egos and a disconcerting amount of corruption.
And the notion of me being given my lines to trot out amuses me no end - because I would just tell "them" to piss off. You though? Such a partisan hack, I do have my doubts...
So you have no substantive response to @RochdalePioneers’s point, which is that local decisions should be made locally.
Perhaps because more detailed logic is indeed missing from your crib sheet.
Having been a town councillor looking at planning proposals and married to a borough councillor doing the same I am well aware of what local planning officers and committees can do. I'd have said "galaxy-sized" egos but I take his point.
Thing is that if planning decisions get made locally then its far easier to have direct accountability than when the council is overruled by the Secretary of State. Yes donations get made even at local level that raise eyebrows but that doesn't change the democratic mandate they have to seek.
It is far far easier to remove councillors of questionable decision-making prowess and/or morality than it is a Secretary of State. We need more power and accountability at local level, not less.
If PB Tories doesn't understand that then more fool them. Not everyone with an interest in politics inhabits the same moral cesspit as Johnson's Tory Party.
So you want all planning decisions to be taken by locally elected councillors, with no right of appeal. What would happen if they never approved any development?
I didn't say no right of appeal. I want a planning system that isn't rigged to the developers and against councils. I keep having to make the same point - the only way to stop developers building houses is to let developers build houses. Unless your local plan has enough houses being built then developers win every appeal by default. And how many houses are being built is up to the developers who sit on planning permission given without always actually building.
Let them appeal against a planning system not built to favour them. And an end to the government that takes significant donations from developers overruling everyone.
So, decisions have to be taken locally, but there needs to be a right of appeal. For a right of appeal to be meaningful, there have to be objective rules about what can and cannot be allowed. These rules are set by local decision makers, following a process set out in law by central government, which takes account of information on how much development is needed. The right of appeal is to the secretary of state, who ultimately has decision making authority. They must provide reasons why something is or is not allowed, and if these are inadequate or irrational then they can be overturned in the courts.
That is the system that already exists. By all means the structure of the system can be changed and it constantly is, and is going to be again in the forthcoming planning bill. But my point is that it is no answer to give absolute power to local decision makers, just as it is no answer to remove all controls on development.
Well indeed.
Rochdale is getting himself tied into knots because he hates the Tories and is wilfully trying to twist everything so that he can end up at his predetermined outcome of "Tories = Bad"
Politicians get involved? How dare you! Tories bad. Politicians get taken out of the equation? How dare you! Tories bad.
The local Tories on Teesside are pretty good. Previous Tory governments have been moral even if I disagree with their policies. Its just the current government. I have no problem with Tory *councillors* making planning decisions. Indeed Teesside Tories were objecting to the same planning decisions as everyone else. It took Eric Pickles to overrule everyone including the Tory councillors and the Tory MP to drive one development through.
I support democracy. If you don't that's your call, happily me and thee will no longer be in the same country in future.
I suspect if the weather remains as lovely as it has been recently then lockdown ends well before Boris Johnson says it does.
Have to admit I am concerned that it will last long past July 19th.
19 July is the "terminus date" for England's remaining coronavirus restrictions and it would take an "unprecedented and remarkable" change in circumstances to derail that, Michael Gove has told Sky News.
Widespread ignoring of rules by the public, is the nightmare scenario for businesses impacted by restrictions. They will risk getting shut down, for things that individuals are all doing anyway. A good illustration of why the remaining restrictions on restaurants, bars and theatres should have been dropped next week.
It seems obvious in hindsight that the reason for an explosion in cases in India was the delta variant. However my recollection was that many thought it was due to things such as 50,000 at the cricket etc in a largely unvaccinated country. I know people like to blame the government for this one, and it will I am sure be looked at in the inquiry, but I don't think it is quite the slam dunk people think it is.
Here's a simple question, why did the government put Pakistan and Bangladesh on the red list before India despite them having fewer cases than India?
It was the South African variant they were worried about at that time.
They could have deduced that there was a bad variant in India from the increase in cases, but I don't think the actual cause of the problem there became clear until later.
There should be a German compound noun for the feeling of: watching your government make a terrible, obvious, lethally stupid and easily avoidable mistake.
We already have a word for that.
Brexit
You think ignoring the largest popular vote in UK history is intelligent?
Newspapers contradicting themselves, even within the same issue, is as old an issue as MPs complaining about government announcements not being made first in Parliament.
(FWIW, yesterday’s announcement really should have been in Parliament, Hoyle was right).
Except that Vallence and Whitty can’t speak in parliament
I don’t think there is anything intrinsically wrong about the PM speaking directly to the electorate on major issues provided that it is rapidly followed up with a discussion in parliament
I agree. I thought in the circumstances with Boris in Brussels for NATO Hoyle was being a bit silly yesterday but in fairness he has been provoked on this issue before.
It's a breach of the Ministerial Code. Given that he was in London in the evening (dining with the Australian PM) the Brussels excuse is a red herring, and there would have been nothing to stop him making the announcement today instead of yesterday. What we're seeing is the grid (extension one day, trade deal the next) overriding the rules.
What we are seeing in Covid is that it is much more important that the government gets clear messages out to the general pubic direct with suitable expert support from the likes of Whitty and Valance than it is that they have some yah boo nonsense in the HoC that only obsessives like us pay much attention to. Governments have found the way to get unintermediated contact with the electorate and they love it. Nicola does the same as does Drakeford. Hoyle is deluding himself if he thinks that this is going to change for as long as the pandemic continues.
Absolutely shocking post.
You deserve neither safety nor liberty.
Well of course David you do because you're one of the good ones but jesus read your post over again. Parliament be damned, there is important stuff going on. FFS.
It's also not either/or. They can talk direct and still act appropriately with legislatures.
It seems obvious in hindsight that the reason for an explosion in cases in India was the delta variant. However my recollection was that many thought it was due to things such as 50,000 at the cricket etc in a largely unvaccinated country. I know people like to blame the government for this one, and it will I am sure be looked at in the inquiry, but I don't think it is quite the slam dunk people think it is.
Here's a simple question, why did the government put Pakistan and Bangladesh on the red list before India despite them having fewer cases than India?
It was the South African variant they were worried about at that time.
That doesn't explain it either.
Why put Pakistan and Bangladesh on the red list but not India which had many more cases at the time?
Newspapers contradicting themselves, even within the same issue, is as old an issue as MPs complaining about government announcements not being made first in Parliament.
(FWIW, yesterday’s announcement really should have been in Parliament, Hoyle was right).
Except that Vallence and Whitty can’t speak in parliament
I don’t think there is anything intrinsically wrong about the PM speaking directly to the electorate on major issues provided that it is rapidly followed up with a discussion in parliament
I agree. I thought in the circumstances with Boris in Brussels for NATO Hoyle was being a bit silly yesterday but in fairness he has been provoked on this issue before.
It's a breach of the Ministerial Code. Given that he was in London in the evening (dining with the Australian PM) the Brussels excuse is a red herring, and there would have been nothing to stop him making the announcement today instead of yesterday. What we're seeing is the grid (extension one day, trade deal the next) overriding the rules.
What we are seeing in Covid is that it is much more important that the government gets clear messages out to the general pubic direct with suitable expert support from the likes of Whitty and Valance than it is that they have some yah boo nonsense in the HoC that only obsessives like us pay much attention to. Governments have found the way to get unintermediated contact with the electorate and they love it. Nicola does the same as does Drakeford. Hoyle is deluding himself if he thinks that this is going to change for as long as the pandemic continues.
Absolutely shocking post.
You deserve neither safety nor liberty.
Well of course David you do because you're one of the good ones but jesus read your post over again. Parliament be damned, there is important stuff going on. FFS.
Indeed, and it further underlines why it is happening. It is not a coincidence that Johnson, Drakeford and Sturgeon are doing well in terms of polling. They are being allowed regular party political broadcasts at primetime with no comeback or scrutiny that an announcement to parliament would result in. It is an abuse of power and an attempt to by-pass parliament.
I do not disagree with you and all three are the same
I just do not see how they are made to conform if they just ignore all requests to comply
The speaker could ban Boris from the HOC but watch his poll ratings rise as again he invokes the people v the elites
I do not have a solution but I would be very pleased if all three were made to make their announcements in their parliaments
No, that is OUR mistake - if it is a mistake. We voted for it. The British people. Deal with it and move on
This is a different beast. Everyone in the country was screaming for Boris to close down flights from India. He did not
The same people that voted for Brexit voted for BoZo
On that basis he is "our" mistake
You really need to shut up about Brexit now. Not for us, for you. You're lurching into bathos. It is done, it happened, it is both good and bad, it is done. History
You risk becoming one of those people who adopted a youthful tribal identity - but never let it go, in an embarrassing way. The 60 year old punk rocker on the King's Road last week, the pensionable Hell's Angel too stiff to climb on his rusted Harley, Simon Le Bon.
It seems obvious in hindsight that the reason for an explosion in cases in India was the delta variant. However my recollection was that many thought it was due to things such as 50,000 at the cricket etc in a largely unvaccinated country. I know people like to blame the government for this one, and it will I am sure be looked at in the inquiry, but I don't think it is quite the slam dunk people think it is.
Here's a simple question, why did the government put Pakistan and Bangladesh on the red list before India despite them having fewer cases than India?
It was the South African variant they were worried about at that time.
That doesn't explain it either.
Why put Pakistan and Bangladesh on the red list but not India which had many more cases at the time?
Potential trade deal alongside a planned visit by Boris to India?
It's certainly a live issue in the constituency. An old friend of mine lives on the edge of Amersham and will never vote for the party again, solely because of HS2.
The timing of the lockdown farce yesterday as well as Brexit starting to unravel over the Northern Ireland protocol are also tarnishing Brand Boris. Even an announcement on a UK-Australia trade deal may not help as it is not going down well with British farmers, who feel the Aussies have an unfair advantage. In a seat that was pro-Remain these things still matter.
I'm on the LibDems with good odds following Mike's tip. It's a bet I expect to lose but stranger things have happened in by-elections.
It would be very droll if, having captured the north, the tories lost their homeland.
The LibDems are throwing everything at the by-election. It might possibly win them the seat, but I don't expect it. This is a Government in its 20th month, so I probably should be expecting it (at least, on the basis of the ramping of their chances on here - LibDems to win it in a "landslide", I recall one poster saying).
But, the LibDems are close on 40% behind the government in national polling. Plus, for decade after decade, the Tory vote has been very predictable in this seat - between 50-odd percent and 60-odd percent. Safe, but never massively so.
The LibDems are also saddling themselves with the Nimby label. Bollocks to Brexit, now Bollocks to Building. They are very keen on pushing a humanitarian agenda - as long as once people get here they don't mind living under trees.
Oh, and not THOSE trees. They are ancient woodland. Can't have people shitting in those...
And they are very keen on people using trains. Just, not THAT train.
They are starting to build up internal contradictions that again show they aren't a party of serious decisions required of government. Just say whatever it takes to win a seat. But their opponents will be watching, storing up posters and leaflets with which to whack them around the head.
There you go again! That is obviously the approved line from your Tory Party bosses.
The Lib Dems are not opposed to building. But Lib Dems are very much opposed to having decisions taken by a small clique around Johnson, who think they can dictate policy and impose it on the rest of us. Especially, of course, when bribery and corruption are also involved.
From what I have read about the C & A campaign, local people do not take kindly to being bossed about and told what they must do. I for my part most certainly want planning and development near me to be decided locally, not by a gang of incompetents in London, who are set on arranging for their powerful donors to make immense fortunes. And it appears that a lot of people in the constituency agree with the Liberal Democrat approach.
"I for my part most certainly want planning and development near me to be decided locally, not by a gang of incompetents in London".
I'm not quite sure what planet you inhabit if you aren't aware that across the land, local planning is decided by a gang of incompetents in local offices, burdened with planet-sized egos and a disconcerting amount of corruption.
And the notion of me being given my lines to trot out amuses me no end - because I would just tell "them" to piss off. You though? Such a partisan hack, I do have my doubts...
So you have no substantive response to @RochdalePioneers’s point, which is that local decisions should be made locally.
Perhaps because more detailed logic is indeed missing from your crib sheet.
Having been a town councillor looking at planning proposals and married to a borough councillor doing the same I am well aware of what local planning officers and committees can do. I'd have said "galaxy-sized" egos but I take his point.
Thing is that if planning decisions get made locally then its far easier to have direct accountability than when the council is overruled by the Secretary of State. Yes donations get made even at local level that raise eyebrows but that doesn't change the democratic mandate they have to seek.
It is far far easier to remove councillors of questionable decision-making prowess and/or morality than it is a Secretary of State. We need more power and accountability at local level, not less.
If PB Tories doesn't understand that then more fool them. Not everyone with an interest in politics inhabits the same moral cesspit as Johnson's Tory Party.
So you want all planning decisions to be taken by locally elected councillors, with no right of appeal. What would happen if they never approved any development?
I didn't say no right of appeal. I want a planning system that isn't rigged to the developers and against councils. I keep having to make the same point - the only way to stop developers building houses is to let developers build houses. Unless your local plan has enough houses being built then developers win every appeal by default. And how many houses are being built is up to the developers who sit on planning permission given without always actually building.
Let them appeal against a planning system not built to favour them. And an end to the government that takes significant donations from developers overruling everyone.
So you want allegedly corrupt Councillors being able to make the decisions?
Either you want politicians to make the decisions, in which case there will always be the possibility for alleged corruption.
Or you want decisions made automatically by predetermined standards or by supply and demand or something else, in which case politicians aren't involved and there can't be alleged corruption.
Which is it?
Which is it? I think its Philip strawman number 3,754.
If you want an open market let the developers build in your personal garden then why not go and campaign for it? You won't get elected.
If its my personal garden and I own the land then it would be my choice as to whether they develop or not. What's the issue with that? If I choose to let people build in my land then that's my choice and who should I complain to that I permitted a building and now I'm not happy with that?
If its not land you own, its not your personal garden is it?
A common misconception. Nobody owns land in the sense that a child owns a toy, they just have more or less strong rights over it.
It seems obvious in hindsight that the reason for an explosion in cases in India was the delta variant. However my recollection was that many thought it was due to things such as 50,000 at the cricket etc in a largely unvaccinated country. I know people like to blame the government for this one, and it will I am sure be looked at in the inquiry, but I don't think it is quite the slam dunk people think it is.
Here's a simple question, why did the government put Pakistan and Bangladesh on the red list before India despite them having fewer cases than India?
Do you think it could possibly be related to the data at the time?
Worth noting that most of the EU had above 5% positivity rates at a similar time too yet they weren't put on the red list either. I personally think they all should have been, but the data at the time wasn't showing India any worse than Europe unlike the others.
It seems obvious in hindsight that the reason for an explosion in cases in India was the delta variant. However my recollection was that many thought it was due to things such as 50,000 at the cricket etc in a largely unvaccinated country. I know people like to blame the government for this one, and it will I am sure be looked at in the inquiry, but I don't think it is quite the slam dunk people think it is.
Good thread on this by someone who was actually doing the work
So rather than being "obvious to anyone watching the relentless exponential growth of Delta during April.", it was actually pretty confusing. I make weekly VOC/VUI monitoring plots, and here's what I saw in three weeks from 19 April (1st time I included B.1.617) to 3 May.
Now, yes, we should have quarantined arrivals sooner/faster - but at the time we did it to Pakistan/Bangladesh arrivals because we were worried about the South African variant there - and India cases/population was still very low - so "we should have stopped Delta by quarantining India arrivals" is pure hindsight.
It's certainly a live issue in the constituency. An old friend of mine lives on the edge of Amersham and will never vote for the party again, solely because of HS2.
The timing of the lockdown farce yesterday as well as Brexit starting to unravel over the Northern Ireland protocol are also tarnishing Brand Boris. Even an announcement on a UK-Australia trade deal may not help as it is not going down well with British farmers, who feel the Aussies have an unfair advantage. In a seat that was pro-Remain these things still matter.
I'm on the LibDems with good odds following Mike's tip. It's a bet I expect to lose but stranger things have happened in by-elections.
It would be very droll if, having captured the north, the tories lost their homeland.
The LibDems are throwing everything at the by-election. It might possibly win them the seat, but I don't expect it. This is a Government in its 20th month, so I probably should be expecting it (at least, on the basis of the ramping of their chances on here - LibDems to win it in a "landslide", I recall one poster saying).
But, the LibDems are close on 40% behind the government in national polling. Plus, for decade after decade, the Tory vote has been very predictable in this seat - between 50-odd percent and 60-odd percent. Safe, but never massively so.
The LibDems are also saddling themselves with the Nimby label. Bollocks to Brexit, now Bollocks to Building. They are very keen on pushing a humanitarian agenda - as long as once people get here they don't mind living under trees.
Oh, and not THOSE trees. They are ancient woodland. Can't have people shitting in those...
And they are very keen on people using trains. Just, not THAT train.
They are starting to build up internal contradictions that again show they aren't a party of serious decisions required of government. Just say whatever it takes to win a seat. But their opponents will be watching, storing up posters and leaflets with which to whack them around the head.
It goes beyond NIMBYism to what a national planning policy should be. Objecting to building houses in places they shouldn't be built is a valid battle to fight. The NPPF has allowed planners to overrule everyone including councillors the council and the MP. I myself have fought some NIMBY not those trees battles because the proposal was utterly stupid.
There are a lot of people out there who think the same way. With the Tories now openly corrupt and donations flowing to the party from developers there is a valid line of opposition to take. I don't agree with the battle against HS2 then again they aren't building it near me...
It's not a case of NIMBYism, it's a case of poor planning. Developers building vast estates of houses at £500,000 and above is not going to solve the housing crisis. If I was starting again as a small family I couldn't afford a mortgage for one of those. I think the boarded up shops and office blocks of the town centres should be the first target, constructing 3 and 2 bedroom houses or flats for people to start climbing the ladder on. This would provide much-needed accomodation and possibly the chance to save and plan for the next stage. In my old home town centre of Stafford there are many disused shops and office blocks which could be used first for housing before spoiling the countryside around first.
They are the only kind of houses developers want to build. They get planning permission, don't use it, and then force a shortage of houses being built to be able to build what they want when they want. The NPPF has been dubbed the developers charter and you can see why.
Have a free market and this issue goes away. If developers don't build houses people want then the public can build their own homes as they want (something incredibly common in most of the world and almost unheard of here with our draconian planning regime). Or competition can arise so other developers develop the homes people want.
Unless you're concerned that the developers ARE developing the homes people want.
One problem that's very frustrating is one that came up recently. We were approving a huge development of several thousand houses - which would sort out a considerable amount of the significant housing need here.
Developer "And we intend to build this site out over the next twenty-five years..."
Me, "Wait, what? Twenty-five years?" (As we need housing ASAP)
Developer: "Yes; that's what our market assessment says to meet our targeted values" (In essence: they don't want to build quickly enough to drive house prices down. Their intent is to ensure they have an income stream and acceptable profit margin for as long as possible. So 25 years of building out on a large site suits them down to the ground. And will not help with house prices, other than either slowing the increase or maybe flattening it out)
The only solution I can see is to get building social housing - which bypasses that limitation (and those developers who have the 25-year massive projects may see the value of these decline, what a pity).
Or perhaps more simply, get actual competition moving again in the house building market.
It seems obvious in hindsight that the reason for an explosion in cases in India was the delta variant. However my recollection was that many thought it was due to things such as 50,000 at the cricket etc in a largely unvaccinated country. I know people like to blame the government for this one, and it will I am sure be looked at in the inquiry, but I don't think it is quite the slam dunk people think it is.
Here's a simple question, why did the government put Pakistan and Bangladesh on the red list before India despite them having fewer cases than India?
It was the South African variant they were worried about at that time.
That doesn't explain it either.
Why put Pakistan and Bangladesh on the red list but not India which had many more cases at the time?
Potential trade deal alongside a planned visit by Boris to India?
That or Boris Johnson was lazy.
Perhaps putting India on the red list involved too much girly swot work.
There should be a German compound noun for the feeling of: watching your government make a terrible, obvious, lethally stupid and easily avoidable mistake.
We already have a word for that.
Brexit
You think ignoring the largest popular vote in UK history is intelligent?
THAT would be lethally stupid.
Depends on how people vote the next time. In 2017 they elected a parliament ambivalent to what Brexit meant. In 2019 they elected one that would enact the oven ready deal and then revoke chunks of it months later. In 2023 we may enact a parliament that chooses a completely different path.
Brexit will never be over because every 4 years the electorate have a chance to reverse it or modify it or do something completely different. Which was always the problem with the "will of the people" mantra where a referendum now two parliaments in the past gets modified to become an enabling act.
It's certainly a live issue in the constituency. An old friend of mine lives on the edge of Amersham and will never vote for the party again, solely because of HS2.
The timing of the lockdown farce yesterday as well as Brexit starting to unravel over the Northern Ireland protocol are also tarnishing Brand Boris. Even an announcement on a UK-Australia trade deal may not help as it is not going down well with British farmers, who feel the Aussies have an unfair advantage. In a seat that was pro-Remain these things still matter.
I'm on the LibDems with good odds following Mike's tip. It's a bet I expect to lose but stranger things have happened in by-elections.
It would be very droll if, having captured the north, the tories lost their homeland.
The LibDems are throwing everything at the by-election. It might possibly win them the seat, but I don't expect it. This is a Government in its 20th month, so I probably should be expecting it (at least, on the basis of the ramping of their chances on here - LibDems to win it in a "landslide", I recall one poster saying).
But, the LibDems are close on 40% behind the government in national polling. Plus, for decade after decade, the Tory vote has been very predictable in this seat - between 50-odd percent and 60-odd percent. Safe, but never massively so.
The LibDems are also saddling themselves with the Nimby label. Bollocks to Brexit, now Bollocks to Building. They are very keen on pushing a humanitarian agenda - as long as once people get here they don't mind living under trees.
Oh, and not THOSE trees. They are ancient woodland. Can't have people shitting in those...
And they are very keen on people using trains. Just, not THAT train.
They are starting to build up internal contradictions that again show they aren't a party of serious decisions required of government. Just say whatever it takes to win a seat. But their opponents will be watching, storing up posters and leaflets with which to whack them around the head.
There you go again! That is obviously the approved line from your Tory Party bosses.
The Lib Dems are not opposed to building. But Lib Dems are very much opposed to having decisions taken by a small clique around Johnson, who think they can dictate policy and impose it on the rest of us. Especially, of course, when bribery and corruption are also involved.
From what I have read about the C & A campaign, local people do not take kindly to being bossed about and told what they must do. I for my part most certainly want planning and development near me to be decided locally, not by a gang of incompetents in London, who are set on arranging for their powerful donors to make immense fortunes. And it appears that a lot of people in the constituency agree with the Liberal Democrat approach.
"I for my part most certainly want planning and development near me to be decided locally, not by a gang of incompetents in London".
I'm not quite sure what planet you inhabit if you aren't aware that across the land, local planning is decided by a gang of incompetents in local offices, burdened with planet-sized egos and a disconcerting amount of corruption.
And the notion of me being given my lines to trot out amuses me no end - because I would just tell "them" to piss off. You though? Such a partisan hack, I do have my doubts...
So you have no substantive response to @RochdalePioneers’s point, which is that local decisions should be made locally.
Perhaps because more detailed logic is indeed missing from your crib sheet.
Having been a town councillor looking at planning proposals and married to a borough councillor doing the same I am well aware of what local planning officers and committees can do. I'd have said "galaxy-sized" egos but I take his point.
Thing is that if planning decisions get made locally then its far easier to have direct accountability than when the council is overruled by the Secretary of State. Yes donations get made even at local level that raise eyebrows but that doesn't change the democratic mandate they have to seek.
It is far far easier to remove councillors of questionable decision-making prowess and/or morality than it is a Secretary of State. We need more power and accountability at local level, not less.
If PB Tories doesn't understand that then more fool them. Not everyone with an interest in politics inhabits the same moral cesspit as Johnson's Tory Party.
So you want all planning decisions to be taken by locally elected councillors, with no right of appeal. What would happen if they never approved any development?
I didn't say no right of appeal. I want a planning system that isn't rigged to the developers and against councils. I keep having to make the same point - the only way to stop developers building houses is to let developers build houses. Unless your local plan has enough houses being built then developers win every appeal by default. And how many houses are being built is up to the developers who sit on planning permission given without always actually building.
Let them appeal against a planning system not built to favour them. And an end to the government that takes significant donations from developers overruling everyone.
So, decisions have to be taken locally, but there needs to be a right of appeal. For a right of appeal to be meaningful, there have to be objective rules about what can and cannot be allowed. These rules are set by local decision makers, following a process set out in law by central government, which takes account of information on how much development is needed. The right of appeal is to the secretary of state, who ultimately has decision making authority. They must provide reasons why something is or is not allowed, and if these are inadequate or irrational then they can be overturned in the courts.
That is the system that already exists. By all means the structure of the system can be changed and it constantly is, and is going to be again in the forthcoming planning bill. But my point is that it is no answer to give absolute power to local decision makers, just as it is no answer to remove all controls on development.
Well indeed.
Rochdale is getting himself tied into knots because he hates the Tories and is wilfully trying to twist everything so that he can end up at his predetermined outcome of "Tories = Bad"
Politicians get involved? How dare you! Tories bad. Politicians get taken out of the equation? How dare you! Tories bad.
I think it is clear at least that it is desirable for politicians to get involved in decisions about what development takes place.
It seems obvious in hindsight that the reason for an explosion in cases in India was the delta variant. However my recollection was that many thought it was due to things such as 50,000 at the cricket etc in a largely unvaccinated country. I know people like to blame the government for this one, and it will I am sure be looked at in the inquiry, but I don't think it is quite the slam dunk people think it is.
Here's a simple question, why did the government put Pakistan and Bangladesh on the red list before India despite them having fewer cases than India?
It was the South African variant they were worried about at that time.
That doesn't explain it either.
Why put Pakistan and Bangladesh on the red list but not India which had many more cases at the time?
Potential trade deal alongside a planned visit by Boris to India?
That or Boris Johnson was lazy.
Perhaps putting India on the red list involved too much girly swot work.
Boris wouldn't be doing the work so the question is why was India removed from what was probably a recommendation that covered all 3 countries.
It's certainly a live issue in the constituency. An old friend of mine lives on the edge of Amersham and will never vote for the party again, solely because of HS2.
The timing of the lockdown farce yesterday as well as Brexit starting to unravel over the Northern Ireland protocol are also tarnishing Brand Boris. Even an announcement on a UK-Australia trade deal may not help as it is not going down well with British farmers, who feel the Aussies have an unfair advantage. In a seat that was pro-Remain these things still matter.
I'm on the LibDems with good odds following Mike's tip. It's a bet I expect to lose but stranger things have happened in by-elections.
It would be very droll if, having captured the north, the tories lost their homeland.
The LibDems are throwing everything at the by-election. It might possibly win them the seat, but I don't expect it. This is a Government in its 20th month, so I probably should be expecting it (at least, on the basis of the ramping of their chances on here - LibDems to win it in a "landslide", I recall one poster saying).
But, the LibDems are close on 40% behind the government in national polling. Plus, for decade after decade, the Tory vote has been very predictable in this seat - between 50-odd percent and 60-odd percent. Safe, but never massively so.
The LibDems are also saddling themselves with the Nimby label. Bollocks to Brexit, now Bollocks to Building. They are very keen on pushing a humanitarian agenda - as long as once people get here they don't mind living under trees.
Oh, and not THOSE trees. They are ancient woodland. Can't have people shitting in those...
And they are very keen on people using trains. Just, not THAT train.
They are starting to build up internal contradictions that again show they aren't a party of serious decisions required of government. Just say whatever it takes to win a seat. But their opponents will be watching, storing up posters and leaflets with which to whack them around the head.
There you go again! That is obviously the approved line from your Tory Party bosses.
The Lib Dems are not opposed to building. But Lib Dems are very much opposed to having decisions taken by a small clique around Johnson, who think they can dictate policy and impose it on the rest of us. Especially, of course, when bribery and corruption are also involved.
From what I have read about the C & A campaign, local people do not take kindly to being bossed about and told what they must do. I for my part most certainly want planning and development near me to be decided locally, not by a gang of incompetents in London, who are set on arranging for their powerful donors to make immense fortunes. And it appears that a lot of people in the constituency agree with the Liberal Democrat approach.
"I for my part most certainly want planning and development near me to be decided locally, not by a gang of incompetents in London".
I'm not quite sure what planet you inhabit if you aren't aware that across the land, local planning is decided by a gang of incompetents in local offices, burdened with planet-sized egos and a disconcerting amount of corruption.
And the notion of me being given my lines to trot out amuses me no end - because I would just tell "them" to piss off. You though? Such a partisan hack, I do have my doubts...
So you have no substantive response to @RochdalePioneers’s point, which is that local decisions should be made locally.
Perhaps because more detailed logic is indeed missing from your crib sheet.
Having been a town councillor looking at planning proposals and married to a borough councillor doing the same I am well aware of what local planning officers and committees can do. I'd have said "galaxy-sized" egos but I take his point.
Thing is that if planning decisions get made locally then its far easier to have direct accountability than when the council is overruled by the Secretary of State. Yes donations get made even at local level that raise eyebrows but that doesn't change the democratic mandate they have to seek.
It is far far easier to remove councillors of questionable decision-making prowess and/or morality than it is a Secretary of State. We need more power and accountability at local level, not less.
If PB Tories doesn't understand that then more fool them. Not everyone with an interest in politics inhabits the same moral cesspit as Johnson's Tory Party.
So you want all planning decisions to be taken by locally elected councillors, with no right of appeal. What would happen if they never approved any development?
I didn't say no right of appeal. I want a planning system that isn't rigged to the developers and against councils. I keep having to make the same point - the only way to stop developers building houses is to let developers build houses. Unless your local plan has enough houses being built then developers win every appeal by default. And how many houses are being built is up to the developers who sit on planning permission given without always actually building.
Let them appeal against a planning system not built to favour them. And an end to the government that takes significant donations from developers overruling everyone.
So you want allegedly corrupt Councillors being able to make the decisions?
Either you want politicians to make the decisions, in which case there will always be the possibility for alleged corruption.
Or you want decisions made automatically by predetermined standards or by supply and demand or something else, in which case politicians aren't involved and there can't be alleged corruption.
Which is it?
Which is it? I think its Philip strawman number 3,754.
If you want an open market let the developers build in your personal garden then why not go and campaign for it? You won't get elected.
If its my personal garden and I own the land then it would be my choice as to whether they develop or not. What's the issue with that? If I choose to let people build in my land then that's my choice and who should I complain to that I permitted a building and now I'm not happy with that?
If its not land you own, its not your personal garden is it?
For someone that is smart, your thinking can be quite childish about this. I own the field next to my house. If I wanted to, I could buy a few more adjacent quite cheaply. Would it be right to then plonk 50 new households there, on a windy narrow country lane, with no public service amenities within range? Much less that the land is of environmental and archeological value, when there are plenty of locations with none.
The current planning system is far from perfect. But anyone with even a passing interest in the free market understands that it comes with market failures, that sometimes requires state intervention to correct. The balance today might not be the correct one but to pretend that there isn’t a balance to be struck is puerile.
You really need to shut up about Brexit now. Not for us, for you. You're lurching into bathos. It is done, it happened, it is both good and bad, it is done. History
Bollocks
It continues to define politics, and will do so for many, many years to come.
i understand why you don't want to talk about it. Shame is a powerful emotion.
You really need to shut up about Brexit now. Not for us, for you. You're lurching into bathos. It is done, it happened, it is both good and bad, it is done. History
Bollocks
It continues to define politics, and will do so for many, many years to come.
i understand why you don't want to talk about it. Shame is a powerful emotion.
I'm keen for professional reasons to know details of the Aussie trade deal as soon as they are announced (apparently "about now"). If anyone sees a link, please say... I've seen the BBC24 clip just now.
It seems obvious in hindsight that the reason for an explosion in cases in India was the delta variant. However my recollection was that many thought it was due to things such as 50,000 at the cricket etc in a largely unvaccinated country. I know people like to blame the government for this one, and it will I am sure be looked at in the inquiry, but I don't think it is quite the slam dunk people think it is.
Here's a simple question, why did the government put Pakistan and Bangladesh on the red list before India despite them having fewer cases than India?
It was the South African variant they were worried about at that time.
They could have deduced that there was a bad variant in India from the increase in cases, but I don't think the actual cause of the problem there became clear until later.
Yet it was clear to many of us here, on PB, that something bad was happening in India, from early April, hence our screams of outrage. How did we work that out?
It seems obvious in hindsight that the reason for an explosion in cases in India was the delta variant. However my recollection was that many thought it was due to things such as 50,000 at the cricket etc in a largely unvaccinated country. I know people like to blame the government for this one, and it will I am sure be looked at in the inquiry, but I don't think it is quite the slam dunk people think it is.
Here's a simple question, why did the government put Pakistan and Bangladesh on the red list before India despite them having fewer cases than India?
Yes, India is a slam dunk. There is no explanation for this that is not entirely mortifying for Boris, and literally mortifying for thousands of Brits who will now die, who might otherwise have lived, because he didn't close the Indian border
Why shut down flights to Pakistan, but NOT India? Well, Boris, what is it? Trade deal, Indian voters, anything else? There is nothing else
We are now fucked because Boris was basically incompetent and/or stupidly devious. I do not believe all restrictions will end on July 19
But everyone who knows Boris at all knew that Boris was basically incompetent and/or stupidly devious before Summer 2019. But he knows how to make people like him or kowtow to him, despite that.
And until that genuine talent gets shattered (I reckon it's when he definitively unambiguously goes bald) he will remain an incompetent, stupid, devious (and I think you forgot lazy)...
AND THIS: see below. Parliament gets controversial UK-AUS #AustraliaTradeDeal as a fait accompli...which is ironic, as @nvonwestenholz observes, since #brexit was supposed to have "taught us that the public is fed up with important decisions being made by faceless bureaucrats" https://twitter.com/pmdfoster/status/1404717804977336320
The farmers can get in the long queue to have their arseholes slayed by Johnson's suppurating cock. Behind Arcuri, "business", the fisherpeople, Arcuri again on the couch and the one with the violin.
Not at all, farmers have plenty of opportunity now to export their produce more easily to the Australian market.
Fisherpeople of course are now out of the CFP the SNP wanted to keep them in
Until details are published, we do not know what new opportunities our farmers have. One of Britain's objectives was easing visa restrictions, for instance, which is fine but offers no new trade opportunities in either direction. We need to see what has actually been agreed before concluding that our farmers (or indeed Australian farmers) have not been shafted.
It seems obvious in hindsight that the reason for an explosion in cases in India was the delta variant. However my recollection was that many thought it was due to things such as 50,000 at the cricket etc in a largely unvaccinated country. I know people like to blame the government for this one, and it will I am sure be looked at in the inquiry, but I don't think it is quite the slam dunk people think it is.
Here's a simple question, why did the government put Pakistan and Bangladesh on the red list before India despite them having fewer cases than India?
Do you think it could possibly be related to the data at the time?
Worth noting that most of the EU had above 5% positivity rates at a similar time too yet they weren't put on the red list either. I personally think they all should have been, but the data at the time wasn't showing India any worse than Europe unlike the others.
We're talking about seeding events, when one country has a much higher population (India is six times the population of Pakistan) then positivity rate is slightly irrelevant.
AND THIS: see below. Parliament gets controversial UK-AUS #AustraliaTradeDeal as a fait accompli...which is ironic, as @nvonwestenholz observes, since #brexit was supposed to have "taught us that the public is fed up with important decisions being made by faceless bureaucrats" https://twitter.com/pmdfoster/status/1404717804977336320
It seems obvious in hindsight that the reason for an explosion in cases in India was the delta variant. However my recollection was that many thought it was due to things such as 50,000 at the cricket etc in a largely unvaccinated country. I know people like to blame the government for this one, and it will I am sure be looked at in the inquiry, but I don't think it is quite the slam dunk people think it is.
Good thread on this by someone who was actually doing the work
So rather than being "obvious to anyone watching the relentless exponential growth of Delta during April.", it was actually pretty confusing. I make weekly VOC/VUI monitoring plots, and here's what I saw in three weeks from 19 April (1st time I included B.1.617) to 3 May.
Now, yes, we should have quarantined arrivals sooner/faster - but at the time we did it to Pakistan/Bangladesh arrivals because we were worried about the South African variant there - and India cases/population was still very low - so "we should have stopped Delta by quarantining India arrivals" is pure hindsight.
Oh.
"Ministers knew about the Indian variant on April 1. The public was told on April 15"
"The discovery of the Indian variant in Britain was not announced to the public by ministers for a fortnight while thousands of potentially infected people were allowed to enter the country.
"Ministers were given the news of the variant’s arrival on April 1 but no official statement was made until April 15. India was not placed on the red list banning travellers from the country for another eight days."
It's certainly a live issue in the constituency. An old friend of mine lives on the edge of Amersham and will never vote for the party again, solely because of HS2.
The timing of the lockdown farce yesterday as well as Brexit starting to unravel over the Northern Ireland protocol are also tarnishing Brand Boris. Even an announcement on a UK-Australia trade deal may not help as it is not going down well with British farmers, who feel the Aussies have an unfair advantage. In a seat that was pro-Remain these things still matter.
I'm on the LibDems with good odds following Mike's tip. It's a bet I expect to lose but stranger things have happened in by-elections.
It would be very droll if, having captured the north, the tories lost their homeland.
The LibDems are throwing everything at the by-election. It might possibly win them the seat, but I don't expect it. This is a Government in its 20th month, so I probably should be expecting it (at least, on the basis of the ramping of their chances on here - LibDems to win it in a "landslide", I recall one poster saying).
But, the LibDems are close on 40% behind the government in national polling. Plus, for decade after decade, the Tory vote has been very predictable in this seat - between 50-odd percent and 60-odd percent. Safe, but never massively so.
The LibDems are also saddling themselves with the Nimby label. Bollocks to Brexit, now Bollocks to Building. They are very keen on pushing a humanitarian agenda - as long as once people get here they don't mind living under trees.
Oh, and not THOSE trees. They are ancient woodland. Can't have people shitting in those...
And they are very keen on people using trains. Just, not THAT train.
They are starting to build up internal contradictions that again show they aren't a party of serious decisions required of government. Just say whatever it takes to win a seat. But their opponents will be watching, storing up posters and leaflets with which to whack them around the head.
It goes beyond NIMBYism to what a national planning policy should be. Objecting to building houses in places they shouldn't be built is a valid battle to fight. The NPPF has allowed planners to overrule everyone including councillors the council and the MP. I myself have fought some NIMBY not those trees battles because the proposal was utterly stupid.
There are a lot of people out there who think the same way. With the Tories now openly corrupt and donations flowing to the party from developers there is a valid line of opposition to take. I don't agree with the battle against HS2 then again they aren't building it near me...
It's not a case of NIMBYism, it's a case of poor planning. Developers building vast estates of houses at £500,000 and above is not going to solve the housing crisis. If I was starting again as a small family I couldn't afford a mortgage for one of those. I think the boarded up shops and office blocks of the town centres should be the first target, constructing 3 and 2 bedroom houses or flats for people to start climbing the ladder on. This would provide much-needed accomodation and possibly the chance to save and plan for the next stage. In my old home town centre of Stafford there are many disused shops and office blocks which could be used first for housing before spoiling the countryside around first.
They are the only kind of houses developers want to build. They get planning permission, don't use it, and then force a shortage of houses being built to be able to build what they want when they want. The NPPF has been dubbed the developers charter and you can see why.
Have a free market and this issue goes away. If developers don't build houses people want then the public can build their own homes as they want (something incredibly common in most of the world and almost unheard of here with our draconian planning regime). Or competition can arise so other developers develop the homes people want.
Unless you're concerned that the developers ARE developing the homes people want.
One problem that's very frustrating is one that came up recently. We were approving a huge development of several thousand houses - which would sort out a considerable amount of the significant housing need here.
Developer "And we intend to build this site out over the next twenty-five years..."
Me, "Wait, what? Twenty-five years?" (As we need housing ASAP)
Developer: "Yes; that's what our market assessment says to meet our targeted values" (In essence: they don't want to build quickly enough to drive house prices down. Their intent is to ensure they have an income stream and acceptable profit margin for as long as possible. So 25 years of building out on a large site suits them down to the ground. And will not help with house prices, other than either slowing the increase or maybe flattening it out)
The only solution I can see is to get building social housing - which bypasses that limitation (and those developers who have the 25-year massive projects may see the value of these decline, what a pity).
This is fundamentally part of the problem of the British system of having en-bloc planning approval going to one developer alone.
In much of the rest of the world this problem isn't seen because the proposed construction zone is built piecemeal, sometimes house by house, by anyone who wants to build or own a home. Since the value of land with permission isn't dramatically artificially inflated in most countries then a single developer buying the entire land and then not building on it doesn't work economically. If several thousand people want a home then they get it constructed by whoever they want to construct it rather than one fixed developer on the developers timeline and move in, job done.
Why should the entire development go to just one developer? If each individual house, or each individual street, of your several thousand houses could be built one or many at a time by a plethora of developers or self-builders then this couldn't happen.
It seems obvious in hindsight that the reason for an explosion in cases in India was the delta variant. However my recollection was that many thought it was due to things such as 50,000 at the cricket etc in a largely unvaccinated country. I know people like to blame the government for this one, and it will I am sure be looked at in the inquiry, but I don't think it is quite the slam dunk people think it is.
Good thread on this by someone who was actually doing the work
So rather than being "obvious to anyone watching the relentless exponential growth of Delta during April.", it was actually pretty confusing. I make weekly VOC/VUI monitoring plots, and here's what I saw in three weeks from 19 April (1st time I included B.1.617) to 3 May.
Now, yes, we should have quarantined arrivals sooner/faster - but at the time we did it to Pakistan/Bangladesh arrivals because we were worried about the South African variant there - and India cases/population was still very low - so "we should have stopped Delta by quarantining India arrivals" is pure hindsight.
I suspect if the weather remains as lovely as it has been recently then lockdown ends well before Boris Johnson says it does.
Have to admit I am concerned that it will last long past July 19th.
19 July is the "terminus date" for England's remaining coronavirus restrictions and it would take an "unprecedented and remarkable" change in circumstances to derail that, Michael Gove has told Sky News.
Widespread ignoring of rules by the public, is the nightmare scenario for businesses impacted by restrictions. They will risk getting shut down, for things that individuals are all doing anyway. A good illustration of why the remaining restrictions on restaurants, bars and theatres should have been dropped next week.
That is already happening now. Daughter risks being fined. Meanwhile individuals do what the hell they like.
Why should anyone obey the rules now when there is no sense to them?
This government, this Tory party, is IMO a clear and present danger to our freedom, our democracy and belief in the rule of law. I don't give a stuff about opinion polls. Just because something is popular does not make it right.
That otherwise damning Times article on the failure to contain the injun variant does offer a third reason for the government's fuck up, beyond "trade deal" and "Indian voters"
"Senior political sources suggested two reasons why the imposition of border restrictions on travellers from India may have been delayed. It is alleged that Boris Johnson wanted to keep relations with India smooth before key post-Brexit trade talks and there was also concern that it might halt vaccine supplies from its factories to the UK if placed on the red list."
Hmm. At best I think it was a mix of all three. And, a disastrous error
It seems obvious in hindsight that the reason for an explosion in cases in India was the delta variant. However my recollection was that many thought it was due to things such as 50,000 at the cricket etc in a largely unvaccinated country. I know people like to blame the government for this one, and it will I am sure be looked at in the inquiry, but I don't think it is quite the slam dunk people think it is.
Here's a simple question, why did the government put Pakistan and Bangladesh on the red list before India despite them having fewer cases than India?
Yes, India is a slam dunk. There is no explanation for this that is not entirely mortifying for Boris, and literally mortifying for thousands of Brits who will now die, who might otherwise have lived, because he didn't close the Indian border
Why shut down flights to Pakistan, but NOT India? Well, Boris, what is it? Trade deal, Indian voters, anything else? There is nothing else
We are now fucked because Boris was basically incompetent and/or stupidly devious. I do not believe all restrictions will end on July 19
He wanted the jolly outing.
Boris loves meeting other leaders - the glad-handing, the bonhomie, the photostunts, the vacuous announcements, even the WAGS bit.
Boris really wanted to meet Modi and give his Khasi of Kalabar gear another outing.
AND THIS: see below. Parliament gets controversial UK-AUS #AustraliaTradeDeal as a fait accompli...which is ironic, as @nvonwestenholz observes, since #brexit was supposed to have "taught us that the public is fed up with important decisions being made by faceless bureaucrats" https://twitter.com/pmdfoster/status/1404717804977336320
Adds that @BorisJohnson acted like the Mayor in Jaws, keeping the beaches open. Instead his role model should have been Chief Brody, with his "eyes on the shark". Now the public are being "attacked" by the shark of the Indian variant, Thomas-Symonds says. https://twitter.com/paulwaugh/status/1404721453472178178
It's certainly a live issue in the constituency. An old friend of mine lives on the edge of Amersham and will never vote for the party again, solely because of HS2.
The timing of the lockdown farce yesterday as well as Brexit starting to unravel over the Northern Ireland protocol are also tarnishing Brand Boris. Even an announcement on a UK-Australia trade deal may not help as it is not going down well with British farmers, who feel the Aussies have an unfair advantage. In a seat that was pro-Remain these things still matter.
I'm on the LibDems with good odds following Mike's tip. It's a bet I expect to lose but stranger things have happened in by-elections.
It would be very droll if, having captured the north, the tories lost their homeland.
The LibDems are throwing everything at the by-election. It might possibly win them the seat, but I don't expect it. This is a Government in its 20th month, so I probably should be expecting it (at least, on the basis of the ramping of their chances on here - LibDems to win it in a "landslide", I recall one poster saying).
But, the LibDems are close on 40% behind the government in national polling. Plus, for decade after decade, the Tory vote has been very predictable in this seat - between 50-odd percent and 60-odd percent. Safe, but never massively so.
The LibDems are also saddling themselves with the Nimby label. Bollocks to Brexit, now Bollocks to Building. They are very keen on pushing a humanitarian agenda - as long as once people get here they don't mind living under trees.
Oh, and not THOSE trees. They are ancient woodland. Can't have people shitting in those...
And they are very keen on people using trains. Just, not THAT train.
They are starting to build up internal contradictions that again show they aren't a party of serious decisions required of government. Just say whatever it takes to win a seat. But their opponents will be watching, storing up posters and leaflets with which to whack them around the head.
There you go again! That is obviously the approved line from your Tory Party bosses.
The Lib Dems are not opposed to building. But Lib Dems are very much opposed to having decisions taken by a small clique around Johnson, who think they can dictate policy and impose it on the rest of us. Especially, of course, when bribery and corruption are also involved.
From what I have read about the C & A campaign, local people do not take kindly to being bossed about and told what they must do. I for my part most certainly want planning and development near me to be decided locally, not by a gang of incompetents in London, who are set on arranging for their powerful donors to make immense fortunes. And it appears that a lot of people in the constituency agree with the Liberal Democrat approach.
"I for my part most certainly want planning and development near me to be decided locally, not by a gang of incompetents in London".
I'm not quite sure what planet you inhabit if you aren't aware that across the land, local planning is decided by a gang of incompetents in local offices, burdened with planet-sized egos and a disconcerting amount of corruption.
And the notion of me being given my lines to trot out amuses me no end - because I would just tell "them" to piss off. You though? Such a partisan hack, I do have my doubts...
So you have no substantive response to @RochdalePioneers’s point, which is that local decisions should be made locally.
Perhaps because more detailed logic is indeed missing from your crib sheet.
Having been a town councillor looking at planning proposals and married to a borough councillor doing the same I am well aware of what local planning officers and committees can do. I'd have said "galaxy-sized" egos but I take his point.
Thing is that if planning decisions get made locally then its far easier to have direct accountability than when the council is overruled by the Secretary of State. Yes donations get made even at local level that raise eyebrows but that doesn't change the democratic mandate they have to seek.
It is far far easier to remove councillors of questionable decision-making prowess and/or morality than it is a Secretary of State. We need more power and accountability at local level, not less.
If PB Tories doesn't understand that then more fool them. Not everyone with an interest in politics inhabits the same moral cesspit as Johnson's Tory Party.
So you want all planning decisions to be taken by locally elected councillors, with no right of appeal. What would happen if they never approved any development?
I didn't say no right of appeal. I want a planning system that isn't rigged to the developers and against councils. I keep having to make the same point - the only way to stop developers building houses is to let developers build houses. Unless your local plan has enough houses being built then developers win every appeal by default. And how many houses are being built is up to the developers who sit on planning permission given without always actually building.
Let them appeal against a planning system not built to favour them. And an end to the government that takes significant donations from developers overruling everyone.
So you want allegedly corrupt Councillors being able to make the decisions?
Either you want politicians to make the decisions, in which case there will always be the possibility for alleged corruption.
Or you want decisions made automatically by predetermined standards or by supply and demand or something else, in which case politicians aren't involved and there can't be alleged corruption.
Which is it?
Which is it? I think its Philip strawman number 3,754.
If you want an open market let the developers build in your personal garden then why not go and campaign for it? You won't get elected.
If its my personal garden and I own the land then it would be my choice as to whether they develop or not. What's the issue with that? If I choose to let people build in my land then that's my choice and who should I complain to that I permitted a building and now I'm not happy with that?
If its not land you own, its not your personal garden is it?
For someone that is smart, your thinking can be quite childish about this. I own the field next to my house. If I wanted to, I could buy a few more adjacent quite cheaply. Would it be right to then plonk 50 new households there, on a windy narrow country lane, with no public service amenities within range? Much less that the land is of environmental and archeological value, when there are plenty of locations with none.
The current planning system is far from perfect. But anyone with even a passing interest in the free market understands that it comes with market failures, that sometimes requires state intervention to correct. The balance today might not be the correct one but to pretend that there isn’t a balance to be struck is puerile.
I have said all along that my preferred system is one of zoning. Land that is legitimately unfit for construction due to archeological or environmental reasons is zoned as such and its a non-issue then.
However if there's no legitimate archeological or environmental reasons and 50 households want to move in to that field and you're prepared to sell your field then sure, let that happen. However if there's no public amenities then the households probably won't want to move in, so its moot.
Or deal with amenities in response to what happens. You don't need to be stuck in the past.
The issue wrecking our housing system is consent artificially inflating the value of land depending upon whether it has consent or not. If consent ceases to be valuable then buying land to not build on it becomes utterly uneconomic and what is constructed becomes based upon the value added of construction and not the value added of getting consent and sitting on it.
It seems obvious in hindsight that the reason for an explosion in cases in India was the delta variant. However my recollection was that many thought it was due to things such as 50,000 at the cricket etc in a largely unvaccinated country. I know people like to blame the government for this one, and it will I am sure be looked at in the inquiry, but I don't think it is quite the slam dunk people think it is.
Good thread on this by someone who was actually doing the work
So rather than being "obvious to anyone watching the relentless exponential growth of Delta during April.", it was actually pretty confusing. I make weekly VOC/VUI monitoring plots, and here's what I saw in three weeks from 19 April (1st time I included B.1.617) to 3 May.
Now, yes, we should have quarantined arrivals sooner/faster - but at the time we did it to Pakistan/Bangladesh arrivals because we were worried about the South African variant there - and India cases/population was still very low - so "we should have stopped Delta by quarantining India arrivals" is pure hindsight.
Oh.
"Ministers knew about the Indian variant on April 1. The public was told on April 15"
And getting it right mattered: reflexively designating the whole B.1.617 super-lineage would've completely confounded both real-world and lab experiments on immunity and vaccine efficacy, because it's now clear the sub-lineages have very different biological properties.
It seems obvious in hindsight that the reason for an explosion in cases in India was the delta variant. However my recollection was that many thought it was due to things such as 50,000 at the cricket etc in a largely unvaccinated country. I know people like to blame the government for this one, and it will I am sure be looked at in the inquiry, but I don't think it is quite the slam dunk people think it is.
Good thread on this by someone who was actually doing the work
So rather than being "obvious to anyone watching the relentless exponential growth of Delta during April.", it was actually pretty confusing. I make weekly VOC/VUI monitoring plots, and here's what I saw in three weeks from 19 April (1st time I included B.1.617) to 3 May.
Now, yes, we should have quarantined arrivals sooner/faster - but at the time we did it to Pakistan/Bangladesh arrivals because we were worried about the South African variant there - and India cases/population was still very low - so "we should have stopped Delta by quarantining India arrivals" is pure hindsight.
Oh.
"Ministers knew about the Indian variant on April 1. The public was told on April 15"
"The discovery of the Indian variant in Britain was not announced to the public by ministers for a fortnight while thousands of potentially infected people were allowed to enter the country.
"Ministers were given the news of the variant’s arrival on April 1 but no official statement was made until April 15. India was not placed on the red list banning travellers from the country for another eight days."
The thread on Twitter makes it clear that there was more than one Indian variant.
The variant identified by April 1st was B.1.167.1, which is not the dangerous 'Delta' strain and has different mutations.
I think the problem has been that the scientists have been advising action only when they have actual data and not on a hunch that 'something bad is happening'.
That's the real argument here I think. It turns out that if we'd done bit more panicking early and panicking often then we'd have done better throughout.
Which is presumably why we didn't drop restrictions yesterday. That lesson has been learnt, but too late.
That otherwise damning Times article on the failure to contain the injun variant does offer a third reason for the government's fuck up, beyond "trade deal" and "Indian voters"
"Senior political sources suggested two reasons why the imposition of border restrictions on travellers from India may have been delayed. It is alleged that Boris Johnson wanted to keep relations with India smooth before key post-Brexit trade talks and there was also concern that it might halt vaccine supplies from its factories to the UK if placed on the red list."
Hmm. At best I think it was a mix of all three. And, a disastrous error
No, Boris just wanted a foreign trip - a shallow reason perhaps but this is Boris.
And disastrous ? A mistake certainly but better to get Delta now than in the winter.
It's certainly a live issue in the constituency. An old friend of mine lives on the edge of Amersham and will never vote for the party again, solely because of HS2.
The timing of the lockdown farce yesterday as well as Brexit starting to unravel over the Northern Ireland protocol are also tarnishing Brand Boris. Even an announcement on a UK-Australia trade deal may not help as it is not going down well with British farmers, who feel the Aussies have an unfair advantage. In a seat that was pro-Remain these things still matter.
I'm on the LibDems with good odds following Mike's tip. It's a bet I expect to lose but stranger things have happened in by-elections.
It would be very droll if, having captured the north, the tories lost their homeland.
The LibDems are throwing everything at the by-election. It might possibly win them the seat, but I don't expect it. This is a Government in its 20th month, so I probably should be expecting it (at least, on the basis of the ramping of their chances on here - LibDems to win it in a "landslide", I recall one poster saying).
But, the LibDems are close on 40% behind the government in national polling. Plus, for decade after decade, the Tory vote has been very predictable in this seat - between 50-odd percent and 60-odd percent. Safe, but never massively so.
The LibDems are also saddling themselves with the Nimby label. Bollocks to Brexit, now Bollocks to Building. They are very keen on pushing a humanitarian agenda - as long as once people get here they don't mind living under trees.
Oh, and not THOSE trees. They are ancient woodland. Can't have people shitting in those...
And they are very keen on people using trains. Just, not THAT train.
They are starting to build up internal contradictions that again show they aren't a party of serious decisions required of government. Just say whatever it takes to win a seat. But their opponents will be watching, storing up posters and leaflets with which to whack them around the head.
It goes beyond NIMBYism to what a national planning policy should be. Objecting to building houses in places they shouldn't be built is a valid battle to fight. The NPPF has allowed planners to overrule everyone including councillors the council and the MP. I myself have fought some NIMBY not those trees battles because the proposal was utterly stupid.
There are a lot of people out there who think the same way. With the Tories now openly corrupt and donations flowing to the party from developers there is a valid line of opposition to take. I don't agree with the battle against HS2 then again they aren't building it near me...
It's not a case of NIMBYism, it's a case of poor planning. Developers building vast estates of houses at £500,000 and above is not going to solve the housing crisis. If I was starting again as a small family I couldn't afford a mortgage for one of those. I think the boarded up shops and office blocks of the town centres should be the first target, constructing 3 and 2 bedroom houses or flats for people to start climbing the ladder on. This would provide much-needed accomodation and possibly the chance to save and plan for the next stage. In my old home town centre of Stafford there are many disused shops and office blocks which could be used first for housing before spoiling the countryside around first.
They are the only kind of houses developers want to build. They get planning permission, don't use it, and then force a shortage of houses being built to be able to build what they want when they want. The NPPF has been dubbed the developers charter and you can see why.
Have a free market and this issue goes away. If developers don't build houses people want then the public can build their own homes as they want (something incredibly common in most of the world and almost unheard of here with our draconian planning regime). Or competition can arise so other developers develop the homes people want.
Unless you're concerned that the developers ARE developing the homes people want.
One problem that's very frustrating is one that came up recently. We were approving a huge development of several thousand houses - which would sort out a considerable amount of the significant housing need here.
Developer "And we intend to build this site out over the next twenty-five years..."
Me, "Wait, what? Twenty-five years?" (As we need housing ASAP)
Developer: "Yes; that's what our market assessment says to meet our targeted values" (In essence: they don't want to build quickly enough to drive house prices down. Their intent is to ensure they have an income stream and acceptable profit margin for as long as possible. So 25 years of building out on a large site suits them down to the ground. And will not help with house prices, other than either slowing the increase or maybe flattening it out)
The only solution I can see is to get building social housing - which bypasses that limitation (and those developers who have the 25-year massive projects may see the value of these decline, what a pity).
This is fundamentally part of the problem of the British system of having en-bloc planning approval going to one developer alone.
In much of the rest of the world this problem isn't seen because the proposed construction zone is built piecemeal, sometimes house by house, by anyone who wants to build or own a home. Since the value of land with permission isn't dramatically artificially inflated in most countries then a single developer buying the entire land and then not building on it doesn't work economically. If several thousand people want a home then they get it constructed by whoever they want to construct it rather than one fixed developer on the developers timeline and move in, job done.
Why should the entire development go to just one developer? If each individual house, or each individual street, of your several thousand houses could be built one or many at a time by a plethora of developers or self-builders then this couldn't happen.
In Victorian/Edwardian times, very often the developer would build a street. Hence houses on neighbouring streets looking different. Sometimes they differ by which side of the road they are on - the developers bought one side of the road, each.
It seems obvious in hindsight that the reason for an explosion in cases in India was the delta variant. However my recollection was that many thought it was due to things such as 50,000 at the cricket etc in a largely unvaccinated country. I know people like to blame the government for this one, and it will I am sure be looked at in the inquiry, but I don't think it is quite the slam dunk people think it is.
Here's a simple question, why did the government put Pakistan and Bangladesh on the red list before India despite them having fewer cases than India?
Do you think it could possibly be related to the data at the time?
Worth noting that most of the EU had above 5% positivity rates at a similar time too yet they weren't put on the red list either. I personally think they all should have been, but the data at the time wasn't showing India any worse than Europe unlike the others.
We're talking about seeding events, when one country has a much higher population (India is six times the population of Pakistan) then positivity rate is slightly irrelevant.
As I said earlier, it was about cases.
Not really.
Positivity is entirely relevant, the entire EU have 330 million population but France has 67 million. We didn't red list the EU and we didn't red list France - that's two sides of the same coin.
I think we should have red listed the globe, but the data was no worse in India at the time than it was in the EU.
It's certainly a live issue in the constituency. An old friend of mine lives on the edge of Amersham and will never vote for the party again, solely because of HS2.
The timing of the lockdown farce yesterday as well as Brexit starting to unravel over the Northern Ireland protocol are also tarnishing Brand Boris. Even an announcement on a UK-Australia trade deal may not help as it is not going down well with British farmers, who feel the Aussies have an unfair advantage. In a seat that was pro-Remain these things still matter.
I'm on the LibDems with good odds following Mike's tip. It's a bet I expect to lose but stranger things have happened in by-elections.
It would be very droll if, having captured the north, the tories lost their homeland.
The LibDems are throwing everything at the by-election. It might possibly win them the seat, but I don't expect it. This is a Government in its 20th month, so I probably should be expecting it (at least, on the basis of the ramping of their chances on here - LibDems to win it in a "landslide", I recall one poster saying).
But, the LibDems are close on 40% behind the government in national polling. Plus, for decade after decade, the Tory vote has been very predictable in this seat - between 50-odd percent and 60-odd percent. Safe, but never massively so.
The LibDems are also saddling themselves with the Nimby label. Bollocks to Brexit, now Bollocks to Building. They are very keen on pushing a humanitarian agenda - as long as once people get here they don't mind living under trees.
Oh, and not THOSE trees. They are ancient woodland. Can't have people shitting in those...
And they are very keen on people using trains. Just, not THAT train.
They are starting to build up internal contradictions that again show they aren't a party of serious decisions required of government. Just say whatever it takes to win a seat. But their opponents will be watching, storing up posters and leaflets with which to whack them around the head.
There you go again! That is obviously the approved line from your Tory Party bosses.
The Lib Dems are not opposed to building. But Lib Dems are very much opposed to having decisions taken by a small clique around Johnson, who think they can dictate policy and impose it on the rest of us. Especially, of course, when bribery and corruption are also involved.
From what I have read about the C & A campaign, local people do not take kindly to being bossed about and told what they must do. I for my part most certainly want planning and development near me to be decided locally, not by a gang of incompetents in London, who are set on arranging for their powerful donors to make immense fortunes. And it appears that a lot of people in the constituency agree with the Liberal Democrat approach.
"I for my part most certainly want planning and development near me to be decided locally, not by a gang of incompetents in London".
I'm not quite sure what planet you inhabit if you aren't aware that across the land, local planning is decided by a gang of incompetents in local offices, burdened with planet-sized egos and a disconcerting amount of corruption.
And the notion of me being given my lines to trot out amuses me no end - because I would just tell "them" to piss off. You though? Such a partisan hack, I do have my doubts...
So you have no substantive response to @RochdalePioneers’s point, which is that local decisions should be made locally.
Perhaps because more detailed logic is indeed missing from your crib sheet.
Having been a town councillor looking at planning proposals and married to a borough councillor doing the same I am well aware of what local planning officers and committees can do. I'd have said "galaxy-sized" egos but I take his point.
Thing is that if planning decisions get made locally then its far easier to have direct accountability than when the council is overruled by the Secretary of State. Yes donations get made even at local level that raise eyebrows but that doesn't change the democratic mandate they have to seek.
It is far far easier to remove councillors of questionable decision-making prowess and/or morality than it is a Secretary of State. We need more power and accountability at local level, not less.
If PB Tories doesn't understand that then more fool them. Not everyone with an interest in politics inhabits the same moral cesspit as Johnson's Tory Party.
So you want all planning decisions to be taken by locally elected councillors, with no right of appeal. What would happen if they never approved any development?
I didn't say no right of appeal. I want a planning system that isn't rigged to the developers and against councils. I keep having to make the same point - the only way to stop developers building houses is to let developers build houses. Unless your local plan has enough houses being built then developers win every appeal by default. And how many houses are being built is up to the developers who sit on planning permission given without always actually building.
Let them appeal against a planning system not built to favour them. And an end to the government that takes significant donations from developers overruling everyone.
So, decisions have to be taken locally, but there needs to be a right of appeal. For a right of appeal to be meaningful, there have to be objective rules about what can and cannot be allowed. These rules are set by local decision makers, following a process set out in law by central government, which takes account of information on how much development is needed. The right of appeal is to the secretary of state, who ultimately has decision making authority. They must provide reasons why something is or is not allowed, and if these are inadequate or irrational then they can be overturned in the courts.
That is the system that already exists. By all means the structure of the system can be changed and it constantly is, and is going to be again in the forthcoming planning bill. But my point is that it is no answer to give absolute power to local decision makers, just as it is no answer to remove all controls on development.
Well indeed.
Rochdale is getting himself tied into knots because he hates the Tories and is wilfully trying to twist everything so that he can end up at his predetermined outcome of "Tories = Bad"
Politicians get involved? How dare you! Tories bad. Politicians get taken out of the equation? How dare you! Tories bad.
I think it is clear at least that it is desirable for politicians to get involved in decisions about what development takes place.
It's certainly a live issue in the constituency. An old friend of mine lives on the edge of Amersham and will never vote for the party again, solely because of HS2.
The timing of the lockdown farce yesterday as well as Brexit starting to unravel over the Northern Ireland protocol are also tarnishing Brand Boris. Even an announcement on a UK-Australia trade deal may not help as it is not going down well with British farmers, who feel the Aussies have an unfair advantage. In a seat that was pro-Remain these things still matter.
I'm on the LibDems with good odds following Mike's tip. It's a bet I expect to lose but stranger things have happened in by-elections.
It would be very droll if, having captured the north, the tories lost their homeland.
The LibDems are throwing everything at the by-election. It might possibly win them the seat, but I don't expect it. This is a Government in its 20th month, so I probably should be expecting it (at least, on the basis of the ramping of their chances on here - LibDems to win it in a "landslide", I recall one poster saying).
But, the LibDems are close on 40% behind the government in national polling. Plus, for decade after decade, the Tory vote has been very predictable in this seat - between 50-odd percent and 60-odd percent. Safe, but never massively so.
The LibDems are also saddling themselves with the Nimby label. Bollocks to Brexit, now Bollocks to Building. They are very keen on pushing a humanitarian agenda - as long as once people get here they don't mind living under trees.
Oh, and not THOSE trees. They are ancient woodland. Can't have people shitting in those...
And they are very keen on people using trains. Just, not THAT train.
They are starting to build up internal contradictions that again show they aren't a party of serious decisions required of government. Just say whatever it takes to win a seat. But their opponents will be watching, storing up posters and leaflets with which to whack them around the head.
It goes beyond NIMBYism to what a national planning policy should be. Objecting to building houses in places they shouldn't be built is a valid battle to fight. The NPPF has allowed planners to overrule everyone including councillors the council and the MP. I myself have fought some NIMBY not those trees battles because the proposal was utterly stupid.
There are a lot of people out there who think the same way. With the Tories now openly corrupt and donations flowing to the party from developers there is a valid line of opposition to take. I don't agree with the battle against HS2 then again they aren't building it near me...
It's not a case of NIMBYism, it's a case of poor planning. Developers building vast estates of houses at £500,000 and above is not going to solve the housing crisis. If I was starting again as a small family I couldn't afford a mortgage for one of those. I think the boarded up shops and office blocks of the town centres should be the first target, constructing 3 and 2 bedroom houses or flats for people to start climbing the ladder on. This would provide much-needed accomodation and possibly the chance to save and plan for the next stage. In my old home town centre of Stafford there are many disused shops and office blocks which could be used first for housing before spoiling the countryside around first.
They are the only kind of houses developers want to build. They get planning permission, don't use it, and then force a shortage of houses being built to be able to build what they want when they want. The NPPF has been dubbed the developers charter and you can see why.
Have a free market and this issue goes away. If developers don't build houses people want then the public can build their own homes as they want (something incredibly common in most of the world and almost unheard of here with our draconian planning regime). Or competition can arise so other developers develop the homes people want.
Unless you're concerned that the developers ARE developing the homes people want.
One problem that's very frustrating is one that came up recently. We were approving a huge development of several thousand houses - which would sort out a considerable amount of the significant housing need here.
Developer "And we intend to build this site out over the next twenty-five years..."
Me, "Wait, what? Twenty-five years?" (As we need housing ASAP)
Developer: "Yes; that's what our market assessment says to meet our targeted values" (In essence: they don't want to build quickly enough to drive house prices down. Their intent is to ensure they have an income stream and acceptable profit margin for as long as possible. So 25 years of building out on a large site suits them down to the ground. And will not help with house prices, other than either slowing the increase or maybe flattening it out)
The only solution I can see is to get building social housing - which bypasses that limitation (and those developers who have the 25-year massive projects may see the value of these decline, what a pity).
This is fundamentally part of the problem of the British system of having en-bloc planning approval going to one developer alone.
In much of the rest of the world this problem isn't seen because the proposed construction zone is built piecemeal, sometimes house by house, by anyone who wants to build or own a home. Since the value of land with permission isn't dramatically artificially inflated in most countries then a single developer buying the entire land and then not building on it doesn't work economically. If several thousand people want a home then they get it constructed by whoever they want to construct it rather than one fixed developer on the developers timeline and move in, job done.
Why should the entire development go to just one developer? If each individual house, or each individual street, of your several thousand houses could be built one or many at a time by a plethora of developers or self-builders then this couldn't happen.
Yes, we need to do all we can to encourage self-building, which seems to happen well in most other parts of the world.
With regard to larger developments, the issue is more of land-banking and phased releasing by developers. Perhaps charging council tax on a development a year after planning permission is given, rather than after the building is occupied, might be a way forward - maybe with an escalator for unfinished units.
Comments
Also minority groups. We know that COVID hits minorities harder. The UK has a bigger minority population than many other European countries.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-57478412
WRT to large housing, developers add new builds to the market which are sold at a sometimes enormous premium. But they increase the overall supply thus easing pressure on other parts of the housing market. They build as much as the market can absorb whilst maximising their profits, that is what they have to do; as they are businesses. They say that they need to have a large land bank (Ie houses with permission, ready to go) to support them in this, that is probably true.
The best ways of moving past this problem may be through building more social / council housing by the state, who are not so constrained by market forces. Most private developers would probably agree with this. There is an aversion to actual town planning, which is seen by many conservatives as a not entirely abolished relic of the pre thatcher era. But better planning is the solution to all these problems.
Thing is that if planning decisions get made locally then its far easier to have direct accountability than when the council is overruled by the Secretary of State. Yes donations get made even at local level that raise eyebrows but that doesn't change the democratic mandate they have to seek.
It is far far easier to remove councillors of questionable decision-making prowess and/or morality than it is a Secretary of State. We need more power and accountability at local level, not less.
If PB Tories doesn't understand that then more fool them. Not everyone with an interest in politics inhabits the same moral cesspit as Johnson's Tory Party.
As for your complaints, if you desire politicians to get involved with consent then it encourages this kind of alleged corruption.
If the market decides without any political involvement, then there can't be any alleged corruption.
The only reason there's a perceived conflict of interest is that consent is valuable. If as you allege consent were to be automatically granted it would cease to be valuable.
You're hypocritical in your complaints.
What would happen if they never approved any development?
(And of course it was the English parliament after the Restoration; post 1801 the aristocracy decided that seven year terms would make the whole democracy thing less inconvenient.)
Whatever happened to standards in public office? Basic decency? Morality? The government broke the ministerial code again yesterday. Openly lied to parliament and the speaker. In any other government of any party heads would have to roll. In your cesspit government nobody cares. Because people like you provide succour to it.
The 24 million above to actually complete 2 doses for all 18-30 assumes 90% take-up.
Let them appeal against a planning system not built to favour them. And an end to the government that takes significant donations from developers overruling everyone.
"Right now: Jon Stewart on the Covid Lab Leak “theory” is solid laughs"
https://twitter.com/mns/status/1404665481886195717?s=20
Thanks, Boris
You deserve neither safety nor liberty.
Well of course David you do because you're one of the good ones but jesus read your post over again. Parliament be damned, there is important stuff going on. FFS.
As far as we know (e.g. from the Yellow Card data), the UK is currently getting more AZ than not-AZ each week, in a ratio of roughly 2:1.
If we look at the jabs still to be done, under current rules we need more not-AZ than AZ, in a ratio of roughly 3:1.
That's going to slow things down.
Either you want politicians to make the decisions, in which case there will always be the possibility for alleged corruption.
Or you want decisions made automatically by predetermined standards or by supply and demand or something else, in which case politicians aren't involved and there can't be alleged corruption.
Which is it?
I am no fan of the Tories at present, but Scots Nats are in no position to throw stones, particularly Salmond fanbois.
This nightmare is continuing. These are not minor restrictions and it's frankly insulting to the young to describe them as such. The Zoomocracy need to have a special Covid tax applied to the savings they have accumulated during this period to pay for the costs they're willing to impose on others.
That is the system that already exists. By all means the structure of the system can be changed and it constantly is, and is going to be again in the forthcoming planning bill. But my point is that it is no answer to give absolute power to local decision makers, just as it is no answer to remove all controls on development.
Have to admit I am concerned that it will last long past July 19th.
19 July is the "terminus date" for England's remaining coronavirus restrictions and it would take an "unprecedented and remarkable" change in circumstances to derail that, Michael Gove has told Sky News.
https://news.sky.com/story/covid-19-unprecedented-and-remarkable-change-needed-to-derail-19-july-terminus-date-michael-gove-says-12332866
If you want an open market let the developers build in your personal garden then why not go and campaign for it? You won't get elected.
Rochdale is getting himself tied into knots because he hates the Tories and is wilfully trying to twist everything so that he can end up at his predetermined outcome of "Tories = Bad"
Politicians get involved? How dare you! Tories bad.
Politicians get taken out of the equation? How dare you! Tories bad.
Fisherpeople of course are now out of the CFP the SNP wanted to keep them in
The PM wanted a photo op in India, which he considered more important than preventing/reducing the import of the latest variant into the UK.
On your other post: I agree. Public compliance will decline significantly with nice weather and dispute over the Government's extension of lockdown, such as it is.
This won't help businesses too much which are still affected and a cheap shot for rozzers. Although maybe they can identify as BLM-owned and the police will be too busy running away or kneeling to actually do anything.
The Great Clunking Fist of Gordon Brown used his bully pulpit to say that it was no time for a novice during the financial crisis. He still got chucked out.
Donald Trump used his bully pulpit to dominate much of the media. He still got chucked out.
The bully pulpit only helps you so far and if the public loses its patience then you're out on your ear. The buck stops with the government. If the public hasn't lost its patience then its not because of a bully pulpit, its because the public still thinks the government is doing a good job in the circumstances.
We were approving a huge development of several thousand houses - which would sort out a considerable amount of the significant housing need here.
Developer "And we intend to build this site out over the next twenty-five years..."
Me, "Wait, what? Twenty-five years?"
(As we need housing ASAP)
Developer: "Yes; that's what our market assessment says to meet our targeted values"
(In essence: they don't want to build quickly enough to drive house prices down. Their intent is to ensure they have an income stream and acceptable profit margin for as long as possible. So 25 years of building out on a large site suits them down to the ground. And will not help with house prices, other than either slowing the increase or maybe flattening it out)
The only solution I can see is to get building social housing - which bypasses that limitation (and those developers who have the 25-year massive projects may see the value of these decline, what a pity).
Brexit
Why shut down flights to Pakistan, but NOT India? Well, Boris, what is it? Trade deal, Indian voters, anything else? There is nothing else
We are now fucked because Boris was basically incompetent and/or stupidly devious. I do not believe all restrictions will end on July 19
If its not land you own, its not your personal garden is it?
This is a different beast. Everyone in the country was screaming for Boris to close down flights from India. He did not
“They have allowed the Delta variant, first identified in India to take hold here. Let’s call it what it is. Let’s put the blame where it should lie.
“In this country – it’s the Johnson Variant."
https://twitter.com/paulwaugh/status/1404720858644500483
On that basis he is "our" mistake
I support democracy. If you don't that's your call, happily me and thee will no longer be in the same country in future.
They could have deduced that there was a bad variant in India from the increase in cases, but I don't think the actual cause of the problem there became clear until later.
THAT would be lethally stupid.
Why put Pakistan and Bangladesh on the red list but not India which had many more cases at the time?
I just do not see how they are made to conform if they just ignore all requests to comply
The speaker could ban Boris from the HOC but watch his poll ratings rise as again he invokes the people v the elites
I do not have a solution but I would be very pleased if all three were made to make their announcements in their parliaments
You risk becoming one of those people who adopted a youthful tribal identity - but never let it go, in an embarrassing way. The 60 year old punk rocker on the King's Road last week, the pensionable Hell's Angel too stiff to climb on his rusted Harley, Simon Le Bon.
Worth noting that most of the EU had above 5% positivity rates at a similar time too yet they weren't put on the red list either. I personally think they all should have been, but the data at the time wasn't showing India any worse than Europe unlike the others.
So rather than being "obvious to anyone watching the relentless exponential growth of Delta during April.", it was actually pretty confusing. I make weekly VOC/VUI monitoring plots, and here's what I saw in three weeks from 19 April (1st time I included B.1.617) to 3 May.
https://twitter.com/jcbarret/status/1402168885256859653?s=20
Part of critique of this Christina Pagel article:
https://twitter.com/jcbarret/status/1402168856022601729?s=20
Now, yes, we should have quarantined arrivals sooner/faster - but at the time we did it to Pakistan/Bangladesh arrivals because we were worried about the South African variant there - and India cases/population was still very low - so "we should have stopped Delta by quarantining India arrivals" is pure hindsight.
Time limited planning permission for example.
Perhaps putting India on the red list involved too much girly swot work.
Brexit will never be over because every 4 years the electorate have a chance to reverse it or modify it or do something completely different. Which was always the problem with the "will of the people" mantra where a referendum now two parliaments in the past gets modified to become an enabling act.
The current planning system is far from perfect. But anyone with even a passing interest in the free market understands that it comes with market failures, that sometimes requires state intervention to correct. The balance today might not be the correct one but to pretend that there isn’t a balance to be struck is puerile.
It continues to define politics, and will do so for many, many years to come.
i understand why you don't want to talk about it. Shame is a powerful emotion.
https://www.dfat.gov.au/ (dfat = Dept of Foreign Affairs & Trade)
https://www.dfat.gov.au/trade/agreements/negotiations/aukfta (UK negotiations)
There are stories on Australian news sites but no details that I can see.
Brexit is overBREAKING: U.K. and Australia agree a free-trade deal as Boris Johnson seeks to expand commercial ties with countries around the world after Brexit https://trib.al/LbFyoYc https://twitter.com/Brexit/status/1404718767633010690/photo/1
And until that genuine talent gets shattered (I reckon it's when he definitively unambiguously goes bald) he will remain an incompetent, stupid, devious (and I think you forgot lazy)...
... Prime Minister.
https://twitter.com/pmdfoster/status/1404717804977336320
https://twitter.com/BestForBritain/status/1404714265152458752
As I said earlier, it was about cases.
"Ministers knew about the Indian variant on April 1. The public was told on April 15"
"The discovery of the Indian variant in Britain was not announced to the public by ministers for a fortnight while thousands of potentially infected people were allowed to enter the country.
"Ministers were given the news of the variant’s arrival on April 1 but no official statement was made until April 15. India was not placed on the red list banning travellers from the country for another eight days."
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/ministers-knew-about-the-indian-variant-on-april-1-the-public-was-told-on-april-15-crjdnn7jc
In much of the rest of the world this problem isn't seen because the proposed construction zone is built piecemeal, sometimes house by house, by anyone who wants to build or own a home. Since the value of land with permission isn't dramatically artificially inflated in most countries then a single developer buying the entire land and then not building on it doesn't work economically. If several thousand people want a home then they get it constructed by whoever they want to construct it rather than one fixed developer on the developers timeline and move in, job done.
Why should the entire development go to just one developer? If each individual house, or each individual street, of your several thousand houses could be built one or many at a time by a plethora of developers or self-builders then this couldn't happen.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/apr/29/comparing-us-and-uk-case-numbers-suggests-australias-india-flight-ban-based-on-fear-factor
April 29th - blocking flights from India is racist.
Why should anyone obey the rules now when there is no sense to them?
This government, this Tory party, is IMO a clear and present danger to our freedom, our democracy and belief in the rule of law. I don't give a stuff about opinion polls. Just because something is popular does not make it right.
"Senior political sources suggested two reasons why the imposition of border restrictions on travellers from India may have been delayed. It is alleged that Boris Johnson wanted to keep relations with India smooth before key post-Brexit trade talks and there was also concern that it might halt vaccine supplies from its factories to the UK if placed on the red list."
Hmm. At best I think it was a mix of all three. And, a disastrous error
Boris loves meeting other leaders - the glad-handing, the bonhomie, the photostunts, the vacuous announcements, even the WAGS bit.
Boris really wanted to meet Modi and give his Khasi of Kalabar gear another outing.
https://twitter.com/paulwaugh/status/1404721453472178178
@DPJHodges @paulwaugh As @patrick_kidd brilliantly pointed out, Vaughan is still the Amity Island mayor in Jaws II, set some years later - presumably having run for re-election on a platform of "got shark done"
https://twitter.com/MarinaHyde/status/1404725132673814534
However if there's no legitimate archeological or environmental reasons and 50 households want to move in to that field and you're prepared to sell your field then sure, let that happen. However if there's no public amenities then the households probably won't want to move in, so its moot.
Or deal with amenities in response to what happens. You don't need to be stuck in the past.
The issue wrecking our housing system is consent artificially inflating the value of land depending upon whether it has consent or not. If consent ceases to be valuable then buying land to not build on it becomes utterly uneconomic and what is constructed becomes based upon the value added of construction and not the value added of getting consent and sitting on it.
https://twitter.com/jcbarret/status/1402168888440283137?s=20
And getting it right mattered: reflexively designating the whole B.1.617 super-lineage would've completely confounded both real-world and lab experiments on immunity and vaccine efficacy, because it's now clear the sub-lineages have very different biological properties.
https://twitter.com/jcbarret/status/1402168890344488962?s=20
The variant identified by April 1st was B.1.167.1, which is not the dangerous 'Delta' strain and has different mutations.
I think the problem has been that the scientists have been advising action only when they have actual data and not on a hunch that 'something bad is happening'.
That's the real argument here I think. It turns out that if we'd done bit more panicking early and panicking often then we'd have done better throughout.
Which is presumably why we didn't drop restrictions yesterday. That lesson has been learnt, but too late.
And disastrous ? A mistake certainly but better to get Delta now than in the winter.
Positivity is entirely relevant, the entire EU have 330 million population but France has 67 million. We didn't red list the EU and we didn't red list France - that's two sides of the same coin.
I think we should have red listed the globe, but the data was no worse in India at the time than it was in the EU.
With regard to larger developments, the issue is more of land-banking and phased releasing by developers. Perhaps charging council tax on a development a year after planning permission is given, rather than after the building is occupied, might be a way forward - maybe with an escalator for unfinished units.