politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » How Bernie Sanders complicates the betting on November’s US Se
Options
Comments
-
@MarqueeMark I think comparing the Lagoon project to Hinckley does you no favours. Quite frankly the Hinckley project was a mistake in hindsight and were it to be repeated would not be signed in this climate. I don't think it's a baseline you want to be compared against.
Surely the economic development in green energy of recent years has been offshore wind. Surely I would think arguments of reliability, risk and cost effectiveness should be made against offshore wind and not Hinckley.0 -
-
At last, another opportunity to not watch it.Tres said:Some good news for the never kneelers. Gone With the Wind is back on Netflix!
1 -
That`s all parish councils should do. We pay over £200 pa. Parish Clerk costs takes half of the precept. You must live in a big parish if you only pay £13 per year.Gallowgate said:
My parish council does very little apart from making the village look pretty, maintaining the village hall, and pressuring Newcastle City Council to do a better job. I'm surprised the residents in @Stocky 's parish thought it was appropriate to go through their course of action - they should have lobbied the County/City/Metropolitan Council.Philip_Thompson said:
Reasonable but don't parish councils get an element of the Council Tax? And I'm assuming these residents aren't getting a discount on the parish surcharge or whatever it is formally called.Stocky said:
Sure - I agree with you as long as it is the county council (who get the council tax receipts) which adopts the areas - not the parish councils.Philip_Thompson said:
It's dodgy those living there don't get a discount on their Council Tax do they?Stocky said:
Yes - they could - but this is the point isn`t it. When the county council agreed the permissions for these SUE estates to be built (Sustainable Urban Develpoments) the SUE bit means that they are "self-sustaining" financially. So the homeowners contractually agree at purchase that they are personally liable for the maintainance of common areas (usually through a management company) - which is of course pointed out by their solicitor during the conveyancing process.Philip_Thompson said:
Can the Council "adopt" the green spaces etc?Stocky said:
Gallowgate, this became a big issue in my parish. A housing estate was built on the fringe of our rural parish. It is called a "sustainable urban development" and has it`s own green spaces etc which, as you say, have to be maintained and paid for by the development rather than the county council.Gallowgate said:One thing I hope is addressed is the use of estate management companies. Those who haven’t bought a new-build within the last 15 years probably don’t realise that roads, green space, and even play areas that were once payed for by the local council have essentially been privatised, and are payed for by residents of each estate. This is on top of council tax.
This is not a problem in itself, the problem is lack of regulation.
At the moment it’s possible for me to sue my management company for some breach of obligation, win, and then all the legal fees and compensation be backcharged through to the residents anyway.
This is not hyperbole, this is reality. There is literally no regulation.
You are better off being a leaseholder than a freeholder on new build estates when it comes to legal protection.
This became a big issue because some of the residents of the estate tried to get onto our parish council to force through a policy so that the cost of this maintainance was paid out of parish funds! Parishioners were furious. It didn`t happen and would, I believe, have been illegal as it would have meant paying parish council funds to some residents of the parish but not others.
The cheek, though, trying to transfer legal liabilites that they contractually agreed when they purchased their home into all of parishioners.
That often happens with roads in new developments doesn't it? Not sure the legality of other stuff.
The whole point of SUEs in the first place is that the county council hits it`s new homes target without incurring any pressure on their costs through having to maintain common areas (cut grass, prune trees etc) while taking in the additional council tax. Shouldn`t be allowed in my view.
I think the residents are fair enough to seek to get the common areas adopted if that's what they want to vote for. Those living elsewhere paying the same Council Tax rates are getting more service.
My parish council precept is £13 a year!
I`m not sure what course of action you refer to? The parish resisted taking on liabilities entered into by a cohort of parishioners. They were quite right to do so. It is expressly forbidden for parish councils to pay across tax payer money to some parishioners but not others to bail them out of their financial obligations.
As I`ve said, the system of SUEs is rotten. The county council should be maintaining as it is they who receive the council tax. And it is their job.0 -
Shows why people need a good solicitor. I would run a mile from those terms. Much better outside such estates.Gallowgate said:
But that is also not accurate. I'll rephrase:Stocky said:
Ok - maybe I used the wrong word. Instead of "adopted" I should have said that the council is "obliged to maintain".Gallowgate said:
I feel you might be slightly misinformed. New build estates typically have green areas and play-areas NOT adopted by county or metropolitan councils, and yet they are still open to the public DESPITE not being adopted.Stocky said:
SUEs are a special cohort of new-build estates. Common areas in new build estates are, I agree, in principle useable by everyone as the county council maintains (having adopted). SUEs are different. I think they are an awful concept and have caused a lot of tension in my parish.Gallowgate said:
Are you sure about that? In most new build estates with private land being managed, they are not for use exclusively by the homeowners. They are open to the public.Stocky said:
Bear in mind that the common areas in the SUE are for use exclusively by the homeowners in the SUE. these are private facitities. If the county council were to adopt them then every parishioner in the county would be entitled to picnic on their green areas (as is the case with outer council common areas).Philip_Thompson said:
It's dodgy those living there don't get a discount on their Council Tax do they?Stocky said:
Yes - they could - but this is the point isn`t it. When the county council agreed the permissions for these SUE estates to be built (Sustainable Urban Develpoments) the SUE bit means that they are "self-sustaining" financially. So the homeowners contractually agree at purchase that they are personally liable for the maintainance of common areas (usually through a management company) - which is of course pointed out by their solicitor during the conveyancing process.Philip_Thompson said:
Can the Council "adopt" the green spaces etc?Stocky said:
Gallowgate, this became a big issue in my parish. A housing estate was built on the fringe of our rural parish. It is called a "sustainable urban development" and has it`s own green spaces etc which, as you say, have to be maintained and paid for by the development rather than the county council.Gallowgate said:One thing I hope is addressed is the use of estate management companies. Those who haven’t bought a new-build within the last 15 years probably don’t realise that roads, green space, and even play areas that were once payed for by the local council have essentially been privatised, and are payed for by residents of each estate. This is on top of council tax.
This is not a problem in itself, the problem is lack of regulation.
At the moment it’s possible for me to sue my management company for some breach of obligation, win, and then all the legal fees and compensation be backcharged through to the residents anyway.
This is not hyperbole, this is reality. There is literally no regulation.
You are better off being a leaseholder than a freeholder on new build estates when it comes to legal protection.
This became a big issue because some of the residents of the estate tried to get onto our parish council to force through a policy so that the cost of this maintainance was paid out of parish funds! Parishioners were furious. It didn`t happen and would, I believe, have been illegal as it would have meant paying parish council funds to some residents of the parish but not others.
The cheek, though, trying to transfer legal liabilites that they contractually agreed when they purchased their home into all of parishioners.
That often happens with roads in new developments doesn't it? Not sure the legality of other stuff.
The whole point of SUEs in the first place is that the county council hits it`s new homes target without incurring any pressure on their costs through having to maintain common areas (cut grass, prune trees etc) while taking in the additional council tax. Shouldn`t be allowed in my view.
I think the residents are fair enough to seek to get the common areas adopted if that's what they want to vote for. Those living elsewhere paying the same Council Tax rates are getting more service.
It is RARE for green areas to be adopted by councils on ANY new-build estate built within the last 10-15 years.
It is rare for green areas on new-build estates built within the last 10-15 years to be adopted OR maintained by county/city/metropolitan councils. The service is privatised and performed by the estate management company DESPITE the areas being open to the public.
This is the normal state of affairs around the country. It's "boring" because unless you buy a house on one of these estates you are unaffected. Quite a sneaky privatisation through the back-door really.
Like I said, I don't resent it. As far as I'm concerned somebody has to pay, and the council has much more pressing matters to address. It must be fair and regulated though, and at the moment it isn't.0 -
Swansea Bay has strict environmental protection?Flatlander said:
Most of the areas where tidal energy would currently work have strict environmental protection of one form or another (mostly EU defined currently, although that's not really relevant).ydoethur said:
It is beyond bizarre that an island famous for its cool, wet climate, tidal range and coastal currents doesn’t have a single meaningful tidal power source while able to generate 30% of its electricity from solar panels.MarqueeMark said:
Oh it is. The planning rights were proteced in perpetuity, by works on site yesterday. But it will happen with the Government having tried to prevent it at every turn, rather than the kudos it could have got from embracing it.Dura_Ace said:
You're going to have to let this go. It's not going to happen.MarqueeMark said:This morning, the PM COULD have announced that a £1.3 billion shovel-ready project to create 2,200 jobs and 400 apprenticeships would be supported by Government. Jobs and apprenticeships created this summer, with many other jobs in steel and concrete fabrication saved from administration across the supply chain of the Red Wall seats.
All it required was a pump-priming of £35m by Govt. Payable in 2024-5.
Or govt. support equivalent to 150 yards of HS2 track.
Swansea Bay tidal lagoon is that project. Swansea unlocks Cardiff lagoon, the single largest renewables project on the planet. Cardiff will cost £7.5 billion. The same cost it will take just to abandon Hinkley C. The Hinkley C that required £34bn of taxpayer support to get it going.
Cardiff's zero carbon tidal power is an almost identical electricity ouput to Hinkley C. But requiring zero taxpayer money to get it going. It is entirely private sector funding. Yet the Government's "Value for Money" criteria will tell you Hinkley C is the better value for money.
If you want to see just how fucked up the civil service is, you will find no better example.
And no better example than Swansea Bay of how feeble the PMs ambitions were this morning. Don't mock him for standing by a pile of hard-hats. Mock him for not taking on the vested interest in the energy sector and its close tie up with the civil service that has stopped 2,600 more hard-hats being needed in construction from this summer.
It was utterly shit politics from May. That utterly shit politics has been perpetuated now by Boris.
It’s an absolutely epic fail of government strategic thinking.
We need technology that works in deep tidal streams rather than using barrages.
There have been trials (eg Pentland Firth & Pembrokeshire) but they haven't been very successful.
People are still working on it.0 -
The other part of the epic fail is that we could have been world leaders in wind energy. We let that slip.ydoethur said:
It is beyond bizarre that an island famous for its cool, wet climate, tidal range and coastal currents doesn’t have a single meaningful tidal power source while able to generate 30% of its electricity from solar panels.MarqueeMark said:
Oh it is. The planning rights were proteced in perpetuity, by works on site yesterday. But it will happen with the Government having tried to prevent it at every turn, rather than the kudos it could have got from embracing it.Dura_Ace said:
You're going to have to let this go. It's not going to happen.MarqueeMark said:This morning, the PM COULD have announced that a £1.3 billion shovel-ready project to create 2,200 jobs and 400 apprenticeships would be supported by Government. Jobs and apprenticeships created this summer, with many other jobs in steel and concrete fabrication saved from administration across the supply chain of the Red Wall seats.
All it required was a pump-priming of £35m by Govt. Payable in 2024-5.
Or govt. support equivalent to 150 yards of HS2 track.
Swansea Bay tidal lagoon is that project. Swansea unlocks Cardiff lagoon, the single largest renewables project on the planet. Cardiff will cost £7.5 billion. The same cost it will take just to abandon Hinkley C. The Hinkley C that required £34bn of taxpayer support to get it going.
Cardiff's zero carbon tidal power is an almost identical electricity ouput to Hinkley C. But requiring zero taxpayer money to get it going. It is entirely private sector funding. Yet the Government's "Value for Money" criteria will tell you Hinkley C is the better value for money.
If you want to see just how fucked up the civil service is, you will find no better example.
And no better example than Swansea Bay of how feeble the PMs ambitions were this morning. Don't mock him for standing by a pile of hard-hats. Mock him for not taking on the vested interest in the energy sector and its close tie up with the civil service that has stopped 2,600 more hard-hats being needed in construction from this summer.
It was utterly shit politics from May. That utterly shit politics has been perpetuated now by Boris.
It’s an absolutely epic fail of government strategic thinking.
Renewables have been brilliant at keeping the lights on, no doubt. But disastous for the economy. Only 35% of wind power is local UK spend. Solar farms? Nearer 5%. We have put £8 bn into supporting renewables in this country. In turn that has sucked in £14 bn of imports: panels, blades, turbines. Great for job security in Denmark, Sweden, Germany. And China. Not so much here.
All the while, BEIS proclaims it has a target of 50% local UK spend. The Swansea Bay lagoon number is 84%. Yet it has been blocked at every turn. Makes you wonder, huh?
The story of tidal power in this country has seen one of the shabbiest episodes by our mandarins, ever. How the interests of the French and Chinese had to be protected from home-grown competiton.
That story will come out.0 -
That will indeed be a key plank of the Tory re-election strategy. Try to convince the more gullible members of the public - a fairly large demographic tbf - that Starmer is merely the reassuring looking frontman behind which there lurks a degenerate marxist cabal pulling his strings. But you are being somewhat optimistic imo in blithely assuming it will work. I doubt it will myself.MrEd said:
The problem for Starmer is the Labour brand. Regardless of the progress he has made on anti-Semitism and celebrating Armed Forces' Day etc, there is a very good chunk of their ex-voters who think that, if Labour is elected, it won't be Starmer's Labour that is running things but the likes of BLM. Once bitten, twice shy.Foxy said:
and a plurality of Britons prefer him to Johnson.kinabalu said:
Jeremy would have been in Bristol sticking it to Colston. Conviction politician or protest politician - delete to taste.BluestBlue said:
The problem is that political messages do not in practice have an independent ethereal existence like Platonic Forms - they rely on their messenger. Starmer - to give him his due here - has the political danger sense to realize that the messengers have already tarnished the message and will only continue to do so in the future, so he spun around 180 degrees and dashed out of that minefield as quickly as he dashed into it. You almost have to admire the shamelessness!kinabalu said:
He simply made it clear that by supporting the anti-racism message of BLM - which is what it's known for tbf - he is not endorsing anything and everything which is said either by or in the name of the movement.BluestBlue said:
Perfectly reasonable position. Can't see the problem.
Corbyn, of course, would have charged forwards until he disappeared in a red mist...
Starmer quite fancies being PM.0 -
"Frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn!"Tres said:Some good news for the never kneelers. Gone With the Wind is back on Netflix!
(Did I get the accent right?)0 -
It does seem to be a remarkable intervention, but whether it will have any impact is unclear.NickPalmer said:I don't know about Martin, but the open attack by Theresa May is interesting - I've not heard her express her doubts so forcefully up to now.
As Martin noted, Cummings holds the party, and Parliament in contempt, so he doesn't care.
And Cummings is more important than the party to BoZo, so unless the rest of the cabinet revolt the caravan moves on0 -
Netflix aficionados can salve their conscience with this knowledge:Theuniondivvie said:
At last, another opportunity to not watch it.Tres said:Some good news for the never kneelers. Gone With the Wind is back on Netflix!
https://twitter.com/Breaking24Seven/status/1277930896335802370?s=09
0 -
Apologies for not being clear, I was attacking the residents not your parish council!Stocky said:
That`s all parish councils should do. We pay over £200 pa. Parish Clerk costs takes half of the precept. You must live in a big parish if you only pay £13 per year.Gallowgate said:
My parish council does very little apart from making the village look pretty, maintaining the village hall, and pressuring Newcastle City Council to do a better job. I'm surprised the residents in @Stocky 's parish thought it was appropriate to go through their course of action - they should have lobbied the County/City/Metropolitan Council.Philip_Thompson said:
Reasonable but don't parish councils get an element of the Council Tax? And I'm assuming these residents aren't getting a discount on the parish surcharge or whatever it is formally called.Stocky said:
Sure - I agree with you as long as it is the county council (who get the council tax receipts) which adopts the areas - not the parish councils.Philip_Thompson said:
It's dodgy those living there don't get a discount on their Council Tax do they?Stocky said:
Yes - they could - but this is the point isn`t it. When the county council agreed the permissions for these SUE estates to be built (Sustainable Urban Develpoments) the SUE bit means that they are "self-sustaining" financially. So the homeowners contractually agree at purchase that they are personally liable for the maintainance of common areas (usually through a management company) - which is of course pointed out by their solicitor during the conveyancing process.Philip_Thompson said:
Can the Council "adopt" the green spaces etc?Stocky said:
Gallowgate, this became a big issue in my parish. A housing estate was built on the fringe of our rural parish. It is called a "sustainable urban development" and has it`s own green spaces etc which, as you say, have to be maintained and paid for by the development rather than the county council.Gallowgate said:One thing I hope is addressed is the use of estate management companies. Those who haven’t bought a new-build within the last 15 years probably don’t realise that roads, green space, and even play areas that were once payed for by the local council have essentially been privatised, and are payed for by residents of each estate. This is on top of council tax.
This is not a problem in itself, the problem is lack of regulation.
At the moment it’s possible for me to sue my management company for some breach of obligation, win, and then all the legal fees and compensation be backcharged through to the residents anyway.
This is not hyperbole, this is reality. There is literally no regulation.
You are better off being a leaseholder than a freeholder on new build estates when it comes to legal protection.
This became a big issue because some of the residents of the estate tried to get onto our parish council to force through a policy so that the cost of this maintainance was paid out of parish funds! Parishioners were furious. It didn`t happen and would, I believe, have been illegal as it would have meant paying parish council funds to some residents of the parish but not others.
The cheek, though, trying to transfer legal liabilites that they contractually agreed when they purchased their home into all of parishioners.
That often happens with roads in new developments doesn't it? Not sure the legality of other stuff.
The whole point of SUEs in the first place is that the county council hits it`s new homes target without incurring any pressure on their costs through having to maintain common areas (cut grass, prune trees etc) while taking in the additional council tax. Shouldn`t be allowed in my view.
I think the residents are fair enough to seek to get the common areas adopted if that's what they want to vote for. Those living elsewhere paying the same Council Tax rates are getting more service.
My parish council precept is £13 a year!
I`m not sure what course of action you refer to? The parish resisted taking on liabilities entered into by a cohort of parishioners. They were quite right to do so. It is expressly forbidden for parish councils to pay across tax payer money to some parishioners but not others to bail them out of their financial obligations.
As I`ve said, the system of SUEs is rotten. The county council should be maintaining as it is they who receive the council tax. And it is their job.
My parish is actually very small, but I think the low price is because it doesn't really do anything...1 -
The case for statehood is pretty well unanswerable; for over three million citizens to be condemned to quasi colonial status is indefensible. It would greatly improve their economy, too.Philip_Thompson said:
No need to change the electorate. Puerto Ricans and DC residents are Americans they're just currently unrepresented in the Senate. It's not like anyone is suggesting non Americans get the vote.Charles said:
Don’t like the result? Change the electorate!Philip_Thompson said:The Democrats need to gain the White House and 1 single Senator net to control the Senate effectively, since the Senator from Maine and Sanders do caucus plus the Vice President casts tie breaks.
If the Democrats win a majority in the Senate (by any means) and the White House one of their very first acts should be to admit Puerto Rico and New Columbia as the 51st and 52nd States of the USA.
Can the senate do that unilaterally? I’d assume the states might have a say?
Yes as far as I understand they can do that unilaterally.
DC is a thornier problem, but if definitely a case of taxation without representation.1 -
And not just that- for most purposes, it's a charisma that fades pretty quickly.kinabalu said:
He unquestionably has charisma in that he draws and holds attention. He can entertain. Amuse. Cheer you up a bit. This is the essence of “Boris”. It wins elections but goes no further. He cannot inspire or move or educate or intellectually provoke. It’s impossible to imagine him making a speech which does any of this. And the reason he will never pull this off is because he is a vacuous, rather frivolous man. There is no gravitas there. No moral seriousness. No sincerity. There’s a void where all that stuff would usually reside. Seventeen (and a half) stones of mainly muscle he may be, yet he lacks weight. That’s the long and short of it.Stuartinromford said:
Only anyone who had never heard him do an actual live speech.CorrectHorseBattery said:Who said Johnson was a good public speaker?
Remember that one he did in front of a backdrop of police last summer?1 -
Oh Dear.. I had forgotten about Latvian Homophobes.. Have they seen the light?Stark_Dawning said:I see that for some posters BLM is for Sir Keir what Latvian homophobes were for Dave.
0 -
I did say making a speech about building in the midst of the Jenrick scandal was "brave"...
https://twitter.com/DavidHeadViews/status/12779049592044625930 -
Rotherham band E £2303, Tickhill - Doncaster £2092.96.Pulpstar said:
£82.57 here for me.Gallowgate said:
My parish council does very little apart from making the village look pretty, maintaining the village hall, and pressuring Newcastle City Council to do a better job. I'm surprised the residents in @Stocky 's parish thought it was appropriate to go through their course of action - they should have lobbied the County/City/Metropolitan Council.Philip_Thompson said:
Reasonable but don't parish councils get an element of the Council Tax? And I'm assuming these residents aren't getting a discount on the parish surcharge or whatever it is formally called.Stocky said:
Sure - I agree with you as long as it is the county council (who get the council tax receipts) which adopts the areas - not the parish councils.Philip_Thompson said:
It's dodgy those living there don't get a discount on their Council Tax do they?Stocky said:
Yes - they could - but this is the point isn`t it. When the county council agreed the permissions for these SUE estates to be built (Sustainable Urban Develpoments) the SUE bit means that they are "self-sustaining" financially. So the homeowners contractually agree at purchase that they are personally liable for the maintainance of common areas (usually through a management company) - which is of course pointed out by their solicitor during the conveyancing process.Philip_Thompson said:
Can the Council "adopt" the green spaces etc?Stocky said:
Gallowgate, this became a big issue in my parish. A housing estate was built on the fringe of our rural parish. It is called a "sustainable urban development" and has it`s own green spaces etc which, as you say, have to be maintained and paid for by the development rather than the county council.Gallowgate said:One thing I hope is addressed is the use of estate management companies. Those who haven’t bought a new-build within the last 15 years probably don’t realise that roads, green space, and even play areas that were once payed for by the local council have essentially been privatised, and are payed for by residents of each estate. This is on top of council tax.
This is not a problem in itself, the problem is lack of regulation.
At the moment it’s possible for me to sue my management company for some breach of obligation, win, and then all the legal fees and compensation be backcharged through to the residents anyway.
This is not hyperbole, this is reality. There is literally no regulation.
You are better off being a leaseholder than a freeholder on new build estates when it comes to legal protection.
This became a big issue because some of the residents of the estate tried to get onto our parish council to force through a policy so that the cost of this maintainance was paid out of parish funds! Parishioners were furious. It didn`t happen and would, I believe, have been illegal as it would have meant paying parish council funds to some residents of the parish but not others.
The cheek, though, trying to transfer legal liabilites that they contractually agreed when they purchased their home into all of parishioners.
That often happens with roads in new developments doesn't it? Not sure the legality of other stuff.
The whole point of SUEs in the first place is that the county council hits it`s new homes target without incurring any pressure on their costs through having to maintain common areas (cut grass, prune trees etc) while taking in the additional council tax. Shouldn`t be allowed in my view.
I think the residents are fair enough to seek to get the common areas adopted if that's what they want to vote for. Those living elsewhere paying the same Council Tax rates are getting more service.
My parish council precept is £13 a year!
Goes through me seeing as I'm near the border with both ><0 -
New Labour, New Danger! That went well.kinabalu said:
That will indeed be a key plank of the Tory re-election strategy. Try to convince the more gullible members of the public - a fairly large demographic tbf - that Starmer is merely the reassuring looking frontman behind which there lurks a degenerate marxist cabal pulling his strings. But you are being somewhat optimistic imo in blithely assuming it will work. I doubt it will myself.MrEd said:
The problem for Starmer is the Labour brand. Regardless of the progress he has made on anti-Semitism and celebrating Armed Forces' Day etc, there is a very good chunk of their ex-voters who think that, if Labour is elected, it won't be Starmer's Labour that is running things but the likes of BLM. Once bitten, twice shy.Foxy said:
and a plurality of Britons prefer him to Johnson.kinabalu said:
Jeremy would have been in Bristol sticking it to Colston. Conviction politician or protest politician - delete to taste.BluestBlue said:
The problem is that political messages do not in practice have an independent ethereal existence like Platonic Forms - they rely on their messenger. Starmer - to give him his due here - has the political danger sense to realize that the messengers have already tarnished the message and will only continue to do so in the future, so he spun around 180 degrees and dashed out of that minefield as quickly as he dashed into it. You almost have to admire the shamelessness!kinabalu said:
He simply made it clear that by supporting the anti-racism message of BLM - which is what it's known for tbf - he is not endorsing anything and everything which is said either by or in the name of the movement.BluestBlue said:
Perfectly reasonable position. Can't see the problem.
Corbyn, of course, would have charged forwards until he disappeared in a red mist...
Starmer quite fancies being PM.2 -
Next time there's a terrorist attack....Scott_xP said:https://twitter.com/iainmartin1/status/1277939057667051521
Even the media fanbois are getting rattled0 -
When it comes to things which only affect you like motorbike riding or skiing this attitude is fair enough. But you getting the virus (possibly symptomless) significantly increases the chances that someone else ends up in hospital or dies in a care home. That is just point blank irresponsible.Beibheirli_C said:
The choices are stark - death by virus or effective death by lockdown turning your life into a mere existence.eristdoof said:
Putting aside the sensationalist language, it is absurd to claim that without lockdown there would have been fewer deaths.rural_voter said:
Locking people up was part of a disastrous UK response but showed sadly that people will do almost anything if you frighten themNerysHughes said:
Look at SunderlandFoxy said:
Cases went from 0 to 1
This chart is nonsense
https://twitter.com/cricketwyvern/status/1277689629714649089
https://www.spiked-online.com/2020/06/26/the-lockdown-is-causing-so-many-deaths/#.Xvb4uRFDEOI
Japan: no interference with civil liberties, 8 deaths per million.
UK: 3 months of house arrest, if not solitary confinement sometimes.
642 deaths per million.
I think I would rather take my chances with the virus. I might lose, but I am more likely to
win. With lockdown I lose every time.0 -
del0
-
Indeed; it’s a mystery why it is so highly regarded as a film. The early parts with the civil war as the backdrop carry some interest, but the later part of the film loses all focus and the narrative wanders all over the place making the entire film way too long, crying out for some editing.Theuniondivvie said:
At last, another opportunity to not watch it.Tres said:Some good news for the never kneelers. Gone With the Wind is back on Netflix!
0 -
Indeed. Currently offshore wind is expensive but well understood and at least mostly functional.Philip_Thompson said:@MarqueeMark I think comparing the Lagoon project to Hinckley does you no favours. Quite frankly the Hinckley project was a mistake in hindsight and were it to be repeated would not be signed in this climate. I don't think it's a baseline you want to be compared against.
Surely the economic development in green energy of recent years has been offshore wind. Surely I would think arguments of reliability, risk and cost effectiveness should be made against offshore wind and not Hinckley.
I say mostly...
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/uk-power-cut-cause-hornsea-wind-farm-little-barford-report-a9070886.html0 -
Assuming no second wave, you could easily see excess deaths go negative later this year. But I suspect people won’t be interested in a full years numbersBig_G_NorthWales said:Good news at last
Ed Conwy, Sky
'Excess deaths has now finished and it is a watershed moment'2 -
If the SUEs didn't exist then whose job would it be to maintain common areas? The Council or the Parish?Stocky said:
That`s all parish councils should do. We pay over £200 pa. Parish Clerk costs takes half of the precept. You must live in a big parish if you only pay £13 per year.Gallowgate said:
My parish council does very little apart from making the village look pretty, maintaining the village hall, and pressuring Newcastle City Council to do a better job. I'm surprised the residents in @Stocky 's parish thought it was appropriate to go through their course of action - they should have lobbied the County/City/Metropolitan Council.Philip_Thompson said:
Reasonable but don't parish councils get an element of the Council Tax? And I'm assuming these residents aren't getting a discount on the parish surcharge or whatever it is formally called.Stocky said:
Sure - I agree with you as long as it is the county council (who get the council tax receipts) which adopts the areas - not the parish councils.Philip_Thompson said:
It's dodgy those living there don't get a discount on their Council Tax do they?Stocky said:
Yes - they could - but this is the point isn`t it. When the county council agreed the permissions for these SUE estates to be built (Sustainable Urban Develpoments) the SUE bit means that they are "self-sustaining" financially. So the homeowners contractually agree at purchase that they are personally liable for the maintainance of common areas (usually through a management company) - which is of course pointed out by their solicitor during the conveyancing process.Philip_Thompson said:
Can the Council "adopt" the green spaces etc?Stocky said:
Gallowgate, this became a big issue in my parish. A housing estate was built on the fringe of our rural parish. It is called a "sustainable urban development" and has it`s own green spaces etc which, as you say, have to be maintained and paid for by the development rather than the county council.Gallowgate said:One thing I hope is addressed is the use of estate management companies. Those who haven’t bought a new-build within the last 15 years probably don’t realise that roads, green space, and even play areas that were once payed for by the local council have essentially been privatised, and are payed for by residents of each estate. This is on top of council tax.
This is not a problem in itself, the problem is lack of regulation.
At the moment it’s possible for me to sue my management company for some breach of obligation, win, and then all the legal fees and compensation be backcharged through to the residents anyway.
This is not hyperbole, this is reality. There is literally no regulation.
You are better off being a leaseholder than a freeholder on new build estates when it comes to legal protection.
This became a big issue because some of the residents of the estate tried to get onto our parish council to force through a policy so that the cost of this maintainance was paid out of parish funds! Parishioners were furious. It didn`t happen and would, I believe, have been illegal as it would have meant paying parish council funds to some residents of the parish but not others.
The cheek, though, trying to transfer legal liabilites that they contractually agreed when they purchased their home into all of parishioners.
That often happens with roads in new developments doesn't it? Not sure the legality of other stuff.
The whole point of SUEs in the first place is that the county council hits it`s new homes target without incurring any pressure on their costs through having to maintain common areas (cut grass, prune trees etc) while taking in the additional council tax. Shouldn`t be allowed in my view.
I think the residents are fair enough to seek to get the common areas adopted if that's what they want to vote for. Those living elsewhere paying the same Council Tax rates are getting more service.
My parish council precept is £13 a year!
I`m not sure what course of action you refer to? The parish resisted taking on liabilities entered into by a cohort of parishioners. They were quite right to do so. It is expressly forbidden for parish councils to pay across tax payer money to some parishioners but not others to bail them out of their financial obligations.
As I`ve said, the system of SUEs is rotten. The county council should be maintaining as it is they who receive the council tax. And it is their job.
Whoever it is, they should be the ones to adopt the land.1 -
You are a bore.geoffw said:del
0 -
"New Labour, Same Danger" would have been a better line in hindsight.Pro_Rata said:
New Labour, New Danger! That went well.kinabalu said:
That will indeed be a key plank of the Tory re-election strategy. Try to convince the more gullible members of the public - a fairly large demographic tbf - that Starmer is merely the reassuring looking frontman behind which there lurks a degenerate marxist cabal pulling his strings. But you are being somewhat optimistic imo in blithely assuming it will work. I doubt it will myself.MrEd said:
The problem for Starmer is the Labour brand. Regardless of the progress he has made on anti-Semitism and celebrating Armed Forces' Day etc, there is a very good chunk of their ex-voters who think that, if Labour is elected, it won't be Starmer's Labour that is running things but the likes of BLM. Once bitten, twice shy.Foxy said:
and a plurality of Britons prefer him to Johnson.kinabalu said:
Jeremy would have been in Bristol sticking it to Colston. Conviction politician or protest politician - delete to taste.BluestBlue said:
The problem is that political messages do not in practice have an independent ethereal existence like Platonic Forms - they rely on their messenger. Starmer - to give him his due here - has the political danger sense to realize that the messengers have already tarnished the message and will only continue to do so in the future, so he spun around 180 degrees and dashed out of that minefield as quickly as he dashed into it. You almost have to admire the shamelessness!kinabalu said:
He simply made it clear that by supporting the anti-racism message of BLM - which is what it's known for tbf - he is not endorsing anything and everything which is said either by or in the name of the movement.BluestBlue said:
Perfectly reasonable position. Can't see the problem.
Corbyn, of course, would have charged forwards until he disappeared in a red mist...
Starmer quite fancies being PM.0 -
It’s a bit more complicated than that. Maybe only around half of all Puerto Ricans want statehood, and of the rest, many don’t care, some want full independence, but probably most of the non-statehood supporters prefer the status quo, for many reasons. Some fear higher taxation (PR residents do not pay federal income tax); others feel being a fully-fledged state would undermine PR’s distinct Spanish-speaking culture.Nigelb said:
The case for statehood is pretty well unanswerable; for over three million citizens to be condemned to quasi colonial status is indefensible. It would greatly improve their economy, too.Philip_Thompson said:
No need to change the electorate. Puerto Ricans and DC residents are Americans they're just currently unrepresented in the Senate. It's not like anyone is suggesting non Americans get the vote.Charles said:
Don’t like the result? Change the electorate!Philip_Thompson said:The Democrats need to gain the White House and 1 single Senator net to control the Senate effectively, since the Senator from Maine and Sanders do caucus plus the Vice President casts tie breaks.
If the Democrats win a majority in the Senate (by any means) and the White House one of their very first acts should be to admit Puerto Rico and New Columbia as the 51st and 52nd States of the USA.
Can the senate do that unilaterally? I’d assume the states might have a say?
Yes as far as I understand they can do that unilaterally.
DC is a thornier problem, but if definitely a case of taxation without representation.1 -
Might have worked up to May 2020. Trouble is that everyone (even Daily Star readers) knows that Boris is the frontman for that chap who looks like the Mekon who is rude to everyone. And that residual folk memory isn't going anywhere.kinabalu said:
That will indeed be a key plank of the Tory re-election strategy. Try to convince the more gullible members of the public - a fairly large demographic tbf - that Starmer is merely the reassuring looking frontman behind which there lurks a degenerate marxist cabal pulling his strings. But you are being somewhat optimistic imo in blithely assuming it will work. I doubt it will myself.MrEd said:
The problem for Starmer is the Labour brand. Regardless of the progress he has made on anti-Semitism and celebrating Armed Forces' Day etc, there is a very good chunk of their ex-voters who think that, if Labour is elected, it won't be Starmer's Labour that is running things but the likes of BLM. Once bitten, twice shy.Foxy said:
and a plurality of Britons prefer him to Johnson.kinabalu said:
Jeremy would have been in Bristol sticking it to Colston. Conviction politician or protest politician - delete to taste.BluestBlue said:
The problem is that political messages do not in practice have an independent ethereal existence like Platonic Forms - they rely on their messenger. Starmer - to give him his due here - has the political danger sense to realize that the messengers have already tarnished the message and will only continue to do so in the future, so he spun around 180 degrees and dashed out of that minefield as quickly as he dashed into it. You almost have to admire the shamelessness!kinabalu said:
He simply made it clear that by supporting the anti-racism message of BLM - which is what it's known for tbf - he is not endorsing anything and everything which is said either by or in the name of the movement.BluestBlue said:
Perfectly reasonable position. Can't see the problem.
Corbyn, of course, would have charged forwards until he disappeared in a red mist...
Starmer quite fancies being PM.0 -
And you don’t see anything unhealthy about the fundamental shape of the Union being changed on a partisan basis?Philip_Thompson said:If Puerto Rico and New Columbia were added then it would be much trickier for the GOP to regain the Senate in the midterms. Though I'm not sure if new States get both new Senators immediately or at the next election, or one at a time at the following elections?
Considering both Puerto Rico and DC have voted to be admitted as States in recent years I see no reason the Democrats shouldn't ensure they are as soon as they regain the trifecta of the House, Senate and Oval Office.0 -
On that one the maintenance of facilities should be paid for by the Local Council (not the parish); they are going for the wrong target.Gallowgate said:
Apologies for not being clear, I was attacking the residents not your parish council!Stocky said:
That`s all parish councils should do. We pay over £200 pa. Parish Clerk costs takes half of the precept. You must live in a big parish if you only pay £13 per year.Gallowgate said:
My parish council does very little apart from making the village look pretty, maintaining the village hall, and pressuring Newcastle City Council to do a better job. I'm surprised the residents in @Stocky 's parish thought it was appropriate to go through their course of action - they should have lobbied the County/City/Metropolitan Council.Philip_Thompson said:
Reasonable but don't parish councils get an element of the Council Tax? And I'm assuming these residents aren't getting a discount on the parish surcharge or whatever it is formally called.Stocky said:
Sure - I agree with you as long as it is the county council (who get the council tax receipts) which adopts the areas - not the parish councils.Philip_Thompson said:
It's dodgy those living there don't get a discount on their Council Tax do they?Stocky said:
Yes - they could - but this is the point isn`t it. When the county council agreed the permissions for these SUE estates to be built (Sustainable Urban Develpoments) the SUE bit means that they are "self-sustaining" financially. So the homeowners contractually agree at purchase that they are personally liable for the maintainance of common areas (usually through a management company) - which is of course pointed out by their solicitor during the conveyancing process.Philip_Thompson said:
Can the Council "adopt" the green spaces etc?Stocky said:
Gallowgate, this became a big issue in my parish. A housing estate was built on the fringe of our rural parish. It is called a "sustainable urban development" and has it`s own green spaces etc which, as you say, have to be maintained and paid for by the development rather than the county council.Gallowgate said:One thing I hope is addressed is the use of estate management companies. Those who haven’t bought a new-build within the last 15 years probably don’t realise that roads, green space, and even play areas that were once payed for by the local council have essentially been privatised, and are payed for by residents of each estate. This is on top of council tax.
This is not a problem in itself, the problem is lack of regulation.
At the moment it’s possible for me to sue my management company for some breach of obligation, win, and then all the legal fees and compensation be backcharged through to the residents anyway.
This is not hyperbole, this is reality. There is literally no regulation.
You are better off being a leaseholder than a freeholder on new build estates when it comes to legal protection.
This became a big issue because some of the residents of the estate tried to get onto our parish council to force through a policy so that the cost of this maintainance was paid out of parish funds! Parishioners were furious. It didn`t happen and would, I believe, have been illegal as it would have meant paying parish council funds to some residents of the parish but not others.
The cheek, though, trying to transfer legal liabilites that they contractually agreed when they purchased their home into all of parishioners.
That often happens with roads in new developments doesn't it? Not sure the legality of other stuff.
The whole point of SUEs in the first place is that the county council hits it`s new homes target without incurring any pressure on their costs through having to maintain common areas (cut grass, prune trees etc) while taking in the additional council tax. Shouldn`t be allowed in my view.
I think the residents are fair enough to seek to get the common areas adopted if that's what they want to vote for. Those living elsewhere paying the same Council Tax rates are getting more service.
My parish council precept is £13 a year!
I`m not sure what course of action you refer to? The parish resisted taking on liabilities entered into by a cohort of parishioners. They were quite right to do so. It is expressly forbidden for parish councils to pay across tax payer money to some parishioners but not others to bail them out of their financial obligations.
As I`ve said, the system of SUEs is rotten. The county council should be maintaining as it is they who receive the council tax. And it is their job.
My parish is actually very small, but I think the low price is because it doesn't really do anything...
The initial investment to create adoptable estate roads are reasonable; the continuing maintenance should be on Council Tax. At present in England an advanced sum can be extracted to cover maintenance for (I think) 25 years. That is really just another emanation of NIMBYism.
0 -
Puerto Rico has beenCharles said:
And you don’t see anything unhealthy about the fundamental shape of the Union being changed on a partisan basis?Philip_Thompson said:If Puerto Rico and New Columbia were added then it would be much trickier for the GOP to regain the Senate in the midterms. Though I'm not sure if new States get both new Senators immediately or at the next election, or one at a time at the following elections?
Considering both Puerto Rico and DC have voted to be admitted as States in recent years I see no reason the Democrats shouldn't ensure they are as soon as they regain the trifecta of the House, Senate and Oval Office.occupiedcontrolled by America since 1898...0 -
A lot of parish councils have, and are, taking on extra functions as principal councils cut funding for things that they see as discretionary. My parish (town) council now manages the local public toilets, a batch of the local car parks, and from this year is funding the majority of the cost of the town’s park, after the county council decided that all it would pay for is cutting the grass and emptying the bins. The way principal council funding has been cut at the same time as council tax rises have been capped has forced a devolution of services, because precept increases aren’t capped but are simply added to whatever tax increase the principal council(s) are able to impose.Gallowgate said:
Apologies for not being clear, I was attacking the residents not your parish council!Stocky said:
That`s all parish councils should do. We pay over £200 pa. Parish Clerk costs takes half of the precept. You must live in a big parish if you only pay £13 per year.Gallowgate said:
My parish council does very little apart from making the village look pretty, maintaining the village hall, and pressuring Newcastle City Council to do a better job. I'm surprised the residents in @Stocky 's parish thought it was appropriate to go through their course of action - they should have lobbied the County/City/Metropolitan Council.Philip_Thompson said:
Reasonable but don't parish councils get an element of the Council Tax? And I'm assuming these residents aren't getting a discount on the parish surcharge or whatever it is formally called.Stocky said:
Sure - I agree with you as long as it is the county council (who get the council tax receipts) which adopts the areas - not the parish councils.Philip_Thompson said:
It's dodgy those living there don't get a discount on their Council Tax do they?Stocky said:
Yes - they could - but this is the point isn`t it. When the county council agreed the permissions for these SUE estates to be built (Sustainable Urban Develpoments) the SUE bit means that they are "self-sustaining" financially. So the homeowners contractually agree at purchase that they are personally liable for the maintainance of common areas (usually through a management company) - which is of course pointed out by their solicitor during the conveyancing process.Philip_Thompson said:
Can the Council "adopt" the green spaces etc?Stocky said:
Gallowgate, this became a big issue in my parish. A housing estate was built on the fringe of our rural parish. It is called a "sustainable urban development" and has it`s own green spaces etc which, as you say, have to be maintained and paid for by the development rather than the county council.Gallowgate said:One thing I hope is addressed is the use of estate management companies. Those who haven’t bought a new-build within the last 15 years probably don’t realise that roads, green space, and even play areas that were once payed for by the local council have essentially been privatised, and are payed for by residents of each estate. This is on top of council tax.
This is not a problem in itself, the problem is lack of regulation.
At the moment it’s possible for me to sue my management company for some breach of obligation, win, and then all the legal fees and compensation be backcharged through to the residents anyway.
This is not hyperbole, this is reality. There is literally no regulation.
You are better off being a leaseholder than a freeholder on new build estates when it comes to legal protection.
This became a big issue because some of the residents of the estate tried to get onto our parish council to force through a policy so that the cost of this maintainance was paid out of parish funds! Parishioners were furious. It didn`t happen and would, I believe, have been illegal as it would have meant paying parish council funds to some residents of the parish but not others.
The cheek, though, trying to transfer legal liabilites that they contractually agreed when they purchased their home into all of parishioners.
That often happens with roads in new developments doesn't it? Not sure the legality of other stuff.
The whole point of SUEs in the first place is that the county council hits it`s new homes target without incurring any pressure on their costs through having to maintain common areas (cut grass, prune trees etc) while taking in the additional council tax. Shouldn`t be allowed in my view.
I think the residents are fair enough to seek to get the common areas adopted if that's what they want to vote for. Those living elsewhere paying the same Council Tax rates are getting more service.
My parish council precept is £13 a year!
I`m not sure what course of action you refer to? The parish resisted taking on liabilities entered into by a cohort of parishioners. They were quite right to do so. It is expressly forbidden for parish councils to pay across tax payer money to some parishioners but not others to bail them out of their financial obligations.
As I`ve said, the system of SUEs is rotten. The county council should be maintaining as it is they who receive the council tax. And it is their job.
My parish is actually very small, but I think the low price is because it doesn't really do anything...1 -
The upkeep of public places is absolutely a core responsibility of a local council, regardless of whether there are "more pressing matters".Gallowgate said:
But that is also not accurate. I'll rephrase:Stocky said:
Ok - maybe I used the wrong word. Instead of "adopted" I should have said that the council is "obliged to maintain".Gallowgate said:
I feel you might be slightly misinformed. New build estates typically have green areas and play-areas NOT adopted by county or metropolitan councils, and yet they are still open to the public DESPITE not being adopted.Stocky said:
SUEs are a special cohort of new-build estates. Common areas in new build estates are, I agree, in principle useable by everyone as the county council maintains (having adopted). SUEs are different. I think they are an awful concept and have caused a lot of tension in my parish.Gallowgate said:
Are you sure about that? In most new build estates with private land being managed, they are not for use exclusively by the homeowners. They are open to the public.Stocky said:
Bear in mind that the common areas in the SUE are for use exclusively by the homeowners in the SUE. these are private facitities. If the county council were to adopt them then every parishioner in the county would be entitled to picnic on their green areas (as is the case with outer council common areas).Philip_Thompson said:
It's dodgy those living there don't get a discount on their Council Tax do they?Stocky said:
Yes - they could - but this is the point isn`t it. When the county council agreed the permissions for these SUE estates to be built (Sustainable Urban Develpoments) the SUE bit means that they are "self-sustaining" financially. So the homeowners contractually agree at purchase that they are personally liable for the maintainance of common areas (usually through a management company) - which is of course pointed out by their solicitor during the conveyancing process.Philip_Thompson said:
Can the Council "adopt" the green spaces etc?Stocky said:
Gallowgate, this became a big issue in my parish. A housing estate was built on the fringe of our rural parish. It is called a "sustainable urban development" and has it`s own green spaces etc which, as you say, have to be maintained and paid for by the development rather than the county council.Gallowgate said:One thing I hope is addressed is the use of estate management companies. Those who haven’t bought a new-build within the last 15 years probably don’t realise that roads, green space, and even play areas that were once payed for by the local council have essentially been privatised, and are payed for by residents of each estate. This is on top of council tax.
This is not a problem in itself, the problem is lack of regulation.
At the moment it’s possible for me to sue my management company for some breach of obligation, win, and then all the legal fees and compensation be backcharged through to the residents anyway.
This is not hyperbole, this is reality. There is literally no regulation.
You are better off being a leaseholder than a freeholder on new build estates when it comes to legal protection.
This became a big issue because some of the residents of the estate tried to get onto our parish council to force through a policy so that the cost of this maintainance was paid out of parish funds! Parishioners were furious. It didn`t happen and would, I believe, have been illegal as it would have meant paying parish council funds to some residents of the parish but not others.
The cheek, though, trying to transfer legal liabilites that they contractually agreed when they purchased their home into all of parishioners.
That often happens with roads in new developments doesn't it? Not sure the legality of other stuff.
The whole point of SUEs in the first place is that the county council hits it`s new homes target without incurring any pressure on their costs through having to maintain common areas (cut grass, prune trees etc) while taking in the additional council tax. Shouldn`t be allowed in my view.
I think the residents are fair enough to seek to get the common areas adopted if that's what they want to vote for. Those living elsewhere paying the same Council Tax rates are getting more service.
It is RARE for green areas to be adopted by councils on ANY new-build estate built within the last 10-15 years.
It is rare for green areas on new-build estates built within the last 10-15 years to be adopted OR maintained by county/city/metropolitan councils. The service is privatised and performed by the estate management company DESPITE the areas being open to the public.
This is the normal state of affairs around the country. It's "boring" because unless you buy a house on one of these estates you are unaffected. Quite a sneaky privatisation through the back-door really.
Like I said, I don't resent it. As far as I'm concerned somebody has to pay, and the council has much more pressing matters to address. It must be fair and regulated though, and at the moment it isn't.1 -
Let me guess: you enjoyed the new Star Wars trilogy?IanB2 said:
Indeed; it’s a mystery why it is so highly regarded as a film. The early parts with the civil war as the backdrop carry some interest, but the later part of the film loses all focus and the narrative wanders all over the place making the entire film way too long, crying out for some editing.Theuniondivvie said:
At last, another opportunity to not watch it.Tres said:Some good news for the never kneelers. Gone With the Wind is back on Netflix!
0 -
Scotland has fewer ethnic minorities as well, and there does appear to be a genetic componentPhilip_Thompson said:
Scotland shouldn't be compared to England it should be compared to a region of England as that is comparing like-for-like in population areas.Stuartinromford said:
Difference is that Scotland really is at nearly zero deaths from Covid.Philip_Thompson said:
What narrative?StuartDickson said:
That narrative has been accepted in Scotland for weeks now, but it is only just beginning to be widely understood in England. Tory backbenchers are not going to be happy bunnies come the autumn.Scott_xP said:
Excess deaths have ended and besides Leicester we're coming out of lockdown and getting on with things. How does that fit your narrative?
Really stupid cartoon to be running on the day excess deaths figures are reported (from weeks ago) as being negative.
The English update is good news, but it's not zero Covid deaths; it's the number of Covid deaths is less than the variability in the baseline. England is getting there, but noticeably more slowly than many of our neighbours.
Many regions of England are at or near zero COVID deaths.0 -
He was relected in Landon a Labour city so I would say people maintain a liking of him and a desire to vote for him.Stuartinromford said:
And not just that- for most purposes, it's a charisma that fades pretty quickly.kinabalu said:
He unquestionably has charisma in that he draws and holds attention. He can entertain. Amuse. Cheer you up a bit. This is the essence of “Boris”. It wins elections but goes no further. He cannot inspire or move or educate or intellectually provoke. It’s impossible to imagine him making a speech which does any of this. And the reason he will never pull this off is because he is a vacuous, rather frivolous man. There is no gravitas there. No moral seriousness. No sincerity. There’s a void where all that stuff would usually reside. Seventeen (and a half) stones of mainly muscle he may be, yet he lacks weight. That’s the long and short of it.Stuartinromford said:
Only anyone who had never heard him do an actual live speech.CorrectHorseBattery said:Who said Johnson was a good public speaker?
Remember that one he did in front of a backdrop of police last summer?0 -
I have seen that list elsewhere. It has basically just taken everywhere where cases increased, however, small. For example in RBWM cases have gone up from 0 to 2. That's just noise.Flatlander said:
Where did that list come from?Foxy said:
eg there were no cases in Doncaster yesterday. It looks like nonsense.0 -
Maybe life in a cage suits you, but its killing meeristdoof said:
When it comes to things which only affect you like motorbike riding or skiing this attitude is fair enough. But you getting the virus (possibly symptomless) significantly increases the chances that someone else ends up in hospital or dies in a care home. That is just point blank irresponsible.Beibheirli_C said:
The choices are stark - death by virus or effective death by lockdown turning your life into a mere existence.eristdoof said:
Putting aside the sensationalist language, it is absurd to claim that without lockdown there would have been fewer deaths.rural_voter said:
Locking people up was part of a disastrous UK response but showed sadly that people will do almost anything if you frighten themNerysHughes said:
Look at SunderlandFoxy said:
Cases went from 0 to 1
This chart is nonsense
https://twitter.com/cricketwyvern/status/1277689629714649089
https://www.spiked-online.com/2020/06/26/the-lockdown-is-causing-so-many-deaths/#.Xvb4uRFDEOI
Japan: no interference with civil liberties, 8 deaths per million.
UK: 3 months of house arrest, if not solitary confinement sometimes.
642 deaths per million.
I think I would rather take my chances with the virus. I might lose, but I am more likely to
win. With lockdown I lose every time.0 -
How do you actually find out what your parish council is spending your wonga on ?IanB2 said:
A lot of parish councils have, and are, taking on extra functions as principal councils cut funding for things that they see as discretionary. My parish (town) council now manages the local public toilets, a batch of the local car parks, and from this year is funding the majority of the cost of the town’s park, after the county council decided that all it would pay for is cutting the grass and emptying the bins. The way principal council funding has been cut at the same time as council tax rises have been capped has forced a devolution of services, because precept increases aren’t capped but are simply added to whatever tax increase the principal council(s) are able to impose.Gallowgate said:
Apologies for not being clear, I was attacking the residents not your parish council!Stocky said:
That`s all parish councils should do. We pay over £200 pa. Parish Clerk costs takes half of the precept. You must live in a big parish if you only pay £13 per year.Gallowgate said:
My parish council does very little apart from making the village look pretty, maintaining the village hall, and pressuring Newcastle City Council to do a better job. I'm surprised the residents in @Stocky 's parish thought it was appropriate to go through their course of action - they should have lobbied the County/City/Metropolitan Council.Philip_Thompson said:
Reasonable but don't parish councils get an element of the Council Tax? And I'm assuming these residents aren't getting a discount on the parish surcharge or whatever it is formally called.Stocky said:
Sure - I agree with you as long as it is the county council (who get the council tax receipts) which adopts the areas - not the parish councils.Philip_Thompson said:
It's dodgy those living there don't get a discount on their Council Tax do they?Stocky said:
Yes - they could - but this is the point isn`t it. When the county council agreed the permissions for these SUE estates to be built (Sustainable Urban Develpoments) the SUE bit means that they are "self-sustaining" financially. So the homeowners contractually agree at purchase that they are personally liable for the maintainance of common areas (usually through a management company) - which is of course pointed out by their solicitor during the conveyancing process.Philip_Thompson said:
Can the Council "adopt" the green spaces etc?Stocky said:
Gallowgate, this became a big issue in my parish. A housing estate was built on the fringe of our rural parish. It is called a "sustainable urban development" and has it`s own green spaces etc which, as you say, have to be maintained and paid for by the development rather than the county council.Gallowgate said:One thing I hope is addressed is the use of estate management companies. Those who haven’t bought a new-build within the last 15 years probably don’t realise that roads, green space, and even play areas that were once payed for by the local council have essentially been privatised, and are payed for by residents of each estate. This is on top of council tax.
This is not a problem in itself, the problem is lack of regulation.
At the moment it’s possible for me to sue my management company for some breach of obligation, win, and then all the legal fees and compensation be backcharged through to the residents anyway.
This is not hyperbole, this is reality. There is literally no regulation.
You are better off being a leaseholder than a freeholder on new build estates when it comes to legal protection.
This became a big issue because some of the residents of the estate tried to get onto our parish council to force through a policy so that the cost of this maintainance was paid out of parish funds! Parishioners were furious. It didn`t happen and would, I believe, have been illegal as it would have meant paying parish council funds to some residents of the parish but not others.
The cheek, though, trying to transfer legal liabilites that they contractually agreed when they purchased their home into all of parishioners.
That often happens with roads in new developments doesn't it? Not sure the legality of other stuff.
The whole point of SUEs in the first place is that the county council hits it`s new homes target without incurring any pressure on their costs through having to maintain common areas (cut grass, prune trees etc) while taking in the additional council tax. Shouldn`t be allowed in my view.
I think the residents are fair enough to seek to get the common areas adopted if that's what they want to vote for. Those living elsewhere paying the same Council Tax rates are getting more service.
My parish council precept is £13 a year!
I`m not sure what course of action you refer to? The parish resisted taking on liabilities entered into by a cohort of parishioners. They were quite right to do so. It is expressly forbidden for parish councils to pay across tax payer money to some parishioners but not others to bail them out of their financial obligations.
As I`ve said, the system of SUEs is rotten. The county council should be maintaining as it is they who receive the council tax. And it is their job.
My parish is actually very small, but I think the low price is because it doesn't really do anything...0 -
Don't think so. Its more like the Madeline McCann one.rottenborough said:
Isn't that Express map the same one they used for sightings of Diana being alive?Stocky said:
I`ve long been convinced that some people actually WANT cases to increase. The reporting of stats has been truly awful.NerysHughes said:
Look at SunderlandFoxy said:
Cases went from 0 to 1
This chart is nonsense
https://twitter.com/cricketwyvern/status/12776896297146490890 -
... or NOT changed on a partisan basis? Why haven't the Republicans accepted them already.Charles said:
And you don’t see anything unhealthy about the fundamental shape of the Union being changed on a partisan basis?Philip_Thompson said:If Puerto Rico and New Columbia were added then it would be much trickier for the GOP to regain the Senate in the midterms. Though I'm not sure if new States get both new Senators immediately or at the next election, or one at a time at the following elections?
Considering both Puerto Rico and DC have voted to be admitted as States in recent years I see no reason the Democrats shouldn't ensure they are as soon as they regain the trifecta of the House, Senate and Oval Office.
https://www.worldatlas.com/articles/is-puerto-rico-a-state-will-it-become-a-state.html0 -
1
-
So the option to the building firm is to pay the council a large amount of money (25 years of maintenance fees) from your profits or to hide the cost in a maintenance fee that you can profit from.MattW said:
On that one the maintenance of facilities should be paid for by the Local Council (not the parish); they are going for the wrong target.Gallowgate said:
Apologies for not being clear, I was attacking the residents not your parish council!Stocky said:
That`s all parish councils should do. We pay over £200 pa. Parish Clerk costs takes half of the precept. You must live in a big parish if you only pay £13 per year.Gallowgate said:
My parish council does very little apart from making the village look pretty, maintaining the village hall, and pressuring Newcastle City Council to do a better job. I'm surprised the residents in @Stocky 's parish thought it was appropriate to go through their course of action - they should have lobbied the County/City/Metropolitan Council.Philip_Thompson said:
Reasonable but don't parish councils get an element of the Council Tax? And I'm assuming these residents aren't getting a discount on the parish surcharge or whatever it is formally called.Stocky said:
Sure - I agree with you as long as it is the county council (who get the council tax receipts) which adopts the areas - not the parish councils.Philip_Thompson said:
It's dodgy those living there don't get a discount on their Council Tax do they?Stocky said:
Yes - they could - but this is the point isn`t it. When the county council agreed the permissions for these SUE estates to be built (Sustainable Urban Develpoments) the SUE bit means that they are "self-sustaining" financially. So the homeowners contractually agree at purchase that they are personally liable for the maintainance of common areas (usually through a management company) - which is of course pointed out by their solicitor during the conveyancing process.Philip_Thompson said:
Can the Council "adopt" the green spaces etc?Stocky said:
Gallowgate, this became a big issue in my parish. A housing estate was built on the fringe of our rural parish. It is called a "sustainable urban development" and has it`s own green spaces etc which, as you say, have to be maintained and paid for by the development rather than the county council.Gallowgate said:One thing I hope is addressed is the use of estate management companies. Those who haven’t bought a new-build within the last 15 years probably don’t realise that roads, green space, and even play areas that were once payed for by the local council have essentially been privatised, and are payed for by residents of each estate. This is on top of council tax.
This is not a problem in itself, the problem is lack of regulation.
At the moment it’s possible for me to sue my management company for some breach of obligation, win, and then all the legal fees and compensation be backcharged through to the residents anyway.
This is not hyperbole, this is reality. There is literally no regulation.
You are better off being a leaseholder than a freeholder on new build estates when it comes to legal protection.
This became a big issue because some of the residents of the estate tried to get onto our parish council to force through a policy so that the cost of this maintainance was paid out of parish funds! Parishioners were furious. It didn`t happen and would, I believe, have been illegal as it would have meant paying parish council funds to some residents of the parish but not others.
The cheek, though, trying to transfer legal liabilites that they contractually agreed when they purchased their home into all of parishioners.
That often happens with roads in new developments doesn't it? Not sure the legality of other stuff.
The whole point of SUEs in the first place is that the county council hits it`s new homes target without incurring any pressure on their costs through having to maintain common areas (cut grass, prune trees etc) while taking in the additional council tax. Shouldn`t be allowed in my view.
I think the residents are fair enough to seek to get the common areas adopted if that's what they want to vote for. Those living elsewhere paying the same Council Tax rates are getting more service.
My parish council precept is £13 a year!
I`m not sure what course of action you refer to? The parish resisted taking on liabilities entered into by a cohort of parishioners. They were quite right to do so. It is expressly forbidden for parish councils to pay across tax payer money to some parishioners but not others to bail them out of their financial obligations.
As I`ve said, the system of SUEs is rotten. The county council should be maintaining as it is they who receive the council tax. And it is their job.
My parish is actually very small, but I think the low price is because it doesn't really do anything...
The initial investment to create adoptable estate roads are reasonable; the continuing maintenance should be on Council Tax. At present in England an advanced sum can be extracted to cover maintenance for (I think) 25 years. That is really just another emanation of NIMBYism.
Hmm, I wonder why new build estates use the latter option...0 -
No, none whatsoever.Charles said:
And you don’t see anything unhealthy about the fundamental shape of the Union being changed on a partisan basis?Philip_Thompson said:If Puerto Rico and New Columbia were added then it would be much trickier for the GOP to regain the Senate in the midterms. Though I'm not sure if new States get both new Senators immediately or at the next election, or one at a time at the following elections?
Considering both Puerto Rico and DC have voted to be admitted as States in recent years I see no reason the Democrats shouldn't ensure they are as soon as they regain the trifecta of the House, Senate and Oval Office.
The shape of the union includes these lands already and Congress has the right to grant them Statehood. If we were talking new lands and new peoples being admitted on a partisan basis that would be different but granting representation to your own citizens? No I couldn't care less about a partisan effect to citizens getting representation.0 -
Only metaphorically.Beibheirli_C said:
Maybe life in a cage suits you, but its killing meeristdoof said:
When it comes to things which only affect you like motorbike riding or skiing this attitude is fair enough. But you getting the virus (possibly symptomless) significantly increases the chances that someone else ends up in hospital or dies in a care home. That is just point blank irresponsible.Beibheirli_C said:
The choices are stark - death by virus or effective death by lockdown turning your life into a mere existence.eristdoof said:
Putting aside the sensationalist language, it is absurd to claim that without lockdown there would have been fewer deaths.rural_voter said:
Locking people up was part of a disastrous UK response but showed sadly that people will do almost anything if you frighten themNerysHughes said:
Look at SunderlandFoxy said:
Cases went from 0 to 1
This chart is nonsense
https://twitter.com/cricketwyvern/status/1277689629714649089
https://www.spiked-online.com/2020/06/26/the-lockdown-is-causing-so-many-deaths/#.Xvb4uRFDEOI
Japan: no interference with civil liberties, 8 deaths per million.
UK: 3 months of house arrest, if not solitary confinement sometimes.
642 deaths per million.
I think I would rather take my chances with the virus. I might lose, but I am more likely to
win. With lockdown I lose every time.0 -
Philip_Thompson said:
If the SUEs didn't exist then whose job would it be to maintain common areas? The Council or the Parish?Stocky said:
That`s all parish councils should do. We pay over £200 pa. Parish Clerk costs takes half of the precept. You must live in a big parish if you only pay £13 per year.Gallowgate said:
My parish council does very little apart from making the village look pretty, maintaining the village hall, and pressuring Newcastle City Council to do a better job. I'm surprised the residents in @Stocky 's parish thought it was appropriate to go through their course of action - they should have lobbied the County/City/Metropolitan Council.Philip_Thompson said:
Reasonable but don't parish councils get an element of the Council Tax? And I'm assuming these residents aren't getting a discount on the parish surcharge or whatever it is formally called.Stocky said:
Sure - I agree with you as long as it is the county council (who get the council tax receipts) which adopts the areas - not the parish councils.Philip_Thompson said:
It's dodgy those living there don't get a discount on their Council Tax do they?Stocky said:
Yes - they could - but this is the point isn`t it. When the county council agreed the permissions for these SUE estates to be built (Sustainable Urban Develpoments) the SUE bit means that they are "self-sustaining" financially. So the homeowners contractually agree at purchase that they are personally liable for the maintainance of common areas (usually through a management company) - which is of course pointed out by their solicitor during the conveyancing process.Philip_Thompson said:
Can the Council "adopt" the green spaces etc?Stocky said:
Gallowgate, this became a big issue in my parish. A housing estate was built on the fringe of our rural parish. It is called a "sustainable urban development" and has it`s own green spaces etc which, as you say, have to be maintained and paid for by the development rather than the county council.Gallowgate said:One thing I hope is addressed is the use of estate management companies. Those who haven’t bought a new-build within the last 15 years probably don’t realise that roads, green space, and even play areas that were once payed for by the local council have essentially been privatised, and are payed for by residents of each estate. This is on top of council tax.
This is not a problem in itself, the problem is lack of regulation.
At the moment it’s possible for me to sue my management company for some breach of obligation, win, and then all the legal fees and compensation be backcharged through to the residents anyway.
This is not hyperbole, this is reality. There is literally no regulation.
You are better off being a leaseholder than a freeholder on new build estates when it comes to legal protection.
This became a big issue because some of the residents of the estate tried to get onto our parish council to force through a policy so that the cost of this maintainance was paid out of parish funds! Parishioners were furious. It didn`t happen and would, I believe, have been illegal as it would have meant paying parish council funds to some residents of the parish but not others.
The cheek, though, trying to transfer legal liabilites that they contractually agreed when they purchased their home into all of parishioners.
That often happens with roads in new developments doesn't it? Not sure the legality of other stuff.
The whole point of SUEs in the first place is that the county council hits it`s new homes target without incurring any pressure on their costs through having to maintain common areas (cut grass, prune trees etc) while taking in the additional council tax. Shouldn`t be allowed in my view.
I think the residents are fair enough to seek to get the common areas adopted if that's what they want to vote for. Those living elsewhere paying the same Council Tax rates are getting more service.
My parish council precept is £13 a year!
I`m not sure what course of action you refer to? The parish resisted taking on liabilities entered into by a cohort of parishioners. They were quite right to do so. It is expressly forbidden for parish councils to pay across tax payer money to some parishioners but not others to bail them out of their financial obligations.
As I`ve said, the system of SUEs is rotten. The county council should be maintaining as it is they who receive the council tax. And it is their job.
Whoever it is, they should be the ones to adopt the land.
The council. The SUEs are a construct to allow councils to swerve the liabilities. A sneaky privatisation, as Gallowgate says.Philip_Thompson said:
If the SUEs didn't exist then whose job would it be to maintain common areas? The Council or the Parish?Stocky said:
That`s all parish councils should do. We pay over £200 pa. Parish Clerk costs takes half of the precept. You must live in a big parish if you only pay £13 per year.Gallowgate said:
My parish council does very little apart from making the village look pretty, maintaining the village hall, and pressuring Newcastle City Council to do a better job. I'm surprised the residents in @Stocky 's parish thought it was appropriate to go through their course of action - they should have lobbied the County/City/Metropolitan Council.Philip_Thompson said:
Reasonable but don't parish councils get an element of the Council Tax? And I'm assuming these residents aren't getting a discount on the parish surcharge or whatever it is formally called.Stocky said:
Sure - I agree with you as long as it is the county council (who get the council tax receipts) which adopts the areas - not the parish councils.Philip_Thompson said:
It's dodgy those living there don't get a discount on their Council Tax do they?Stocky said:
Yes - they could - but this is the point isn`t it. When the county council agreed the permissions for these SUE estates to be built (Sustainable Urban Develpoments) the SUE bit means that they are "self-sustaining" financially. So the homeowners contractually agree at purchase that they are personally liable for the maintainance of common areas (usually through a management company) - which is of course pointed out by their solicitor during the conveyancing process.Philip_Thompson said:
Can the Council "adopt" the green spaces etc?Stocky said:
Gallowgate, this became a big issue in my parish. A housing estate was built on the fringe of our rural parish. It is called a "sustainable urban development" and has it`s own green spaces etc which, as you say, have to be maintained and paid for by the development rather than the county council.Gallowgate said:One thing I hope is addressed is the use of estate management companies. Those who haven’t bought a new-build within the last 15 years probably don’t realise that roads, green space, and even play areas that were once payed for by the local council have essentially been privatised, and are payed for by residents of each estate. This is on top of council tax.
This is not a problem in itself, the problem is lack of regulation.
At the moment it’s possible for me to sue my management company for some breach of obligation, win, and then all the legal fees and compensation be backcharged through to the residents anyway.
This is not hyperbole, this is reality. There is literally no regulation.
You are better off being a leaseholder than a freeholder on new build estates when it comes to legal protection.
This became a big issue because some of the residents of the estate tried to get onto our parish council to force through a policy so that the cost of this maintainance was paid out of parish funds! Parishioners were furious. It didn`t happen and would, I believe, have been illegal as it would have meant paying parish council funds to some residents of the parish but not others.
The cheek, though, trying to transfer legal liabilites that they contractually agreed when they purchased their home into all of parishioners.
That often happens with roads in new developments doesn't it? Not sure the legality of other stuff.
The whole point of SUEs in the first place is that the county council hits it`s new homes target without incurring any pressure on their costs through having to maintain common areas (cut grass, prune trees etc) while taking in the additional council tax. Shouldn`t be allowed in my view.
I think the residents are fair enough to seek to get the common areas adopted if that's what they want to vote for. Those living elsewhere paying the same Council Tax rates are getting more service.
My parish council precept is £13 a year!
I`m not sure what course of action you refer to? The parish resisted taking on liabilities entered into by a cohort of parishioners. They were quite right to do so. It is expressly forbidden for parish councils to pay across tax payer money to some parishioners but not others to bail them out of their financial obligations.
As I`ve said, the system of SUEs is rotten. The county council should be maintaining as it is they who receive the council tax. And it is their job.
Whoever it is, they should be the ones to adopt the land.0 -
Mediaeval chaps would agree. There used to be tidal watermills - one for instance at Yarmouth on Wight (on the inlet running south, just south of the road bridge going west towards Alum Bay IIRC).ydoethur said:
It is beyond bizarre that an island famous for its cool, wet climate, tidal range and coastal currents doesn’t have a single meaningful tidal power source while able to generate 30% of its electricity from solar panels.MarqueeMark said:
Oh it is. The planning rights were proteced in perpetuity, by works on site yesterday. But it will happen with the Government having tried to prevent it at every turn, rather than the kudos it could have got from embracing it.Dura_Ace said:
You're going to have to let this go. It's not going to happen.MarqueeMark said:This morning, the PM COULD have announced that a £1.3 billion shovel-ready project to create 2,200 jobs and 400 apprenticeships would be supported by Government. Jobs and apprenticeships created this summer, with many other jobs in steel and concrete fabrication saved from administration across the supply chain of the Red Wall seats.
All it required was a pump-priming of £35m by Govt. Payable in 2024-5.
Or govt. support equivalent to 150 yards of HS2 track.
Swansea Bay tidal lagoon is that project. Swansea unlocks Cardiff lagoon, the single largest renewables project on the planet. Cardiff will cost £7.5 billion. The same cost it will take just to abandon Hinkley C. The Hinkley C that required £34bn of taxpayer support to get it going.
Cardiff's zero carbon tidal power is an almost identical electricity ouput to Hinkley C. But requiring zero taxpayer money to get it going. It is entirely private sector funding. Yet the Government's "Value for Money" criteria will tell you Hinkley C is the better value for money.
If you want to see just how fucked up the civil service is, you will find no better example.
And no better example than Swansea Bay of how feeble the PMs ambitions were this morning. Don't mock him for standing by a pile of hard-hats. Mock him for not taking on the vested interest in the energy sector and its close tie up with the civil service that has stopped 2,600 more hard-hats being needed in construction from this summer.
It was utterly shit politics from May. That utterly shit politics has been perpetuated now by Boris.
It’s an absolutely epic fail of government strategic thinking.1 -
Plenty of reasons. It was made out of a block buster novel. The studio conducted a masterful PR exercise in "the hunt for Scarlett" where nearly every actress in Hollywood, short of Shirley Temple and Margaret Dumont tested for the part. For its time it was technically advanced and swept the Oscars. It was a huge commercial success, and still easily holds the record for "bums on seats". As a piece of art its clearly flawed, with several directors having a hand in it, and then of course its treatment of "the noble South" and "happy negroes" are as problematic today as they were then. On the bright side it did have the first African American Oscar win in Hattie McDaniel (Mammie).IanB2 said:
Indeed; it’s a mystery why it is so highly regarded as a film.Theuniondivvie said:
At last, another opportunity to not watch it.Tres said:Some good news for the never kneelers. Gone With the Wind is back on Netflix!
0 -
Why not just move the relevant parts back to Maryland?Philip_Thompson said:
I think the proposal is that all residents would be in New Columbia and the only person living in the redefined District would be POTUS and their household.eek said:
It could be kept in place for anyone that lived in the area that is covered by the vastly reduced area (from my quick visit last year I'm sure there must be a few people who would be caught regardless of how gerrymandered the changes were.Philip_Thompson said:
I'd have thought that would require an Amendment (surely impossible in this climate) whereas admission of a new State can be done by simple majority.logical_song said:
I saw some speculation about DC being allowed senators too.Philip_Thompson said:The Democrats need to gain the White House and 1 single Senator net to control the Senate effectively, since the Senator from Maine and Sanders do caucus plus the Vice President casts tie breaks.
If the Democrats win a majority in the Senate (by any means) and the White House one of their very first acts should be to admit Puerto Rico and New Columbia as the 51st and 52nd States of the USA.
https://www.wisegeek.com/does-washington-dc-have-a-governor-senators-and-representatives.htm
Though if New Columbia were admitted as a state as proposed (with the district defined in the Constitution redrawn to just basically Congress and 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue) then I wonder what would happen with the 23rd Amendment as it would be rendered moot.
Interestingly New Columbia wouldn't be the smallest state by population - that would remain Wyoming (CD has 705,000 residents, Wyoming less than 600,000).
It would be like defining Greater London as being the whole of Greater London except the Houses of Parliament and Downing Street.0 -
Because the residents of both Maryland and DC don't want them?Charles said:
Why not just move the relevant parts back to Maryland?Philip_Thompson said:
I think the proposal is that all residents would be in New Columbia and the only person living in the redefined District would be POTUS and their household.eek said:
It could be kept in place for anyone that lived in the area that is covered by the vastly reduced area (from my quick visit last year I'm sure there must be a few people who would be caught regardless of how gerrymandered the changes were.Philip_Thompson said:
I'd have thought that would require an Amendment (surely impossible in this climate) whereas admission of a new State can be done by simple majority.logical_song said:
I saw some speculation about DC being allowed senators too.Philip_Thompson said:The Democrats need to gain the White House and 1 single Senator net to control the Senate effectively, since the Senator from Maine and Sanders do caucus plus the Vice President casts tie breaks.
If the Democrats win a majority in the Senate (by any means) and the White House one of their very first acts should be to admit Puerto Rico and New Columbia as the 51st and 52nd States of the USA.
https://www.wisegeek.com/does-washington-dc-have-a-governor-senators-and-representatives.htm
Though if New Columbia were admitted as a state as proposed (with the district defined in the Constitution redrawn to just basically Congress and 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue) then I wonder what would happen with the 23rd Amendment as it would be rendered moot.
Interestingly New Columbia wouldn't be the smallest state by population - that would remain Wyoming (CD has 705,000 residents, Wyoming less than 600,000).
It would be like defining Greater London as being the whole of Greater London except the Houses of Parliament and Downing Street.0 -
https://twitter.com/cricketwyvern/status/1277944819403427840?s=20GarethoftheVale2 said:
I have seen that list elsewhere. It has basically just taken everywhere where cases increased, however, small. For example in RBWM cases have gone up from 0 to 2. That's just noise.Flatlander said:
Where did that list come from?Foxy said:
eg there were no cases in Doncaster yesterday. It looks like nonsense.0 -
Monte, boy, Amitri?geoffw said:del
1 -
Sneaky sure. I wouldn't say privatisation, more off book accounting fudge like Brown's schemes. In fact didn't all this start then too, is this another sham of his that we're still paying the price for?Stocky said:Philip_Thompson said:
If the SUEs didn't exist then whose job would it be to maintain common areas? The Council or the Parish?Stocky said:
That`s all parish councils should do. We pay over £200 pa. Parish Clerk costs takes half of the precept. You must live in a big parish if you only pay £13 per year.Gallowgate said:
My parish council does very little apart from making the village look pretty, maintaining the village hall, and pressuring Newcastle City Council to do a better job. I'm surprised the residents in @Stocky 's parish thought it was appropriate to go through their course of action - they should have lobbied the County/City/Metropolitan Council.Philip_Thompson said:
Reasonable but don't parish councils get an element of the Council Tax? And I'm assuming these residents aren't getting a discount on the parish surcharge or whatever it is formally called.Stocky said:
Sure - I agree with you as long as it is the county council (who get the council tax receipts) which adopts the areas - not the parish councils.Philip_Thompson said:
It's dodgy those living there don't get a discount on their Council Tax do they?Stocky said:
Yes - they could - but this is the point isn`t it. When the county council agreed the permissions for these SUE estates to be built (Sustainable Urban Develpoments) the SUE bit means that they are "self-sustaining" financially. So the homeowners contractually agree at purchase that they are personally liable for the maintainance of common areas (usually through a management company) - which is of course pointed out by their solicitor during the conveyancing process.Philip_Thompson said:
Can the Council "adopt" the green spaces etc?Stocky said:
Gallowgate, this became a big issue in my parish. A housing estate was built on the fringe of our rural parish. It is called a "sustainable urban development" and has it`s own green spaces etc which, as you say, have to be maintained and paid for by the development rather than the county council.Gallowgate said:One thing I hope is addressed is the use of estate management companies. Those who haven’t bought a new-build within the last 15 years probably don’t realise that roads, green space, and even play areas that were once payed for by the local council have essentially been privatised, and are payed for by residents of each estate. This is on top of council tax.
This is not a problem in itself, the problem is lack of regulation.
At the moment it’s possible for me to sue my management company for some breach of obligation, win, and then all the legal fees and compensation be backcharged through to the residents anyway.
This is not hyperbole, this is reality. There is literally no regulation.
You are better off being a leaseholder than a freeholder on new build estates when it comes to legal protection.
This became a big issue because some of the residents of the estate tried to get onto our parish council to force through a policy so that the cost of this maintainance was paid out of parish funds! Parishioners were furious. It didn`t happen and would, I believe, have been illegal as it would have meant paying parish council funds to some residents of the parish but not others.
The cheek, though, trying to transfer legal liabilites that they contractually agreed when they purchased their home into all of parishioners.
That often happens with roads in new developments doesn't it? Not sure the legality of other stuff.
The whole point of SUEs in the first place is that the county council hits it`s new homes target without incurring any pressure on their costs through having to maintain common areas (cut grass, prune trees etc) while taking in the additional council tax. Shouldn`t be allowed in my view.
I think the residents are fair enough to seek to get the common areas adopted if that's what they want to vote for. Those living elsewhere paying the same Council Tax rates are getting more service.
My parish council precept is £13 a year!
I`m not sure what course of action you refer to? The parish resisted taking on liabilities entered into by a cohort of parishioners. They were quite right to do so. It is expressly forbidden for parish councils to pay across tax payer money to some parishioners but not others to bail them out of their financial obligations.
As I`ve said, the system of SUEs is rotten. The county council should be maintaining as it is they who receive the council tax. And it is their job.
Whoever it is, they should be the ones to adopt the land.
The council. The SUEs are a construct to allow councils to swerve the liabilities. A sneaky privatisation, as Gallowgate says.Philip_Thompson said:
If the SUEs didn't exist then whose job would it be to maintain common areas? The Council or the Parish?Stocky said:
That`s all parish councils should do. We pay over £200 pa. Parish Clerk costs takes half of the precept. You must live in a big parish if you only pay £13 per year.Gallowgate said:
My parish council does very little apart from making the village look pretty, maintaining the village hall, and pressuring Newcastle City Council to do a better job. I'm surprised the residents in @Stocky 's parish thought it was appropriate to go through their course of action - they should have lobbied the County/City/Metropolitan Council.Philip_Thompson said:
Reasonable but don't parish councils get an element of the Council Tax? And I'm assuming these residents aren't getting a discount on the parish surcharge or whatever it is formally called.Stocky said:
Sure - I agree with you as long as it is the county council (who get the council tax receipts) which adopts the areas - not the parish councils.Philip_Thompson said:
It's dodgy those living there don't get a discount on their Council Tax do they?Stocky said:
Yes - they could - but this is the point isn`t it. When the county council agreed the permissions for these SUE estates to be built (Sustainable Urban Develpoments) the SUE bit means that they are "self-sustaining" financially. So the homeowners contractually agree at purchase that they are personally liable for the maintainance of common areas (usually through a management company) - which is of course pointed out by their solicitor during the conveyancing process.Philip_Thompson said:
Can the Council "adopt" the green spaces etc?Stocky said:
Gallowgate, this became a big issue in my parish. A housing estate was built on the fringe of our rural parish. It is called a "sustainable urban development" and has it`s own green spaces etc which, as you say, have to be maintained and paid for by the development rather than the county council.Gallowgate said:One thing I hope is addressed is the use of estate management companies. Those who haven’t bought a new-build within the last 15 years probably don’t realise that roads, green space, and even play areas that were once payed for by the local council have essentially been privatised, and are payed for by residents of each estate. This is on top of council tax.
This is not a problem in itself, the problem is lack of regulation.
At the moment it’s possible for me to sue my management company for some breach of obligation, win, and then all the legal fees and compensation be backcharged through to the residents anyway.
This is not hyperbole, this is reality. There is literally no regulation.
You are better off being a leaseholder than a freeholder on new build estates when it comes to legal protection.
This became a big issue because some of the residents of the estate tried to get onto our parish council to force through a policy so that the cost of this maintainance was paid out of parish funds! Parishioners were furious. It didn`t happen and would, I believe, have been illegal as it would have meant paying parish council funds to some residents of the parish but not others.
The cheek, though, trying to transfer legal liabilites that they contractually agreed when they purchased their home into all of parishioners.
That often happens with roads in new developments doesn't it? Not sure the legality of other stuff.
The whole point of SUEs in the first place is that the county council hits it`s new homes target without incurring any pressure on their costs through having to maintain common areas (cut grass, prune trees etc) while taking in the additional council tax. Shouldn`t be allowed in my view.
I think the residents are fair enough to seek to get the common areas adopted if that's what they want to vote for. Those living elsewhere paying the same Council Tax rates are getting more service.
My parish council precept is £13 a year!
I`m not sure what course of action you refer to? The parish resisted taking on liabilities entered into by a cohort of parishioners. They were quite right to do so. It is expressly forbidden for parish councils to pay across tax payer money to some parishioners but not others to bail them out of their financial obligations.
As I`ve said, the system of SUEs is rotten. The county council should be maintaining as it is they who receive the council tax. And it is their job.
Whoever it is, they should be the ones to adopt the land.0 -
Good post. That is exactly what is happening. Our parish has recently been asked to pay for a policeman and a bus service.IanB2 said:
A lot of parish councils have, and are, taking on extra functions as principal councils cut funding for things that they see as discretionary. My parish (town) council now manages the local public toilets, a batch of the local car parks, and from this year is funding the majority of the cost of the town’s park, after the county council decided that all it would pay for is cutting the grass and emptying the bins. The way principal council funding has been cut at the same time as council tax rises have been capped has forced a devolution of services, because precept increases aren’t capped but are simply added to whatever tax increase the principal council(s) are able to impose.Gallowgate said:
Apologies for not being clear, I was attacking the residents not your parish council!Stocky said:
That`s all parish councils should do. We pay over £200 pa. Parish Clerk costs takes half of the precept. You must live in a big parish if you only pay £13 per year.Gallowgate said:
My parish council does very little apart from making the village look pretty, maintaining the village hall, and pressuring Newcastle City Council to do a better job. I'm surprised the residents in @Stocky 's parish thought it was appropriate to go through their course of action - they should have lobbied the County/City/Metropolitan Council.Philip_Thompson said:
Reasonable but don't parish councils get an element of the Council Tax? And I'm assuming these residents aren't getting a discount on the parish surcharge or whatever it is formally called.Stocky said:
Sure - I agree with you as long as it is the county council (who get the council tax receipts) which adopts the areas - not the parish councils.Philip_Thompson said:
It's dodgy those living there don't get a discount on their Council Tax do they?Stocky said:
Yes - they could - but this is the point isn`t it. When the county council agreed the permissions for these SUE estates to be built (Sustainable Urban Develpoments) the SUE bit means that they are "self-sustaining" financially. So the homeowners contractually agree at purchase that they are personally liable for the maintainance of common areas (usually through a management company) - which is of course pointed out by their solicitor during the conveyancing process.Philip_Thompson said:
Can the Council "adopt" the green spaces etc?Stocky said:
Gallowgate, this became a big issue in my parish. A housing estate was built on the fringe of our rural parish. It is called a "sustainable urban development" and has it`s own green spaces etc which, as you say, have to be maintained and paid for by the development rather than the county council.Gallowgate said:One thing I hope is addressed is the use of estate management companies. Those who haven’t bought a new-build within the last 15 years probably don’t realise that roads, green space, and even play areas that were once payed for by the local council have essentially been privatised, and are payed for by residents of each estate. This is on top of council tax.
This is not a problem in itself, the problem is lack of regulation.
At the moment it’s possible for me to sue my management company for some breach of obligation, win, and then all the legal fees and compensation be backcharged through to the residents anyway.
This is not hyperbole, this is reality. There is literally no regulation.
You are better off being a leaseholder than a freeholder on new build estates when it comes to legal protection.
This became a big issue because some of the residents of the estate tried to get onto our parish council to force through a policy so that the cost of this maintainance was paid out of parish funds! Parishioners were furious. It didn`t happen and would, I believe, have been illegal as it would have meant paying parish council funds to some residents of the parish but not others.
The cheek, though, trying to transfer legal liabilites that they contractually agreed when they purchased their home into all of parishioners.
That often happens with roads in new developments doesn't it? Not sure the legality of other stuff.
The whole point of SUEs in the first place is that the county council hits it`s new homes target without incurring any pressure on their costs through having to maintain common areas (cut grass, prune trees etc) while taking in the additional council tax. Shouldn`t be allowed in my view.
I think the residents are fair enough to seek to get the common areas adopted if that's what they want to vote for. Those living elsewhere paying the same Council Tax rates are getting more service.
My parish council precept is £13 a year!
I`m not sure what course of action you refer to? The parish resisted taking on liabilities entered into by a cohort of parishioners. They were quite right to do so. It is expressly forbidden for parish councils to pay across tax payer money to some parishioners but not others to bail them out of their financial obligations.
As I`ve said, the system of SUEs is rotten. The county council should be maintaining as it is they who receive the council tax. And it is their job.
My parish is actually very small, but I think the low price is because it doesn't really do anything...0 -
Maybe they could 'Demon Eyes' him.Pro_Rata said:
New Labour, New Danger! That went well.kinabalu said:
That will indeed be a key plank of the Tory re-election strategy. Try to convince the more gullible members of the public - a fairly large demographic tbf - that Starmer is merely the reassuring looking frontman behind which there lurks a degenerate marxist cabal pulling his strings. But you are being somewhat optimistic imo in blithely assuming it will work. I doubt it will myself.MrEd said:
The problem for Starmer is the Labour brand. Regardless of the progress he has made on anti-Semitism and celebrating Armed Forces' Day etc, there is a very good chunk of their ex-voters who think that, if Labour is elected, it won't be Starmer's Labour that is running things but the likes of BLM. Once bitten, twice shy.Foxy said:
and a plurality of Britons prefer him to Johnson.kinabalu said:
Jeremy would have been in Bristol sticking it to Colston. Conviction politician or protest politician - delete to taste.BluestBlue said:
The problem is that political messages do not in practice have an independent ethereal existence like Platonic Forms - they rely on their messenger. Starmer - to give him his due here - has the political danger sense to realize that the messengers have already tarnished the message and will only continue to do so in the future, so he spun around 180 degrees and dashed out of that minefield as quickly as he dashed into it. You almost have to admire the shamelessness!kinabalu said:
He simply made it clear that by supporting the anti-racism message of BLM - which is what it's known for tbf - he is not endorsing anything and everything which is said either by or in the name of the movement.BluestBlue said:
Perfectly reasonable position. Can't see the problem.
Corbyn, of course, would have charged forwards until he disappeared in a red mist...
Starmer quite fancies being PM.1 -
In which case, focus on the Swansea Bay lagoon having a 120 year minimum life. The offshore wind will need to be completely replaced in - at best - 40 years. Given the rigours of the North Sea, quite possibly less (in the US deserts, some have barely lasted 18 years). Again, replacement will be by imports. The sea walls will just need the odd bit of patching up - they could quite possibly last centuries. Then it is down to turbine replacements. La Rance tidal barrage in France has just upgraded its turbines. They should last another sixty years. It produces the cheapest electricity in France. (Which they then export to the UK at top dollar).Philip_Thompson said:@MarqueeMark I think comparing the Lagoon project to Hinckley does you no favours. Quite frankly the Hinckley project was a mistake in hindsight and were it to be repeated would not be signed in this climate. I don't think it's a baseline you want to be compared against.
Surely the economic development in green energy of recent years has been offshore wind. Surely I would think arguments of reliability, risk and cost effectiveness should be made against offshore wind and not Hinckley.
Plus the Swansea Lagoon will be a piece of local infrastructure to regenerate the place, used for sport, leisure, the arts. Wind and solar farms get hidden behind high fences and wire; nuclear plants need armed guards. Not exactly local amenities...
Tidal can compete with offshore wind, with now prices at Cardiff sub-£50. Alternativly, you could have a slightly higher price for a 35 year contract for differences - and then 85 years at around £10. Now THAT is a legacy asset.
Oh, and the reason for comparing with nuclear? That is the metric that was used by the UK government. When it sent its report up to Government in 2018, condemning Swansea as "too expensive", one of the numbers was wrong by £30 billion, another by £60 billion - both to the advantage of nuclear, natch. It was a classic example of the Blob at work. BEIS is still wedded to nuclear. The only way it can be remotely competitive is, frankly, if they cheat.0 -
What's a SUE ? THe first time I use an anacroynm in a document I stick the full name in brackets afterwards.0
-
Because DC hasn't been a part of Maryland for centuries and its not what either party wants.Charles said:
Why not just move the relevant parts back to Maryland?Philip_Thompson said:
I think the proposal is that all residents would be in New Columbia and the only person living in the redefined District would be POTUS and their household.eek said:
It could be kept in place for anyone that lived in the area that is covered by the vastly reduced area (from my quick visit last year I'm sure there must be a few people who would be caught regardless of how gerrymandered the changes were.Philip_Thompson said:
I'd have thought that would require an Amendment (surely impossible in this climate) whereas admission of a new State can be done by simple majority.logical_song said:
I saw some speculation about DC being allowed senators too.Philip_Thompson said:The Democrats need to gain the White House and 1 single Senator net to control the Senate effectively, since the Senator from Maine and Sanders do caucus plus the Vice President casts tie breaks.
If the Democrats win a majority in the Senate (by any means) and the White House one of their very first acts should be to admit Puerto Rico and New Columbia as the 51st and 52nd States of the USA.
https://www.wisegeek.com/does-washington-dc-have-a-governor-senators-and-representatives.htm
Though if New Columbia were admitted as a state as proposed (with the district defined in the Constitution redrawn to just basically Congress and 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue) then I wonder what would happen with the 23rd Amendment as it would be rendered moot.
Interestingly New Columbia wouldn't be the smallest state by population - that would remain Wyoming (CD has 705,000 residents, Wyoming less than 600,000).
It would be like defining Greater London as being the whole of Greater London except the Houses of Parliament and Downing Street.
Any other questions?0 -
It is a good film, though sexual and racial politics are more than a little dodgy.Sunil_Prasannan said:
"Frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn!"Tres said:Some good news for the never kneelers. Gone With the Wind is back on Netflix!
(Did I get the accent right?)
In many ways I find watching such a film quite educative, by thinking about the difference between contemporaneous assumptions and modern ones. The film tells us as much about attitudes in 1930s America as 1860's.0 -
I'm not surprised that sand has an even more corrosive impact on wind turbines than salt water in the air.MarqueeMark said:
In which case, focus on the Swansea Bay lagoon having a 120 year minimum life. The offshore wind will need to be completely replaced in - at best - 40 years. Given the rigours of the North Sea, quite possibly less (in the US deserts, some have barely lasted 18 years). Again, replacement will be by imports. The sea walls will just need the odd bit of patching up - they could quite possibly last centuries. Then it is down to turbine replacements. La Rance tidal barrage in France has just upgraded its turbines. They should last another sixty years. It produces the cheapest electricity in France. (Which they then export to the UK at top dollar).Philip_Thompson said:@MarqueeMark I think comparing the Lagoon project to Hinckley does you no favours. Quite frankly the Hinckley project was a mistake in hindsight and were it to be repeated would not be signed in this climate. I don't think it's a baseline you want to be compared against.
Surely the economic development in green energy of recent years has been offshore wind. Surely I would think arguments of reliability, risk and cost effectiveness should be made against offshore wind and not Hinckley.
Plus the Swansea Lagoon will be a piece of local infrastructure to regenerate the place, used for sport, leisure, the arts. Wind and solar farms get hidden behind high fences and wire; nuclear plants need armed guards. Not exactly local amenities...
Tidal can compete with offshore wind, with now prices at Cardiff sub-£50. Alternativly, you could have a slightly higher price for a 35 year contract for differences - and then 85 years at around £10. Now THAT is a legacy asset.
Oh, and the reason for comparing with nuclear? That is the metric that was used by the UK government. When it sent its report up to Government in 2018, condemning Swansea as "too expensive", one of the numbers was wrong by £30 billion, another by £60 billion - both to the advantage of nuclear, natch. It was a classic example of the Blob at work. BEIS is still wedded to nuclear. The only way it can be remotely competitive is, frankly, if they cheat.0 -
That's a fair point, though there are a couple of differences between then and now.NerysHughes said:
He was relected in Landon a Labour city so I would say people maintain a liking of him and a desire to vote for him.Stuartinromford said:
And not just that- for most purposes, it's a charisma that fades pretty quickly.kinabalu said:
He unquestionably has charisma in that he draws and holds attention. He can entertain. Amuse. Cheer you up a bit. This is the essence of “Boris”. It wins elections but goes no further. He cannot inspire or move or educate or intellectually provoke. It’s impossible to imagine him making a speech which does any of this. And the reason he will never pull this off is because he is a vacuous, rather frivolous man. There is no gravitas there. No moral seriousness. No sincerity. There’s a void where all that stuff would usually reside. Seventeen (and a half) stones of mainly muscle he may be, yet he lacks weight. That’s the long and short of it.Stuartinromford said:
Only anyone who had never heard him do an actual live speech.CorrectHorseBattery said:Who said Johnson was a good public speaker?
Remember that one he did in front of a backdrop of police last summer?
First, in 2012 he was up against Ken Livingstone, second time round. And by that point, Ken really was past it. It was also just before the Olympics, and it was obvious that BoJo was the right Mayor to front those.
Second, the Mayor's job is a funny one for impact on the public. I lived in London at the time, am reasonably politically curious, but I don't remember seeing much of old Bozza. Clearly, he must have been around, doing speeches and whatnot. As PM, he's on the news all the time, and I'm not convinced that his shtick has got enough depth to sustain that much exposure.0 -
Yes, I'm confident that is right. There are people getting worked up about what BLM really stands for but it's a smallish number and I don't see many potential Labour voters in there.kicorse said:
A polling organisation could settle the question very easily by asking a question such as (I'm sure it could be improved):kinabalu said:
The suit, fair point. If I were a floating voter that might give me pause for thought.isam said:...
"UNDER THE MOON OF LOVE with my PRETTY LITTLE ANGEL EYES!"kinabalu said:
Have you got it on your bedroom wall to give the finger to and laugh at every morning?isam said:
I just happen to think it is one of the biggest publicity seeking goofs a politician has ever made. Sorry to all those who disagree with me if my making the point repeatedly upsets you, but that's how it is.
I was told I was the only person thinking this, but I was told BLM weren't anti Semitic marxists who want to defund the police a couple of days ago, and Sir Keir was having to distance himself from them for just those reasons yesterday. So when others back me up, I like to link to it
But otherwise? Hardly. There is a small minority of the population whose instinctive reaction to seeing it is a genuine and profound unease - anger even - that the Labour leader is demeaning himself by "kneeling to the Black Man" but these are votes which would be hard for Labour to get in any event and it's arguable whether they even want them.
Of course I could be wrong about it being a small minority. In which case there is a problem - that Labour can't win elections without pandering to racism.
What is closest to your view of the meaning of the Black Lives Matter "taking a knee" gesture?
- Expressing support for an anti-racism message in response to events such as the killing of George Floyd
- Expressing support for defunding the police
I doubt there will be such a poll, because it is obvious to anyone without an unhealthy obsession that the first answer would get a huge majority.
(What's with the suit stuff by the way? I didn't even notice it!)
The suit? Well @isam is of the view it says "Showaddywaddy" - a pop group from decades ago - and I sometimes like to humour him to keep our exchanges benign.
You're perhaps not familiar with Showaddywaddy - in which case hats off. They were rubbish but did have a few hits. Singles, I mean. They weren't really an album band.0 -
He does seem to have a postive affect on non-political people. Whether that will continue for another 4 years remains to be seen, but he does bring a smile to people's faces.Stuartinromford said:
That's a fair point, though there are a couple of differences between then and now.NerysHughes said:
He was relected in Landon a Labour city so I would say people maintain a liking of him and a desire to vote for him.Stuartinromford said:
And not just that- for most purposes, it's a charisma that fades pretty quickly.kinabalu said:
He unquestionably has charisma in that he draws and holds attention. He can entertain. Amuse. Cheer you up a bit. This is the essence of “Boris”. It wins elections but goes no further. He cannot inspire or move or educate or intellectually provoke. It’s impossible to imagine him making a speech which does any of this. And the reason he will never pull this off is because he is a vacuous, rather frivolous man. There is no gravitas there. No moral seriousness. No sincerity. There’s a void where all that stuff would usually reside. Seventeen (and a half) stones of mainly muscle he may be, yet he lacks weight. That’s the long and short of it.Stuartinromford said:
Only anyone who had never heard him do an actual live speech.CorrectHorseBattery said:Who said Johnson was a good public speaker?
Remember that one he did in front of a backdrop of police last summer?
First, in 2012 he was up against Ken Livingstone, second time round. And by that point, Ken really was past it. It was also just before the Olympics, and it was obvious that BoJo was the right Mayor to front those.
Second, the Mayor's job is a funny one for impact on the public. I lived in London at the time, am reasonably politically curious, but I don't remember seeing much of old Bozza. Clearly, he must have been around, doing speeches and whatnot. As PM, he's on the news all the time, and I'm not convinced that his shtick has got enough depth to sustain that much exposure.1 -
If its competitive with wind then sell it on its own merits.MarqueeMark said:
In which case, focus on the Swansea Bay lagoon having a 120 year minimum life. The offshore wind will need to be completely replaced in - at best - 40 years. Given the rigours of the North Sea, quite possibly less (in the US deserts, some have barely lasted 18 years). Again, replacement will be by imports. The sea walls will just need the odd bit of patching up - they could quite possibly last centuries. Then it is down to turbine replacements. La Rance tidal barrage in France has just upgraded its turbines. They should last another sixty years. It produces the cheapest electricity in France. (Which they then export to the UK at top dollar).Philip_Thompson said:@MarqueeMark I think comparing the Lagoon project to Hinckley does you no favours. Quite frankly the Hinckley project was a mistake in hindsight and were it to be repeated would not be signed in this climate. I don't think it's a baseline you want to be compared against.
Surely the economic development in green energy of recent years has been offshore wind. Surely I would think arguments of reliability, risk and cost effectiveness should be made against offshore wind and not Hinckley.
Plus the Swansea Lagoon will be a piece of local infrastructure to regenerate the place, used for sport, leisure, the arts. Wind and solar farms get hidden behind high fences and wire; nuclear plants need armed guards. Not exactly local amenities...
Tidal can compete with offshore wind, with now prices at Cardiff sub-£50. Alternativly, you could have a slightly higher price for a 35 year contract for differences - and then 85 years at around £10. Now THAT is a legacy asset.
Oh, and the reason for comparing with nuclear? That is the metric that was used by the UK government. When it sent its report up to Government in 2018, condemning Swansea as "too expensive", one of the numbers was wrong by £30 billion, another by £60 billion - both to the advantage of nuclear, natch. It was a classic example of the Blob at work. BEIS is still wedded to nuclear. The only way it can be remotely competitive is, frankly, if they cheat.
Nuclear needn't have a future in this country. Comparing yourselves to that is like comparing yourselves favourably to coal.
The media and politicians love wind now and bang on about it to almost the exclusion of all else. I am not familiar with the industry but would imagine that a tidal lagoon would work very well at balancing off wind to deal with spikes of demand or interruptions in supply in a way that other sectors can't be.0 -
Having moved from a principal to a parish council, one of the biggest surprises is how little accountability and real checks and balances there are for first tier councils.Pulpstar said:
How do you actually find out what your parish council is spending your wonga on ?IanB2 said:
A lot of parish councils have, and are, taking on extra functions as principal councils cut funding for things that they see as discretionary. My parish (town) council now manages the local public toilets, a batch of the local car parks, and from this year is funding the majority of the cost of the town’s park, after the county council decided that all it would pay for is cutting the grass and emptying the bins. The way principal council funding has been cut at the same time as council tax rises have been capped has forced a devolution of services, because precept increases aren’t capped but are simply added to whatever tax increase the principal council(s) are able to impose.Gallowgate said:
Apologies for not being clear, I was attacking the residents not your parish council!Stocky said:
That`s all parish councils should do. We pay over £200 pa. Parish Clerk costs takes half of the precept. You must live in a big parish if you only pay £13 per year.Gallowgate said:
My parish council does very little apart from making the village look pretty, maintaining the village hall, and pressuring Newcastle City Council to do a better job. I'm surprised the residents in @Stocky 's parish thought it was appropriate to go through their course of action - they should have lobbied the County/City/Metropolitan Council.Philip_Thompson said:
Reasonable but don't parish councils get an element of the Council Tax? And I'm assuming these residents aren't getting a discount on the parish surcharge or whatever it is formally called.Stocky said:
Sure - I agree with you as long as it is the county council (who get the council tax receipts) which adopts the areas - not the parish councils.Philip_Thompson said:
It's dodgy those living there don't get a discount on their Council Tax do they?Stocky said:
Yes - they could - but this is the point isn`t it. When the county council agreed the permissions for these SUE estates to be built (Sustainable Urban Develpoments) the SUE bit means that they are "self-sustaining" financially. So the homeowners contractually agree at purchase that they are personally liable for the maintainance of common areas (usually through a management company) - which is of course pointed out by their solicitor during the conveyancing process.Philip_Thompson said:
Can the Council "adopt" the green spaces etc?Stocky said:
Gallowgate, this became a big issue in my parish. A housing estate was built on the fringe of our rural parish. It is called a "sustainable urban development" and has it`s own green spaces etc which, as you say, have to be maintained and paid for by the development rather than the county council.Gallowgate said:One thing I hope is addressed is the use of estate management companies. Those who haven’t bought a new-build within the last 15 years probably don’t realise that roads, green space, and even play areas that were once payed for by the local council have essentially been privatised, and are payed for by residents of each estate. This is on top of council tax.
This is not a problem in itself, the problem is lack of regulation.
At the moment it’s possible for me to sue my management company for some breach of obligation, win, and then all the legal fees and compensation be backcharged through to the residents anyway.
This is not hyperbole, this is reality. There is literally no regulation.
You are better off being a leaseholder than a freeholder on new build estates when it comes to legal protection.
This became a big issue because some of the residents of the estate tried to get onto our parish council to force through a policy so that the cost of this maintainance was paid out of parish funds! Parishioners were furious. It didn`t happen and would, I believe, have been illegal as it would have meant paying parish council funds to some residents of the parish but not others.
The cheek, though, trying to transfer legal liabilites that they contractually agreed when they purchased their home into all of parishioners.
That often happens with roads in new developments doesn't it? Not sure the legality of other stuff.
The whole point of SUEs in the first place is that the county council hits it`s new homes target without incurring any pressure on their costs through having to maintain common areas (cut grass, prune trees etc) while taking in the additional council tax. Shouldn`t be allowed in my view.
I think the residents are fair enough to seek to get the common areas adopted if that's what they want to vote for. Those living elsewhere paying the same Council Tax rates are getting more service.
My parish council precept is £13 a year!
I`m not sure what course of action you refer to? The parish resisted taking on liabilities entered into by a cohort of parishioners. They were quite right to do so. It is expressly forbidden for parish councils to pay across tax payer money to some parishioners but not others to bail them out of their financial obligations.
As I`ve said, the system of SUEs is rotten. The county council should be maintaining as it is they who receive the council tax. And it is their job.
My parish is actually very small, but I think the low price is because it doesn't really do anything...
That said, most of them now have websites with their agenda and papers online, and if you hunt about for the meeting that set the annual budget (typically late January or early February) you should find a report that sets out what they propose to spend the coming year’s budget on. In the unlikely event there isn’t a website, the local library should hold the papers, or you have a right to inspect them at the council offices in person.
They should also hold an annual town or parish meeting, open to all residents, at which residents can ask any questions they wish - and also have various powers to put forward motions from the floor, one of the little known aspects of British local government.0 -
A man who goes to donkey funerals, not terrorist ones? Scarcely a credible threat...logical_song said:
Maybe they could 'Demon Eyes' him.Pro_Rata said:
New Labour, New Danger! That went well.kinabalu said:
That will indeed be a key plank of the Tory re-election strategy. Try to convince the more gullible members of the public - a fairly large demographic tbf - that Starmer is merely the reassuring looking frontman behind which there lurks a degenerate marxist cabal pulling his strings. But you are being somewhat optimistic imo in blithely assuming it will work. I doubt it will myself.MrEd said:
The problem for Starmer is the Labour brand. Regardless of the progress he has made on anti-Semitism and celebrating Armed Forces' Day etc, there is a very good chunk of their ex-voters who think that, if Labour is elected, it won't be Starmer's Labour that is running things but the likes of BLM. Once bitten, twice shy.Foxy said:
and a plurality of Britons prefer him to Johnson.kinabalu said:
Jeremy would have been in Bristol sticking it to Colston. Conviction politician or protest politician - delete to taste.BluestBlue said:
The problem is that political messages do not in practice have an independent ethereal existence like Platonic Forms - they rely on their messenger. Starmer - to give him his due here - has the political danger sense to realize that the messengers have already tarnished the message and will only continue to do so in the future, so he spun around 180 degrees and dashed out of that minefield as quickly as he dashed into it. You almost have to admire the shamelessness!kinabalu said:
He simply made it clear that by supporting the anti-racism message of BLM - which is what it's known for tbf - he is not endorsing anything and everything which is said either by or in the name of the movement.BluestBlue said:
Perfectly reasonable position. Can't see the problem.
Corbyn, of course, would have charged forwards until he disappeared in a red mist...
Starmer quite fancies being PM.0 -
I have to agree with you, MM.MarqueeMark said:
In which case, focus on the Swansea Bay lagoon having a 120 year minimum life. The offshore wind will need to be completely replaced in - at best - 40 years. Given the rigours of the North Sea, quite possibly less (in the US deserts, some have barely lasted 18 years). Again, replacement will be by imports. The sea walls will just need the odd bit of patching up - they could quite possibly last centuries. Then it is down to turbine replacements. La Rance tidal barrage in France has just upgraded its turbines. They should last another sixty years. It produces the cheapest electricity in France. (Which they then export to the UK at top dollar).Philip_Thompson said:@MarqueeMark I think comparing the Lagoon project to Hinckley does you no favours. Quite frankly the Hinckley project was a mistake in hindsight and were it to be repeated would not be signed in this climate. I don't think it's a baseline you want to be compared against.
Surely the economic development in green energy of recent years has been offshore wind. Surely I would think arguments of reliability, risk and cost effectiveness should be made against offshore wind and not Hinckley.
Plus the Swansea Lagoon will be a piece of local infrastructure to regenerate the place, used for sport, leisure, the arts. Wind and solar farms get hidden behind high fences and wire; nuclear plants need armed guards. Not exactly local amenities...
Tidal can compete with offshore wind, with now prices at Cardiff sub-£50. Alternativly, you could have a slightly higher price for a 35 year contract for differences - and then 85 years at around £10. Now THAT is a legacy asset.
Oh, and the reason for comparing with nuclear? That is the metric that was used by the UK government. When it sent its report up to Government in 2018, condemning Swansea as "too expensive", one of the numbers was wrong by £30 billion, another by £60 billion - both to the advantage of nuclear, natch. It was a classic example of the Blob at work. BEIS is still wedded to nuclear. The only way it can be remotely competitive is, frankly, if they cheat.
A massive construction project financed at low interest rates, built by UK businesses, and which actually delivered reliable cheap energy seems, if not a non-brainer, then at the very least eminently worth of consideration.
0 -
Yes, we are paying for a bus service too, although it is heading for closure as we expected to break even but are failing to do so.Stocky said:
Good post. That is exactly what is happening. Our parish has recently been asked to pay for a policeman and a bus service.IanB2 said:
A lot of parish councils have, and are, taking on extra functions as principal councils cut funding for things that they see as discretionary. My parish (town) council now manages the local public toilets, a batch of the local car parks, and from this year is funding the majority of the cost of the town’s park, after the county council decided that all it would pay for is cutting the grass and emptying the bins. The way principal council funding has been cut at the same time as council tax rises have been capped has forced a devolution of services, because precept increases aren’t capped but are simply added to whatever tax increase the principal council(s) are able to impose.Gallowgate said:
Apologies for not being clear, I was attacking the residents not your parish council!Stocky said:
That`s all parish councils should do. We pay over £200 pa. Parish Clerk costs takes half of the precept. You must live in a big parish if you only pay £13 per year.Gallowgate said:
My parish council does very little apart from making the village look pretty, maintaining the village hall, and pressuring Newcastle City Council to do a better job. I'm surprised the residents in @Stocky 's parish thought it was appropriate to go through their course of action - they should have lobbied the County/City/Metropolitan Council.Philip_Thompson said:
Reasonable but don't parish councils get an element of the Council Tax? And I'm assuming these residents aren't getting a discount on the parish surcharge or whatever it is formally called.Stocky said:
Sure - I agree with you as long as it is the county council (who get the council tax receipts) which adopts the areas - not the parish councils.Philip_Thompson said:
It's dodgy those living there don't get a discount on their Council Tax do they?Stocky said:
Yes - they could - but this is the point isn`t it. When the county council agreed the permissions for these SUE estates to be built (Sustainable Urban Develpoments) the SUE bit means that they are "self-sustaining" financially. So the homeowners contractually agree at purchase that they are personally liable for the maintainance of common areas (usually through a management company) - which is of course pointed out by their solicitor during the conveyancing process.Philip_Thompson said:
Can the Council "adopt" the green spaces etc?Stocky said:
Gallowgate, this became a big issue in my parish. A housing estate was built on the fringe of our rural parish. It is called a "sustainable urban development" and has it`s own green spaces etc which, as you say, have to be maintained and paid for by the development rather than the county council.Gallowgate said:One thing I hope is addressed is the use of estate management companies. Those who haven’t bought a new-build within the last 15 years probably don’t realise that roads, green space, and even play areas that were once payed for by the local council have essentially been privatised, and are payed for by residents of each estate. This is on top of council tax.
This is not a problem in itself, the problem is lack of regulation.
At the moment it’s possible for me to sue my management company for some breach of obligation, win, and then all the legal fees and compensation be backcharged through to the residents anyway.
This is not hyperbole, this is reality. There is literally no regulation.
You are better off being a leaseholder than a freeholder on new build estates when it comes to legal protection.
This became a big issue because some of the residents of the estate tried to get onto our parish council to force through a policy so that the cost of this maintainance was paid out of parish funds! Parishioners were furious. It didn`t happen and would, I believe, have been illegal as it would have meant paying parish council funds to some residents of the parish but not others.
The cheek, though, trying to transfer legal liabilites that they contractually agreed when they purchased their home into all of parishioners.
That often happens with roads in new developments doesn't it? Not sure the legality of other stuff.
The whole point of SUEs in the first place is that the county council hits it`s new homes target without incurring any pressure on their costs through having to maintain common areas (cut grass, prune trees etc) while taking in the additional council tax. Shouldn`t be allowed in my view.
I think the residents are fair enough to seek to get the common areas adopted if that's what they want to vote for. Those living elsewhere paying the same Council Tax rates are getting more service.
My parish council precept is £13 a year!
I`m not sure what course of action you refer to? The parish resisted taking on liabilities entered into by a cohort of parishioners. They were quite right to do so. It is expressly forbidden for parish councils to pay across tax payer money to some parishioners but not others to bail them out of their financial obligations.
As I`ve said, the system of SUEs is rotten. The county council should be maintaining as it is they who receive the council tax. And it is their job.
My parish is actually very small, but I think the low price is because it doesn't really do anything...0 -
Study on! Showaddywaddy are a Leicester band, and we have had enough abuse for the day.kinabalu said:
Yes, I'm confident that is right. There are people getting worked up about what BLM really stands for but it's a smallish number and I don't see many potential Labour voters in there.kicorse said:
A polling organisation could settle the question very easily by asking a question such as (I'm sure it could be improved):kinabalu said:
The suit, fair point. If I were a floating voter that might give me pause for thought.isam said:...
"UNDER THE MOON OF LOVE with my PRETTY LITTLE ANGEL EYES!"kinabalu said:
Have you got it on your bedroom wall to give the finger to and laugh at every morning?isam said:
I just happen to think it is one of the biggest publicity seeking goofs a politician has ever made. Sorry to all those who disagree with me if my making the point repeatedly upsets you, but that's how it is.
I was told I was the only person thinking this, but I was told BLM weren't anti Semitic marxists who want to defund the police a couple of days ago, and Sir Keir was having to distance himself from them for just those reasons yesterday. So when others back me up, I like to link to it
But otherwise? Hardly. There is a small minority of the population whose instinctive reaction to seeing it is a genuine and profound unease - anger even - that the Labour leader is demeaning himself by "kneeling to the Black Man" but these are votes which would be hard for Labour to get in any event and it's arguable whether they even want them.
Of course I could be wrong about it being a small minority. In which case there is a problem - that Labour can't win elections without pandering to racism.
What is closest to your view of the meaning of the Black Lives Matter "taking a knee" gesture?
- Expressing support for an anti-racism message in response to events such as the killing of George Floyd
- Expressing support for defunding the police
I doubt there will be such a poll, because it is obvious to anyone without an unhealthy obsession that the first answer would get a huge majority.
(What's with the suit stuff by the way? I didn't even notice it!)
The suit? Well @isam is of the view it says "Showaddywaddy" - a pop group from decades ago - and I sometimes like to humour him to keep our exchanges benign.
You're perhaps not familiar with Showaddywaddy - in which case hats off. They were rubbish but did have a few hits. Singles, I mean. They weren't really an album band.1 -
Interesting thread on Australia's Hotel Quarantine program:
https://twitter.com/drvyom/status/12739317707322654730 -
Much obligedkinabalu said:
Yes, I'm confident that is right. There are people getting worked up about what BLM really stands for but it's a smallish number and I don't see many potential Labour voters in there.kicorse said:
A polling organisation could settle the question very easily by asking a question such as (I'm sure it could be improved):kinabalu said:
The suit, fair point. If I were a floating voter that might give me pause for thought.isam said:...
"UNDER THE MOON OF LOVE with my PRETTY LITTLE ANGEL EYES!"kinabalu said:
Have you got it on your bedroom wall to give the finger to and laugh at every morning?isam said:
I just happen to think it is one of the biggest publicity seeking goofs a politician has ever made. Sorry to all those who disagree with me if my making the point repeatedly upsets you, but that's how it is.
I was told I was the only person thinking this, but I was told BLM weren't anti Semitic marxists who want to defund the police a couple of days ago, and Sir Keir was having to distance himself from them for just those reasons yesterday. So when others back me up, I like to link to it
But otherwise? Hardly. There is a small minority of the population whose instinctive reaction to seeing it is a genuine and profound unease - anger even - that the Labour leader is demeaning himself by "kneeling to the Black Man" but these are votes which would be hard for Labour to get in any event and it's arguable whether they even want them.
Of course I could be wrong about it being a small minority. In which case there is a problem - that Labour can't win elections without pandering to racism.
What is closest to your view of the meaning of the Black Lives Matter "taking a knee" gesture?
- Expressing support for an anti-racism message in response to events such as the killing of George Floyd
- Expressing support for defunding the police
I doubt there will be such a poll, because it is obvious to anyone without an unhealthy obsession that the first answer would get a huge majority.
(What's with the suit stuff by the way? I didn't even notice it!)
The suit? Well @isam is of the view it says "Showaddywaddy" - a pop group from decades ago - and I sometimes like to humour him to keep our exchanges benign.
You're perhaps not familiar with Showaddywaddy - in which case hats off. They were rubbish but did have a few hits. Singles, I mean. They weren't really an album band.1 -
For developers green spaces and community areas means increasing the number of units available for commercial sale (as opposed to social/affordable units). This increases the size of the development which inflames the opposition by local residents.Gallowgate said:
But that is also not accurate. I'll rephrase:Stocky said:
Ok - maybe I used the wrong word. Instead of "adopted" I should have said that the council is "obliged to maintain".Gallowgate said:
I feel you might be slightly misinformed. New build estates typically have green areas and play-areas NOT adopted by county or metropolitan councils, and yet they are still open to the public DESPITE not being adopted.Stocky said:
SUEs are a special cohort of new-build estates. Common areas in new build estates are, I agree, in principle useable by everyone as the county council maintains (having adopted). SUEs are different. I think they are an awful concept and have caused a lot of tension in my parish.Gallowgate said:
Are you sure about that? In most new build estates with private land being managed, they are not for use exclusively by the homeowners. They are open to the public.Stocky said:
Bear in mind that the common areas in the SUE are for use exclusively by the homeowners in the SUE. these are private facitities. If the county council were to adopt them then every parishioner in the county would be entitled to picnic on their green areas (as is the case with outer council common areas).Philip_Thompson said:
It's dodgy those living there don't get a discount on their Council Tax do they?Stocky said:
Yes - they could - but this is the point isn`t it. When the county council agreed the permissions for these SUE estates to be built (Sustainable Urban Develpoments) the SUE bit means that they are "self-sustaining" financially. So the homeowners contractually agree at purchase that they are personally liable for the maintainance of common areas (usually through a management company) - which is of course pointed out by their solicitor during the conveyancing process.Philip_Thompson said:
Can the Council "adopt" the green spaces etc?Stocky said:
Gallowgate, this became a big issue in my parish. A housing estate was built on the fringe of our rural parish. It is called a "sustainable urban development" and has it`s own green spaces etc which, as you say, have to be maintained and paid for by the development rather than the county council.Gallowgate said:One thing I hope is addressed is the use of estate management companies. Those who haven’t bought a new-build within the last 15 years probably don’t realise that roads, green space, and even play areas that were once payed for by the local council have essentially been privatised, and are payed for by residents of each estate. This is on top of council tax.
This is not a problem in itself, the problem is lack of regulation.
At the moment it’s possible for me to sue my management company for some breach of obligation, win, and then all the legal fees and compensation be backcharged through to the residents anyway.
This is not hyperbole, this is reality. There is literally no regulation.
You are better off being a leaseholder than a freeholder on new build estates when it comes to legal protection.
This became a big issue because some of the residents of the estate tried to get onto our parish council to force through a policy so that the cost of this maintainance was paid out of parish funds! Parishioners were furious. It didn`t happen and would, I believe, have been illegal as it would have meant paying parish council funds to some residents of the parish but not others.
The cheek, though, trying to transfer legal liabilites that they contractually agreed when they purchased their home into all of parishioners.
That often happens with roads in new developments doesn't it? Not sure the legality of other stuff.
The whole point of SUEs in the first place is that the county council hits it`s new homes target without incurring any pressure on their costs through having to maintain common areas (cut grass, prune trees etc) while taking in the additional council tax. Shouldn`t be allowed in my view.
I think the residents are fair enough to seek to get the common areas adopted if that's what they want to vote for. Those living elsewhere paying the same Council Tax rates are getting more service.
It is RARE for green areas to be adopted by councils on ANY new-build estate built within the last 10-15 years.
It is rare for green areas on new-build estates built within the last 10-15 years to be adopted OR maintained by county/city/metropolitan councils. The service is privatised and performed by the estate management company DESPITE the areas being open to the public.
This is the normal state of affairs around the country. It's "boring" because unless you buy a house on one of these estates you are unaffected. Quite a sneaky privatisation through the back-door really.
Like I said, I don't resent it. As far as I'm concerned somebody has to pay, and the council has much more pressing matters to address. It must be fair and regulated though, and at the moment it isn't.
It's a vicious circle which causes a tremendous amount of angst for all.0 -
Yes, fair comments. I really mean that when you watch it as a film nowadays, it isn’t apparent what all the fuss was about.CarlottaVance said:
Plenty of reasons. It was made out of a block buster novel. The studio conducted a masterful PR exercise in "the hunt for Scarlett" where nearly every actress in Hollywood, short of Shirley Temple and Margaret Dumont tested for the part. For its time it was technically advanced and swept the Oscars. It was a huge commercial success, and still easily holds the record for "bums on seats". As a piece of art its clearly flawed, with several directors having a hand in it, and then of course its treatment of "the noble South" and "happy negroes" are as problematic today as they were then. On the bright side it did have the first African American Oscar win in Hattie McDaniel (Mammie).IanB2 said:
Indeed; it’s a mystery why it is so highly regarded as a film.Theuniondivvie said:
At last, another opportunity to not watch it.Tres said:Some good news for the never kneelers. Gone With the Wind is back on Netflix!
0 -
The cheery positivity isn't to be sniffed at. But my reading for a while is he's better at the seduction than the long-term relationship. We're all about to find out over the next few years.NerysHughes said:
He does seem to have a postive affect on non-political people. Whether that will continue for another 4 years remains to be seen, but he does bring a smile to people's faces.Stuartinromford said:
That's a fair point, though there are a couple of differences between then and now.NerysHughes said:
He was relected in Landon a Labour city so I would say people maintain a liking of him and a desire to vote for him.Stuartinromford said:
And not just that- for most purposes, it's a charisma that fades pretty quickly.kinabalu said:
He unquestionably has charisma in that he draws and holds attention. He can entertain. Amuse. Cheer you up a bit. This is the essence of “Boris”. It wins elections but goes no further. He cannot inspire or move or educate or intellectually provoke. It’s impossible to imagine him making a speech which does any of this. And the reason he will never pull this off is because he is a vacuous, rather frivolous man. There is no gravitas there. No moral seriousness. No sincerity. There’s a void where all that stuff would usually reside. Seventeen (and a half) stones of mainly muscle he may be, yet he lacks weight. That’s the long and short of it.Stuartinromford said:
Only anyone who had never heard him do an actual live speech.CorrectHorseBattery said:Who said Johnson was a good public speaker?
Remember that one he did in front of a backdrop of police last summer?
First, in 2012 he was up against Ken Livingstone, second time round. And by that point, Ken really was past it. It was also just before the Olympics, and it was obvious that BoJo was the right Mayor to front those.
Second, the Mayor's job is a funny one for impact on the public. I lived in London at the time, am reasonably politically curious, but I don't remember seeing much of old Bozza. Clearly, he must have been around, doing speeches and whatnot. As PM, he's on the news all the time, and I'm not convinced that his shtick has got enough depth to sustain that much exposure.0 -
I walked the dog past it just last monthCarnyx said:
Mediaeval chaps would agree. There used to be tidal watermills - one for instance at Yarmouth on Wight (on the inlet running south, just south of the road bridge going west towards Alum Bay IIRC).ydoethur said:
It is beyond bizarre that an island famous for its cool, wet climate, tidal range and coastal currents doesn’t have a single meaningful tidal power source while able to generate 30% of its electricity from solar panels.MarqueeMark said:
Oh it is. The planning rights were proteced in perpetuity, by works on site yesterday. But it will happen with the Government having tried to prevent it at every turn, rather than the kudos it could have got from embracing it.Dura_Ace said:
You're going to have to let this go. It's not going to happen.MarqueeMark said:This morning, the PM COULD have announced that a £1.3 billion shovel-ready project to create 2,200 jobs and 400 apprenticeships would be supported by Government. Jobs and apprenticeships created this summer, with many other jobs in steel and concrete fabrication saved from administration across the supply chain of the Red Wall seats.
All it required was a pump-priming of £35m by Govt. Payable in 2024-5.
Or govt. support equivalent to 150 yards of HS2 track.
Swansea Bay tidal lagoon is that project. Swansea unlocks Cardiff lagoon, the single largest renewables project on the planet. Cardiff will cost £7.5 billion. The same cost it will take just to abandon Hinkley C. The Hinkley C that required £34bn of taxpayer support to get it going.
Cardiff's zero carbon tidal power is an almost identical electricity ouput to Hinkley C. But requiring zero taxpayer money to get it going. It is entirely private sector funding. Yet the Government's "Value for Money" criteria will tell you Hinkley C is the better value for money.
If you want to see just how fucked up the civil service is, you will find no better example.
And no better example than Swansea Bay of how feeble the PMs ambitions were this morning. Don't mock him for standing by a pile of hard-hats. Mock him for not taking on the vested interest in the energy sector and its close tie up with the civil service that has stopped 2,600 more hard-hats being needed in construction from this summer.
It was utterly shit politics from May. That utterly shit politics has been perpetuated now by Boris.
It’s an absolutely epic fail of government strategic thinking.
http://www.yarmouthmill.moonfruit.com/1 -
Offshore wind is not expensive. It is now around £40 mW/h. What it is is unreliable. That is why you pay a vast premium for nuclear - £92.50 for Hinkley. Why tidal is such a threat to nuclear is that a series of tidal lagoons around the coast provide that reliabily, that baseload. Want to know how much tidal power will be producing on 30 July 2120? Check a tide chart. Want to know how much wind will be producing 30th June 2020? Have a guess....Flatlander said:
Indeed. Currently offshore wind is expensive but well understood and at least mostly functional.Philip_Thompson said:@MarqueeMark I think comparing the Lagoon project to Hinckley does you no favours. Quite frankly the Hinckley project was a mistake in hindsight and were it to be repeated would not be signed in this climate. I don't think it's a baseline you want to be compared against.
Surely the economic development in green energy of recent years has been offshore wind. Surely I would think arguments of reliability, risk and cost effectiveness should be made against offshore wind and not Hinckley.
I say mostly...
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/uk-power-cut-cause-hornsea-wind-farm-little-barford-report-a9070886.html
Certainty plus reliability. Tidal is a no-brainer.0 -
Perhaps. But why then illustrate the data against a map of Great Britain and Ireland? Surely a map of England would have been more appropriate, and easier to read.Foxy said:
Based on PHE figures perhaps!StuartDickson said:0 -
Yes, it was a very bad decision to cancel the tidal project. The great thing about it was its predictability as well as its long life.Philip_Thompson said:
If its competitive with wind then sell it on its own merits.MarqueeMark said:
In which case, focus on the Swansea Bay lagoon having a 120 year minimum life. The offshore wind will need to be completely replaced in - at best - 40 years. Given the rigours of the North Sea, quite possibly less (in the US deserts, some have barely lasted 18 years). Again, replacement will be by imports. The sea walls will just need the odd bit of patching up - they could quite possibly last centuries. Then it is down to turbine replacements. La Rance tidal barrage in France has just upgraded its turbines. They should last another sixty years. It produces the cheapest electricity in France. (Which they then export to the UK at top dollar).Philip_Thompson said:@MarqueeMark I think comparing the Lagoon project to Hinckley does you no favours. Quite frankly the Hinckley project was a mistake in hindsight and were it to be repeated would not be signed in this climate. I don't think it's a baseline you want to be compared against.
Surely the economic development in green energy of recent years has been offshore wind. Surely I would think arguments of reliability, risk and cost effectiveness should be made against offshore wind and not Hinckley.
Plus the Swansea Lagoon will be a piece of local infrastructure to regenerate the place, used for sport, leisure, the arts. Wind and solar farms get hidden behind high fences and wire; nuclear plants need armed guards. Not exactly local amenities...
Tidal can compete with offshore wind, with now prices at Cardiff sub-£50. Alternativly, you could have a slightly higher price for a 35 year contract for differences - and then 85 years at around £10. Now THAT is a legacy asset.
Oh, and the reason for comparing with nuclear? That is the metric that was used by the UK government. When it sent its report up to Government in 2018, condemning Swansea as "too expensive", one of the numbers was wrong by £30 billion, another by £60 billion - both to the advantage of nuclear, natch. It was a classic example of the Blob at work. BEIS is still wedded to nuclear. The only way it can be remotely competitive is, frankly, if they cheat.
Nuclear needn't have a future in this country. Comparing yourselves to that is like comparing yourselves favourably to coal.
The media and politicians love wind now and bang on about it to almost the exclusion of all else. I am not familiar with the industry but would imagine that a tidal lagoon would work very well at balancing off wind to deal with spikes of demand or interruptions in supply in a way that other sectors can't be.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-south-west-wales-445890830 -
"The people shall not be deprived or abridged of their right to speak, to write, or to publish their sentiments..."
https://twitter.com/ZoeTillman/status/12779473991184261150 -
Excuses excuses.Charles said:
Scotland has fewer ethnic minorities as well, and there does appear to be a genetic componentPhilip_Thompson said:
Scotland shouldn't be compared to England it should be compared to a region of England as that is comparing like-for-like in population areas.Stuartinromford said:
Difference is that Scotland really is at nearly zero deaths from Covid.Philip_Thompson said:
What narrative?StuartDickson said:
That narrative has been accepted in Scotland for weeks now, but it is only just beginning to be widely understood in England. Tory backbenchers are not going to be happy bunnies come the autumn.Scott_xP said:
Excess deaths have ended and besides Leicester we're coming out of lockdown and getting on with things. How does that fit your narrative?
Really stupid cartoon to be running on the day excess deaths figures are reported (from weeks ago) as being negative.
The English update is good news, but it's not zero Covid deaths; it's the number of Covid deaths is less than the variability in the baseline. England is getting there, but noticeably more slowly than many of our neighbours.
Many regions of England are at or near zero COVID deaths.0 -
Yes, but these figures are pretty much the same as have been discussed on here numerous times. The scope of the furlough package was extraordinary and in many ways the package for the self employed even more so (and a lot less copied around the world) but we know that, it is a part of the fabric of the current debate about how we get out of the lockdown without unemployment going through the roof.Charles said:
I must say from the headlines I am disappointed by what has been announced today too. Having had all the "new deal" discussions over the last few days this seems something of a damp squib, accelerating already announced developments with very little money. I would like to have seen a few major capital projects around the country (including @MarqueeMark's Swansea bay proposal) to really get things moving. The scale of the announcements seems very modest compared with what has already been done.0 -
... and not a million miles away (Southampton)IanB2 said:
I walked the dog past it just last monthCarnyx said:
Mediaeval chaps would agree. There used to be tidal watermills - one for instance at Yarmouth on Wight (on the inlet running south, just south of the road bridge going west towards Alum Bay IIRC).ydoethur said:
It is beyond bizarre that an island famous for its cool, wet climate, tidal range and coastal currents doesn’t have a single meaningful tidal power source while able to generate 30% of its electricity from solar panels.MarqueeMark said:
Oh it is. The planning rights were proteced in perpetuity, by works on site yesterday. But it will happen with the Government having tried to prevent it at every turn, rather than the kudos it could have got from embracing it.Dura_Ace said:
You're going to have to let this go. It's not going to happen.MarqueeMark said:This morning, the PM COULD have announced that a £1.3 billion shovel-ready project to create 2,200 jobs and 400 apprenticeships would be supported by Government. Jobs and apprenticeships created this summer, with many other jobs in steel and concrete fabrication saved from administration across the supply chain of the Red Wall seats.
All it required was a pump-priming of £35m by Govt. Payable in 2024-5.
Or govt. support equivalent to 150 yards of HS2 track.
Swansea Bay tidal lagoon is that project. Swansea unlocks Cardiff lagoon, the single largest renewables project on the planet. Cardiff will cost £7.5 billion. The same cost it will take just to abandon Hinkley C. The Hinkley C that required £34bn of taxpayer support to get it going.
Cardiff's zero carbon tidal power is an almost identical electricity ouput to Hinkley C. But requiring zero taxpayer money to get it going. It is entirely private sector funding. Yet the Government's "Value for Money" criteria will tell you Hinkley C is the better value for money.
If you want to see just how fucked up the civil service is, you will find no better example.
And no better example than Swansea Bay of how feeble the PMs ambitions were this morning. Don't mock him for standing by a pile of hard-hats. Mock him for not taking on the vested interest in the energy sector and its close tie up with the civil service that has stopped 2,600 more hard-hats being needed in construction from this summer.
It was utterly shit politics from May. That utterly shit politics has been perpetuated now by Boris.
It’s an absolutely epic fail of government strategic thinking.
http://www.yarmouthmill.moonfruit.com/
https://www.elingexperience.co.uk/1 -
Point is, neither are exactly benign conditions for kit to have a long life....eek said:
I'm not surprised that sand has an even more corrosive impact on wind turbines than salt water in the air.MarqueeMark said:
In which case, focus on the Swansea Bay lagoon having a 120 year minimum life. The offshore wind will need to be completely replaced in - at best - 40 years. Given the rigours of the North Sea, quite possibly less (in the US deserts, some have barely lasted 18 years). Again, replacement will be by imports. The sea walls will just need the odd bit of patching up - they could quite possibly last centuries. Then it is down to turbine replacements. La Rance tidal barrage in France has just upgraded its turbines. They should last another sixty years. It produces the cheapest electricity in France. (Which they then export to the UK at top dollar).Philip_Thompson said:@MarqueeMark I think comparing the Lagoon project to Hinckley does you no favours. Quite frankly the Hinckley project was a mistake in hindsight and were it to be repeated would not be signed in this climate. I don't think it's a baseline you want to be compared against.
Surely the economic development in green energy of recent years has been offshore wind. Surely I would think arguments of reliability, risk and cost effectiveness should be made against offshore wind and not Hinckley.
Plus the Swansea Lagoon will be a piece of local infrastructure to regenerate the place, used for sport, leisure, the arts. Wind and solar farms get hidden behind high fences and wire; nuclear plants need armed guards. Not exactly local amenities...
Tidal can compete with offshore wind, with now prices at Cardiff sub-£50. Alternativly, you could have a slightly higher price for a 35 year contract for differences - and then 85 years at around £10. Now THAT is a legacy asset.
Oh, and the reason for comparing with nuclear? That is the metric that was used by the UK government. When it sent its report up to Government in 2018, condemning Swansea as "too expensive", one of the numbers was wrong by £30 billion, another by £60 billion - both to the advantage of nuclear, natch. It was a classic example of the Blob at work. BEIS is still wedded to nuclear. The only way it can be remotely competitive is, frankly, if they cheat.0 -
I thought the reason we pay £92.50 for Hinkley is Osborne screwed up by signing that contract. I'm a big fan of his generally but that was one of his greatest mistakes.MarqueeMark said:
Offshore wind is not expensive. It is now around £40 mW/h. What it is is unreliable. That is why you pay a vast premium for nuclear - £92.50 for Hinkley. Why tidal is such a threat to nuclear is that a series of tidal lagoons around the coast provide that reliabily, that baseload. Want to know how much tidal power will be producing on 30 July 2120? Check a tide chart. Want to know how much wind will be producing 30th June 2020? Have a guess....Flatlander said:
Indeed. Currently offshore wind is expensive but well understood and at least mostly functional.Philip_Thompson said:@MarqueeMark I think comparing the Lagoon project to Hinckley does you no favours. Quite frankly the Hinckley project was a mistake in hindsight and were it to be repeated would not be signed in this climate. I don't think it's a baseline you want to be compared against.
Surely the economic development in green energy of recent years has been offshore wind. Surely I would think arguments of reliability, risk and cost effectiveness should be made against offshore wind and not Hinckley.
I say mostly...
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/uk-power-cut-cause-hornsea-wind-farm-little-barford-report-a9070886.html
Certainty plus reliability. Tidal is a no-brainer.
The issue is that win is £40 mW/h and that price is going down. That's become the baseline to compare new projects to now unfortunately - I suspect had Cardiff been ready at the same time as Hinkley it would have been signed up to then but now people are expecting cheaper.
And I imagine there's an element in BEIS of not wanting to admit Hinkley is a mistake. The same reason as to why no matter how much HS2 gets more expensive it is always (only just) worth doing anyway.0 -
Ok, you make a plausible case. If there's a conspiracy against the taxpayer, cui bono?MarqueeMark said:
Offshore wind is not expensive. It is now around £40 mW/h. What it is is unreliable. That is why you pay a vast premium for nuclear - £92.50 for Hinkley. Why tidal is such a threat to nuclear is that a series of tidal lagoons around the coast provide that reliabily, that baseload. Want to know how much tidal power will be producing on 30 July 2120? Check a tide chart. Want to know how much wind will be producing 30th June 2020? Have a guess....Flatlander said:
Indeed. Currently offshore wind is expensive but well understood and at least mostly functional.Philip_Thompson said:@MarqueeMark I think comparing the Lagoon project to Hinckley does you no favours. Quite frankly the Hinckley project was a mistake in hindsight and were it to be repeated would not be signed in this climate. I don't think it's a baseline you want to be compared against.
Surely the economic development in green energy of recent years has been offshore wind. Surely I would think arguments of reliability, risk and cost effectiveness should be made against offshore wind and not Hinckley.
I say mostly...
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/uk-power-cut-cause-hornsea-wind-farm-little-barford-report-a9070886.html
Certainty plus reliability. Tidal is a no-brainer.0 -
There is a disused one by The Duver on the Islands other river Yar. Good for crabbing on the old mill pool wall.IanB2 said:
I walked the dog past it just last monthCarnyx said:
Mediaeval chaps would agree. There used to be tidal watermills - one for instance at Yarmouth on Wight (on the inlet running south, just south of the road bridge going west towards Alum Bay IIRC).ydoethur said:
It is beyond bizarre that an island famous for its cool, wet climate, tidal range and coastal currents doesn’t have a single meaningful tidal power source while able to generate 30% of its electricity from solar panels.MarqueeMark said:
Oh it is. The planning rights were proteced in perpetuity, by works on site yesterday. But it will happen with the Government having tried to prevent it at every turn, rather than the kudos it could have got from embracing it.Dura_Ace said:
You're going to have to let this go. It's not going to happen.MarqueeMark said:This morning, the PM COULD have announced that a £1.3 billion shovel-ready project to create 2,200 jobs and 400 apprenticeships would be supported by Government. Jobs and apprenticeships created this summer, with many other jobs in steel and concrete fabrication saved from administration across the supply chain of the Red Wall seats.
All it required was a pump-priming of £35m by Govt. Payable in 2024-5.
Or govt. support equivalent to 150 yards of HS2 track.
Swansea Bay tidal lagoon is that project. Swansea unlocks Cardiff lagoon, the single largest renewables project on the planet. Cardiff will cost £7.5 billion. The same cost it will take just to abandon Hinkley C. The Hinkley C that required £34bn of taxpayer support to get it going.
Cardiff's zero carbon tidal power is an almost identical electricity ouput to Hinkley C. But requiring zero taxpayer money to get it going. It is entirely private sector funding. Yet the Government's "Value for Money" criteria will tell you Hinkley C is the better value for money.
If you want to see just how fucked up the civil service is, you will find no better example.
And no better example than Swansea Bay of how feeble the PMs ambitions were this morning. Don't mock him for standing by a pile of hard-hats. Mock him for not taking on the vested interest in the energy sector and its close tie up with the civil service that has stopped 2,600 more hard-hats being needed in construction from this summer.
It was utterly shit politics from May. That utterly shit politics has been perpetuated now by Boris.
It’s an absolutely epic fail of government strategic thinking.
http://www.yarmouthmill.moonfruit.com/1 -
Very low hospital deaths figures today , 37 with 28 in the last week0
-
Was it cancelled because it was a LibDem idea?Nigelb said:
I have to agree with you, MM.MarqueeMark said:
In which case, focus on the Swansea Bay lagoon having a 120 year minimum life. The offshore wind will need to be completely replaced in - at best - 40 years. Given the rigours of the North Sea, quite possibly less (in the US deserts, some have barely lasted 18 years). Again, replacement will be by imports. The sea walls will just need the odd bit of patching up - they could quite possibly last centuries. Then it is down to turbine replacements. La Rance tidal barrage in France has just upgraded its turbines. They should last another sixty years. It produces the cheapest electricity in France. (Which they then export to the UK at top dollar).Philip_Thompson said:@MarqueeMark I think comparing the Lagoon project to Hinckley does you no favours. Quite frankly the Hinckley project was a mistake in hindsight and were it to be repeated would not be signed in this climate. I don't think it's a baseline you want to be compared against.
Surely the economic development in green energy of recent years has been offshore wind. Surely I would think arguments of reliability, risk and cost effectiveness should be made against offshore wind and not Hinckley.
Plus the Swansea Lagoon will be a piece of local infrastructure to regenerate the place, used for sport, leisure, the arts. Wind and solar farms get hidden behind high fences and wire; nuclear plants need armed guards. Not exactly local amenities...
Tidal can compete with offshore wind, with now prices at Cardiff sub-£50. Alternativly, you could have a slightly higher price for a 35 year contract for differences - and then 85 years at around £10. Now THAT is a legacy asset.
Oh, and the reason for comparing with nuclear? That is the metric that was used by the UK government. When it sent its report up to Government in 2018, condemning Swansea as "too expensive", one of the numbers was wrong by £30 billion, another by £60 billion - both to the advantage of nuclear, natch. It was a classic example of the Blob at work. BEIS is still wedded to nuclear. The only way it can be remotely competitive is, frankly, if they cheat.
A massive construction project financed at low interest rates, built by UK businesses, and which actually delivered reliable cheap energy seems, if not a non-brainer, then at the very least eminently worth of consideration.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/feb/06/swansea-bay-tidal-energy-scheme-must-go-ahead-say-lib-dems0 -
I doubt its a conspiracy, more sunk cost fallacy.geoffw said:
Ok, you make a plausible case. If there's a conspiracy against the taxpayer, cui bono?MarqueeMark said:
Offshore wind is not expensive. It is now around £40 mW/h. What it is is unreliable. That is why you pay a vast premium for nuclear - £92.50 for Hinkley. Why tidal is such a threat to nuclear is that a series of tidal lagoons around the coast provide that reliabily, that baseload. Want to know how much tidal power will be producing on 30 July 2120? Check a tide chart. Want to know how much wind will be producing 30th June 2020? Have a guess....Flatlander said:
Indeed. Currently offshore wind is expensive but well understood and at least mostly functional.Philip_Thompson said:@MarqueeMark I think comparing the Lagoon project to Hinckley does you no favours. Quite frankly the Hinckley project was a mistake in hindsight and were it to be repeated would not be signed in this climate. I don't think it's a baseline you want to be compared against.
Surely the economic development in green energy of recent years has been offshore wind. Surely I would think arguments of reliability, risk and cost effectiveness should be made against offshore wind and not Hinckley.
I say mostly...
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/uk-power-cut-cause-hornsea-wind-farm-little-barford-report-a9070886.html
Certainty plus reliability. Tidal is a no-brainer.
Hinkley, like HS2 are being pursued in no small part because of the sunk costs and nobody wanting to pull the plug.0 -
Yes, Johnson IS a pure frontman (for the Gove/Cummings cabal) whereas Starmer is not.Stuartinromford said:
Might have worked up to May 2020. Trouble is that everyone (even Daily Star readers) knows that Boris is the frontman for that chap who looks like the Mekon who is rude to everyone. And that residual folk memory isn't going anywhere.kinabalu said:
That will indeed be a key plank of the Tory re-election strategy. Try to convince the more gullible members of the public - a fairly large demographic tbf - that Starmer is merely the reassuring looking frontman behind which there lurks a degenerate marxist cabal pulling his strings. But you are being somewhat optimistic imo in blithely assuming it will work. I doubt it will myself.MrEd said:
The problem for Starmer is the Labour brand. Regardless of the progress he has made on anti-Semitism and celebrating Armed Forces' Day etc, there is a very good chunk of their ex-voters who think that, if Labour is elected, it won't be Starmer's Labour that is running things but the likes of BLM. Once bitten, twice shy.Foxy said:
and a plurality of Britons prefer him to Johnson.kinabalu said:
Jeremy would have been in Bristol sticking it to Colston. Conviction politician or protest politician - delete to taste.BluestBlue said:
The problem is that political messages do not in practice have an independent ethereal existence like Platonic Forms - they rely on their messenger. Starmer - to give him his due here - has the political danger sense to realize that the messengers have already tarnished the message and will only continue to do so in the future, so he spun around 180 degrees and dashed out of that minefield as quickly as he dashed into it. You almost have to admire the shamelessness!kinabalu said:
He simply made it clear that by supporting the anti-racism message of BLM - which is what it's known for tbf - he is not endorsing anything and everything which is said either by or in the name of the movement.BluestBlue said:
Perfectly reasonable position. Can't see the problem.
Corbyn, of course, would have charged forwards until he disappeared in a red mist...
Starmer quite fancies being PM.
Corbyn was, I always thought. He would not have been running the government if elected.0 -
Apparently the Leicester Lockdown is partly due to the fact the 'sweat shops' there stayed open during the crisis.
Top draw Brexiteer trolling from Andrew Bridgen there. Masterful. Almost Trumpian. He really is coming into his own, the boy.
0 -
It has the singular virtue of being true. The degenerate Marxist cabal didn't just sublimate into the air - it's still right there, like the ingrained stench of tobacco in the house of a lifetime chain-smoker...kinabalu said:
That will indeed be a key plank of the Tory re-election strategy. Try to convince the more gullible members of the public - a fairly large demographic tbf - that Starmer is merely the reassuring looking frontman behind which there lurks a degenerate marxist cabal pulling his strings. But you are being somewhat optimistic imo in blithely assuming it will work. I doubt it will myself.MrEd said:
The problem for Starmer is the Labour brand. Regardless of the progress he has made on anti-Semitism and celebrating Armed Forces' Day etc, there is a very good chunk of their ex-voters who think that, if Labour is elected, it won't be Starmer's Labour that is running things but the likes of BLM. Once bitten, twice shy.Foxy said:
and a plurality of Britons prefer him to Johnson.kinabalu said:
Jeremy would have been in Bristol sticking it to Colston. Conviction politician or protest politician - delete to taste.BluestBlue said:
The problem is that political messages do not in practice have an independent ethereal existence like Platonic Forms - they rely on their messenger. Starmer - to give him his due here - has the political danger sense to realize that the messengers have already tarnished the message and will only continue to do so in the future, so he spun around 180 degrees and dashed out of that minefield as quickly as he dashed into it. You almost have to admire the shamelessness!kinabalu said:
He simply made it clear that by supporting the anti-racism message of BLM - which is what it's known for tbf - he is not endorsing anything and everything which is said either by or in the name of the movement.BluestBlue said:
Perfectly reasonable position. Can't see the problem.
Corbyn, of course, would have charged forwards until he disappeared in a red mist...
Starmer quite fancies being PM.0 -
There is so much wrong with America, especially under the current Presidential incumbent, but I find this adherence to such principles admirable.Nigelb said:"The people shall not be deprived or abridged of their right to speak, to write, or to publish their sentiments..."
https://twitter.com/ZoeTillman/status/1277947399118426115
Compare and contrast Article 10.2 of the ECHR:
"The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary."
I don't think that she would have had a chance in this country.3 -
The final decision to go ahead with Hinkley C was taken by Theresa May.Philip_Thompson said:
I thought the reason we pay £92.50 for Hinkley is Osborne screwed up by signing that contract. I'm a big fan of his generally but that was one of his greatest mistakes.MarqueeMark said:
Offshore wind is not expensive. It is now around £40 mW/h. What it is is unreliable. That is why you pay a vast premium for nuclear - £92.50 for Hinkley. Why tidal is such a threat to nuclear is that a series of tidal lagoons around the coast provide that reliabily, that baseload. Want to know how much tidal power will be producing on 30 July 2120? Check a tide chart. Want to know how much wind will be producing 30th June 2020? Have a guess....Flatlander said:
Indeed. Currently offshore wind is expensive but well understood and at least mostly functional.Philip_Thompson said:@MarqueeMark I think comparing the Lagoon project to Hinckley does you no favours. Quite frankly the Hinckley project was a mistake in hindsight and were it to be repeated would not be signed in this climate. I don't think it's a baseline you want to be compared against.
Surely the economic development in green energy of recent years has been offshore wind. Surely I would think arguments of reliability, risk and cost effectiveness should be made against offshore wind and not Hinckley.
I say mostly...
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/uk-power-cut-cause-hornsea-wind-farm-little-barford-report-a9070886.html
Certainty plus reliability. Tidal is a no-brainer.
The issue is that win is £40 mW/h and that price is going down. That's become the baseline to compare new projects to now unfortunately - I suspect had Cardiff been ready at the same time as Hinkley it would have been signed up to then but now people are expecting cheaper.
And I imagine there's an element in BEIS of not wanting to admit Hinkley is a mistake. The same reason as to why no matter how much HS2 gets more expensive it is always (only just) worth doing anyway.
The final decision not to support Swansea Bay was taken by Theresa May.
Goege Osborne was (and remains) a firm believer in the merits of Swansea Bay and other tidal lagoons.
0 -
Progressive parish/town councils have public question time at the start of full council meetings. They can do a lot of good for a local area but they can also be very closed shop and inwardl focused.IanB2 said:
Having moved from a principal to a parish council, one of the biggest surprises is how little accountability and real checks and balances there are for first tier councils.Pulpstar said:
How do you actually find out what your parish council is spending your wonga on ?IanB2 said:
A lot of parish councils have, and are, taking on extra functions as principal councils cut funding for things that they see as discretionary. My parish (town) council now manages the local public toilets, a batch of the local car parks, and from this year is funding the majority of the cost of the town’s park, after the county council decided that all it would pay for is cutting the grass and emptying the bins. The way principal council funding has been cut at the same time as council tax rises have been capped has forced a devolution of services, because precept increases aren’t capped but are simply added to whatever tax increase the principal council(s) are able to impose.Gallowgate said:
Apologies for not being clear, I was attacking the residents not your parish council!Stocky said:
That`s all parish councils should do. We pay over £200 pa. Parish Clerk costs takes half of the precept. You must live in a big parish if you only pay £13 per year.Gallowgate said:
My parish council does very little apart from making the village look pretty, maintaining the village hall, and pressuring Newcastle City Council to do a better job. I'm surprised the residents in @Stocky 's parish thought it was appropriate to go through their course of action - they should have lobbied the County/City/Metropolitan Council.Philip_Thompson said:
Reasonable but don't parish councils get an element of the Council Tax? And I'm assuming these residents aren't getting a discount on the parish surcharge or whatever it is formally called.Stocky said:
Sure - I agree with you as long as it is the county council (who get the council tax receipts) which adopts the areas - not the parish councils.Philip_Thompson said:
It's dodgy those living there don't get a discount on their Council Tax do they?Stocky said:
Yes - they could - but this is the point isn`t it. When the county council agreed the permissions for these SUE estates to be built (Sustainable Urban Develpoments) the SUE bit means that they are "self-sustaining" financially. So the homeowners contractually agree at purchase that they are personally liable for the maintainance of common areas (usually through a management company) - which is of course pointed out by their solicitor during the conveyancing process.Philip_Thompson said:
Can the Council "adopt" the green spaces etc?Stocky said:
Gallowgate, this became a big issue in my parish. A housing estate was built on the fringe of our rural parish. It is called a "sustainable urban development" and has it`s own green spaces etc which, as you say, have to be maintained and paid for by the development rather than the county council.Gallowgate said:One thing I hope is addressed is the use of estate management companies. Those who haven’t bought a new-build within the last 15 years probably don’t realise that roads, green space, and even play areas that were once payed for by the local council have essentially been privatised, and are payed for by residents of each estate. This is on top of council tax.
This is not a problem in itself, the problem is lack of regulation.
At the moment it’s possible for me to sue my management company for some breach of obligation, win, and then all the legal fees and compensation be backcharged through to the residents anyway.
This is not hyperbole, this is reality. There is literally no regulation.
You are better off being a leaseholder than a freeholder on new build estates when it comes to legal protection.
This became a big issue because some of the residents of the estate tried to get onto our parish council to force through a policy so that the cost of this maintainance was paid out of parish funds! Parishioners were furious. It didn`t happen and would, I believe, have been illegal as it would have meant paying parish council funds to some residents of the parish but not others.
The cheek, though, trying to transfer legal liabilites that they contractually agreed when they purchased their home into all of parishioners.
That often happens with roads in new developments doesn't it? Not sure the legality of other stuff.
The whole point of SUEs in the first place is that the county council hits it`s new homes target without incurring any pressure on their costs through having to maintain common areas (cut grass, prune trees etc) while taking in the additional council tax. Shouldn`t be allowed in my view.
I think the residents are fair enough to seek to get the common areas adopted if that's what they want to vote for. Those living elsewhere paying the same Council Tax rates are getting more service.
My parish council precept is £13 a year!
I`m not sure what course of action you refer to? The parish resisted taking on liabilities entered into by a cohort of parishioners. They were quite right to do so. It is expressly forbidden for parish councils to pay across tax payer money to some parishioners but not others to bail them out of their financial obligations.
As I`ve said, the system of SUEs is rotten. The county council should be maintaining as it is they who receive the council tax. And it is their job.
My parish is actually very small, but I think the low price is because it doesn't really do anything...
That said, most of them now have websites with their agenda and papers online, and if you hunt about for the meeting that set the annual budget (typically late January or early February) you should find a report that sets out what they propose to spend the coming year’s budget on. In the unlikely event there isn’t a website, the local library should hold the papers, or you have a right to inspect them at the council offices in person.
They should also hold an annual town or parish meeting, open to all residents, at which residents can ask any questions they wish - and also have various powers to put forward motions from the floor, one of the little known aspects of British local government.0 -
I'm sure the people who decide these things are aware that bygones are bygones, so there must be more to it than that or egg on politicians' faces.Philip_Thompson said:
I doubt its a conspiracy, more sunk cost fallacy.geoffw said:
Ok, you make a plausible case. If there's a conspiracy against the taxpayer, cui bono?MarqueeMark said:
Offshore wind is not expensive. It is now around £40 mW/h. What it is is unreliable. That is why you pay a vast premium for nuclear - £92.50 for Hinkley. Why tidal is such a threat to nuclear is that a series of tidal lagoons around the coast provide that reliabily, that baseload. Want to know how much tidal power will be producing on 30 July 2120? Check a tide chart. Want to know how much wind will be producing 30th June 2020? Have a guess....Flatlander said:
Indeed. Currently offshore wind is expensive but well understood and at least mostly functional.Philip_Thompson said:@MarqueeMark I think comparing the Lagoon project to Hinckley does you no favours. Quite frankly the Hinckley project was a mistake in hindsight and were it to be repeated would not be signed in this climate. I don't think it's a baseline you want to be compared against.
Surely the economic development in green energy of recent years has been offshore wind. Surely I would think arguments of reliability, risk and cost effectiveness should be made against offshore wind and not Hinckley.
I say mostly...
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/uk-power-cut-cause-hornsea-wind-farm-little-barford-report-a9070886.html
Certainty plus reliability. Tidal is a no-brainer.
Hinkley, like HS2 are being pursued in no small part because of the sunk costs and nobody wanting to pull the plug.
0
This discussion has been closed.