politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Safe as houses?

Foxy said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

https://twitter.com/hendopolis/status/1275174671818899456?s=09

So we can drink, eat, shop, sightsee, just not worship...

Churches are also due to reopen for worship in July

From the man who was pro occupy wall street that got eaten by this own...on what he thinks about state of US at the moment.

https://youtu.be/NR7gDJGFW5A

TheScreamingEagles said:

https://twitter.com/SamLee/status/1275142199898931203

Where was Mike?

We deserve to be told!

isam said:

Theuniondivvie said:

Biggles Farage up to his old tricks, or is he still in the US pursuing the national interest?

https://twitter.com/TheEmmett_/status/1275142251916730371?s=20

Yes, lets not make it about Burnley supporters!

Hey, I'm just worried you unwokies are going to win the air war.

Charles said:

Cyclefree said:

FrankBooth said:

Does anyone know how Jenrick made his fortune?

That is an interesting question and I have not been able to find an answer. In 2009, as a just qualified solicitor - even one working at Skadden Arps, which pays top dollar - he was able to buy a £1 mio house. He does not come from a wealthy background, as far as I can tell. But who knows? For all we know he could have won the lottery.

His wife is a partner at Cooley I believe.

That may well explain it. Were they an item when he bought his first property?

Interesting story in Saturday’s Times about how they financed the renovation of one of the homes. The answers are a little opaque.

CorrectHorseBattery said:

The other issue - which might be pushed by Corona anyway - is to stop jobs and money being centred in London.

Get jobs created in the North, you drive through it and there's nothing there! Yet in London you can't afford a garage on a normal salary, it's insane.

London is expensive because people like living in SE England. Regardless of anything else (and there are many, many more factors), the climate is infinitely superior to the north.

Cyclefree said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

Andy_JS said:

Who's accusing Johnson of having a "colonial mindset"?

Its the Baroness Scotland stuff that has been rumbling for a while.

She’s one that could easily have been included in my “Rewards for Failure” list of shame.

Beyond that, there is being shit and there is being a wrong'un...

Cyclefree said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Foxy said:

Scott_xP said:

Malmesbury said:

Simple fix then - start giving out planning permission like confetti.

Is this why Jenrick isn't going...?

https://twitter.com/Steven_Swinford/status/1275165591465349120

Very handy if your family has significant land holdings on the edge of a University city...

Have you even thought he may actually be right

Have you thought that Cummings probably has little real knowledge of planning law and policy?

I mean he’s meant to know about all sorts of things but what we do know is that he’s the sort of person who rewrites his articles to claim that he forecast things when he didn’t.

There are certainly issues with planning policy in this country but it’s a bit more complicated than “remove controls and let people build”. You might want to look at the appalling damage done to places like Bristol, Leeds, Liverpool etc in the 1960’s when developers were given free rein.

The USA is filled with dangerous warning about the problems of just building houses.

Massive 'perfect' suburbs that are completely uneconomical to maintain.

Cyclefree said:

Martin_Kinsella said:

JohnO said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

JohnO said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

If Robert Jenrick was a councillor he'd be facing some very serious consequences, and that's no euphemism.

More like prosecution for misconduct in public office.

Indeed. I know a few councillors of all stripes fuming at this, where they have recused themselves because they've been at the same event as a person making an application.

I know there's a pandemic on but this is still a big issue, someone at Downing Street or CCHQ must know this is going to get very messy.

Absolutely right and as soon as this broke, I was on here calling for his resignation. It’s a thundering disgrace Jenrick is still there.

It’s a great article. His position is surely untenable now ?

Steve Reed is the Shadow Minister. I know nothing about him. Is he any good?

If he starts ranting about corruption he will miss the mark. He needs to ask - repeatedly - why Jenrick did not recuse himself after that dinner and when he told his officials the full story of what happened there.

It would also help if he had some inside knowledge of how tables at fund-raising dinners are organised and whether the Minister knows in advance e where he will be sitting. Because that part of the story does not smell right to me either. But what do I know? Perhaps it is lucky dip.

They are carefully organised by the Treasurer’s team. The minister wouldn’t know who he was sitting next to in advance but I would have been planned

CorrectHorseBattery said:

The issue isn't planning, it's that developers are allowed to sit on land for years whilst it goes up in value.

The other issue is that houses and developments are bought up from people abroad who never live in it. That should be made illegal, it's funny a "pro Britain" Tory Party doesn't rush to ban that or tax it very heavily.

I agree with this. Too much property is treated as a bank by people rather than as a home.

kle4 said:

Foxy said:

kle4 said:

Foxy said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

https://twitter.com/hendopolis/status/1275174671818899456?s=09

So we can drink, eat, shop, sightsee, just not worship...

People can pray anywhere. And wouldn't belting out hymns be more likely to transmit than socially distanced shopping?

If that's your attitude, then people can drink and eat, even shop online anywhere. Worship is a community activity.

Yes, people can drink, eat and shop anywhere, the point was apparently it is judged they can do those things more safely than they can worship. So I don't know why you are pretending there is a contradiction in being able to do some things and not others. If it is safer to do them than it is to worship why object to not being able to do the latter?

Or am I to believe that a community activity judged to be too risky should be allowed because other less risky activities are permitted? Why should a religious observance get a pass on safety?

It strikes me as phony and hypocritical to pretend not to know different activities might have different risks and act like it is strange, at least without justifying why it is a mistaken judgement. If it is just as safe as those other activities then I welcome people being able to communally worship. If it is not as safe, people can handle that trial.

Its more important than pubs or dining out. Feed the soul, rather than the body.

Like I said, we have a safe, socially distanced worship plan.

MaxPB said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

MaxPB said:

Beibheirli_C said:

contrarian said:

logical_song said:

CorrectHorseBattery said:

Apple transitioning away from Intel to ARM

... for their computers as well as iPhones.

Good for the UK Technology Industry?

No. The Japanese bought ARM a year or two back. They own it now.

Son/SoftBank have made so many bad bets that I wouldn't be surprised if they had to float it again to raise capital to cover losses in other parts of the business.

WeWork says hello :-)

It's not just WeWork. Loads of vision fund bets have gone really badly.

If I'd performed one tenth as poorly as the Vision Fund when I was a Fund Manager, I would have been fired.

Ultimately, Softbank has done two shrewd things:

(1) it bought Vodafone Japan at the bottom of the market
(2) it invested in Alibaba when it was a tiny company

Other than that there are a lot of duds.

With my insurance telematics industry hat on, I can you that Softbank got completely legged over when it invested $500m in Cambridge Mobile Telematics at a c. $3bn valuation.

Compass, a US realtor, was also at a completely absurd price.

eadric said:

Anabobazina said:

CorrectHorseBattery said:

The other issue - which might be pushed by Corona anyway - is to stop jobs and money being centred in London.

Get jobs created in the North, you drive through it and there's nothing there! Yet in London you can't afford a garage on a normal salary, it's insane.

London is expensive because people like living in SE England. Regardless of anything else (and there are many, many more factors), the climate is infinitely superior to the north.

You have the zeal of the newly converted

I'm guessing you have fairly recently moved from a northern or Scottish city to London?

I agree the difference is tangible. The climate of SE England borders on the very tolerable, most of the rest of the UK sadly does not

I’ve lived here for 21 years, but get back to friends and family enough to have regular salutary reminders of the contrast!

CorrectHorseBattery said:

The other issue - which might be pushed by Corona anyway - is to stop jobs and money being centred in London.

Get jobs created in the North, you drive through it and there's nothing there!

That would explain my ennui.

I laid Sunak as next Con leader a little while ago, frustratingly his price has barely shifted.

Could someone start some terrible rumours about him having a huge row with Cummings or something.

Foxy said:

Malmesbury said:

HYUFD said:

Malmesbury said:

Beibheirli_C said:

Malmesbury said:

tlg86 said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

Good article but disappointing.

Why?

Because at the start I though Cyclefree was going to look at the huge issue of housing policy rather than the more prosaic issue of a dodgy Conservative Minister who should have been out of his job weeks ago.

Obviously the latter is still important and I think the article nails it very well. But I would so much rather have read about how to fix our long term housing issues.

If interest rates hadn't remained at rock bottom for the last decade, then perhaps the whole % of affordable housing thing wouldn't have been required.

The root of the issue is not building more houses, when the population rises. Any other solution merely shifts the problem about.

If you made it harder/more expensive to get a mortgage, then perhaps house prices would be lower. But the root of the problem would still be there - lack of properties,

Lack of properties is not the problem. There are a large number of unused properties or properties that could be renovated.

For example, a large office complex near where I used to large was deserted for some time. Then it was converted to flats. It was sufficiently successful that another office block half a mile away went the same way.

The whole SW side of central Manchester was refurbed from old warehouses and is now vibrant.

The real problem is that a shortage of supply keeps the prices high and that seems to be the real goal of the housing market.

Simple fix then - start giving out planning permission like confetti.

There's a reason that agricultural land next to a commuter station just outside London is £2.5K an acre.

Oh, and the Green Belt is Institutionally Racist. So win, win, win.

If councils start building over the Green belt then Residents Association, Independents and LDs will sweep the board at the next council elections

In many places the residents want building - quality building. The current fad for a square meter per person, no gardens etc is not what people want.

Or put more plainly, they want houses for rich people, not poor.

It’s not materially more expensive to build quality homes.

CorrectHorseBattery said:

Malmesbury said:

BluestBlue said:

CorrectHorseBattery said:

The issue isn't planning, it's that developers are allowed to sit on land for years whilst it goes up in value.

The other issue is that houses and developments are bought up from people abroad who never live in it. That should be made illegal, it's funny a "pro Britain" Tory Party doesn't rush to ban that or tax it very heavily.

Chancellor Sunak says hello:

https://www.mansionglobal.com/articles/tax-levy-for-foreign-buyers-announced-in-coronavirus-focused-u-k-budget-212899

The EvulForeignerSteealingAllTheHouses thing is largely - what's the word? - ah yes. Bollocks.

The land held by developers is held for a time that strangely matches the time it takes to get a project from initial planning to building.

Both answers are used to evade the reason for the shortage of housing. We are forbidden to build more.

If it's bollocks, prove it. Why would Sunak be taking action (however pointless) if it wasn't an issue?

Hold on a second, you are the one claiming it was one of the issues. Shouldn't it be for you to demonstrate so? I didn't think this was a large issue beyond the capital, but happy to be corrected.

eadric said:

Anabobazina said:

CorrectHorseBattery said:

The other issue - which might be pushed by Corona anyway - is to stop jobs and money being centred in London.

Get jobs created in the North, you drive through it and there's nothing there! Yet in London you can't afford a garage on a normal salary, it's insane.

London is expensive because people like living in SE England. Regardless of anything else (and there are many, many more factors), the climate is infinitely superior to the north.

You have the zeal of the newly converted

I'm guessing you have fairly recently moved from a northern or Scottish city to London?

I agree the difference is tangible. The climate of SE England borders on the very tolerable, most of the rest of the UK sadly does not

That’s just bollocks. Most of England and Wales has a wonderful climate. Whenever I’ve been in Scotland it has been lovely too.

My view may be coloured by being a gardener. I love rain.

Andy_JS said:

Important primary tomorrow in New York, where Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is fighting off a challenge to her candidacy in New York's 14th District.

I don't think she's got much to fear. Her opponent is literally a DINO with more Trump links than one of his golf courses.

The interesting NY primaries include NY-16 (Bronx/Westchester), where long-term Rep Elliot Engel is under serious challenge from the left in the shape of Jamaal Bowman. Engel is pretty progressive on domestic issues, but a super-pro-Israel hawk on foreign policy (he's Chair of the House Foreign Affairs Committee). In normal circumstances Engel should have walked it, but a couple of weeks back was caught on a hot mic at a BLM protest saying "If I didn't have a primary, I wouldn't care," [about being at the protest]. Oops. The district is very mixed, but does contain the more heavily Black areas of Yonkers and Mount Vernon, and now at least one poll has Bowman in the lead.

And then there's NY-17 (Westchester/Rockland counties) where I live. It's a safe Dem suburban seat, open as our current Rep. Nita Lowey is retiring. The main contenders are David Carlucci, who was one of the DINOs that kept the GOP in control of the NY State Senate until 2018; Adam Schleifer who's the scion of the billionaire CEO of Regeneron, a local bio-tech firm; and Mondaire Jones who grew up in poverty in Rockland county (which is a bit like growing up in poverty in Surrey). If elected he'd be the first openly gay African-American congressman. The polls are all over the place, but the most recent has Jones in the lead. He has my vote, as he's the only Dem candidate in the primary who supports single-payer Medicare-for-All healthcare.

CorrectHorseBattery said:

rcs1000 said:

MaxPB said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

MaxPB said:

Beibheirli_C said:

contrarian said:

logical_song said:

CorrectHorseBattery said:

Apple transitioning away from Intel to ARM

... for their computers as well as iPhones.

Good for the UK Technology Industry?

No. The Japanese bought ARM a year or two back. They own it now.

Son/SoftBank have made so many bad bets that I wouldn't be surprised if they had to float it again to raise capital to cover losses in other parts of the business.

WeWork says hello :-)

It's not just WeWork. Loads of vision fund bets have gone really badly.

If I'd performed one tenth as poorly as the Vision Fund when I was a Fund Manager, I would have been fired.

Ultimately, Softbank has done two shrewd things:

(1) it bought Vodafone Japan at the bottom of the market
(2) it invested in Alibaba when it was a tiny company

Other than that there are a lot of duds.

With my insurance telematics industry hat on, I can you that Softbank got completely legged over when it invested $500m in Cambridge Mobile Telematics at a c. $3bn valuation.

Compass, a US realtor, was also at a completely absurd price.

Is SoftBank interested in Vodafone Group? It's already been run into the ground, will be very cheap soon.

Softbank - the outfit that invested in a satellite constellation (OneWeb) that was going head to head with SpaceX.

On launch price.

By launching with ESA.

I wish I could have pitched them my scheme for bio-diesel from peanuts grown in Africa....

Trump to win Michigan at 3.1 on betfair worth a punt I reckon. Latest polls had him down only by 1 or 2, and Michigan is exactly the kind of place where undercounted white working class might make him overperform his polling.

Tres said:

Malmesbury said:

BluestBlue said:

CorrectHorseBattery said:

The issue isn't planning, it's that developers are allowed to sit on land for years whilst it goes up in value.

The other issue is that houses and developments are bought up from people abroad who never live in it. That should be made illegal, it's funny a "pro Britain" Tory Party doesn't rush to ban that or tax it very heavily.

Chancellor Sunak says hello:

https://www.mansionglobal.com/articles/tax-levy-for-foreign-buyers-announced-in-coronavirus-focused-u-k-budget-212899

The EvulForeignerSteealingAllTheHouses thing is largely - what's the word? - ah yes. Bollocks.

The land held by developers is held for a time that strangely matches the time it takes to get a project from initial planning to building.

Both answers are used to evade the reason for the shortage of housing. We are forbidden to build more.

It doesn't take 15 years though. That's how long the pub that used to be outside Sevenoaks station has been a hole in the ground. They've rebuilt half of Lewisham in that time.

I don't think you've had dealing with the British planning/developing circus.

There are those that say that Stonehenge is really a block of flats that has stalled due to a planning issue. And a developer going bankrupt.

TheScreamingEagles said:

Newark really has been unlucky with their recent MPs hasn't it?

There was the tragic Fiona Jones, that prize bellend Patrick Mercer, and now the shameless Robert Jenrick.

Peterborough says hello.

Richard_Tyndall said:

Malmesbury said:

BluestBlue said:

CorrectHorseBattery said:

The issue isn't planning, it's that developers are allowed to sit on land for years whilst it goes up in value.

The other issue is that houses and developments are bought up from people abroad who never live in it. That should be made illegal, it's funny a "pro Britain" Tory Party doesn't rush to ban that or tax it very heavily.

Chancellor Sunak says hello:

https://www.mansionglobal.com/articles/tax-levy-for-foreign-buyers-announced-in-coronavirus-focused-u-k-budget-212899

The EvulForeignerSteealingAllTheHouses thing is largely - what's the word? - ah yes. Bollocks.

The land held by developers is held for a time that strangely matches the time it takes to get a project from initial planning to building.

Both answers are used to evade the reason for the shortage of housing. We are forbidden to build more.

Let me see what the word is for that - ah yes - bollocks. To use your own description. Planning rules are being continually watered down removing environmental, heritage and sustainability requirements. There was a massive change in 2010 when the old PPG system was replaced by the National Planning Policy Framework which hugely weakened protection for archaeology and historic environments as well as decimating the environmental protections. Only someone thoroughly ignorant of the systems could think planning policy is the issue.

And yet, you can't get permission to build those home thingies.

Hence the insane differential in the value of land with and without planning permission.

Cyclefree said:

Charles said:

Cyclefree said:

Martin_Kinsella said:

JohnO said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

JohnO said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

If Robert Jenrick was a councillor he'd be facing some very serious consequences, and that's no euphemism.

More like prosecution for misconduct in public office.

Indeed. I know a few councillors of all stripes fuming at this, where they have recused themselves because they've been at the same event as a person making an application.

I know there's a pandemic on but this is still a big issue, someone at Downing Street or CCHQ must know this is going to get very messy.

Absolutely right and as soon as this broke, I was on here calling for his resignation. It’s a thundering disgrace Jenrick is still there.

It’s a great article. His position is surely untenable now ?

Steve Reed is the Shadow Minister. I know nothing about him. Is he any good?

If he starts ranting about corruption he will miss the mark. He needs to ask - repeatedly - why Jenrick did not recuse himself after that dinner and when he told his officials the full story of what happened there.

It would also help if he had some inside knowledge of how tables at fund-raising dinners are organised and whether the Minister knows in advance e where he will be sitting. Because that part of the story does not smell right to me either. But what do I know? Perhaps it is lucky dip.

They are carefully organised by the Treasurer’s team. The minister wouldn’t know who he was sitting next to in advance but I would have been planned

So someone in the Tory party carefully planned that 4 people from developers and 1 person from the construction company should sit next to the Housing Minister.

And when this planning was done did anyone from the party think to wonder whether this was appropriate given the very recent public inquiry involving those same developers?

The Treaurers department is about keeping donors happy (I wouldn’t be surprised for someone if the profile of Desmond if he’d been asked who he wanted to sit near)

HYUFD said:

Malmesbury said:

HYUFD said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

And all these are very possible

https://twitter.com/GoodwinMJ/status/1275148213528526861?s=09

Don't forget Salvini in Italy in 2023

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_on_the_Emmanuel_Macron_presidency

Macron is not exactly popular.

There was a rather charming article in a pro European paper the other day - essentially, why is the Evul Boris Johnson doing so well, with his horrible nationalism? ...while Macaron, the good European is being given a kicking by the terrible French people.

The article gave one to understand that it was in the French character to not understand the genius of good rulers.

Le Pen might win the first round but Macron will still win the run-off.

If a populist is going to be elected anywhere in western continental Europe it will be Salvini in Italy

It is worth remembering that two populist parties - M5S and Northern League - won the election in Italy last time around.

(Unless we've decided Five Star is now longer populist.)

eadric said:

Anabobazina said:

eadric said:

Anabobazina said:

eadric said:

Anabobazina said:

CorrectHorseBattery said:

The other issue - which might be pushed by Corona anyway - is to stop jobs and money being centred in London.

Get jobs created in the North, you drive through it and there's nothing there! Yet in London you can't afford a garage on a normal salary, it's insane.

London is expensive because people like living in SE England. Regardless of anything else (and there are many, many more factors), the climate is infinitely superior to the north.

You have the zeal of the newly converted

I'm guessing you have fairly recently moved from a northern or Scottish city to London?

I agree the difference is tangible. The climate of SE England borders on the very tolerable, most of the rest of the UK sadly does not

I’ve lived here for 21 years, but get back to friends and family enough to have regular salutary reminders of the contrast!

Hah

Where is home?

London was blissful today. A serene, cloudless 24C all day. I had a little picnic with an old friend in Highgate and we drank a superb chilled Meursault

Meanwhile in Glasgow it was 14C with heavy rain and a "fresh breeze" - like late Autumn down south


https://www.bbc.co.uk/weather/2648579

I sometimes wonder if Scot Nat anger is fuelled by weather envy, in which case I have some bad news for them: if you ever go indy, it's still gonna be rainy and cold. Sorry guys

From the midlands long ago but have also lived in the NE. It’s remarkable just how often London squeezes out a warm, summery day when points north struggle to record temperatures where it’s attractive to sit outside. This climatic difference is massively underplayed in my experience.

Yes, I entirely agree. I grew up in points west where rain was much more prevalent.

I moved to London and I never want to go back, a decent climate is too important. If I ever shift again I will go further south, to more sun, not less.

Humans, ultimately, are adapted to life on the African savannah: lots of lovely sun, seldom goes below 15C, usually stays around 25-30C, rain is predictable. That's what we like, as a species, in Darwinian terms.

In particular, being able to walk out and see the stars on a warm sweet dulcet evening is a wonderful thing, I will never get over the joy.

There is no such thing as bad weather, just unsuitable clothing.

CorrectHorseBattery said:

The other issue - which might be pushed by Corona anyway - is to stop jobs and money being centred in London.

Get jobs created in the North, you drive through it and there's nothing there! Yet in London you can't afford a garage on a normal salary, it's insane.

15 million people manage to live in 'nothing there' and it has a lower unemployment rate than London.

That said perhaps the best thing about the North is the nice countryside - not the national parks but the easily available countryside among where most people live.

Charles said:

Cyclefree said:

Charles said:

Cyclefree said:

Martin_Kinsella said:

JohnO said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

JohnO said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

If Robert Jenrick was a councillor he'd be facing some very serious consequences, and that's no euphemism.

More like prosecution for misconduct in public office.

Indeed. I know a few councillors of all stripes fuming at this, where they have recused themselves because they've been at the same event as a person making an application.

I know there's a pandemic on but this is still a big issue, someone at Downing Street or CCHQ must know this is going to get very messy.

Absolutely right and as soon as this broke, I was on here calling for his resignation. It’s a thundering disgrace Jenrick is still there.

It’s a great article. His position is surely untenable now ?

Steve Reed is the Shadow Minister. I know nothing about him. Is he any good?

If he starts ranting about corruption he will miss the mark. He needs to ask - repeatedly - why Jenrick did not recuse himself after that dinner and when he told his officials the full story of what happened there.

It would also help if he had some inside knowledge of how tables at fund-raising dinners are organised and whether the Minister knows in advance e where he will be sitting. Because that part of the story does not smell right to me either. But what do I know? Perhaps it is lucky dip.

They are carefully organised by the Treasurer’s team. The minister wouldn’t know who he was sitting next to in advance but I would have been planned

So someone in the Tory party carefully planned that 4 people from developers and 1 person from the construction company should sit next to the Housing Minister.

And when this planning was done did anyone from the party think to wonder whether this was appropriate given the very recent public inquiry involving those same developers?

The Treaurers department is about keeping donors happy (I wouldn’t be surprised for someone if the profile of Desmond if he’d been asked who he wanted to sit near)

Yep, buying influence is obviously the purpose of these party funding dinners. Is anyone really surprised?

Richard_Tyndall said:

Malmesbury said:

Tres said:

Malmesbury said:

BluestBlue said:

CorrectHorseBattery said:

The issue isn't planning, it's that developers are allowed to sit on land for years whilst it goes up in value.

The other issue is that houses and developments are bought up from people abroad who never live in it. That should be made illegal, it's funny a "pro Britain" Tory Party doesn't rush to ban that or tax it very heavily.

Chancellor Sunak says hello:

https://www.mansionglobal.com/articles/tax-levy-for-foreign-buyers-announced-in-coronavirus-focused-u-k-budget-212899

The EvulForeignerSteealingAllTheHouses thing is largely - what's the word? - ah yes. Bollocks.

The land held by developers is held for a time that strangely matches the time it takes to get a project from initial planning to building.

Both answers are used to evade the reason for the shortage of housing. We are forbidden to build more.

It doesn't take 15 years though. That's how long the pub that used to be outside Sevenoaks station has been a hole in the ground. They've rebuilt half of Lewisham in that time.

I don't think you've had dealing with the British planning/developing circus.

There are those that say that Stonehenge is really a block of flats that has stalled due to a planning issue. And a developer going bankrupt.

88% of all planning applications were granted in 2019. 90% of the decisions were made within 3 months.

Planning is not the issue.

And the developers are quite well aware of the quotas for planning. What is the point in applying for permission that will be inevitably refused?

eadric said:

rcs1000 said:

dixiedean said:

Foxy said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

And all these are very possible

https://twitter.com/GoodwinMJ/status/1275148213528526861?s=09

Populism destroys itself in office, as it is an incoherent programme for government, and not one that is robust enough to withstand electoral mood changes. Populism is a reaction against government, not an effective government.

That is why there is a sense of urgency. Cummings wants to burn all bridges to continuity. It is a very unConservative programme.

The other thing about Populism in government is it tends, over time, to unite the opposition against it.
We see it in America. With everyone from the Berniebros to George W and John Bolton coming together.
In Brazil, where Marxists and the mainstream centre right are co-operating.
Am thinking BLM in the US are nothing if not a Left Tea Party.

I like that analogy re BLM.

Of course, it's worth noting that most of the most woke Dems - with the exception of AOC - have failed to win Primaries. Kentucky is perhaps their best shot.

I'm not sure I understand American politics any more, but I wonder how images like this will play. It's had millions of views in various guises. There is no real shooting, as far as I can tell, but it looks VERY anarchic

I would normally say this helps Republicans, but Trump is so egregiously awful, I doubt he can benefit. He's probably finished. But it will surely have an effect over time, if it continues. A lawless America is not a naturally Democrat America?

twitter.com/RealJamesWoods/status/1275110593981108225?s=20

There were 22 real shooting over the weekend in NYC.

Tres said:

HYUFD said:

kle4 said:

HYUFD said:

kle4 said:

Scott_xP said:

Malmesbury said:

Simple fix then - start giving out planning permission like confetti.

Is this why Jenrick isn't going...?

https://twitter.com/Steven_Swinford/status/1275165591465349120

I don't see why Jenrick would be needed for that, it's a long term goal and anyone could do it. Planning is a mess, but given the urge from public and councillors is to say no to things and government wants to make it simpler to say yes to things, I would think MPs would find hundreds and hundreds of loyal councillors lobbying them to avoid anything extreme. One of the suggestions had basically been for local councils to set short, general policies, and other than that they'd have no involvement whatsoever. It'd get things moving more (although most decisions are made by officers anyway), but councillors wouldn't wear it.

Tory backbenchers would vote down removing planning powers from councils as it would be electoral suicide, so that is a non starter

I agree. It was in some policy paper some adviser now in government wrote IIRC, but I'd think it would be more of a threat than anything else, to try to make some tweaks seem less aggravating.

Indeed, forget Brexit, if there is one thing guaranteed to get middle England Home Counties Tory voters switching en masse to the LDs it is building over the countryside and greenbelt.

As you say it will be more tweaks to the planning process

The green belt is a cancer on society, prioritising horses needs over people.

On the contrary it is prioritising the value of properties on the edge of the green belt. Homeowners there can feel very grateful.

Foxy said:

Charles said:

Cyclefree said:

Charles said:

Cyclefree said:

Martin_Kinsella said:

JohnO said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

JohnO said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

If Robert Jenrick was a councillor he'd be facing some very serious consequences, and that's no euphemism.

More like prosecution for misconduct in public office.

Indeed. I know a few councillors of all stripes fuming at this, where they have recused themselves because they've been at the same event as a person making an application.

I know there's a pandemic on but this is still a big issue, someone at Downing Street or CCHQ must know this is going to get very messy.

Absolutely right and as soon as this broke, I was on here calling for his resignation. It’s a thundering disgrace Jenrick is still there.

It’s a great article. His position is surely untenable now ?

Steve Reed is the Shadow Minister. I know nothing about him. Is he any good?

If he starts ranting about corruption he will miss the mark. He needs to ask - repeatedly - why Jenrick did not recuse himself after that dinner and when he told his officials the full story of what happened there.

It would also help if he had some inside knowledge of how tables at fund-raising dinners are organised and whether the Minister knows in advance e where he will be sitting. Because that part of the story does not smell right to me either. But what do I know? Perhaps it is lucky dip.

They are carefully organised by the Treasurer’s team. The minister wouldn’t know who he was sitting next to in advance but I would have been planned

So someone in the Tory party carefully planned that 4 people from developers and 1 person from the construction company should sit next to the Housing Minister.

And when this planning was done did anyone from the party think to wonder whether this was appropriate given the very recent public inquiry involving those same developers?

The Treaurers department is about keeping donors happy (I wouldn’t be surprised for someone if the profile of Desmond if he’d been asked who he wanted to sit near)

Yep, buying influence is obviously the purpose of these party funding dinners. Is anyone really surprised?

I'm always surprised it comes so cheap - compare with what US fundraising dinners deal in.

I'm surprised no oligarch has bought a political party yet - better value than a football club.

Malmesbury said:

CorrectHorseBattery said:

rcs1000 said:

MaxPB said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

MaxPB said:

Beibheirli_C said:

contrarian said:

logical_song said:

CorrectHorseBattery said:

Apple transitioning away from Intel to ARM

... for their computers as well as iPhones.

Good for the UK Technology Industry?

No. The Japanese bought ARM a year or two back. They own it now.

Son/SoftBank have made so many bad bets that I wouldn't be surprised if they had to float it again to raise capital to cover losses in other parts of the business.

WeWork says hello :-)

It's not just WeWork. Loads of vision fund bets have gone really badly.

If I'd performed one tenth as poorly as the Vision Fund when I was a Fund Manager, I would have been fired.

Ultimately, Softbank has done two shrewd things:

(1) it bought Vodafone Japan at the bottom of the market
(2) it invested in Alibaba when it was a tiny company

Other than that there are a lot of duds.

With my insurance telematics industry hat on, I can you that Softbank got completely legged over when it invested $500m in Cambridge Mobile Telematics at a c. $3bn valuation.

Compass, a US realtor, was also at a completely absurd price.

Is SoftBank interested in Vodafone Group? It's already been run into the ground, will be very cheap soon.

Softbank - the outfit that invested in a satellite constellation (OneWeb) that was going head to head with SpaceX.

On launch price.

By launching with ESA.

I wish I could have pitched them my scheme for bio-diesel from peanuts grown in Africa....

Going back to the ARM/silicon aspect.

"Apple’s Mac chips are expected to be built by Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing" (NYTimes)

If I was an Apple exec I would be worried about the deteriorating geopolitical situation in that corner of Asia.

rcs1000 said:

Tres said:

HYUFD said:

kle4 said:

HYUFD said:

kle4 said:

Scott_xP said:

Malmesbury said:

Simple fix then - start giving out planning permission like confetti.

Is this why Jenrick isn't going...?

https://twitter.com/Steven_Swinford/status/1275165591465349120

I don't see why Jenrick would be needed for that, it's a long term goal and anyone could do it. Planning is a mess, but given the urge from public and councillors is to say no to things and government wants to make it simpler to say yes to things, I would think MPs would find hundreds and hundreds of loyal councillors lobbying them to avoid anything extreme. One of the suggestions had basically been for local councils to set short, general policies, and other than that they'd have no involvement whatsoever. It'd get things moving more (although most decisions are made by officers anyway), but councillors wouldn't wear it.

Tory backbenchers would vote down removing planning powers from councils as it would be electoral suicide, so that is a non starter

I agree. It was in some policy paper some adviser now in government wrote IIRC, but I'd think it would be more of a threat than anything else, to try to make some tweaks seem less aggravating.

Indeed, forget Brexit, if there is one thing guaranteed to get middle England Home Counties Tory voters switching en masse to the LDs it is building over the countryside and greenbelt.

As you say it will be more tweaks to the planning process

The green belt is a cancer on society, prioritising horses needs over people.

On the contrary it is prioritising the value of properties on the edge of the green belt. Homeowners there can feel very grateful.

As a homeowner living within a mile of the greenbelt I do not agree. There are things in life more important than land valuation.

The subject of some discussion earlier today:

Police refused to rule out the possibility it may have been a homophobic attack;

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8448703/Police-stopped-Reading-terror-suspect-Khairi-Saadallah-day-attack.html

another_richard said:

Foxy said:

Charles said:

Cyclefree said:

Charles said:

Cyclefree said:

Martin_Kinsella said:

JohnO said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

JohnO said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

If Robert Jenrick was a councillor he'd be facing some very serious consequences, and that's no euphemism.

More like prosecution for misconduct in public office.

Indeed. I know a few councillors of all stripes fuming at this, where they have recused themselves because they've been at the same event as a person making an application.

I know there's a pandemic on but this is still a big issue, someone at Downing Street or CCHQ must know this is going to get very messy.

Absolutely right and as soon as this broke, I was on here calling for his resignation. It’s a thundering disgrace Jenrick is still there.

It’s a great article. His position is surely untenable now ?

Steve Reed is the Shadow Minister. I know nothing about him. Is he any good?

If he starts ranting about corruption he will miss the mark. He needs to ask - repeatedly - why Jenrick did not recuse himself after that dinner and when he told his officials the full story of what happened there.

It would also help if he had some inside knowledge of how tables at fund-raising dinners are organised and whether the Minister knows in advance e where he will be sitting. Because that part of the story does not smell right to me either. But what do I know? Perhaps it is lucky dip.

They are carefully organised by the Treasurer’s team. The minister wouldn’t know who he was sitting next to in advance but I would have been planned

So someone in the Tory party carefully planned that 4 people from developers and 1 person from the construction company should sit next to the Housing Minister.

And when this planning was done did anyone from the party think to wonder whether this was appropriate given the very recent public inquiry involving those same developers?

The Treaurers department is about keeping donors happy (I wouldn’t be surprised for someone if the profile of Desmond if he’d been asked who he wanted to sit near)

Yep, buying influence is obviously the purpose of these party funding dinners. Is anyone really surprised?

I'm always surprised it comes so cheap - compare with what US fundraising dinners deal in.

I'm surprised no oligarch has bought a political party yet - better value than a football club.

Nah - the party funding dinners are the vehicle by which influence is exercised. The buying is done beforehand.

rcs1000 said:

dixiedean said:

Foxy said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

And all these are very possible

https://twitter.com/GoodwinMJ/status/1275148213528526861?s=09

Populism destroys itself in office, as it is an incoherent programme for government, and not one that is robust enough to withstand electoral mood changes. Populism is a reaction against government, not an effective government.

That is why there is a sense of urgency. Cummings wants to burn all bridges to continuity. It is a very unConservative programme.

The other thing about Populism in government is it tends, over time, to unite the opposition against it.
We see it in America. With everyone from the Berniebros to George W and John Bolton coming together.
In Brazil, where Marxists and the mainstream centre right are co-operating.
Am thinking BLM in the US are nothing if not a Left Tea Party.

I like that analogy re BLM.

Of course, it's worth noting that most of the most woke Dems - with the exception of AOC - have failed to win Primaries. Kentucky is perhaps their best shot.

I get that. But wasn't that true of the most loony Tea Party guys, too? The one in Alabama who managed to lose to the Democrat? Steve King who just got primaried in Iowa? There isn't a full on Alex Jones figure in Congress.
AOC succeeds because she's in a very Left area. And she's quite good at the politics thing as well.

Nigelb said:

Some fond reminiscences. of Ian Holm:
https://www.theguardian.com/film/2020/jun/22/ian-holm-remembered-richard-eyre-anne-marie-duff-ken-stott-hugh-hudson

Is there anyone who didn’t like him ?

When you hear accounts of how he behaved to everyone irrespective of their fame - or lack of it - he does come over as a genuinely nice bloke.

Cyclefree said:

Charles said:

Cyclefree said:

Charles said:

Cyclefree said:

FrankBooth said:

Does anyone know how Jenrick made his fortune?

That is an interesting question and I have not been able to find an answer. In 2009, as a just qualified solicitor - even one working at Skadden Arps, which pays top dollar - he was able to buy a £1 mio house. He does not come from a wealthy background, as far as I can tell. But who knows? For all we know he could have won the lottery.

His wife is a partner at Cooley I believe.

That may well explain it. Were they an item when he bought his first property?

Interesting story in Saturday’s Times about how they financed the renovation of one of the homes. The answers are a little opaque.

The financing I don’t know. But the Times got very excercised by the fact they said up a company and focused on the tax benefits (none). They should be asking about the trade discounts...

There are two possible advantages: (1) trade discounts; and (2) if the company he set up was trading and registered for VAT then it could have claimed back the VAT it was paying, which would have made those renovations considerably cheaper than they would otherwise have been.

The answers - which focus on the tax paid - don’t address the latter issue.

I’m fairly sure the article I read said there were no VAT benefits

rcs1000 said:

HYUFD said:

Malmesbury said:

HYUFD said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

And all these are very possible

https://twitter.com/GoodwinMJ/status/1275148213528526861?s=09

Don't forget Salvini in Italy in 2023

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_on_the_Emmanuel_Macron_presidency

Macron is not exactly popular.

There was a rather charming article in a pro European paper the other day - essentially, why is the Evul Boris Johnson doing so well, with his horrible nationalism? ...while Macaron, the good European is being given a kicking by the terrible French people.

The article gave one to understand that it was in the French character to not understand the genius of good rulers.

Le Pen might win the first round but Macron will still win the run-off.

If a populist is going to be elected anywhere in western continental Europe it will be Salvini in Italy

It is worth remembering that two populist parties - M5S and Northern League - won the election in Italy last time around.

(Unless we've decided Five Star is now longer populist.)

Although when populist supreme Salvini tried to force an early election what happened?
He united the opposition in the form of the Left and 5 Star into an alliance against him

Malmesbury said:

BluestBlue said:

CorrectHorseBattery said:

The issue isn't planning, it's that developers are allowed to sit on land for years whilst it goes up in value.

The other issue is that houses and developments are bought up from people abroad who never live in it. That should be made illegal, it's funny a "pro Britain" Tory Party doesn't rush to ban that or tax it very heavily.

Chancellor Sunak says hello:

https://www.mansionglobal.com/articles/tax-levy-for-foreign-buyers-announced-in-coronavirus-focused-u-k-budget-212899

The EvulForeignerSteealingAllTheHouses thing is largely - what's the word? - ah yes. Bollocks.

The land held by developers is held for a time that strangely matches the time it takes to get a project from initial planning to building.

Both answers are used to evade the reason for the shortage of housing. We are forbidden to build more.

When there is a new housing development, the developer will usually build one or two, sell them, build one or two, sell them, etc. It's much more economical for them to down tools than to invest in all the work and materials to build an entire estate and have it sitting empty. It's not really a problem for housing (as theoretically the houses are still on the market) though it does keep prices high I suppose. It's more a problem for the local community, if it's a derelict brownfield site, it potentially stays an eyesore indefinitely.

Who wants to eat in a restaurant while wearing a face mask? I can't see that working.

Individual behind the Burley stunt has been revealed,

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8448635/Burnley-FC-apologise-White-Lives-Matter-banner-flown-match-against-Manchester-City.html

Charles said:

Cyclefree said:

Charles said:

Cyclefree said:

Charles said:

Cyclefree said:

FrankBooth said:

Does anyone know how Jenrick made his fortune?

That is an interesting question and I have not been able to find an answer. In 2009, as a just qualified solicitor - even one working at Skadden Arps, which pays top dollar - he was able to buy a £1 mio house. He does not come from a wealthy background, as far as I can tell. But who knows? For all we know he could have won the lottery.

His wife is a partner at Cooley I believe.

That may well explain it. Were they an item when he bought his first property?

Interesting story in Saturday’s Times about how they financed the renovation of one of the homes. The answers are a little opaque.

The financing I don’t know. But the Times got very excercised by the fact they said up a company and focused on the tax benefits (none). They should be asking about the trade discounts...

There are two possible advantages: (1) trade discounts; and (2) if the company he set up was trading and registered for VAT then it could have claimed back the VAT it was paying, which would have made those renovations considerably cheaper than they would otherwise have been.

The answers - which focus on the tax paid - don’t address the latter issue.

I’m fairly sure the article I read said there were no VAT benefits

If it was this article - https://www.thetimes.co.uk/past-six-days/2020-06-20/news/robert-jenrick-used-company-in-unusual-funding-of-800-000-renovations-n7622lwkp - that is not quite accurate.

It says that the company paid the VAT in full. It says nothing about any VAT claims it may have made.

FrancisUrquhart said:

Individual behind the Burley stunt has been revealed,

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8448635/Burnley-FC-apologise-White-Lives-Matter-banner-flown-match-against-Manchester-City.html

Definite vibe II.

'Jake Hepple (pictured left with English Defence League founder Tommy Robinson) has claimed responsibility for the stunt.'