It's fashion, and it's basically so people can't challenge/contest people's recollection of their own personal experience.
Human memory is partial and poor, so whilst you shouldn't be quick to dismiss other people's experience - particularly those with a very different background to you - neither should this be used as a ruse to place it beyond reproach or challenge.
The last I heard of the Lib Dems was a proposal to subsidise mortgages.
As a long time Lib Dem voter, who also buys into the “housing theory of everything” (ie that runaway house prices have fucked us all), that’s rather a let down.
No party has a serious offer on the housing issue.
Yes, as a similarly long time Lib Dem voter and occasional activist, that pissed me off too.
Amazing that Rishi said nothing about the environment in his speech.
I think his instincts are very dodgy, to be honest. From the Great Barrington Declaration stuff to his Ukraino-skepticism, he appears to “get the big decisions wrong”.
If anyone wnats to see the biggest cheat in Horse Racing watch the riding of Kraken Power in the 3.20 at Newcastle today. Paul Mulrennan should be banned for life.
Warmed over socialism, which will end up where socialism always ends up: with everyone worse off
But we have to endure this, the Tories have failed, and so we must go through the same process of experimenting with the left until it is proven that it does not work
Did Britain do something very bad to deserve all this?
We were all a lot better off by 2010 than we had been in 1997.
And many people are going to find they were better off in 2010 than they will be by GE24.
But as the article says, Blair and Brown were centrist. New Labour. Starmer is significantly to the left of them, he's not far from Corbyn. He will attempt disastrous Chavezy policies (as much as he can, given the fiscal straits we are in). It will all turn to dreck
It's a lefty academic speculating on what Starmer's Labour might do. Let's wait and see what's in the manifesto; personally, I'll be surprised and delighted if it's as positive as that.
"On Sunday my father-in-law, aged 92 and struggling with a number of health issues, had need of advice and help. GP surgeries were shut for days over the holiday period and, even if open, they struggled to provide care responsively. So he rang 111 twice, only to receive an automated message stating that, due to demand, nobody was able to receive his call. There is no help to be had anywhere. We are witnessing a complete collapse of health care in an affluent Western society. Yet there is no coherent response from our elected leaders, either acknowledging the situation or suggesting solutions, other than repeatedly stating how much money is being spent on the NHS. Christopher Swinburn FRCP Taunton, Somerset"
Warmed over socialism, which will end up where socialism always ends up: with everyone worse off
But we have to endure this, the Tories have failed, and so we must go through the same process of experimenting with the left until it is proven that it does not work
Did Britain do something very bad to deserve all this?
We were all a lot better off by 2010 than we had been in 1997.
And many people are going to find they were better off in 2010 than they will be by GE24.
But as the article says, Blair and Brown were centrist. New Labour. Starmer is significantly to the left of them, he's not far from Corbyn. He will attempt disastrous Chavezy policies (as much as he can, given the fiscal straits we are in). It will all turn to dreck
It's a lefty academic speculating on what Starmer's Labour might do. Let's wait and see what's in the manifesto; personally, I'll be surprised and delighted if it's as positive as that.
The list is hardly lefty, let alone Chavezy. That’s just a mental take.
If anyone wnats to see the biggest cheat in Horse Racing watch the riding of Kraken Power in the 3.20 at Newcastle today. Paul Mulrennan should be banned for life.
Warmed over socialism, which will end up where socialism always ends up: with everyone worse off
But we have to endure this, the Tories have failed, and so we must go through the same process of experimenting with the left until it is proven that it does not work
Did Britain do something very bad to deserve all this?
We were all a lot better off by 2010 than we had been in 1997.
And many people are going to find they were better off in 2010 than they will be by GE24.
This means nothing unless you can argue (credibly) that Labour will make sure everyone is much better off by 2030 than they would otherwise be under the Tories.
You can't keep referring back to golden economic years from 1997 to 2007 and putting that down to "Labour". They were almost unique circumstances with a golden economy legacy, a huge boon from 1st wave globalisation and a massive asset boom.
That might conceivably be true but the implication is it doesn't matter who is in power, it's the events outside the control of government that matter.
Or I suppose you could take it one stage further and say, the economy did well under Labour but would have been better still had the Tories been in power 1997-2010 and the economy has been shite since 2010 but would have been more shite under Labour.
Personally I feel the government does make a difference.
What is the counter-factual had the Tories been in power 1997-2007?
I think lower taxes, higher employment, lower immigration, no devolution, and a much more market-led approach to public services. More rapid economic growth prior to the GFC is my guess, and in incomes too, but probably also blindsided by it as well just as Brown was.
I also doubt we'd have signed the Lisbon Treaty, which would have led to a renegotiation, so no Brexit.
Warmed over socialism, which will end up where socialism always ends up: with everyone worse off
But we have to endure this, the Tories have failed, and so we must go through the same process of experimenting with the left until it is proven that it does not work
Did Britain do something very bad to deserve all this?
I keep trying to warn about this, particularly those tempted by Starmer on the basis "things couldn't possibly be worse".
Of course, there are those who might be attracted by such a radical prospectus, but it's going to be very expensive, probably a drag on business & consumption, and thus growth, and we're all going to be paying an awful lot more tax.
I’m not sure what you are warning of here. This is a really promising policy offer, much of which is constantly demanded on here by left and right wing posters.
Shift taxes toward wealth.
Create a sovereign wealth fund and support domestic industry to reduce the balance of trade deficit.
Devolve power and second power to beefed up local government.
Improve R&D and capital investment to peer economy levels.
Maintain a balanced budget across the cycle.
Dismissing this as reheated 70s Labour or whatever is the sign of not paying attention.
Collective bargaining and action, and large extension of workers rights, is what worries me.
Also, the cost commitments they are listing there are vast, and current planned tax rises won't do it, so it will all put a huge burden on the economy.
Nor can I understand why the LDs don't major on going back to the SM if not the EU. What have they to lose? It's their natural constituency. Not that it would entice me.
What the Lib Dems can and should do on this is a properly thought out roadmap, beyond the tribal slogans, that deals with some of the trade offs in an adult way (while obviously being political enough to ensure the current deal gets as much blame as possible). The key is to show a way forward that isn’t too simplistic and easy to dismiss like “let’s join the single market” or “let’s rejoin” but is not so complex as to bore people. Make use of nice country names, like Switzerland and Norway, Ukraine even, talk about specific areas of the economy that would benefit.
The party is a useful think tank for the other parties. As a member and voter I would obviously like to see them in some sort of power but as a fall back option seeing LD influence on Labour policy would be good.
Warmed over socialism, which will end up where socialism always ends up: with everyone worse off
But we have to endure this, the Tories have failed, and so we must go through the same process of experimenting with the left until it is proven that it does not work
Did Britain do something very bad to deserve all this?
What Starmer’s government-to-be doesn’t know yet is that it’s primary task will be reform healthcare provision in this country into something fit for purpose. That will be what history will judge him on - whether he was able to grasp the nettle and drag the health service into the 21st century or whether he will preside over a disasterous collapse in positive health outcomes.
He will have little bandwidth to achieve much more with his term of office. A bit of constitutional tinkering and positive mood music, perhaps.
Yes, I am pretty sure his milquetoast Marxism will be overwhelmed by events, and his first (only?) premiership will be fire-fighting and water-bailing. All hands on deck
This is one reason I suspect he will do something dramatic on the EU. There are very few areas he will be able to act radically and leave a legacy: he won't have any money. That's all there is to it. But he could join the SM/CU...
We talk of a Labour government in 2024 as a cert, don't we? And yes I think it just about it is. Excellent news for the likes of me - and for the country of course - but it's also excellent news for the likes of you. Why? Because it gives you time to process and come to terms with it. So it's a win/win - which you don't often get in politics. This (rather benevolent) thought has only just occurred to me. Totally my own too - no use of CBTiBot.
Interesting, but at the heart of this is simple language drift and herd behaviour. Why do, like, young people, like, say like, like all the time? To fit in with all the others that do it.
Langauges mutate and the the term lived experience has come to represent something different from just experience, and certainly it’s closely associated with social justice and woke.
Still, like, irritating, though…
The old getting irritated by the young is inevitable. And nothing new, each generations grandparents and parents moan about the young.
Much of that is envy of their youth, and frustration at their own mortality, plus confusion at how the world has changed that they are baffled by.
But, at the same time, they can be wise, experienced, measured and sensible - and less prone to hysterics as they've seen it all before.
The last I heard of the Lib Dems was a proposal to subsidise mortgages.
As a long time Lib Dem voter, who also buys into the “housing theory of everything” (ie that runaway house prices have fucked us all), that’s rather a let down.
No party has a serious offer on the housing issue.
Yes, as a similarly long time Lib Dem voter and occasional activist, that pissed me off too.
They are going to have some painful decisions to make in NIMBY politics given their blue wall target seats. It’s a shame.
Warmed over socialism, which will end up where socialism always ends up: with everyone worse off
But we have to endure this, the Tories have failed, and so we must go through the same process of experimenting with the left until it is proven that it does not work
Did Britain do something very bad to deserve all this?
I keep trying to warn about this, particularly those tempted by Starmer on the basis "things couldn't possibly be worse".
Of course, there are those who might be attracted by such a radical prospectus, but it's going to be very expensive, probably a drag on business & consumption, and thus growth, and we're all going to be paying an awful lot more tax.
I’m not sure what you are warning of here. This is a really promising policy offer, much of which is constantly demanded on here by left and right wing posters.
Shift taxes toward wealth.
Create a sovereign wealth fund and support domestic industry to reduce the balance of trade deficit.
Devolve power and second power to beefed up local government.
Improve R&D and capital investment to peer economy levels.
Maintain a balanced budget across the cycle.
Dismissing this as reheated 70s Labour or whatever is the sign of not paying attention.
Collective bargaining and action, and large extension of workers rights, is what worries me.
Also, the cost commitments they are listing there are vast, and current planned tax rises won't do it, so it will all put a huge burden on the economy.
I don’t think the cost commitments are vast and in any case nobody is now looking at the UK economy without diagnosing a chronic lack of investment.
I await the detail on collective bargaining. I would certainly welcome a modest tipping of the scales from capital to labour, though.
If anyone wnats to see the biggest cheat in Horse Racing watch the riding of Kraken Power in the 3.20 at Newcastle today. Paul Mulrennan should be banned for life.
As someone who has no knowledge and no interest in horse racing I decided that I should watch the video expecting to see some blatant cheating. Watched the video and from my perspective with no knowledge I couldn't see anything wrong. Read the summary and whilst I know I am reading English I do not understand it. I know understand again why I have no interest in horse racing.
If Ukraine’s head of intelligence is saying major counteroffensive in March then expect something sooner. Perhaps when the ground freezes which, as I’ve indicated, is this weekend and early next week.
If anyone wnats to see the biggest cheat in Horse Racing watch the riding of Kraken Power in the 3.20 at Newcastle today. Paul Mulrennan should be banned for life.
As someone who has no knowledge and no interest in horse racing I decided that I should watch the video expecting to see some blatant cheating. Watched the video and from my perspective with no knowledge I couldn't see anything wrong. Read the summary and whilst I know I am reading English I do not understand it. I know understand again why I have no interest in horse racing.
It doesn't look good to me. He backs right off and then gets going again but it's too late to catch the leaders.
If anyone wnats to see the biggest cheat in Horse Racing watch the riding of Kraken Power in the 3.20 at Newcastle today. Paul Mulrennan should be banned for life.
As someone who has no knowledge and no interest in horse racing I decided that I should watch the video expecting to see some blatant cheating. Watched the video and from my perspective with no knowledge I couldn't see anything wrong. Read the summary and whilst I know I am reading English I do not understand it. I know understand again why I have no interest in horse racing.
It doesn't look good to me. He backs right off and then gets going again but it's too late to catch the leaders.
I agree that the Lib Dems need to front up with a loose roadmap back toward the single market.
I also think they need to find a way to square the circle on the nimbyism. It would need a log post or perhaps a thread-header to explain how, but at the top level we need both a commitment to push toward building (or, for the market to build) half a million houses a year AND a commitment to respecting local plans AND protection for the green belt besides.
Warmed over socialism, which will end up where socialism always ends up: with everyone worse off
But we have to endure this, the Tories have failed, and so we must go through the same process of experimenting with the left until it is proven that it does not work
Did Britain do something very bad to deserve all this?
We were all a lot better off by 2010 than we had been in 1997.
And many people are going to find they were better off in 2010 than they will be by GE24.
This means nothing unless you can argue (credibly) that Labour will make sure everyone is much better off by 2030 than they would otherwise be under the Tories.
You can't keep referring back to golden economic years from 1997 to 2007 and putting that down to "Labour". They were almost unique circumstances with a golden economy legacy, a huge boon from 1st wave globalisation and a massive asset boom.
That might conceivably be true but the implication is it doesn't matter who is in power, it's the events outside the control of government that matter.
Or I suppose you could take it one stage further and say, the economy did well under Labour but would have been better still had the Tories been in power 1997-2010 and the economy has been shite since 2010 but would have been more shite under Labour.
Personally I feel the government does make a difference.
What is the counter-factual had the Tories been in power 1997-2007?
I think lower taxes, higher employment, lower immigration, no devolution, and a much more market-led approach to public services. More rapid economic growth prior to the GFC is my guess, and in incomes too, but probably also blindsided by it as well just as Brown was.
I also doubt we'd have signed the Lisbon Treaty, which would have led to a renegotiation, so no Brexit.
If the Tories had stayed in power and blocked devolution I think we'd have seen a constitutional crisis and quite probably Scottish independence. The decade to 2007 already saw the strongest growth in GDP and employment that we had seen for decades, or since, so I doubt that your hypothetical Tory government would have done much better than what we actually saw. And we'd have had even laxer financial regulation so the GFC might well have had a worse effect on us. No BOE independence either, so probably higher inflation. Maybe no Brexit, but presumably for Brexiteers like yourself that's a bad thing, still?
Interesting, but at the heart of this is simple language drift and herd behaviour. Why do, like, young people, like, say like, like all the time? To fit in with all the others that do it.
Langauges mutate and the the term lived experience has come to represent something different from just experience, and certainly it’s closely associated with social justice and woke.
Still, like, irritating, though…
The old getting irritated by the young is inevitable. And nothing new, each generations grandparents and parents moan about the young.
Much of that is envy of their youth, and frustration at their own mortality, plus confusion at how the world has changed that they are baffled by.
But, at the same time, they can be wise, experienced, measured and sensible - and less prone to hysterics as they've seen it all before.
I agree that the Lib Dems need to front up with a loose roadmap back toward the single market.
I also think they need to find a way to square the circle on the nimbyism. It would need a log post or perhaps a thread-header to explain how, but at the top level we need both a commitment to push toward building (or, for the market to build) half a million houses a year AND a commitment to respecting local plans AND protection for the green belt besides.
So apple pie for everyone.
Next time I see someone campaigning on "No houses round 'ere", I will challenge their proven racism.
Warmed over socialism, which will end up where socialism always ends up: with everyone worse off
But we have to endure this, the Tories have failed, and so we must go through the same process of experimenting with the left until it is proven that it does not work
Did Britain do something very bad to deserve all this?
What Starmer’s government-to-be doesn’t know yet is that it’s primary task will be reform healthcare provision in this country into something fit for purpose. That will be what history will judge him on - whether he was able to grasp the nettle and drag the health service into the 21st century or whether he will preside over a disasterous collapse in positive health outcomes.
He will have little bandwidth to achieve much more with his term of office. A bit of constitutional tinkering and positive mood music, perhaps.
Yes, I am pretty sure his milquetoast Marxism will be overwhelmed by events, and his first (only?) premiership will be fire-fighting and water-bailing. All hands on deck
This is one reason I suspect he will do something dramatic on the EU. There are very few areas he will be able to act radically and leave a legacy: he won't have any money. That's all there is to it. But he could join the SM/CU...
We talk of a Labour government in 2024 as a cert, don't we? And yes I think it just about it is. Excellent news for the likes of me - and for the country of course - but it's also excellent news for the likes of you. Why? Because it gives you time to process and come to terms with it. So it's a win/win - which you don't often get in politics. This (rather benevolent) thought has only just occurred to me. Totally my own too - no use of CBTiBot.
Excellent news for the country? Excellent news for the already heavily bloated and super-superannuated public sector no doubt. This will be a government by the public sector, for the public sector and very little else. I hope I am wrong, but there is little evidence to draw a contrary view. The unions are rubbing their hands.
I agree that the Lib Dems need to front up with a loose roadmap back toward the single market.
I also think they need to find a way to square the circle on the nimbyism. It would need a log post or perhaps a thread-header to explain how, but at the top level we need both a commitment to push toward building (or, for the market to build) half a million houses a year AND a commitment to respecting local plans AND protection for the green belt besides.
What I’d love but nobody will ever do is a massive new city, from scratch, 1m+ inhabitants. Infrastructure, beautiful housing, business and leisure facilities, 100% renewable, 15% corporate tax rate and 20% income tax. Build it somewhere that will welcome the investment, or even better somewhere reclaimed from the sea. Like they do in the Gulf.
I agree that the Lib Dems need to front up with a loose roadmap back toward the single market.
I also think they need to find a way to square the circle on the nimbyism. It would need a log post or perhaps a thread-header to explain how, but at the top level we need both a commitment to push toward building (or, for the market to build) half a million houses a year AND a commitment to respecting local plans AND protection for the green belt besides.
What I’d love but nobody will ever do is a massive new city, from scratch, 1m+ inhabitants. Infrastructure, beautiful housing, business and leisure facilities, 100% renewable, 15% corporate tax rate and 20% income tax. Build it somewhere that will welcome the investment, or even better somewhere reclaimed from the sea. Like they do in the Gulf.
I agree that the Lib Dems need to front up with a loose roadmap back toward the single market.
I also think they need to find a way to square the circle on the nimbyism. It would need a log post or perhaps a thread-header to explain how, but at the top level we need both a commitment to push toward building (or, for the market to build) half a million houses a year AND a commitment to respecting local plans AND protection for the green belt besides.
So apple pie for everyone.
Next time I see someone campaigning on "No houses round 'ere", I will challenge their proven racism.
If I lived in a lovely village in Wiltshire or whatever I would also campaign against new housing.
The English (and probably British) “dream” is a Georgian rectory up a long driveway. But clearly, given the landmass and the population, that can’t happen for everyone.
We need to use state power to encourage building higher in towns and cities, essentially, and break up the housing builder oligopoly.
"On Sunday my father-in-law, aged 92 and struggling with a number of health issues, had need of advice and help. GP surgeries were shut for days over the holiday period and, even if open, they struggled to provide care responsively. So he rang 111 twice, only to receive an automated message stating that, due to demand, nobody was able to receive his call. There is no help to be had anywhere. We are witnessing a complete collapse of health care in an affluent Western society. Yet there is no coherent response from our elected leaders, either acknowledging the situation or suggesting solutions, other than repeatedly stating how much money is being spent on the NHS. Christopher Swinburn FRCP Taunton, Somerset"
Funny how much vitriol is aimed at the government, but never the benighted NHS. The super-bureaucracy that we are ludicrously told is "ours". When are people going to wake up and stop doffing their collective caps to anyone with a stethoscope? The deference of the BBC to anyone from the self-interested BMA is pathetic. No doubt the government is to blame, but the system itself is crap. Someone needs to wake up to that, but somehow I doubt it will be a Labour government.
I legitimately think there's a chance the Tories never get a majority of the under 40s ever again.
Cameron only narrowly won in 2010 after a five year detoxification project.
It can and will be done again, but perhaps will take longer than five years. I’m pretty sure Keir (or Labour) has two terms in them and possibly three.
I do think there is a resemblance between Rishi and Ed Miliband. Both seem nice enough policy wonks, just not fit for the job as PM.
Thank the Lord we missed out on the "Coalition of Chaos" with Ed Miliband in 2015. The country would have been in a right state under that sort of unstable regime.
If anyone wnats to see the biggest cheat in Horse Racing watch the riding of Kraken Power in the 3.20 at Newcastle today. Paul Mulrennan should be banned for life.
As someone who has no knowledge and no interest in horse racing I decided that I should watch the video expecting to see some blatant cheating. Watched the video and from my perspective with no knowledge I couldn't see anything wrong. Read the summary and whilst I know I am reading English I do not understand it. I know understand again why I have no interest in horse racing.
It doesn't look good to me. He backs right off and then gets going again but it's too late to catch the leaders.
"On Sunday my father-in-law, aged 92 and struggling with a number of health issues, had need of advice and help. GP surgeries were shut for days over the holiday period and, even if open, they struggled to provide care responsively. So he rang 111 twice, only to receive an automated message stating that, due to demand, nobody was able to receive his call. There is no help to be had anywhere. We are witnessing a complete collapse of health care in an affluent Western society. Yet there is no coherent response from our elected leaders, either acknowledging the situation or suggesting solutions, other than repeatedly stating how much money is being spent on the NHS. Christopher Swinburn FRCP Taunton, Somerset"
Funny how much vitriol is aimed at the government, but never the benighted NHS. The super-bureaucracy that we are ludicrously told is "ours". When are people going to wake up and stop doffing their collective caps to anyone with a stethoscope? The deference of the BBC to anyone from the self-interested BMA is pathetic. No doubt the government is to blame, but the system itself is crap. Someone needs to wake up to that, but somehow I doubt it will be a Labour government.
Snore. Your Tories have their fingerprints all over it. You broke it, you own it.
I agree that the Lib Dems need to front up with a loose roadmap back toward the single market.
I also think they need to find a way to square the circle on the nimbyism. It would need a log post or perhaps a thread-header to explain how, but at the top level we need both a commitment to push toward building (or, for the market to build) half a million houses a year AND a commitment to respecting local plans AND protection for the green belt besides.
What I’d love but nobody will ever do is a massive new city, from scratch, 1m+ inhabitants. Infrastructure, beautiful housing, business and leisure facilities, 100% renewable, 15% corporate tax rate and 20% income tax. Build it somewhere that will welcome the investment, or even better somewhere reclaimed from the sea. Like they do in the Gulf.
One of those every three years is required.
Just to keep up.
5 million then.
ChatGPT thinks it should be in the Scottish highlands and be called the eco-tech oasis.
I was thinking more along the lines of Skegness or Grimsby.
Do the Dems end up supporting McCarthy in exchange for policy or other favours?
The Dems won’t back McCarthy.
Most likely seems to be a deal with the GOP hardliners so that McCarthy can take the chair* or he stands aside in favour of a compromise candidate.
* it is difficult to see what deal can be done. The opposition to McCarthy seems to be fuelled by personal animus.
Can the House legislate without an elected Speaker?
Is all business blocked until a Speaker is elected?
To whose advantage is that?
I don’t believe so. Members can’t be sworn in until the Speaker is appointed.
I suspect it can only benefit the Democrats.
Of course we really are going over the waterfall if this process drags itself out to such an extent that we are talking weeks and months rather than days.
Warmed over socialism, which will end up where socialism always ends up: with everyone worse off
But we have to endure this, the Tories have failed, and so we must go through the same process of experimenting with the left until it is proven that it does not work
Did Britain do something very bad to deserve all this?
We were all a lot better off by 2010 than we had been in 1997.
And many people are going to find they were better off in 2010 than they will be by GE24.
This means nothing unless you can argue (credibly) that Labour will make sure everyone is much better off by 2030 than they would otherwise be under the Tories.
You can't keep referring back to golden economic years from 1997 to 2007 and putting that down to "Labour". They were almost unique circumstances with a golden economy legacy, a huge boon from 1st wave globalisation and a massive asset boom.
That might conceivably be true but the implication is it doesn't matter who is in power, it's the events outside the control of government that matter.
Or I suppose you could take it one stage further and say, the economy did well under Labour but would have been better still had the Tories been in power 1997-2010 and the economy has been shite since 2010 but would have been more shite under Labour.
Personally I feel the government does make a difference.
What is the counter-factual had the Tories been in power 1997-2007?
I think lower taxes, higher employment, lower immigration, no devolution, and a much more market-led approach to public services. More rapid economic growth prior to the GFC is my guess, and in incomes too, but probably also blindsided by it as well just as Brown was.
I also doubt we'd have signed the Lisbon Treaty, which would have led to a renegotiation, so no Brexit.
If the Tories had stayed in power and blocked devolution I think we'd have seen a constitutional crisis and quite probably Scottish independence. The decade to 2007 already saw the strongest growth in GDP and employment that we had seen for decades, or since, so I doubt that your hypothetical Tory government would have done much better than what we actually saw. And we'd have had even laxer financial regulation so the GFC might well have had a worse effect on us. No BOE independence either, so probably higher inflation. Maybe no Brexit, but presumably for Brexiteers like yourself that's a bad thing, still?
Brexit wasn't the black and white thing you make it out to be.
It was a fringe position pre-Lisbon because many of us were comfortable with the EU as it was pre-Lisbon and sans euro.
Personally, I never liked the Maastricht Treaty, but if rejecting Lisbon had led us to formalising an semi-detached/associate member position in 2007-08 why would I have voted for Brexit?
The only fly in the ointment would be free movement but I think the Tories would have approached that differently as well.
I agree that the Lib Dems need to front up with a loose roadmap back toward the single market.
I also think they need to find a way to square the circle on the nimbyism. It would need a log post or perhaps a thread-header to explain how, but at the top level we need both a commitment to push toward building (or, for the market to build) half a million houses a year AND a commitment to respecting local plans AND protection for the green belt besides.
So apple pie for everyone.
Next time I see someone campaigning on "No houses round 'ere", I will challenge their proven racism.
If I lived in a lovely village in Wiltshire or whatever I would also campaign against new housing.
The English (and probably British) “dream” is a Georgian rectory up a long driveway. But clearly, given the landmass and the population, that can’t happen for everyone.
We need to use state power to encourage building higher in towns and cities, essentially, and break up the housing builder oligopoly.
Trouble is, most people don't want to live that way.
underway - now the rebel candidate of choice is 'Donalds' who has nine votes as they reach G in the alphabet - so the rebel numbers have dropped a little?
Do the Dems end up supporting McCarthy in exchange for policy or other favours?
The Dems won’t back McCarthy.
Most likely seems to be a deal with the GOP hardliners so that McCarthy can take the chair* or he stands aside in favour of a compromise candidate.
* it is difficult to see what deal can be done. The opposition to McCarthy seems to be fuelled by personal animus.
Can the House legislate without an elected Speaker?
Is all business blocked until a Speaker is elected?
To whose advantage is that?
I don’t believe so. Members can’t be sworn in until the Speaker is appointed.
I suspect it can only benefit the Democrats.
Of course we really are going over the waterfall if this process drags itself out to such an extent that we are talking weeks and months rather than days.
As to duration, my guess is we are talking days, not weeks or longer. Might only be hours.
Because I'm reckoning, that the center (or what passes for it with THIS crowd) will NOT hold for Kevin McCarthy.
I agree that the Lib Dems need to front up with a loose roadmap back toward the single market.
I also think they need to find a way to square the circle on the nimbyism. It would need a log post or perhaps a thread-header to explain how, but at the top level we need both a commitment to push toward building (or, for the market to build) half a million houses a year AND a commitment to respecting local plans AND protection for the green belt besides.
So apple pie for everyone.
Next time I see someone campaigning on "No houses round 'ere", I will challenge their proven racism.
If I lived in a lovely village in Wiltshire or whatever I would also campaign against new housing.
The English (and probably British) “dream” is a Georgian rectory up a long driveway. But clearly, given the landmass and the population, that can’t happen for everyone.
We need to use state power to encourage building higher in towns and cities, essentially, and break up the housing builder oligopoly.
Lovely villages in Wiltshire need to grow up. Into cities.
"On Sunday my father-in-law, aged 92 and struggling with a number of health issues, had need of advice and help. GP surgeries were shut for days over the holiday period and, even if open, they struggled to provide care responsively. So he rang 111 twice, only to receive an automated message stating that, due to demand, nobody was able to receive his call. There is no help to be had anywhere. We are witnessing a complete collapse of health care in an affluent Western society. Yet there is no coherent response from our elected leaders, either acknowledging the situation or suggesting solutions, other than repeatedly stating how much money is being spent on the NHS. Christopher Swinburn FRCP Taunton, Somerset"
Funny how much vitriol is aimed at the government, but never the benighted NHS. The super-bureaucracy that we are ludicrously told is "ours". When are people going to wake up and stop doffing their collective caps to anyone with a stethoscope? The deference of the BBC to anyone from the self-interested BMA is pathetic. No doubt the government is to blame, but the system itself is crap. Someone needs to wake up to that, but somehow I doubt it will be a Labour government.
Snore. Your Tories have their fingerprints all over it. You broke it, you own it.
Well for a start I didn't vote Tory at the last two general elections. If the Holy Cow is "broken" as you put it from your ivory tower outside the UK, then it is equally because the last Labour government hosed money at it without any real commitment to proper reform or improvement in productivity. The GP contract "negotiation" with the BMA was nothing short of a blank cheque alongside a blank employment contract. Huge sums have been hoovered up by self-interest groups within the NHS to fund lavish salaries and pensions for those in high paid roles in the safest jobs in the known universe.
"On Sunday my father-in-law, aged 92 and struggling with a number of health issues, had need of advice and help. GP surgeries were shut for days over the holiday period and, even if open, they struggled to provide care responsively. So he rang 111 twice, only to receive an automated message stating that, due to demand, nobody was able to receive his call. There is no help to be had anywhere. We are witnessing a complete collapse of health care in an affluent Western society. Yet there is no coherent response from our elected leaders, either acknowledging the situation or suggesting solutions, other than repeatedly stating how much money is being spent on the NHS. Christopher Swinburn FRCP Taunton, Somerset"
Funny how much vitriol is aimed at the government, but never the benighted NHS. The super-bureaucracy that we are ludicrously told is "ours". When are people going to wake up and stop doffing their collective caps to anyone with a stethoscope? The deference of the BBC to anyone from the self-interested BMA is pathetic. No doubt the government is to blame, but the system itself is crap. Someone needs to wake up to that, but somehow I doubt it will be a Labour government.
Rule 1 of the health system: if it does something good, praise the NHS. If it does something bad, blame the government.
I agree that the Lib Dems need to front up with a loose roadmap back toward the single market.
I also think they need to find a way to square the circle on the nimbyism. It would need a log post or perhaps a thread-header to explain how, but at the top level we need both a commitment to push toward building (or, for the market to build) half a million houses a year AND a commitment to respecting local plans AND protection for the green belt besides.
What I’d love but nobody will ever do is a massive new city, from scratch, 1m+ inhabitants. Infrastructure, beautiful housing, business and leisure facilities, 100% renewable, 15% corporate tax rate and 20% income tax. Build it somewhere that will welcome the investment, or even better somewhere reclaimed from the sea. Like they do in the Gulf.
Do the Dems end up supporting McCarthy in exchange for policy or other favours?
The Dems won’t back McCarthy.
Most likely seems to be a deal with the GOP hardliners so that McCarthy can take the chair* or he stands aside in favour of a compromise candidate.
* it is difficult to see what deal can be done. The opposition to McCarthy seems to be fuelled by personal animus.
Can the House legislate without an elected Speaker?
Is all business blocked until a Speaker is elected?
To whose advantage is that?
I don’t believe so. Members can’t be sworn in until the Speaker is appointed.
I suspect it can only benefit the Democrats.
Of course we really are going over the waterfall if this process drags itself out to such an extent that we are talking weeks and months rather than days.
As to duration, my guess is we are talking days, not weeks or longer. Might only be hours.
Because I'm reckoning, that the center (or what passes for it with THIS crowd) will NOT hold for Kevin McCarthy.
Agree - at some point some of the other GOP leadership are going to have to tell him that he isn’t going to make it and he has to step aside for the good of the caucus.
Warmed over socialism, which will end up where socialism always ends up: with everyone worse off
But we have to endure this, the Tories have failed, and so we must go through the same process of experimenting with the left until it is proven that it does not work
Did Britain do something very bad to deserve all this?
I keep trying to warn about this, particularly those tempted by Starmer on the basis "things couldn't possibly be worse".
Of course, there are those who might be attracted by such a radical prospectus, but it's going to be very expensive, probably a drag on business & consumption, and thus growth, and we're all going to be paying an awful lot more tax.
I’m not sure what you are warning of here. This is a really promising policy offer, much of which is constantly demanded on here by left and right wing posters.
Shift taxes toward wealth.
Create a sovereign wealth fund and support domestic industry to reduce the balance of trade deficit.
Devolve power and second power to beefed up local government.
Improve R&D and capital investment to peer economy levels.
Maintain a balanced budget across the cycle.
Dismissing this as reheated 70s Labour or whatever is the sign of not paying attention.
Collective bargaining and action, and large extension of workers rights, is what worries me.
Also, the cost commitments they are listing there are vast, and current planned tax rises won't do it, so it will all put a huge burden on the economy.
I don’t think the cost commitments are vast and in any case nobody is now looking at the UK economy without diagnosing a chronic lack of investment.
I await the detail on collective bargaining. I would certainly welcome a modest tipping of the scales from capital to labour, though.
I think there's a huge amount buried in that with all sorts of things to come, including property and land taxes for ordinary homeowners and pension reliefs going.
What's been laid out there is probably £100bn+ pa of extra public spending.
I legitimately think there's a chance the Tories never get a majority of the under 40s ever again.
Well of course there's a chance. There's a chance they might be replaced as one of the main two parties by a new party and face to almost nothing. There's a chance we move to STV, or PR, and they split. There are loads of ways it could happen.
However, it's also possible that Labour will also implement policies that benefit the old when they are in government, that the old will vote for the incumbents and that voting patterns will change very rapidly as a result.
I agree that the Lib Dems need to front up with a loose roadmap back toward the single market.
I also think they need to find a way to square the circle on the nimbyism. It would need a log post or perhaps a thread-header to explain how, but at the top level we need both a commitment to push toward building (or, for the market to build) half a million houses a year AND a commitment to respecting local plans AND protection for the green belt besides.
What I’d love but nobody will ever do is a massive new city, from scratch, 1m+ inhabitants. Infrastructure, beautiful housing, business and leisure facilities, 100% renewable, 15% corporate tax rate and 20% income tax. Build it somewhere that will welcome the investment, or even better somewhere reclaimed from the sea. Like they do in the Gulf.
Doris Island
The irony is that Boris Island would have created, at Heathrow, the prefect place to put hundreds of thousands of homes. And offices. And light industry.
I agree that the Lib Dems need to front up with a loose roadmap back toward the single market.
I also think they need to find a way to square the circle on the nimbyism. It would need a log post or perhaps a thread-header to explain how, but at the top level we need both a commitment to push toward building (or, for the market to build) half a million houses a year AND a commitment to respecting local plans AND protection for the green belt besides.
So apple pie for everyone.
Next time I see someone campaigning on "No houses round 'ere", I will challenge their proven racism.
If I lived in a lovely village in Wiltshire or whatever I would also campaign against new housing.
The English (and probably British) “dream” is a Georgian rectory up a long driveway. But clearly, given the landmass and the population, that can’t happen for everyone.
We need to use state power to encourage building higher in towns and cities, essentially, and break up the housing builder oligopoly.
Trouble is, most people don't want to live that way.
As you say they want the house and garden.
Most just want to be able to afford somewhere. London has shown that people will willingly rein in their space demands if the market demands it. I was delighted with the size of our garden here in the inner suburbs but if I were searching in a nice village in Wiltshire I’d want something 5 times as big.
Fact that Marjorie Taylor Greene and Jim Jordan are voting for and vocally supporting Kevin McCarthy, should give pause to anyone who thinks that KMcC's cohort is comprised of "moderates".
I agree that the Lib Dems need to front up with a loose roadmap back toward the single market.
I also think they need to find a way to square the circle on the nimbyism. It would need a log post or perhaps a thread-header to explain how, but at the top level we need both a commitment to push toward building (or, for the market to build) half a million houses a year AND a commitment to respecting local plans AND protection for the green belt besides.
What I’d love but nobody will ever do is a massive new city, from scratch, 1m+ inhabitants. Infrastructure, beautiful housing, business and leisure facilities, 100% renewable, 15% corporate tax rate and 20% income tax. Build it somewhere that will welcome the investment, or even better somewhere reclaimed from the sea. Like they do in the Gulf.
Doris Island
The irony is that Boris Island would have created, at Heathrow, the prefect place to put hundreds of thousands of homes. And offices. And light industry.
All the infrastructure ready.....
I was always a fan of Boris island. He was rubbish at actually making his grands projets work but Johnson did at least have an imagination (to quote one of our posters).
"On Sunday my father-in-law, aged 92 and struggling with a number of health issues, had need of advice and help. GP surgeries were shut for days over the holiday period and, even if open, they struggled to provide care responsively. So he rang 111 twice, only to receive an automated message stating that, due to demand, nobody was able to receive his call. There is no help to be had anywhere. We are witnessing a complete collapse of health care in an affluent Western society. Yet there is no coherent response from our elected leaders, either acknowledging the situation or suggesting solutions, other than repeatedly stating how much money is being spent on the NHS. Christopher Swinburn FRCP Taunton, Somerset"
Funny how much vitriol is aimed at the government, but never the benighted NHS. The super-bureaucracy that we are ludicrously told is "ours". When are people going to wake up and stop doffing their collective caps to anyone with a stethoscope? The deference of the BBC to anyone from the self-interested BMA is pathetic. No doubt the government is to blame, but the system itself is crap. Someone needs to wake up to that, but somehow I doubt it will be a Labour government.
Rule 1 of the health system: if it does something good, praise the NHS. If it does something bad, blame the government.
Quite. I can completely understand why people should want to show gratitude to competent health professionals, but "applauding the NHS" is like venerating the civil service. It is quite frankly baffling.
So how many rounds of voting do we think they'll have today?
(Donalds now up to 11)
Personally think that IF the Pride of Bakersfield really had a reasonable chance, he & his "supporters" would have keep the House in session and voting yesterday, and into the wee hours of today.
Fact that they moved to adjourn after just three roll calls speaks volumes.
As for today? The fewer number of roll calls, the more likely pressure is building for Plan B.
I agree that the Lib Dems need to front up with a loose roadmap back toward the single market.
I also think they need to find a way to square the circle on the nimbyism. It would need a log post or perhaps a thread-header to explain how, but at the top level we need both a commitment to push toward building (or, for the market to build) half a million houses a year AND a commitment to respecting local plans AND protection for the green belt besides.
What I’d love but nobody will ever do is a massive new city, from scratch, 1m+ inhabitants. Infrastructure, beautiful housing, business and leisure facilities, 100% renewable, 15% corporate tax rate and 20% income tax. Build it somewhere that will welcome the investment, or even better somewhere reclaimed from the sea. Like they do in the Gulf.
Doris Island
The irony is that Boris Island would have created, at Heathrow, the prefect place to put hundreds of thousands of homes. And offices. And light industry.
All the infrastructure ready.....
I was always a fan of Boris island. He was rubbish at actually making his grands projets work but Johnson did at least have an imagination (to quote one of our posters).
I actually worked out how to do it fairly rapidly. Using existing technology. The method also increased the number of suitable sites massively.
I legitimately think there's a chance the Tories never get a majority of the under 40s ever again.
Well of course there's a chance. There's a chance they might be replaced as one of the main two parties by a new party and face to almost nothing. There's a chance we move to STV, or PR, and they split. There are loads of ways it could happen.
However, it's also possible that Labour will also implement policies that benefit the old when they are in government, that the old will vote for the incumbents and that voting patterns will change very rapidly as a result.
I have not heard much if anything from Labour to suggest that they understand the problems of workers, despite the name of the party. Both parties should be renamed as they fail the Trade Description Act (well should do).
I agree that the Lib Dems need to front up with a loose roadmap back toward the single market.
I also think they need to find a way to square the circle on the nimbyism. It would need a log post or perhaps a thread-header to explain how, but at the top level we need both a commitment to push toward building (or, for the market to build) half a million houses a year AND a commitment to respecting local plans AND protection for the green belt besides.
So apple pie for everyone.
Next time I see someone campaigning on "No houses round 'ere", I will challenge their proven racism.
If I lived in a lovely village in Wiltshire or whatever I would also campaign against new housing.
The English (and probably British) “dream” is a Georgian rectory up a long driveway. But clearly, given the landmass and the population, that can’t happen for everyone.
We need to use state power to encourage building higher in towns and cities, essentially, and break up the housing builder oligopoly.
Trouble is, most people don't want to live that way.
As you say they want the house and garden.
Most just want to be able to afford somewhere. London has shown that people will willingly rein in their space demands if the market demands it. I was delighted with the size of our garden here in the inner suburbs but if I were searching in a nice village in Wiltshire I’d want something 5 times as big.
Why has this been off-topiced?
As I will insist to my grave, London is very low rise compared to its European and American peers.
There is plenty of room between Hounslow and Southend-on-Sea for half a million new houses a year without touching Wiltshire.
But to do it, government needs to
1. Make this an explicit policy aim 2. Provide the transport and other infrastructure necessary to support it 3. Relax or otherwise evolve the planning laws to allow people to go up.
As an owner of a non-listed (albeit in a conservation area), low rise house less than two miles of Bank, I would also be a big winner from such a policy, but that is neither here nor there.
"On Sunday my father-in-law, aged 92 and struggling with a number of health issues, had need of advice and help. GP surgeries were shut for days over the holiday period and, even if open, they struggled to provide care responsively. So he rang 111 twice, only to receive an automated message stating that, due to demand, nobody was able to receive his call. There is no help to be had anywhere. We are witnessing a complete collapse of health care in an affluent Western society. Yet there is no coherent response from our elected leaders, either acknowledging the situation or suggesting solutions, other than repeatedly stating how much money is being spent on the NHS. Christopher Swinburn FRCP Taunton, Somerset"
Funny how much vitriol is aimed at the government, but never the benighted NHS. The super-bureaucracy that we are ludicrously told is "ours". When are people going to wake up and stop doffing their collective caps to anyone with a stethoscope? The deference of the BBC to anyone from the self-interested BMA is pathetic. No doubt the government is to blame, but the system itself is crap. Someone needs to wake up to that, but somehow I doubt it will be a Labour government.
Rule 1 of the health system: if it does something good, praise the NHS. If it does something bad, blame the government.
Quite. I can completely understand why people should want to show gratitude to competent health professionals, but "applauding the NHS" is like venerating the civil service. It is quite frankly baffling.
In the public consciousness it is very hard to separate “the NHS” (cough cough sorry OUR NHS) from “NHS workers”.
Often the gratitude and good feeling is actually towards the doctors and nurses and front line workers who provide the care (and quite rightly, a very difficult and very good job they do too). The institution sat behind them is a monolithic bloated bureaucratic clunking inefficient nightmare. But that doesn’t matter because it enables those doctors and nurses to go out and provide that care, in the public mind.
I agree that the Lib Dems need to front up with a loose roadmap back toward the single market.
I also think they need to find a way to square the circle on the nimbyism. It would need a log post or perhaps a thread-header to explain how, but at the top level we need both a commitment to push toward building (or, for the market to build) half a million houses a year AND a commitment to respecting local plans AND protection for the green belt besides.
What I’d love but nobody will ever do is a massive new city, from scratch, 1m+ inhabitants. Infrastructure, beautiful housing, business and leisure facilities, 100% renewable, 15% corporate tax rate and 20% income tax. Build it somewhere that will welcome the investment, or even better somewhere reclaimed from the sea. Like they do in the Gulf.
Doris Island
The irony is that Boris Island would have created, at Heathrow, the prefect place to put hundreds of thousands of homes. And offices. And light industry.
All the infrastructure ready.....
I was always a fan of Boris island. He was rubbish at actually making his grands projets work but Johnson did at least have an imagination (to quote one of our posters).
Was that me? I stand by that. His two best things were Boris Island and the double decker bus.
If Ukraine’s head of intelligence is saying major counteroffensive in March then expect something sooner. Perhaps when the ground freezes which, as I’ve indicated, is this weekend and early next week.
The Kremlin is really struggling to control the narrative over the incident in Makiivka. Russian tabloids are calling it "the tragedy of the mobilised".
Warmed over socialism, which will end up where socialism always ends up: with everyone worse off
But we have to endure this, the Tories have failed, and so we must go through the same process of experimenting with the left until it is proven that it does not work
Did Britain do something very bad to deserve all this?
I keep trying to warn about this, particularly those tempted by Starmer on the basis "things couldn't possibly be worse".
Of course, there are those who might be attracted by such a radical prospectus, but it's going to be very expensive, probably a drag on business & consumption, and thus growth, and we're all going to be paying an awful lot more tax.
I’m not sure what you are warning of here. This is a really promising policy offer, much of which is constantly demanded on here by left and right wing posters.
Shift taxes toward wealth.
Create a sovereign wealth fund and support domestic industry to reduce the balance of trade deficit.
Devolve power and second power to beefed up local government.
Improve R&D and capital investment to peer economy levels.
Maintain a balanced budget across the cycle.
Dismissing this as reheated 70s Labour or whatever is the sign of not paying attention.
Collective bargaining and action, and large extension of workers rights, is what worries me.
Also, the cost commitments they are listing there are vast, and current planned tax rises won't do it, so it will all put a huge burden on the economy.
I don’t think the cost commitments are vast and in any case nobody is now looking at the UK economy without diagnosing a chronic lack of investment.
I await the detail on collective bargaining. I would certainly welcome a modest tipping of the scales from capital to labour, though.
I think there's a huge amount buried in that with all sorts of things to come, including property and land taxes for ordinary homeowners and pension reliefs going.
What's been laid out there is probably £100bn+ pa of extra public spending.
The spending is necessary.
Britain feels highly taxed but that’s because the weight is on income rather than capital; it’s at the lower end of tax per GDP.
Housing and childcare reform to lower the costs of both would make a massive, massive impact. Tertiary fees, too.
I agree that the Lib Dems need to front up with a loose roadmap back toward the single market.
I also think they need to find a way to square the circle on the nimbyism. It would need a log post or perhaps a thread-header to explain how, but at the top level we need both a commitment to push toward building (or, for the market to build) half a million houses a year AND a commitment to respecting local plans AND protection for the green belt besides.
So apple pie for everyone.
Next time I see someone campaigning on "No houses round 'ere", I will challenge their proven racism.
If I lived in a lovely village in Wiltshire or whatever I would also campaign against new housing.
The English (and probably British) “dream” is a Georgian rectory up a long driveway. But clearly, given the landmass and the population, that can’t happen for everyone.
We need to use state power to encourage building higher in towns and cities, essentially, and break up the housing builder oligopoly.
Trouble is, most people don't want to live that way.
As you say they want the house and garden.
Most just want to be able to afford somewhere. London has shown that people will willingly rein in their space demands if the market demands it. I was delighted with the size of our garden here in the inner suburbs but if I were searching in a nice village in Wiltshire I’d want something 5 times as big.
Why has this been off-topiced?
As I will insist to my grave, London is very low rise compared to its European and American peers.
There is plenty of room between Hounslow and Southend-on-Sea for half a million new houses a year without touching Wiltshire.
But to do it, government needs to
1. Make this an explicit policy aim 2. Provide the transport and other infrastructure necessary to support it 3. Relax or otherwise evolve the planning laws to allow people to go up.
As an owner of a non-listed (albeit in a conservation area), low rise house less than two miles of Bank, I would also be a big winner from such a policy, but that is neither here nor there.
I agree that the Lib Dems need to front up with a loose roadmap back toward the single market.
I also think they need to find a way to square the circle on the nimbyism. It would need a log post or perhaps a thread-header to explain how, but at the top level we need both a commitment to push toward building (or, for the market to build) half a million houses a year AND a commitment to respecting local plans AND protection for the green belt besides.
What I’d love but nobody will ever do is a massive new city, from scratch, 1m+ inhabitants. Infrastructure, beautiful housing, business and leisure facilities, 100% renewable, 15% corporate tax rate and 20% income tax. Build it somewhere that will welcome the investment, or even better somewhere reclaimed from the sea. Like they do in the Gulf.
Doris Island
The irony is that Boris Island would have created, at Heathrow, the prefect place to put hundreds of thousands of homes. And offices. And light industry.
All the infrastructure ready.....
I was always a fan of Boris island. He was rubbish at actually making his grands projets work but Johnson did at least have an imagination (to quote one of our posters).
Was that me? I stand by that. His two best things were Boris Island and the double decker bus.
Imagination without judgement is next to useless, as any PB'er with even modest attention knows very well.
The bus cost £££££ and was sold on the basis of the open back platform that, after just weeks in service, has never since been seen open. The airport in mudflats with zillions of birds a long way from any workforce was simply idiotic.
For those looking for a Trump-DeSantis proxy battle angle, our colleague Matt Flegenheimer just texted to remind me that Donalds is a DeSantis ally who may have helped set a campaign finance precedent for the governor to repurpose state re-election funds for a presidential race.
"On Sunday my father-in-law, aged 92 and struggling with a number of health issues, had need of advice and help. GP surgeries were shut for days over the holiday period and, even if open, they struggled to provide care responsively. So he rang 111 twice, only to receive an automated message stating that, due to demand, nobody was able to receive his call. There is no help to be had anywhere. We are witnessing a complete collapse of health care in an affluent Western society. Yet there is no coherent response from our elected leaders, either acknowledging the situation or suggesting solutions, other than repeatedly stating how much money is being spent on the NHS. Christopher Swinburn FRCP Taunton, Somerset"
Funny how much vitriol is aimed at the government, but never the benighted NHS. The super-bureaucracy that we are ludicrously told is "ours". When are people going to wake up and stop doffing their collective caps to anyone with a stethoscope? The deference of the BBC to anyone from the self-interested BMA is pathetic. No doubt the government is to blame, but the system itself is crap. Someone needs to wake up to that, but somehow I doubt it will be a Labour government.
Snore. Your Tories have their fingerprints all over it. You broke it, you own it.
Well for a start I didn't vote Tory at the last two general elections. If the Holy Cow is "broken" as you put it from your ivory tower outside the UK, then it is equally because the last Labour government hosed money at it without any real commitment to proper reform or improvement in productivity. The GP contract "negotiation" with the BMA was nothing short of a blank cheque alongside a blank employment contract. Huge sums have been hoovered up by self-interest groups within the NHS to fund lavish salaries and pensions for those in high paid roles in the safest jobs in the known universe.
So no, I don't own it. Plonker.
You didn’t vote for them, but you seem to be gearing up for voting for them. What’s demonstrably true is that, health outcomes responded well yo Labour’s increased funding, and have deteriorated and are now collapsing under the current funding model.
I don’t have a view especially on “lavish salaries”, except to say that the wage bill has been massively favoured under the Tories in lieu of capital costs. We have more nurses, but not enough beds.
I’ll ignore your ivory tower comment, I presume it emanates from “dark Nigel”.
I agree that the Lib Dems need to front up with a loose roadmap back toward the single market.
I also think they need to find a way to square the circle on the nimbyism. It would need a log post or perhaps a thread-header to explain how, but at the top level we need both a commitment to push toward building (or, for the market to build) half a million houses a year AND a commitment to respecting local plans AND protection for the green belt besides.
What I’d love but nobody will ever do is a massive new city, from scratch, 1m+ inhabitants. Infrastructure, beautiful housing, business and leisure facilities, 100% renewable, 15% corporate tax rate and 20% income tax. Build it somewhere that will welcome the investment, or even better somewhere reclaimed from the sea. Like they do in the Gulf.
Doris Island
The irony is that Boris Island would have created, at Heathrow, the prefect place to put hundreds of thousands of homes. And offices. And light industry.
All the infrastructure ready.....
I was always a fan of Boris island. He was rubbish at actually making his grands projets work but Johnson did at least have an imagination (to quote one of our posters).
As we saw when he tried to explain his actions over Pincher, Paterson, Partygate, Brexit, Wyatt...
I agree that the Lib Dems need to front up with a loose roadmap back toward the single market.
I also think they need to find a way to square the circle on the nimbyism. It would need a log post or perhaps a thread-header to explain how, but at the top level we need both a commitment to push toward building (or, for the market to build) half a million houses a year AND a commitment to respecting local plans AND protection for the green belt besides.
So apple pie for everyone.
Next time I see someone campaigning on "No houses round 'ere", I will challenge their proven racism.
If I lived in a lovely village in Wiltshire or whatever I would also campaign against new housing.
The English (and probably British) “dream” is a Georgian rectory up a long driveway. But clearly, given the landmass and the population, that can’t happen for everyone.
We need to use state power to encourage building higher in towns and cities, essentially, and break up the housing builder oligopoly.
Trouble is, most people don't want to live that way.
As you say they want the house and garden.
Two catches though.
The key one is that people who already have houses and gardens are often too happy to deny those boons to other people, whose main mistake was to be born too late.
The subtler (and less certain one) is the idea that all this lowrise sprawl is horribly inefficient. As in, makes cities less good at generating wealth. A quick primer with pictures;
As with some other cherished beliefs on left and right, we do come back to the question- how seriously do we want the country to be rich? How much wealth are we prepared to throw away?
I agree that the Lib Dems need to front up with a loose roadmap back toward the single market.
I also think they need to find a way to square the circle on the nimbyism. It would need a log post or perhaps a thread-header to explain how, but at the top level we need both a commitment to push toward building (or, for the market to build) half a million houses a year AND a commitment to respecting local plans AND protection for the green belt besides.
So apple pie for everyone.
Next time I see someone campaigning on "No houses round 'ere", I will challenge their proven racism.
If I lived in a lovely village in Wiltshire or whatever I would also campaign against new housing.
The English (and probably British) “dream” is a Georgian rectory up a long driveway. But clearly, given the landmass and the population, that can’t happen for everyone.
We need to use state power to encourage building higher in towns and cities, essentially, and break up the housing builder oligopoly.
Trouble is, most people don't want to live that way.
As you say they want the house and garden.
Most just want to be able to afford somewhere. London has shown that people will willingly rein in their space demands if the market demands it. I was delighted with the size of our garden here in the inner suburbs but if I were searching in a nice village in Wiltshire I’d want something 5 times as big.
Why has this been off-topiced?
As I will insist to my grave, London is very low rise compared to its European and American peers.
There is plenty of room between Hounslow and Southend-on-Sea for half a million new houses a year without touching Wiltshire.
But to do it, government needs to
1. Make this an explicit policy aim 2. Provide the transport and other infrastructure necessary to support it 3. Relax or otherwise evolve the planning laws to allow people to go up.
As an owner of a non-listed (albeit in a conservation area), low rise house less than two miles of Bank, I would also be a big winner from such a policy, but that is neither here nor there.
I would raze Fulham, and then raise it.
Fulham is a great example.
Row upon row of two story terraces of only modest architectural appeal.
I would not raze it per se, I would have a general principle that people can build up to six floors if they accept a published pattern etc etc.
I agree that the Lib Dems need to front up with a loose roadmap back toward the single market.
I also think they need to find a way to square the circle on the nimbyism. It would need a log post or perhaps a thread-header to explain how, but at the top level we need both a commitment to push toward building (or, for the market to build) half a million houses a year AND a commitment to respecting local plans AND protection for the green belt besides.
What I’d love but nobody will ever do is a massive new city, from scratch, 1m+ inhabitants. Infrastructure, beautiful housing, business and leisure facilities, 100% renewable, 15% corporate tax rate and 20% income tax. Build it somewhere that will welcome the investment, or even better somewhere reclaimed from the sea. Like they do in the Gulf.
Doris Island
The irony is that Boris Island would have created, at Heathrow, the prefect place to put hundreds of thousands of homes. And offices. And light industry.
All the infrastructure ready.....
I was always a fan of Boris island. He was rubbish at actually making his grands projets work but Johnson did at least have an imagination (to quote one of our posters).
Was that me? I stand by that. His two best things were Boris Island and the double decker bus.
Imagination without judgement is next to useless, as any PB'er with even modest attention knows very well.
The bus cost £££££ and was sold on the basis of the open back platform that, after just weeks in service, has never since been seen open. The airport in mudflats with zillions of birds a long way from any workforce was simply idiotic.
The major extra cost of the bus was the hybrid power train, which was designed to be ready for full electrification when the battery cost dropped. Which it now has.
This in turn was required by the issue of pollution in London. Of which the ancient buses coughing round, spewing black smoke made up a fair chunk.
Relocating airports out of major cities is a thing that has been done many, many times around the world.
Warmed over socialism, which will end up where socialism always ends up: with everyone worse off
But we have to endure this, the Tories have failed, and so we must go through the same process of experimenting with the left until it is proven that it does not work
Did Britain do something very bad to deserve all this?
We were all a lot better off by 2010 than we had been in 1997.
And many people are going to find they were better off in 2010 than they will be by GE24.
This means nothing unless you can argue (credibly) that Labour will make sure everyone is much better off by 2030 than they would otherwise be under the Tories.
You can't keep referring back to golden economic years from 1997 to 2007 and putting that down to "Labour". They were almost unique circumstances with a golden economy legacy, a huge boon from 1st wave globalisation and a massive asset boom.
That might conceivably be true but the implication is it doesn't matter who is in power, it's the events outside the control of government that matter.
Or I suppose you could take it one stage further and say, the economy did well under Labour but would have been better still had the Tories been in power 1997-2010 and the economy has been shite since 2010 but would have been more shite under Labour.
Personally I feel the government does make a difference.
What is the counter-factual had the Tories been in power 1997-2007?
I think lower taxes, higher employment, lower immigration, no devolution, and a much more market-led approach to public services. More rapid economic growth prior to the GFC is my guess, and in incomes too, but probably also blindsided by it as well just as Brown was.
I also doubt we'd have signed the Lisbon Treaty, which would have led to a renegotiation, so no Brexit.
If the Tories had stayed in power and blocked devolution I think we'd have seen a constitutional crisis and quite probably Scottish independence. The decade to 2007 already saw the strongest growth in GDP and employment that we had seen for decades, or since, so I doubt that your hypothetical Tory government would have done much better than what we actually saw. And we'd have had even laxer financial regulation so the GFC might well have had a worse effect on us. No BOE independence either, so probably higher inflation. Maybe no Brexit, but presumably for Brexiteers like yourself that's a bad thing, still?
Brexit wasn't the black and white thing you make it out to be.
It was a fringe position pre-Lisbon because many of us were comfortable with the EU as it was pre-Lisbon and sans euro.
Personally, I never liked the Maastricht Treaty, but if rejecting Lisbon had led us to formalising an semi-detached/associate member position in 2007-08 why would I have voted for Brexit?
The only fly in the ointment would be free movement but I think the Tories would have approached that differently as well.
We already had a semi-detached relationship, though, with opt outs from the euro and Schengen.
I agree that the Lib Dems need to front up with a loose roadmap back toward the single market.
I also think they need to find a way to square the circle on the nimbyism. It would need a log post or perhaps a thread-header to explain how, but at the top level we need both a commitment to push toward building (or, for the market to build) half a million houses a year AND a commitment to respecting local plans AND protection for the green belt besides.
So apple pie for everyone.
Next time I see someone campaigning on "No houses round 'ere", I will challenge their proven racism.
If I lived in a lovely village in Wiltshire or whatever I would also campaign against new housing.
The English (and probably British) “dream” is a Georgian rectory up a long driveway. But clearly, given the landmass and the population, that can’t happen for everyone.
We need to use state power to encourage building higher in towns and cities, essentially, and break up the housing builder oligopoly.
I agree that the Lib Dems need to front up with a loose roadmap back toward the single market.
I also think they need to find a way to square the circle on the nimbyism. It would need a log post or perhaps a thread-header to explain how, but at the top level we need both a commitment to push toward building (or, for the market to build) half a million houses a year AND a commitment to respecting local plans AND protection for the green belt besides.
So apple pie for everyone.
Next time I see someone campaigning on "No houses round 'ere", I will challenge their proven racism.
If I lived in a lovely village in Wiltshire or whatever I would also campaign against new housing.
The English (and probably British) “dream” is a Georgian rectory up a long driveway. But clearly, given the landmass and the population, that can’t happen for everyone.
We need to use state power to encourage building higher in towns and cities, essentially, and break up the housing builder oligopoly.
Trouble is, most people don't want to live that way.
As you say they want the house and garden.
Two catches though.
The key one is that people who already have houses and gardens are often too happy to deny those boons to other people, whose main mistake was to be born too late.
The subtler (and less certain one) is the idea that all this lowrise sprawl is horribly inefficient. As in, makes cities less good at generating wealth. A quick primer with pictures;
As with some other cherished beliefs on left and right, we do come back to the question- how seriously do we want the country to be rich? How much wealth are we prepared to throw away?
There’s also a view that “no garden” is sub-par.
It is not beyond the wit of the British to design 6 floor towers, with balconies, around a garden square.
Indeed this may be preferable to the scrubby tip-heap seemingly the norm for many gardens.
I agree that the Lib Dems need to front up with a loose roadmap back toward the single market.
I also think they need to find a way to square the circle on the nimbyism. It would need a log post or perhaps a thread-header to explain how, but at the top level we need both a commitment to push toward building (or, for the market to build) half a million houses a year AND a commitment to respecting local plans AND protection for the green belt besides.
What I’d love but nobody will ever do is a massive new city, from scratch, 1m+ inhabitants. Infrastructure, beautiful housing, business and leisure facilities, 100% renewable, 15% corporate tax rate and 20% income tax. Build it somewhere that will welcome the investment, or even better somewhere reclaimed from the sea. Like they do in the Gulf.
Doris Island
The irony is that Boris Island would have created, at Heathrow, the prefect place to put hundreds of thousands of homes. And offices. And light industry.
All the infrastructure ready.....
I was always a fan of Boris island. He was rubbish at actually making his grands projets work but Johnson did at least have an imagination (to quote one of our posters).
Was that me? I stand by that. His two best things were Boris Island and the double decker bus.
Imagination without judgement is next to useless, as any PB'er with even modest attention knows very well.
The bus cost £££££ and was sold on the basis of the open back platform that, after just weeks in service, has never since been seen open. The airport in mudflats with zillions of birds a long way from any workforce was simply idiotic.
The buses preserved (or modernised) an essential part of London identity. Perhaps Sadiq will allow the back platforms to re-open.
Venice, downtown New York, and loads of places are built on “mudflats”.
I agree that the Lib Dems need to front up with a loose roadmap back toward the single market.
I also think they need to find a way to square the circle on the nimbyism. It would need a log post or perhaps a thread-header to explain how, but at the top level we need both a commitment to push toward building (or, for the market to build) half a million houses a year AND a commitment to respecting local plans AND protection for the green belt besides.
So apple pie for everyone.
Next time I see someone campaigning on "No houses round 'ere", I will challenge their proven racism.
If I lived in a lovely village in Wiltshire or whatever I would also campaign against new housing.
The English (and probably British) “dream” is a Georgian rectory up a long driveway. But clearly, given the landmass and the population, that can’t happen for everyone.
We need to use state power to encourage building higher in towns and cities, essentially, and break up the housing builder oligopoly.
Trouble is, most people don't want to live that way.
As you say they want the house and garden.
Two catches though.
The key one is that people who already have houses and gardens are often too happy to deny those boons to other people, whose main mistake was to be born too late.
The subtler (and less certain one) is the idea that all this lowrise sprawl is horribly inefficient. As in, makes cities less good at generating wealth. A quick primer with pictures;
As with some other cherished beliefs on left and right, we do come back to the question- how seriously do we want the country to be rich? How much wealth are we prepared to throw away?
There’s also a view that “no garden” is sub-par.
It is not beyond the wit of the British to design 6 floor towers, with balconies, around a garden square.
Indeed this may be preferable to the scrubby tip-heap seemingly the norm for many gardens.
What gets me is the number of people who want a house with a garden. Then instantly concrete it or cover it with gravel. What they mean is they want a house with some private space around it. Personally, one of the attractions of my new place was no garden. Sick of being moaned at by neighbours who used theirs as a carpark for four vehicles. Apparently, mine had annoying wildlife in it. Not what they moved to the countryside for.
I agree that the Lib Dems need to front up with a loose roadmap back toward the single market.
I also think they need to find a way to square the circle on the nimbyism. It would need a log post or perhaps a thread-header to explain how, but at the top level we need both a commitment to push toward building (or, for the market to build) half a million houses a year AND a commitment to respecting local plans AND protection for the green belt besides.
So apple pie for everyone.
Next time I see someone campaigning on "No houses round 'ere", I will challenge their proven racism.
If I lived in a lovely village in Wiltshire or whatever I would also campaign against new housing.
The English (and probably British) “dream” is a Georgian rectory up a long driveway. But clearly, given the landmass and the population, that can’t happen for everyone.
We need to use state power to encourage building higher in towns and cities, essentially, and break up the housing builder oligopoly.
Trouble is, most people don't want to live that way.
As you say they want the house and garden.
Two catches though.
The key one is that people who already have houses and gardens are often too happy to deny those boons to other people, whose main mistake was to be born too late.
The subtler (and less certain one) is the idea that all this lowrise sprawl is horribly inefficient. As in, makes cities less good at generating wealth. A quick primer with pictures;
As with some other cherished beliefs on left and right, we do come back to the question- how seriously do we want the country to be rich? How much wealth are we prepared to throw away?
There’s also a view that “no garden” is sub-par.
It is not beyond the wit of the British to design 6 floor towers, with balconies, around a garden square.
Indeed this may be preferable to the scrubby tip-heap seemingly the norm for many gardens.
What gets me is the number of people who want a house with a garden. Then instantly concrete it or cover it with gravel. What they mean is they want a house with some private space around it.
If you reduce a garden below a certain size, grass isn't viable.
I agree that the Lib Dems need to front up with a loose roadmap back toward the single market.
I also think they need to find a way to square the circle on the nimbyism. It would need a log post or perhaps a thread-header to explain how, but at the top level we need both a commitment to push toward building (or, for the market to build) half a million houses a year AND a commitment to respecting local plans AND protection for the green belt besides.
So apple pie for everyone.
Next time I see someone campaigning on "No houses round 'ere", I will challenge their proven racism.
If I lived in a lovely village in Wiltshire or whatever I would also campaign against new housing.
The English (and probably British) “dream” is a Georgian rectory up a long driveway. But clearly, given the landmass and the population, that can’t happen for everyone.
We need to use state power to encourage building higher in towns and cities, essentially, and break up the housing builder oligopoly.
Trouble is, most people don't want to live that way.
As you say they want the house and garden.
Two catches though.
The key one is that people who already have houses and gardens are often too happy to deny those boons to other people, whose main mistake was to be born too late.
The subtler (and less certain one) is the idea that all this lowrise sprawl is horribly inefficient. As in, makes cities less good at generating wealth. A quick primer with pictures;
As with some other cherished beliefs on left and right, we do come back to the question- how seriously do we want the country to be rich? How much wealth are we prepared to throw away?
There’s also a view that “no garden” is sub-par.
It is not beyond the wit of the British to design 6 floor towers, with balconies, around a garden square.
Indeed this may be preferable to the scrubby tip-heap seemingly the norm for many gardens.
What gets me is the number of people who want a house with a garden. Then instantly concrete it or cover it with gravel. What they mean is they want a house with some private space around it.
The reality is that much of the British built environment is total dreck. We shouldn’t fetishise it’s preservation.
That’s not me saying I want brutalist blocks everywhere. That, too, was a false turn.
Comments
Human memory is partial and poor, so whilst you shouldn't be quick to dismiss other people's experience - particularly those with a very different background to you - neither should this be used as a ruse to place it beyond reproach or challenge.
I think his instincts are very dodgy, to be honest. From the Great Barrington Declaration stuff to his Ukraino-skepticism, he appears to “get the big decisions wrong”.
"On Sunday my father-in-law, aged 92 and struggling with a number of health issues, had need of advice and help. GP surgeries were shut for days over the holiday period and, even if open, they struggled to provide care responsively. So he rang 111 twice, only to receive an automated message stating that, due to demand, nobody was able to receive his call.
There is no help to be had anywhere. We are witnessing a complete collapse of health care in an affluent Western society. Yet there is no coherent response from our elected leaders, either acknowledging the situation or suggesting solutions, other than repeatedly stating how much money is being spent on the NHS.
Christopher Swinburn FRCP
Taunton, Somerset"
That’s just a mental take.
It’s decidedly centrist.
https://twitter.com/MrRacingTips/status/1610675008392818690
I think lower taxes, higher employment, lower immigration, no devolution, and a much more market-led approach to public services. More rapid economic growth prior to the GFC is my guess, and in incomes too, but probably also blindsided by it as well just as Brown was.
I also doubt we'd have signed the Lisbon Treaty, which would have led to a renegotiation, so no Brexit.
Also, the cost commitments they are listing there are vast, and current planned tax rises won't do it, so it will all put a huge burden on the economy.
The party is a useful think tank for the other parties. As a member and voter I would obviously like to see them in some sort of power but as a fall back option seeing LD influence on Labour policy would be good.
But, at the same time, they can be wise, experienced, measured and sensible - and less prone to hysterics as they've seen it all before.
Doubtless, we will be the same.
I await the detail on collective bargaining.
I would certainly welcome a modest tipping of the scales from capital to labour, though.
https://twitter.com/kyivindependent/status/1610672285924442113?s=46&t=LiHli6yZ4ZF7CQ5-gDmSCg
I also think they need to find a way to square the circle on the nimbyism. It would need a log post or perhaps a thread-header to explain how, but at the top level we need both a commitment to push toward building (or, for the market to build) half a million houses a year AND a commitment to respecting local plans AND protection for the green belt besides.
Do the Dems end up supporting McCarthy in exchange for policy or other favours?
And I wanted David M.
I am too busy finishing my advocaat so there's not a snowball in hells chance I would do that.
Next time I see someone campaigning on "No houses round 'ere", I will challenge their proven racism.
Just to keep up.
The English (and probably British) “dream” is a Georgian rectory up a long driveway. But clearly, given the landmass and the population, that can’t happen for everyone.
We need to use state power to encourage building higher in towns and cities, essentially, and break up the housing builder oligopoly.
It can and will be done again, but perhaps will take longer than five years. I’m pretty sure Keir (or Labour) has two terms in them and possibly three.
Most likely seems to be a deal with the GOP hardliners so that McCarthy can take the chair* or he stands aside in favour of a compromise candidate.
* it is difficult to see what deal can be done. The opposition to McCarthy seems to be fuelled by personal animus.
Thank the Lord we missed out on the "Coalition of Chaos" with Ed Miliband in 2015. The country would have been in a right state under that sort of unstable regime.
Is all business blocked until a Speaker is elected?
To whose advantage is that?
ChatGPT thinks it should be in the Scottish highlands and be called the eco-tech oasis.
I was thinking more along the lines of Skegness or Grimsby.
Donalds, who voted for McCarthy on first two roll calls, then switched to Jordan on third, is current flagbearer for the anti-Kevinites.
So far believe he's getting votes from same Rep Reps who voted against McCarthy yesterday.
Will be interesting to see IF he votes for himself this round (Donalds that is!)
Addendum - He just did.
I suspect it can only benefit the Democrats.
Of course we really are going over the waterfall if this process drags itself out to such an extent that we are talking weeks and months rather than days.
Yes.
Joe Biden and the Democrats.
It was a fringe position pre-Lisbon because many of us were comfortable with the EU as it was pre-Lisbon and sans euro.
Personally, I never liked the Maastricht Treaty, but if rejecting Lisbon had led us to formalising an semi-detached/associate member position in 2007-08 why would I have voted for Brexit?
The only fly in the ointment would be free movement but I think the Tories would have approached that differently as well.
As you say they want the house and garden.
Because I'm reckoning, that the center (or what passes for it with THIS crowd) will NOT hold for Kevin McCarthy.
So no, I don't own it. Plonker.
(Donalds now up to 11)
What's been laid out there is probably £100bn+ pa of extra public spending.
However, it's also possible that Labour will also implement policies that benefit the old when they are in government, that the old will vote for the incumbents and that voting patterns will change very rapidly as a result.
All the infrastructure ready.....
somewhere. London has shown that people will willingly rein in their space demands if the market demands it. I was delighted with the size of our garden here in the inner suburbs but if I were searching in a nice village in Wiltshire I’d want something 5 times as big.
Fact that they moved to adjourn after just three roll calls speaks volumes.
As for today? The fewer number of roll calls, the more likely pressure is building for Plan B.
As I will insist to my grave, London is very low rise compared to its European and American peers.
There is plenty of room between Hounslow and Southend-on-Sea for half a million new houses a year without touching Wiltshire.
But to do it, government needs to
1. Make this an explicit policy aim
2. Provide the transport and other infrastructure necessary to support it
3. Relax or otherwise evolve the planning laws to allow people to go up.
As an owner of a non-listed (albeit in a conservation area), low rise house less than two miles of Bank, I would also be a big winner from such a policy, but that is neither here nor there.
Often the gratitude and good feeling is actually towards the doctors and nurses and front line workers who provide the care (and quite rightly, a very difficult and very good job they do too). The institution sat behind them is a monolithic bloated bureaucratic clunking inefficient nightmare. But that doesn’t matter because it enables those doctors and nurses to go out and provide that care, in the public mind.
His two best things were Boris Island and the double decker bus.
Britain feels highly taxed but that’s because the weight is on income rather than capital; it’s at the lower end of tax per GDP.
Housing and childcare reform to lower the costs of both would make a massive, massive impact. Tertiary fees, too.
The bus cost £££££ and was sold on the basis of the open back platform that, after just weeks in service, has never since been seen open. The airport in mudflats with zillions of birds a long way from any workforce was simply idiotic.
For those looking for a Trump-DeSantis proxy battle angle, our colleague Matt Flegenheimer just texted to remind me that Donalds is a DeSantis ally who may have helped set a campaign finance precedent for the governor to repurpose state re-election funds for a presidential race.
https://www.nytimes.com/live/2023/01/04/us/house-speaker-vote
I don’t have a view especially on “lavish salaries”, except to say that the wage bill has been massively favoured under the Tories in lieu of capital costs. We have more nurses, but not enough beds.
I’ll ignore your ivory tower comment, I presume it emanates from “dark Nigel”.
The key one is that people who already have houses and gardens are often too happy to deny those boons to other people, whose main mistake was to be born too late.
The subtler (and less certain one) is the idea that all this lowrise sprawl is horribly inefficient. As in, makes cities less good at generating wealth. A quick primer with pictures;
https://www.centreforcities.org/story/mapping-the-30-minute-city/
As with some other cherished beliefs on left and right, we do come back to the question- how seriously do we want the country to be rich? How much wealth are we prepared to throw away?
Row upon row of two story terraces of only modest architectural appeal.
I would not raze it per se, I would have a general principle that people can build up to six floors if they accept a published pattern etc etc.
This in turn was required by the issue of pollution in London. Of which the ancient buses coughing round, spewing black smoke made up a fair chunk.
Relocating airports out of major cities is a thing that has been done many, many times around the world.
It is not beyond the wit of the British to design 6 floor towers, with balconies, around a garden square.
Indeed this may be preferable to the scrubby tip-heap seemingly the norm for many gardens.
Venice, downtown New York, and loads of places are built on “mudflats”.
Then instantly concrete it or cover it with gravel.
What they mean is they want a house with some private space around it.
Personally, one of the attractions of my new place was no garden.
Sick of being moaned at by neighbours who used theirs as a carpark for four vehicles.
Apparently, mine had annoying wildlife in it.
Not what they moved to the countryside for.
My guess is that the anti-Kevinite strategists wanted to see IF they'd get any volunteers for their side for rollcall #4.
AND that they may play one or more of their remaining "sleepers" in #5
That’s not me saying I want brutalist blocks everywhere. That, too, was a false turn.