Is it good or bad that I, as a former Cons member and Cameroonite Tory had to google Steve Barclay?
Meanwhile if we're talking about Steves I still think that Baker could be the right one to be party leader. V sensible bloke, disagree with him 100% on Brexit but he seems to be smart enough to be pragmatic now that we're here.
I've bet accordingly.
He’s a Cambridge educated lawyer, misunderestimate him at your own risk.
Suella Braverman is also a Cambridge educated lawyer.
The next Tory leadership election could herald a golden age for the Tory party and the country if Braverman and Barclay make it to the final two.
He's a Cambridge educated historian, who then trained as a lawyer.
So Suella it is.
Portillo was also a Cambridge educated historian, Ken Clarke and Michael Howard Cambridge educated lawyers too.
Cambridge educated politicians tend to do law or history at university (Shadow Health Secretary Wes Streeting was history too on the Labour side from Cambridge), whereas Oxford politicians Tory or Labour or LD are almost all PPE
Shame most of them don't do useful stuff like Engineering, Physics, Mathematics which require logical thinking.
Ducks as historians and lawyers here react.
Why? If they wanted to be engineers or physicists or mathematicians or accountants or work in industry those might be more relevant but law and history are more relevant for lawmaking and government policy. Albeit Thatcher did Chemistry of course but then did a law course as well after
Well my comment was just to get a reaction, and just to add to the wind up, is it possible that the reason they did not do, say Physics or Maths was because they lacked the ability to do it (that is my experience). I doubt most people did their specific degrees because they wanted a career in it (with the exception of vocations eg medical degrees). They did them because of a talent in that area or an interest.
Bit of a fail as a wind up, is it not? you must think to some extent about history and the law, by virtue of being on here, and if you have thought about them and concluded that they can be practised without the exercise of logical thinking you are not going to win any awards for general intellectual prowess.
Well maybe you have proved the point as you have made an illogical assumption. I said Engineers, Physics and Mathematics require logical thinking. I did not say (all or any) Historians and Lawyers lack logical thinking as can be proved by the posts from many on here. However you would be correct in assuming that I believe given two samples of both I would be inclined to assume the group of scientist would be more logical/intelligent, although I would also assume that sample would have a greater selection of oddballs in them as well (as per @HYUFD assumption which I do agree with).
Anyway after that ridiculous generalisation by me the other obvious flaw in your reply was how your reply started with 'Bit of a fail as a wind up, is it not?' by the fact that you actually replied.
You are really bad at this, aren't you? The posts went
Someone: Cambridge educated politicians tend to do law or history at university (Shadow Health Secretary Wes Streeting was history too on the Labour side from Cambridge), whereas Oxford politicians Tory or Labour or LD are almost all PPE
You: Shame most of them don't do useful stuff like Engineering, Physics, Mathematics which require logical thinking.
That can only mean that you think PPE/law/history do nt require logical thinking. There is no other way of interpreting it. It means that, or it is pointless.
So we have established that logical parsing of your own output is beyond you.
Maybe you should debate with someone who hasn't done a degree in Logic?
Hahaha.
So, explain how your post does not imply that PPE/law/history do not require logical thinking.
Got to go. House clearance to sort. Come back to me in a few hours.
Hahaha.
Have you got a screwloose or something? I have just arrived at my deceased father's house waiting for a house clearance quote. When I said I would get back to you I meant it. Some of us have other things to do than post here. Honestly.
Sorry for your loss.
One tip if the quote is 'you pay them' - speak to a general auction house as they'll often clear for free and then give you the proceeds of the sale of stuff...
This is a thing. Happened with my aunt. The most valuable thing was a mirror which covered most of the hall wall, say 15ft by 10ft. Everyone was whoop whooping about it until they literally (!) smashed it taking it off the wall (it had been there for over 70yrs).
While we're at it, I've also been a bit puzzled by the disappearance of 'thrice'. It's a perfectly useful word, but no one would ever now think of using it in a serious context. Why did it die off and when?
I blame Lionel Ritchie.
I rather like 'thrice'. I'm not averse to using it, though I might demur from using it in a document I'm writing for work. But I hate the Americanism 'threepeat'.
That's not because it wouldn't be useful to have a word meaning 'do somthing three times'. It just feels linguistically wrong. It would only work if the word for repeat was 'twopeat'.
Eugh threepeat is not something I have heard before. Thanks for putting that monstrosity in my mind.
You need to listen to more US sports commentary for similar gems like 'winningest'.
I didn't think I needed any additional reason not to listen to US sports commentary but it's good to have this in my back pocket if needed.
While we're at it, I've also been a bit puzzled by the disappearance of 'thrice'. It's a perfectly useful word, but no one would ever now think of using it in a serious context. Why did it die off and when?
I blame Lionel Ritchie.
I rather like 'thrice'. I'm not averse to using it, though I might demur from using it in a document I'm writing for work. But I hate the Americanism 'threepeat'.
That's not because it wouldn't be useful to have a word meaning 'do somthing three times'. It just feels linguistically wrong. It would only work if the word for repeat was 'twopeat'.
While we're at it, I've also been a bit puzzled by the disappearance of 'thrice'. It's a perfectly useful word, but no one would ever now think of using it in a serious context. Why did it die off and when?
Absurd Luddism - but this is perhaps the last electoral cycle someone might get away with such gibberish.
What new word did little Donald learn today?
He doesn't know what decimate means. He thinks it means cutting 50% or whatever other numbers he has in his mind.
Decimate is either one of the words in the English language that is most widely misused, or its usage has strayed so far from its original meaning that the latter is no longer relevant. I tend to go with the second statement.
Yes, lots of examples of that, although right now, under pressure, all eyes on me, I can't think of a single one.
Literally is literally no 1 on the misuse front.
The misuse of literally is out of control, especially among millenials. If you walk past a large group of people in their twenties or thirties you will almost certainly hear at least one of them say "literally" while you pass. It's not just misused though, it is also inserted into conversation when it is not technically wrong, but is redundant. It's become a verbal tic for a lot of people, and generally marks out its user as basic.
I think it is widely understood as an intensifier rather than literally having its literal meaning now. Fusty types like me still use it 'properly', and find amusement in people like Jamie Redknapp saying 'he's literally been on fire this season'; 'he's literally turned his opponent inside out' etc. but I have accepted that usage has changed and we have to move on.
I still pronounce 'harassment' to rhyme with 'embarrassment' too (without, fnarr, the hard 'ass') too.
The reason for the rear-guard action here (though I will defend the meaning of pretty much all words) is that when used as an intsensifier, it's use is not just different to but the exact opposite of it's literal meaning. And if 'literally' no longer means 'literally', which word should I use when I mean 'literally'?
“Awesome” (something that is so terrifying it produces awe) used to mean something was bad, while “awful” meant something was good (something awe-inspiring and worthy of respect). Likewise, “terrific” was something bad, as in something terrifying.
To “flirt” used to mean a give someone a sharp blow or to sneer at them. “Cute” used to mean quick-witted. “Nice” used to mean ignorant.
Words change their meaning, and every generation is irked by this.
Nice also used to mean 'neat/tidy'.
But the fact that words have changed in the past doesn't mean we should give up now. Can you think of an example of a word changing where you think the English speaking world was better off as a result?
Can you think of an example where the older generation managed to persuade the younger that their habitual usage of a word was incorrect, and get them to change ?
It's not young people misusing literally or disinterested or quantum. It's a wide cross-section of the English speaking world.
But again: just because we are normally largely unsuccessful at a course of action doesn't mean we shouldn't even bother.
While we're at it, I've also been a bit puzzled by the disappearance of 'thrice'. It's a perfectly useful word, but no one would ever now think of using it in a serious context. Why did it die off and when?
I blame Lionel Ritchie.
I rather like 'thrice'. I'm not averse to using it, though I might demur from using it in a document I'm writing for work. But I hate the Americanism 'threepeat'.
That's not because it wouldn't be useful to have a word meaning 'do somthing three times'. It just feels linguistically wrong. It would only work if the word for repeat was 'twopeat'.
How odd; 'triplicate' is already in the dictionary, and it is a noun, adjective and verb.
I've never heard it used as a verb (presumably to rhyme with 'replicate')? I like that immensely.
'Duplicate', I think, must be the more direct analogy - though 'replicate' is obviously a more general form, all from the same root.
Ha, yes, of course! And obviously we have verbs for quadruplicate, quintuplicate, etc. I shall endeavour to use one of these in the next week. I will report back.
On the subject of linguistic monstrosities, the one I can't stand is "yourself" when people mean "you". It really grates for reasons I can't really explain.
Absurd Luddism - but this is perhaps the last electoral cycle someone might get away with such gibberish.
What new word did little Donald learn today?
He doesn't know what decimate means. He thinks it means cutting 50% or whatever other numbers he has in his mind.
Decimate is either one of the words in the English language that is most widely misused, or its usage has strayed so far from its original meaning that the latter is no longer relevant. I tend to go with the second statement.
Yes, lots of examples of that, although right now, under pressure, all eyes on me, I can't think of a single one.
Literally is literally no 1 on the misuse front.
The misuse of literally is out of control, especially among millenials. If you walk past a large group of people in their twenties or thirties you will almost certainly hear at least one of them say "literally" while you pass. It's not just misused though, it is also inserted into conversation when it is not technically wrong, but is redundant. It's become a verbal tic for a lot of people, and generally marks out its user as basic.
I think it is widely understood as an intensifier rather than literally having its literal meaning now. Fusty types like me still use it 'properly', and find amusement in people like Jamie Redknapp saying 'he's literally been on fire this season'; 'he's literally turned his opponent inside out' etc. but I have accepted that usage has changed and we have to move on.
I still pronounce 'harassment' to rhyme with 'embarrassment' too (without, fnarr, the hard 'ass') too.
The reason for the rear-guard action here (though I will defend the meaning of pretty much all words) is that when used as an intsensifier, it's use is not just different to but the exact opposite of it's literal meaning. And if 'literally' no longer means 'literally', which word should I use when I mean 'literally'?
“Awesome” (something that is so terrifying it produces awe) used to mean something was bad, while “awful” meant something was good (something awe-inspiring and worthy of respect). Likewise, “terrific” was something bad, as in something terrifying.
To “flirt” used to mean a give someone a sharp blow or to sneer at them. “Cute” used to mean quick-witted. “Nice” used to mean ignorant.
Words change their meaning, and every generation is irked by this.
Nice also used to mean 'neat/tidy'.
But the fact that words have changed in the past doesn't mean we should give up now. Can you think of an example of a word changing where you think the English speaking world was better off as a result?
No-one’s managed to stop words changing meaning before. I think that’s reason to give up, or at least to ask people why they think they will have more luck trying to stop this happening today.
Words changing meaning often means new words are created. “Nephew” used to have a more generic meaning and became more specific, which is useful. Likewise, “meat” used to mean any food and became more specific. English has such a large vocabulary today because words changed meaning.
Just because words have changed meanings before doesn't mean we should give up! A world where we words mean whatever the speaker chooses to mean is a world where we comunicate poorly. I have no objection to new words. But I object to losing words. As I said before, if literally doesn't literally mean literally, what word can we use? If disinterested comes to mean indifferent, we have two words which mean indifferent and none which mean disinterested. Surely we can agree this is an inefficient use of language?
Languages are not designed things that can maximise efficiency (with maybe a couple of constructed language exceptions). They live and they change. (That does not mean words can mean whatever the speaker chooses to mean: that’s a weird straw man argument of no relevance here.)..
'When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.’
While we're at it, I've also been a bit puzzled by the disappearance of 'thrice'. It's a perfectly useful word, but no one would ever now think of using it in a serious context. Why did it die off and when?
I blame Lionel Ritchie.
I rather like 'thrice'. I'm not averse to using it, though I might demur from using it in a document I'm writing for work. But I hate the Americanism 'threepeat'.
That's not because it wouldn't be useful to have a word meaning 'do somthing three times'. It just feels linguistically wrong. It would only work if the word for repeat was 'twopeat'.
Eugh threepeat is not something I have heard before. Thanks for putting that monstrosity in my mind.
You need to listen to more US sports commentary for similar gems like 'winningest'.
On the subject of linguistic monstrosities, the one I can't stand is "yourself" when people mean "you". It really grates for reasons I can't really explain.
And "myself" in the same usage.
"How's yourself", meanwhile makes me want to kill people.
On the subject of linguistic monstrosities, the one I can't stand is "yourself" when people mean "you". It really grates for reasons I can't really explain.
And "myself" in the same usage.
"How's yourself", meanwhile makes me want to kill people.
We're going to have fun for the next fortnight or so.
I think it's accepted that you can verb almost anything these days.
My 13 year old daughter who can happily use words like 'defenestrate' or 'antagonist' without breaking stride will happily, if slightly tongue-in-cheekly use 'word' as a verb 'meaning 'use words well'. e.g. Her: We were playing a game in which she was the protagonist and I was the antagonist... Me (admiringly): You're very articulate. I don't think I was using words like 'antagonist' when I was 13 Her (smiling theatrically-inanely): I can WORD!
On the subject of linguistic monstrosities, the one I can't stand is "yourself" when people mean "you". It really grates for reasons I can't really explain.
And "myself" in the same usage.
"How's yourself", meanwhile makes me want to kill people.
Perfectly valid Scots/N Eng - but on the lines of "your self" as in "your good self".
On the subject of linguistic monstrosities, the one I can't stand is "yourself" when people mean "you". It really grates for reasons I can't really explain.
And "myself" in the same usage.
"How's yourself", meanwhile makes me want to kill people.
Absurd Luddism - but this is perhaps the last electoral cycle someone might get away with such gibberish.
What new word did little Donald learn today?
He doesn't know what decimate means. He thinks it means cutting 50% or whatever other numbers he has in his mind.
Decimate is either one of the words in the English language that is most widely misused, or its usage has strayed so far from its original meaning that the latter is no longer relevant. I tend to go with the second statement.
Yes, lots of examples of that, although right now, under pressure, all eyes on me, I can't think of a single one.
Literally is literally no 1 on the misuse front.
The misuse of literally is out of control, especially among millenials. If you walk past a large group of people in their twenties or thirties you will almost certainly hear at least one of them say "literally" while you pass. It's not just misused though, it is also inserted into conversation when it is not technically wrong, but is redundant. It's become a verbal tic for a lot of people, and generally marks out its user as basic.
I think it is widely understood as an intensifier rather than literally having its literal meaning now. Fusty types like me still use it 'properly', and find amusement in people like Jamie Redknapp saying 'he's literally been on fire this season'; 'he's literally turned his opponent inside out' etc. but I have accepted that usage has changed and we have to move on.
I still pronounce 'harassment' to rhyme with 'embarrassment' too (without, fnarr, the hard 'ass') too.
The reason for the rear-guard action here (though I will defend the meaning of pretty much all words) is that when used as an intsensifier, it's use is not just different to but the exact opposite of it's literal meaning. And if 'literally' no longer means 'literally', which word should I use when I mean 'literally'?
“Awesome” (something that is so terrifying it produces awe) used to mean something was bad, while “awful” meant something was good (something awe-inspiring and worthy of respect). Likewise, “terrific” was something bad, as in something terrifying.
To “flirt” used to mean a give someone a sharp blow or to sneer at them. “Cute” used to mean quick-witted. “Nice” used to mean ignorant.
Words change their meaning, and every generation is irked by this.
Nice also used to mean 'neat/tidy'.
But the fact that words have changed in the past doesn't mean we should give up now. Can you think of an example of a word changing where you think the English speaking world was better off as a result?
Pretty much the English language, yes.
If it hadn't evolved, we'd still be speaking Latin.
No we wouldn't - we never spoke Latin!
To be clear, I don't mind us adding to our language. But I don't see how it benefits anyone when words change their meanings. We might be using words differently to how our ancestors used them. But that doesn't mean the process of them changing their meanings was positive.
While we're at it, I've also been a bit puzzled by the disappearance of 'thrice'. It's a perfectly useful word, but no one would ever now think of using it in a serious context. Why did it die off and when?
I blame Lionel Ritchie.
I rather like 'thrice'. I'm not averse to using it, though I might demur from using it in a document I'm writing for work. But I hate the Americanism 'threepeat'.
That's not because it wouldn't be useful to have a word meaning 'do somthing three times'. It just feels linguistically wrong. It would only work if the word for repeat was 'twopeat'.
Eugh threepeat is not something I have heard before. Thanks for putting that monstrosity in my mind.
You need to listen to more US sports commentary for similar gems like 'winningest'.
On the subject of linguistic monstrosities, the one I can't stand is "yourself" when people mean "you". It really grates for reasons I can't really explain.
And "myself" in the same usage.
"How's yourself", meanwhile makes me want to kill people.
Perfectly valid Scots/N Eng - but on the lines of "your self" as in "your good self".
Same down south but with the variation “And yourself?” in response to the question
I think it's accepted that you can verb almost anything these days.
My 13 year old daughter who can happily use words like 'defenestrate' or 'antagonist' without breaking stride will happily, if slightly tongue-in-cheekly use 'word' as a verb 'meaning 'use words well'. e.g. Her: We were playing a game in which she was the protagonist and I was the antagonist... Me (admiringly): You're very articulate. I don't think I was using words like 'antagonist' when I was 13 Her (smiling theatrically-inanely): I can WORD!
Absurd Luddism - but this is perhaps the last electoral cycle someone might get away with such gibberish.
What new word did little Donald learn today?
He doesn't know what decimate means. He thinks it means cutting 50% or whatever other numbers he has in his mind.
Decimate is either one of the words in the English language that is most widely misused, or its usage has strayed so far from its original meaning that the latter is no longer relevant. I tend to go with the second statement.
Yes, lots of examples of that, although right now, under pressure, all eyes on me, I can't think of a single one.
Literally is literally no 1 on the misuse front.
The misuse of literally is out of control, especially among millenials. If you walk past a large group of people in their twenties or thirties you will almost certainly hear at least one of them say "literally" while you pass. It's not just misused though, it is also inserted into conversation when it is not technically wrong, but is redundant. It's become a verbal tic for a lot of people, and generally marks out its user as basic.
I think it is widely understood as an intensifier rather than literally having its literal meaning now. Fusty types like me still use it 'properly', and find amusement in people like Jamie Redknapp saying 'he's literally been on fire this season'; 'he's literally turned his opponent inside out' etc. but I have accepted that usage has changed and we have to move on.
I still pronounce 'harassment' to rhyme with 'embarrassment' too (without, fnarr, the hard 'ass') too.
The reason for the rear-guard action here (though I will defend the meaning of pretty much all words) is that when used as an intsensifier, it's use is not just different to but the exact opposite of it's literal meaning. And if 'literally' no longer means 'literally', which word should I use when I mean 'literally'?
“Awesome” (something that is so terrifying it produces awe) used to mean something was bad, while “awful” meant something was good (something awe-inspiring and worthy of respect). Likewise, “terrific” was something bad, as in something terrifying.
To “flirt” used to mean a give someone a sharp blow or to sneer at them. “Cute” used to mean quick-witted. “Nice” used to mean ignorant.
Words change their meaning, and every generation is irked by this.
Millennials don't seem to get irked by it. Perhaps when they leave school and get jobs their attitudes will change though.
Every generation is irked by this as they get older.
Millennials don't get older though. They are forever the young, feckless avocado-toasters
On the subject of linguistic monstrosities, the one I can't stand is "yourself" when people mean "you". It really grates for reasons I can't really explain.
And "myself" in the same usage.
"How's yourself", meanwhile makes me want to kill people.
Perfectly valid Scots/N Eng - but on the lines of "your self" as in "your good self".
As in g'oan yer self there, big man. Yeah it isn't that usage that bugs me. On this topic, one excellent Scottish linguistic innovation is the use of the second person plural, yous or yous yins, which can sometimes remove ambiguity.
To kick off the #LWC23, General Sir Patrick Sanders discusses the BritishArmy's response to Russia's invasion of Ukraine. Learn more here: https://bit.ly/41TjUQl
Btw: networking bods*, Tailscale really is amazing isn't it?
* Bods is a word whose meaning has evolved. Sorry.
The remarkable thing is that it's not even that complex it just adds an incredibly easy to use front end on to Wireguard.
My one annoyance is that I can't connect it directly to a cloudflare front end and so need to add a small internet facing proxy server in the middle...
UK's National Cancer Research Institute is to close down after more than 20 years over concerns about its funding. I am told this infrastructure is vital to cancer clinical trials across UK.
Not because it doesn't have important work to do but because no-one in Government wants to pay for it.
The first session at the #LWC23 focuses on the ongoing conflict in Ukraine. The panel discussed how both sides are adapting to tactical challenges and utilising new technologies. Learn more here: https://bit.ly/41TjUQl
The second session at the #LWC23 focuses on NATO's transformation. Want to learn more about the impact of Finland's alliance membership, the New Force Model, and NATO's renewed deterrence concept? See https://bit.ly/41TjUQl
Absurd Luddism - but this is perhaps the last electoral cycle someone might get away with such gibberish.
What new word did little Donald learn today?
He doesn't know what decimate means. He thinks it means cutting 50% or whatever other numbers he has in his mind.
Decimate is either one of the words in the English language that is most widely misused, or its usage has strayed so far from its original meaning that the latter is no longer relevant. I tend to go with the second statement.
Yes, lots of examples of that, although right now, under pressure, all eyes on me, I can't think of a single one.
Literally is literally no 1 on the misuse front.
The misuse of literally is out of control, especially among millenials. If you walk past a large group of people in their twenties or thirties you will almost certainly hear at least one of them say "literally" while you pass. It's not just misused though, it is also inserted into conversation when it is not technically wrong, but is redundant. It's become a verbal tic for a lot of people, and generally marks out its user as basic.
I think it is widely understood as an intensifier rather than literally having its literal meaning now. Fusty types like me still use it 'properly', and find amusement in people like Jamie Redknapp saying 'he's literally been on fire this season'; 'he's literally turned his opponent inside out' etc. but I have accepted that usage has changed and we have to move on.
I still pronounce 'harassment' to rhyme with 'embarrassment' too (without, fnarr, the hard 'ass') too.
The reason for the rear-guard action here (though I will defend the meaning of pretty much all words) is that when used as an intsensifier, it's use is not just different to but the exact opposite of it's literal meaning. And if 'literally' no longer means 'literally', which word should I use when I mean 'literally'?
“Awesome” (something that is so terrifying it produces awe) used to mean something was bad, while “awful” meant something was good (something awe-inspiring and worthy of respect). Likewise, “terrific” was something bad, as in something terrifying.
To “flirt” used to mean a give someone a sharp blow or to sneer at them. “Cute” used to mean quick-witted. “Nice” used to mean ignorant.
Words change their meaning, and every generation is irked by this.
Millennials don't seem to get irked by it. Perhaps when they leave school and get jobs their attitudes will change though.
Every generation is irked by this as they get older.
Millennials don't get older though. They are forever the young, feckless avocado-toasters
If millenials ever get to afford their own house they are going to become incredibly right wing, IMHO. They have all the boomer characteristics - moral certainty, self-absorption and extreme individualism - amped up to 11. But right now they are trapped in political adolescence by the housing market.
While we're at it, I've also been a bit puzzled by the disappearance of 'thrice'. It's a perfectly useful word, but no one would ever now think of using it in a serious context. Why did it die off and when?
I blame Lionel Ritchie.
I rather like 'thrice'. I'm not averse to using it, though I might demur from using it in a document I'm writing for work. But I hate the Americanism 'threepeat'.
That's not because it wouldn't be useful to have a word meaning 'do somthing three times'. It just feels linguistically wrong. It would only work if the word for repeat was 'twopeat'.
Eugh threepeat is not something I have heard before. Thanks for putting that monstrosity in my mind.
You need to listen to more US sports commentary for similar gems like 'winningest'.
What about words that have gone missing? Some on here get very disgruntled, but never gruntled? If we get too far down that route, we may wish for our opponent to be disemboweled. But what about emboweled, which means the same thing?
Whilst politics in the UK might appear to be going sternforemost, if we look out to larboard you might see some fuzzled cockalorums lunting merrily away.
On the subject of linguistic monstrosities, the one I can't stand is "yourself" when people mean "you". It really grates for reasons I can't really explain.
On the subject of linguistic monstrosities, the one I can't stand is "yourself" when people mean "you". It really grates for reasons I can't really explain.
And "myself" in the same usage.
"How's yourself", meanwhile makes me want to kill people.
"Send the PB article to Mike and I" or "Send the PB article to Mike and me"?
Btw: networking bods*, Tailscale really is amazing isn't it?
* Bods is a word whose meaning has evolved. Sorry.
The remarkable thing is that it's not even that complex it just adds an incredibly easy to use front end on to Wireguard.
My one annoyance is that I can't connect it directly to a cloudflare front end and so need to add a small internet facing proxy server in the middle...
It's one of two new tech things that have significantly improved my life in the last six months, with the other being Proxmox.
I use Tailscale to access my home Internet from afar. Basically, my phone and laptop are always connected to our home automation stuff, and there's no need to mess with port forwarding or any of that stuff.
While we're at it, I've also been a bit puzzled by the disappearance of 'thrice'. It's a perfectly useful word, but no one would ever now think of using it in a serious context. Why did it die off and when?
I blame Lionel Ritchie.
I rather like 'thrice'. I'm not averse to using it, though I might demur from using it in a document I'm writing for work. But I hate the Americanism 'threepeat'.
That's not because it wouldn't be useful to have a word meaning 'do somthing three times'. It just feels linguistically wrong. It would only work if the word for repeat was 'twopeat'.
Eugh threepeat is not something I have heard before. Thanks for putting that monstrosity in my mind.
You need to listen to more US sports commentary for similar gems like 'winningest'.
'Medal' as a verb is a bit irritating.
That's old hat. People don't medal any more. They podium.
While we're at it, I've also been a bit puzzled by the disappearance of 'thrice'. It's a perfectly useful word, but no one would ever now think of using it in a serious context. Why did it die off and when?
I blame Lionel Ritchie.
I rather like 'thrice'. I'm not averse to using it, though I might demur from using it in a document I'm writing for work. But I hate the Americanism 'threepeat'.
That's not because it wouldn't be useful to have a word meaning 'do somthing three times'. It just feels linguistically wrong. It would only work if the word for repeat was 'twopeat'.
Eugh threepeat is not something I have heard before. Thanks for putting that monstrosity in my mind.
You need to listen to more US sports commentary for similar gems like 'winningest'.
'Medal' as a verb is a bit irritating.
That's old hat. People don't medal any more. They podium.
That's gross, but marginally preferable. At least it doesn't sound like an existing verb like medal does.
Absurd Luddism - but this is perhaps the last electoral cycle someone might get away with such gibberish.
What new word did little Donald learn today?
He doesn't know what decimate means. He thinks it means cutting 50% or whatever other numbers he has in his mind.
Decimate is either one of the words in the English language that is most widely misused, or its usage has strayed so far from its original meaning that the latter is no longer relevant. I tend to go with the second statement.
Yes, lots of examples of that, although right now, under pressure, all eyes on me, I can't think of a single one.
Literally is literally no 1 on the misuse front.
The misuse of literally is out of control, especially among millenials. If you walk past a large group of people in their twenties or thirties you will almost certainly hear at least one of them say "literally" while you pass. It's not just misused though, it is also inserted into conversation when it is not technically wrong, but is redundant. It's become a verbal tic for a lot of people, and generally marks out its user as basic.
I think it is widely understood as an intensifier rather than literally having its literal meaning now. Fusty types like me still use it 'properly', and find amusement in people like Jamie Redknapp saying 'he's literally been on fire this season'; 'he's literally turned his opponent inside out' etc. but I have accepted that usage has changed and we have to move on.
I still pronounce 'harassment' to rhyme with 'embarrassment' too (without, fnarr, the hard 'ass') too.
The reason for the rear-guard action here (though I will defend the meaning of pretty much all words) is that when used as an intsensifier, it's use is not just different to but the exact opposite of it's literal meaning. And if 'literally' no longer means 'literally', which word should I use when I mean 'literally'?
“Awesome” (something that is so terrifying it produces awe) used to mean something was bad, while “awful” meant something was good (something awe-inspiring and worthy of respect). Likewise, “terrific” was something bad, as in something terrifying.
To “flirt” used to mean a give someone a sharp blow or to sneer at them. “Cute” used to mean quick-witted. “Nice” used to mean ignorant.
Words change their meaning, and every generation is irked by this.
Millennials don't seem to get irked by it. Perhaps when they leave school and get jobs their attitudes will change though.
Every generation is irked by this as they get older.
Millennials don't get older though. They are forever the young, feckless avocado-toasters
If millenials ever get to afford their own house they are going to become incredibly right wing, IMHO. They have all the boomer characteristics - moral certainty, self-absorption and extreme individualism - amped up to 11. But right now they are trapped in political adolescence by the housing market.
I have some issues here.
Why do you think millennials have those characteristics? And why do you think those characteristics are right wing? I see a lot of moral certainty from the left. And extreme individualism doesn't strike me as right wing but is more in the liberal/libertarian direction. The far left and far right both de-emphasise the individual in favour of group goals.
Full disclosure, I'm late Gen-X, liberal, and entirely joking when I criticise millennials.
While we're at it, I've also been a bit puzzled by the disappearance of 'thrice'. It's a perfectly useful word, but no one would ever now think of using it in a serious context. Why did it die off and when?
I blame Lionel Ritchie.
I rather like 'thrice'. I'm not averse to using it, though I might demur from using it in a document I'm writing for work. But I hate the Americanism 'threepeat'.
That's not because it wouldn't be useful to have a word meaning 'do somthing three times'. It just feels linguistically wrong. It would only work if the word for repeat was 'twopeat'.
Eugh threepeat is not something I have heard before. Thanks for putting that monstrosity in my mind.
You need to listen to more US sports commentary for similar gems like 'winningest'.
'Medal' as a verb is a bit irritating.
That's old hat. People don't medal any more. They podium.
That's gross, but marginally preferable. At least it doesn't sound like an existing verb like medal does.
I don't see the problem with people verbing nouns. Everyone understands what is meant and it's succinct.
What about words that have gone missing? Some on here get very disgruntled, but never gruntled? If we get too far down that route, we may wish for our opponent to be disemboweled. But what about emboweled, which means the same thing?
Whilst politics in the UK might appear to be going sternforemost, if we look out to larboard you might see some fuzzled cockalorums lunting merrily away.
Gruntled is used by PG Wodehouse. 1938. Code of the Woosters.
'He spoke with a certain what-is-it in his voice, and I could see that, if not actually disgruntled, he was far from being gruntled.'
Btw: networking bods*, Tailscale really is amazing isn't it?
* Bods is a word whose meaning has evolved. Sorry.
The remarkable thing is that it's not even that complex it just adds an incredibly easy to use front end on to Wireguard.
My one annoyance is that I can't connect it directly to a cloudflare front end and so need to add a small internet facing proxy server in the middle...
It's one of two new tech things that have significantly improved my life in the last six months, with the other being Proxmox.
I use Tailscale to access my home Internet from afar. Basically, my phone and laptop are always connected to our home automation stuff, and there's no need to mess with port forwarding or any of that stuff.
The Tories won’t do themselves any favours overruling independent pay bodies on public sector pay.
We are just likely to see more and more strikes and disruption and not just from the likes of the RMT who are politically motivated.
They're in a complete bind. They'll trot out the wage-price spiral excuse to justify bearing down on public sector pay, but the plain fact is that they're struggling to find politically acceptable cuts to fund extra spending in this area, borrowing is enormous and becoming ever more expensive, and so they're left with either digging their heels in and offering workers peanuts, or raising taxes on their core supporters to pay for more generous rises. There's no violin small enough.
The reality we are reaching the end game for the Blairite/Thatcher-lite model
It used to be chunky public spending and low taxes with the difference funded by clever balance sheet tricks (PFI/securitisation) or straight up borrowing. Wages were kept down by relaxed views on immigration
Cost of borrowing is going up and the markets are twitchy after all that QE
Asset price bubbles have driven a reasonable standard of living beyond the reach of many
Effectively unlimited immigration has resulted in underinvestment in business (low wages partly due to immigration and partly due to tax credits) drove down returns (cost saving) on investment and increased the strain on public services (governments didn’t invest in capacity).
The electorate has been trained to believe the government will always bail them out
We need a grown up conversation. Either taxes have to go up massively or public services need to be completely rethought.
But neither politicians or the electorate are ready to have that conversation.
While much of this is true, it is also the case that other countries have had similar situations to us, and have managed to avoid excessively expensive housing or stagnant business investment.
They therefore cannot be the whole story.
It's almost as if our planning system might be different to theirs.
The largest cost in household budgets is Housing. Not food, not gas, not electricity or anything else it is housing.
A very large proportion of the cost of housing is the cost of land.
And the cost of land with planning permission is inflated over land without.
Resolve one and others follow.
Build new towns (or refurbish old ones) in the frozen north and left-behind regions. It solves the housing problem, levelling up and rebalancing the economy away from an overheated London in one fell swoop.
Not really
There are areas in the run down north with plenty of empty housing, just look at the photo at the top of this article....
Yes, hence the new town model, even if based on refurbishment, to include attracting new jobs. Rather than dumping grounds for borderline mentally ill drug addicts and thieves.
Why on earth would any company set up in a newly created new town that no doubt has awful connections to anywhere with any sort of existing economy ?
Government subsidies, tax concessions, northern powerhouse rail? Britain has built new towns before; there's nothing new.
NPR won't land until 2045 onwards and will connect Warrington, Manchester and Marsden, no new stops planned, just linking existing populations.
So you want to create new towns, with no links to existing economies and hope that lower taxes will attract businesses there ?
Our London based media's obsession over trains is part of the problem. Over 90% of the UK travels via Road, not Rail, especially in the North.
If you want new towns then new motorway junctions, or better yet new motorways with new junctions is the way to do it quickly. Rail can catch up afterwards.
Not just in the North, in the South away from London it's very possible too. Eg build a new motorway linking Oxford to Cambridge, extended to Bristol and Norwich perhaps, and with a junction approximately every 5 miles. New towns could spring up along that route, and not in or linked to London.
Sorry but new roads don’t solve problems - and it’s probably worth watching c4 to,or row to see Ben Elton comparing rail around London and the rest of the UK.
That sort of timid, self defeating attitude is part of the problem. Of course new roads do solve problems.
I live in a fast growing new town (they do still exist, just not enough of them). We have thousands of homes being built, all of which are getting snapped up. New shops, businesses, industry opening too.
And what is the key new transport infrastructure underpinning this? One new motorway junction, with one new A road.
There's talk we might get a train station in a few years time, I'm not holding my breath, but the new motorway junction? People who get about by road are happy with that. And outside London it's roads, not rail, that truly matters. Of course London is different but WE ARE NOT LONDON.
The problem here is that what you are now making is an argument for planning, which you claim to reject. The reason why everything is working in your development is more likely than not because decades of work went in to the new trunk roads and motorway junctions, negotiated by the Council with Highways England and the government, as well as the co-siting of commercial development and community infrastructure, and finding ways to fund all this, including through Section 106 contributions by developers. That is what planning is and the value that it adds. If you get rid of planning then none of that happens, houses get built but you can't get anywhere, there are crap roads, no shops, infrastructure etc.
You could say ok, why not just zone the land through the plan making process and then have a design code rather than having to go through the pain and delay of needing planning permission. You could well do that and some countries do. The main problem is it makes it harder to go through the first stage of the process (the plan making stage) because you need to be absolutely sure that everything is solved before you can confidently rely on a design code for the purposes of delivery.
A design code is just a delivery mechanism not an alternative to having a planning system. Looking at your example of Japan, my guess is just that they are better at planning because the state is more assertive and organised at building infrastructure. I'd guess the falling prices are more to do with historic deflation than falling demand. But I've never studied the Japanese system in detail so don't feel able to authoritively comment on it.
In summary the problem is not that a planning system exists in the first place, but because the one we have isn't working very well.
Sorry that's not remotely an argument for planning, you could not be more wrong. There isn't time for decades of work as our population levels weren't the same decades ago, and if decades of work are going into it then no wonder everything is so broken as the facts decades ago are not the facts today.
If everything is planned then I'm curious where the new railway station, new schools, new GPs and everything else are. None of them exist. I still am registered at my old GP in my old town, I've not transferred my kids schooling either, and drive across the river to a different town for those.
Organic development works better. If houses are built, but no schools etc then people will vote for what they need. Unsurprisingly at the local elections the local Lib Dem (who got elected) was not campaigning on NIMBYism, but supporting new GPs to built and new schools to be built. Because that's what the new residents need and its not all there yet. Supermarkets have opened etc because businesses like Aldi and ASDA will open branches where their customers are. Thousands of people move into an area, they'll be in like a shot to get a shot at those customers.
The state is bloody useless at planning. Design transportation, sure, then let it organically grow in what's zoned there.
Ok, so you don't think there should be planning, with the exception of road building. There should be no state provision for day to day needs etc - shops, healthcare etc, because this will follow where people choose to build houses because politicians will be elected to make it happen. There would be no public realm, or town centres, just housing and roads, and supermarkets.
This all sounds like a total disaster to me.
No. I think there should be healthcare, and schools etc but it should evolve depending upon what the voters need.
Not spend decades planning what was needed decades ago, but is totally obsolete decades later as the facts have changed so much all your plans were based on faulty assumptions.
" The public primary was the size of a country school and now has 19 demountables. The closest shops were 20 minutes away; if she forgot milk, it was a 40-minute round trip, often in traffic. Trains came hourly, even at the peak. Narrow roads were choked. The hospital repeatedly promised for nearby Rouse Hill didn’t exist, and still doesn’t. Meanwhile, the population grows exponentially."... “They knew we were coming. Where did they think we were going to shop? Where did they think our children would go to school? It comes down to better planning. Stop rushing to get people into these houses.”...
But people moving into those areas say it takes more than a bunch of rapidly constructed houses to create a community. “So here’s what’s missing,” said Angela Van Dyke of the Riverstone Neighbourhood Centre and Community Aid Service. “Everything. Public education. Public transport. Good urban design. Livability.”... Michelle Rowland, the Labor federal member for the north-west seat of Greenway (and also the communications minister), said the problem was due to a long-term failure of different levels of government to coordinate. “Developers, basically, in a lot of aspects, they do have free rein,” she said. “The incentive of the developer is to maximise land use to maximise profit. Which is why you have a lot of residents complaining [about] what normally they’d call overdevelopment, but a lot of it is to do with a lack of trees, a lack of environmental controls, houses are close together, streets are narrow.”
Presumably he'd say that given the people exist, that is better to have houses and no schools, than to have neither houses nor schools.
There is something in that argument , but I don't think that is what he is saying. I think he sees the idea of town planning as being socially destructive and a massive cost with no benefits. The usual libertarian thing. But the contradiction is, that when you go and look at the libertarian societies they hold up as examples they tend to actually be quite well planned, ie Singapore and the USA, there is always an active state authority doing the zoning, brokering the economic development etc. I am pretty sure Japan will come in to this category as well.
It kind of is what I'm saying actually, yes.
As far as zoning etc is concerned, I'm perfectly fine with that. Pick your agricultural, natural and residential zones etc and the let the Council get out of the way of development within residential zones, even if natural/agricultural zones can't be developed. Which incidentally can work with 'green belt' desires, since you don't zone the green belt residential then.
Now of course personally I'd prefer the residential zones to be bigger than they are now, but that's a semi-separate debate.
Beyond that though, I am saying since we have a shortage of 3 million homes today, and we don't have 3 million homes with planning permission let alone under construction, then JFDI applies. Just frigging do it.
Get the homes built. Better to not be homeless.
Once the homes are built, of course better ideally to have commerce, schools etc - but in the mean time better to have a home than no home.
And of course since this is the UK, not Australia or Canada, even if there's no school [yet] within your area there will be schools not very far away. This isn't rural Alberta or Western Australia where your nearest town is 400 km away.
As I said, my kids go to a different school, in a different town, than the one where I live. There is a small primary and secondary school where I live, which kind of used to be a village but is now a new town [the overwhelming majority of houses in this town did not exist in 2010], but they are small and I like my kids school so we're not transferring them. My kids still have places in the school over the river and I drive them there. Oh and if I didn't drive, there are school buses that come down our road to collect kids to take them to where my kids go to school. I'm guessing we're far from unique in crossing the river to get to school, and there's an option via dedicated school buses for those who don't drive.
OK then. Your planning reform is to have residential 'zones' with planning permission granted for 3 million plus new houses. You now seem to be accepting that there is a heavy sacrifice (over and beyond what was identified in the example in linked to above) in terms of infrastructure provision, placemaking etc, but consider it is all necessary to deal with the over-riding housing need. You believe that it can and will all be worked out in some way afterwards.
I think this would be a disaster. It bakes in dependency on the car and the need for continuous expensive upgrades to roads and bridges for generations. I also think that the JFDI direction will not actually deliver much more housing. Because as I have pointed out before, the housebuilding industry deliver about 100-150 k houses a year and nothing more and all the signs are that they would continue to do this under any new policy.
There would be some SME/self building going on but the industry is small and it is not going to be at any significant scale. It won't seriously come on stream until capacity in the construction industry is massively increased. And on these projects, someone else still has to build and fund the roads, the streetlights, the drains etc.
Prices may fall because of oversupply but they would quickly hit a level where new housebuilding becomes uneconomic in many areas because of build cost inflation. So my best guess is that you would quickly end up with lots of empty plots and a recession.
If you look through the post war history of housebuilding it is very clear that the only time the government delivers 300,000 houses a year is when it builds half of them itself.
Sorry but you've got your own assumptions then have worked backwards from there.
Firstly there's no need for it all to be dependent on the car, in fact the opposite is possible too. If existing residential zones become denser and build up then that can lead to public transport becoming more efficient, not less. Not that I have any objection to the motor vehicle, but I think my proposal if implemented would see places like London seeing building up happening and I wouldn't expect those to be all homes relying upon cars.
Secondly all the evidence from around the planet is that without planning being an insurmountable obstacle is that SME/self-building should happen at a very significant scale. In almost every country with my proposed system, SME/self-builds happen at orders of magnitude more than here.
As far as funding the roads etc is concerned that needs to happen either way, planning or no planning. That's what the tax system is for. We pay our taxes, we need roads and transportation. Politicians need to do their job. If you want to put a tax on new houses that goes to a pot to pay towards new roads, then I have no philosophical objection to that, but we pay our taxes either way.
As far as prices are concerned, too much of the price of new homes currently is planning itself. If that ceases to be the case, then prices can fall without hurting development. If land becomes cheaper, but taxed more [two prongs to this] then land-banking would never happen and people are encouraged to get on with it rather than to dawdle.
Finally its very clear in the history of housebuilding around the planet, that when competition is allowed to flourish and demand is high then people can and do get on with it. The city of Tokyo alone [population 14 million] has consistently delivered more new homes than the entirety of England combined. As a former cheese loving Prime Minister might have said: That. Is. A. Disgrace.
Saying that our current system isn't working, so therefore reform is pointless, rather misses the point don't you think?
Ok. So you are now going to insist that the houses are built more densely to avoid the problem of 'suburban sprawl'. How is public transport going to work efficiently - Do the authorities put in the transit routes before the zoning or afterwards? At what point would the authorities consider something like walkways, cycle paths etc? At the point when the land is zoned, or afterwards? Regarding your comments about much of the cost of new housing being 'planning', this is true to a point, but what about other factors such as 'desirability of location'? Would you agree that the cost of land for housing (and reflected in sale prices) is also influenced by this? For instance, in that article I linked to above, the houses in the suburbs of Sydney were not cheap - the defective planning had not reduced the desirability of the location.
I would agree that the system isn't working that well and needs to be reformed, but that is an altogether different idea from 'getting rid of planning'.
FWIW your ideas are very similar to what the government (via policy exchange) actually proposed in January 2020.
Unfortunately this work basically went nowhere. The only legacy of it is a set of perplexing reforms to the use classes order, making it difficult for Council's to control changes of use.
No, I'm not going to "insist" that houses are built more densely. What part of it is it that you're struggling to understand, I don't think anyone should insist upon anything, myself included.
Let the owner of the land decide.
Where land is valuable in its own right, rather than because of planning, eg in cities then building up will probably happen not because you or I want it, but because that's the most effective use of land so people will choose to do it.
Transit routes, along with schooling and other public services should evolve over time, you might have an initial idea but it shouldn't ever be ossified. People change and adapt what they use. An area that is bought out by young people may end up becoming embraced by old people - sometimes the same ex-young people who never moved.
We need to evolve over time, not plan something based on the needs of decades ago.
Yes the 2020 reforms were a good idea, didn't go as far as I'd like but a big step in the right direction, its a shame they were dropped.
In the end I think you probably want a different system of planning, not the abolition of planning.
My criticism however is that you are presenting a superficially easy answer ("scrap planning") to a complicated question.
Zoning rather than our current Byzantine planning laws. If land is zoned residential, then let people build whatever they want on it subject to residential regulations, without input from local politicians or NIMBY neighbours.
That doesn't mean a skyscraper of apartments will be built in the middle of national parks though, since skyscrapers won't meet regulations and national parks won't be zoned residential.
@JohnRentoul Cooper found 75% said it was “time for a change” in 2009, but only 37% said time for a change to the Tories Now, 79% say it is “time for a change”; and 37% say time for a change to Labour
While we're at it, I've also been a bit puzzled by the disappearance of 'thrice'. It's a perfectly useful word, but no one would ever now think of using it in a serious context. Why did it die off and when?
I blame Lionel Ritchie.
I rather like 'thrice'. I'm not averse to using it, though I might demur from using it in a document I'm writing for work. But I hate the Americanism 'threepeat'.
That's not because it wouldn't be useful to have a word meaning 'do somthing three times'. It just feels linguistically wrong. It would only work if the word for repeat was 'twopeat'.
Eugh threepeat is not something I have heard before. Thanks for putting that monstrosity in my mind.
You need to listen to more US sports commentary for similar gems like 'winningest'.
'Medal' as a verb is a bit irritating.
That's old hat. People don't medal any more. They podium.
Btw: networking bods*, Tailscale really is amazing isn't it?
* Bods is a word whose meaning has evolved. Sorry.
The remarkable thing is that it's not even that complex it just adds an incredibly easy to use front end on to Wireguard.
My one annoyance is that I can't connect it directly to a cloudflare front end and so need to add a small internet facing proxy server in the middle...
It's one of two new tech things that have significantly improved my life in the last six months, with the other being Proxmox.
I use Tailscale to access my home Internet from afar. Basically, my phone and laptop are always connected to our home automation stuff, and there's no need to mess with port forwarding or any of that stuff.
OpenVPN was never _that_ hard...
I've used OpenVPN many times. And it's not that hard. But it's still nowhere near as easy as Tailscale.
On the subject of linguistic monstrosities, the one I can't stand is "yourself" when people mean "you". It really grates for reasons I can't really explain.
While I'm happy for language to evolve, many American idioms are just thick.
The one that makes my skin crawl is "I could care less" to mean "I couldn't care less".
"Why do we never talk about Islamic slavery ?" is one of the great self-pisstake headlines.
The linked article might equally be titled "Why do we never talk about UFOs ?"
Wasn't that article also "Most Read" in Spectator worldwide for several days?
It's almost as if the journalist has worked out what the readers want, and how to hook them in. I understand this is quite a desirable gift in today's ruthless journalstic world. But then I am but a mere knapper, knee high to a stonemason
I think it's accepted that you can verb almost anything these days.
My 13 year old daughter who can happily use words like 'defenestrate' or 'antagonist' without breaking stride will happily, if slightly tongue-in-cheekly use 'word' as a verb 'meaning 'use words well'. e.g. Her: We were playing a game in which she was the protagonist and I was the antagonist... Me (admiringly): You're very articulate. I don't think I was using words like 'antagonist' when I was 13 Her (smiling theatrically-inanely): I can WORD!
On the subject of linguistic monstrosities, the one I can't stand is "yourself" when people mean "you". It really grates for reasons I can't really explain.
While I'm happy for language to evolve, many American idioms are just thick.
The one that makes my skin crawl is "I could care less" to mean "I couldn't care less".
On the subject of linguistic monstrosities, the one I can't stand is "yourself" when people mean "you". It really grates for reasons I can't really explain.
While I'm happy for language to evolve, many American idioms are just thick.
The one that makes my skin crawl is "I could care less" to mean "I couldn't care less".
Don't be so parochial.
But I can never remember whether "lucked out" is good or bad. (Good.)
While we're at it, I've also been a bit puzzled by the disappearance of 'thrice'. It's a perfectly useful word, but no one would ever now think of using it in a serious context. Why did it die off and when?
I blame Lionel Ritchie.
I rather like 'thrice'. I'm not averse to using it, though I might demur from using it in a document I'm writing for work. But I hate the Americanism 'threepeat'.
That's not because it wouldn't be useful to have a word meaning 'do somthing three times'. It just feels linguistically wrong. It would only work if the word for repeat was 'twopeat'.
Don't hear fortnight so much these days either
It was only a few years ago I found out fortnight was in any way endangered, and that Americans find our use of it quaint. Did you know that as well as fortnight (a contraction of 'fourteen night', of course) there was once a term 'sennight' as a perfectly cromulent synonym for 'week'?
Of course, Mr Cookie. What sort of school did you go to?
On the subject of linguistic monstrosities, the one I can't stand is "yourself" when people mean "you". It really grates for reasons I can't really explain.
While I'm happy for language to evolve, many American idioms are just thick.
The one that makes my skin crawl is "I could care less" to mean "I couldn't care less".
@JohnRentoul Cooper found 75% said it was “time for a change” in 2009, but only 37% said time for a change to the Tories Now, 79% say it is “time for a change”; and 37% say time for a change to Labour
It matters not much. There are only two parties who can lead a government, so if it's time for a change, there is no alternative to Labour.
@JohnRentoul Cooper found 75% said it was “time for a change” in 2009, but only 37% said time for a change to the Tories Now, 79% say it is “time for a change”; and 37% say time for a change to Labour
Those numbers suggest that if the Lib Dems could find a more credible leader, they could repeat the Cleggasm polling bounce when it comes to the election.
@JohnRentoul Cooper found 75% said it was “time for a change” in 2009, but only 37% said time for a change to the Tories Now, 79% say it is “time for a change”; and 37% say time for a change to Labour
It matters not much. There are only two parties who can lead a government, so if it's time for a change, there is no alternative to Labour.
You may have said that about the Tories in 2009, yet we ended up with the Coalition instead.
So it is interesting. Somehow I'm rather sceptical about the prospects of a Daveygasm.
What about words that have gone missing? Some on here get very disgruntled, but never gruntled? If we get too far down that route, we may wish for our opponent to be disemboweled. But what about emboweled, which means the same thing?
Whilst politics in the UK might appear to be going sternforemost, if we look out to larboard you might see some fuzzled cockalorums lunting merrily away.
I know you can be overwhelmed, and I know you can be underwhelmed, but can you ever just be whelmed?
@JohnRentoul Cooper found 75% said it was “time for a change” in 2009, but only 37% said time for a change to the Tories Now, 79% say it is “time for a change”; and 37% say time for a change to Labour
It matters not much. There are only two parties who can lead a government, so if it's time for a change, there is no alternative to Labour.
You may have said that about the Tories in 2009, yet we ended up with the Coalition instead.
So it is interesting. Somehow I'm rather sceptical about the prospects of a Daveygasm.
Can I propose you drop the ugly "Daveygasm" and opt for "Edjaculation" instead?
On the subject of linguistic monstrosities, the one I can't stand is "yourself" when people mean "you". It really grates for reasons I can't really explain.
While I'm happy for language to evolve, many American idioms are just thick.
The one that makes my skin crawl is "I could care less" to mean "I couldn't care less".
Absurd Luddism - but this is perhaps the last electoral cycle someone might get away with such gibberish.
What new word did little Donald learn today?
He doesn't know what decimate means. He thinks it means cutting 50% or whatever other numbers he has in his mind.
Decimate is either one of the words in the English language that is most widely misused, or its usage has strayed so far from its original meaning that the latter is no longer relevant. I tend to go with the second statement.
Yes, lots of examples of that, although right now, under pressure, all eyes on me, I can't think of a single one.
Literally is literally no 1 on the misuse front.
The misuse of literally is out of control, especially among millenials. If you walk past a large group of people in their twenties or thirties you will almost certainly hear at least one of them say "literally" while you pass. It's not just misused though, it is also inserted into conversation when it is not technically wrong, but is redundant. It's become a verbal tic for a lot of people, and generally marks out its user as basic.
I think it is widely understood as an intensifier rather than literally having its literal meaning now. Fusty types like me still use it 'properly', and find amusement in people like Jamie Redknapp saying 'he's literally been on fire this season'; 'he's literally turned his opponent inside out' etc. but I have accepted that usage has changed and we have to move on.
I still pronounce 'harassment' to rhyme with 'embarrassment' too (without, fnarr, the hard 'ass') too.
The reason for the rear-guard action here (though I will defend the meaning of pretty much all words) is that when used as an intsensifier, it's use is not just different to but the exact opposite of it's literal meaning. And if 'literally' no longer means 'literally', which word should I use when I mean 'literally'?
“Awesome” (something that is so terrifying it produces awe) used to mean something was bad, while “awful” meant something was good (something awe-inspiring and worthy of respect). Likewise, “terrific” was something bad, as in something terrifying.
To “flirt” used to mean a give someone a sharp blow or to sneer at them. “Cute” used to mean quick-witted. “Nice” used to mean ignorant.
Words change their meaning, and every generation is irked by this.
Millennials don't seem to get irked by it. Perhaps when they leave school and get jobs their attitudes will change though.
Every generation is irked by this as they get older.
Millennials don't get older though. They are forever the young, feckless avocado-toasters
If millenials ever get to afford their own house they are going to become incredibly right wing, IMHO. They have all the boomer characteristics - moral certainty, self-absorption and extreme individualism - amped up to 11. But right now they are trapped in political adolescence by the housing market.
I have some issues here.
Why do you think millennials have those characteristics? And why do you think those characteristics are right wing? I see a lot of moral certainty from the left. And extreme individualism doesn't strike me as right wing but is more in the liberal/libertarian direction. The far left and far right both de-emphasise the individual in favour of group goals.
Full disclosure, I'm late Gen-X, liberal, and entirely joking when I criticise millennials.
I'm a millenial, labeit just a couple of years too young to be gen X (came as a bit of a shock to me when I discovered that - I don't even like avocado!). I own a house (well, the bank owns most of it but, you know...).
I am, also, as I hope comes across in my posts here, incredibly right wing. Up Braverman! Down with this sort of thing!
ETA: 'labeit' being millenial speak for 'very fortunately'
Amidst all the verbiage here has there been any comment on the widespread reports that the FSB threatened Wagner families before Prigozhin called off the rebellion?
While we're at it, I've also been a bit puzzled by the disappearance of 'thrice'. It's a perfectly useful word, but no one would ever now think of using it in a serious context. Why did it die off and when?
I blame Lionel Ritchie.
I rather like 'thrice'. I'm not averse to using it, though I might demur from using it in a document I'm writing for work. But I hate the Americanism 'threepeat'.
That's not because it wouldn't be useful to have a word meaning 'do somthing three times'. It just feels linguistically wrong. It would only work if the word for repeat was 'twopeat'.
What about words that have gone missing? Some on here get very disgruntled, but never gruntled? If we get too far down that route, we may wish for our opponent to be disemboweled. But what about emboweled, which means the same thing?
Whilst politics in the UK might appear to be going sternforemost, if we look out to larboard you might see some fuzzled cockalorums lunting merrily away.
I know you can be overwhelmed, and I know you can be underwhelmed, but can you ever just be whelmed?
Surprised nobody has mentioned what the kids say when they are underwhelmed or thought something was a bit shit....its was mid....as in Gun n Roses at Glasto were mid.
While we're at it, I've also been a bit puzzled by the disappearance of 'thrice'. It's a perfectly useful word, but no one would ever now think of using it in a serious context. Why did it die off and when?
I blame Lionel Ritchie.
I rather like 'thrice'. I'm not averse to using it, though I might demur from using it in a document I'm writing for work. But I hate the Americanism 'threepeat'.
That's not because it wouldn't be useful to have a word meaning 'do somthing three times'. It just feels linguistically wrong. It would only work if the word for repeat was 'twopeat'.
Don't hear fortnight so much these days either
It was only a few years ago I found out fortnight was in any way endangered, and that Americans find our use of it quaint. Did you know that as well as fortnight (a contraction of 'fourteen night', of course) there was once a term 'sennight' as a perfectly cromulent synonym for 'week'?
Absurd Luddism - but this is perhaps the last electoral cycle someone might get away with such gibberish.
What new word did little Donald learn today?
He doesn't know what decimate means. He thinks it means cutting 50% or whatever other numbers he has in his mind.
Decimate is either one of the words in the English language that is most widely misused, or its usage has strayed so far from its original meaning that the latter is no longer relevant. I tend to go with the second statement.
Yes, lots of examples of that, although right now, under pressure, all eyes on me, I can't think of a single one.
Literally is literally no 1 on the misuse front.
The misuse of literally is out of control, especially among millenials. If you walk past a large group of people in their twenties or thirties you will almost certainly hear at least one of them say "literally" while you pass. It's not just misused though, it is also inserted into conversation when it is not technically wrong, but is redundant. It's become a verbal tic for a lot of people, and generally marks out its user as basic.
I think it is widely understood as an intensifier rather than literally having its literal meaning now. Fusty types like me still use it 'properly', and find amusement in people like Jamie Redknapp saying 'he's literally been on fire this season'; 'he's literally turned his opponent inside out' etc. but I have accepted that usage has changed and we have to move on.
I still pronounce 'harassment' to rhyme with 'embarrassment' too (without, fnarr, the hard 'ass') too.
The reason for the rear-guard action here (though I will defend the meaning of pretty much all words) is that when used as an intsensifier, it's use is not just different to but the exact opposite of it's literal meaning. And if 'literally' no longer means 'literally', which word should I use when I mean 'literally'?
“Awesome” (something that is so terrifying it produces awe) used to mean something was bad, while “awful” meant something was good (something awe-inspiring and worthy of respect). Likewise, “terrific” was something bad, as in something terrifying.
To “flirt” used to mean a give someone a sharp blow or to sneer at them. “Cute” used to mean quick-witted. “Nice” used to mean ignorant.
Words change their meaning, and every generation is irked by this.
Nice also used to mean 'neat/tidy'.
But the fact that words have changed in the past doesn't mean we should give up now. Can you think of an example of a word changing where you think the English speaking world was better off as a result?
No-one’s managed to stop words changing meaning before. I think that’s reason to give up, or at least to ask people why they think they will have more luck trying to stop this happening today.
Words changing meaning often means new words are created. “Nephew” used to have a more generic meaning and became more specific, which is useful. Likewise, “meat” used to mean any food and became more specific. English has such a large vocabulary today because words changed meaning.
Just because words have changed meanings before doesn't mean we should give up! A world where we words mean whatever the speaker chooses to mean is a world where we comunicate poorly. I have no objection to new words. But I object to losing words. As I said before, if literally doesn't literally mean literally, what word can we use? If disinterested comes to mean indifferent, we have two words which mean indifferent and none which mean disinterested. Surely we can agree this is an inefficient use of language?
Languages are not designed things that can maximise efficiency (with maybe a couple of constructed language exceptions). They live and they change. (That does not mean words can mean whatever the speaker chooses to mean: that’s a weird straw man argument of no relevance here.)..
'When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.’
Time to brush up on Wittgenstein's private language argument
While we're at it, I've also been a bit puzzled by the disappearance of 'thrice'. It's a perfectly useful word, but no one would ever now think of using it in a serious context. Why did it die off and when?
I blame Lionel Ritchie.
I rather like 'thrice'. I'm not averse to using it, though I might demur from using it in a document I'm writing for work. But I hate the Americanism 'threepeat'.
That's not because it wouldn't be useful to have a word meaning 'do somthing three times'. It just feels linguistically wrong. It would only work if the word for repeat was 'twopeat'.
Amidst all the verbiage here has there been any comment on the widespread reports that the FSB threatened Wagner families before Prigozhin called off the rebellion?
While we're at it, I've also been a bit puzzled by the disappearance of 'thrice'. It's a perfectly useful word, but no one would ever now think of using it in a serious context. Why did it die off and when?
I blame Lionel Ritchie.
I rather like 'thrice'. I'm not averse to using it, though I might demur from using it in a document I'm writing for work. But I hate the Americanism 'threepeat'.
That's not because it wouldn't be useful to have a word meaning 'do somthing three times'. It just feels linguistically wrong. It would only work if the word for repeat was 'twopeat'.
How odd; 'triplicate' is already in the dictionary, and it is a noun, adjective and verb.
Threepeat = sports jargon, used by jornos tired of writing "hat trick" and looking for colorful, and short equivalent to "third time [won, lost or whatever].
Like most sporting jargon - an old English specialty - disdained by language purists and/or older speakers . . . at least until THEY start using it. Then it's AOK!
What about words that have gone missing? Some on here get very disgruntled, but never gruntled? If we get too far down that route, we may wish for our opponent to be disemboweled. But what about emboweled, which means the same thing?
Whilst politics in the UK might appear to be going sternforemost, if we look out to larboard you might see some fuzzled cockalorums lunting merrily away.
I know you can be overwhelmed, and I know you can be underwhelmed, but can you ever just be whelmed?
Amidst all the verbiage here has there been any comment on the widespread reports that the FSB threatened Wagner families before Prigozhin called off the rebellion?
Needs must I suppose.
It’s as probable as any of the various reports we have heard on why the SDMO has gone quiet.
@JohnRentoul Cooper found 75% said it was “time for a change” in 2009, but only 37% said time for a change to the Tories Now, 79% say it is “time for a change”; and 37% say time for a change to Labour
It matters not much. There are only two parties who can lead a government, so if it's time for a change, there is no alternative to Labour.
Corbyn got more voters than Blair 2005 iirc. GE 2024 won't be about massive support for Labour, it'll be the wholesale collapse of the Conservative vote a la 97 and 01.
@JohnRentoul Cooper found 75% said it was “time for a change” in 2009, but only 37% said time for a change to the Tories Now, 79% say it is “time for a change”; and 37% say time for a change to Labour
It matters not much. There are only two parties who can lead a government, so if it's time for a change, there is no alternative to Labour.
You may have said that about the Tories in 2009, yet we ended up with the Coalition instead.
So it is interesting. Somehow I'm rather sceptical about the prospects of a Daveygasm.
I'd love to see comparable figures with 1996. My guess is time for a change to Labour would have been over 50%, maybe even over 60%.
The Tories won’t do themselves any favours overruling independent pay bodies on public sector pay.
We are just likely to see more and more strikes and disruption and not just from the likes of the RMT who are politically motivated.
They're in a complete bind. They'll trot out the wage-price spiral excuse to justify bearing down on public sector pay, but the plain fact is that they're struggling to find politically acceptable cuts to fund extra spending in this area, borrowing is enormous and becoming ever more expensive, and so they're left with either digging their heels in and offering workers peanuts, or raising taxes on their core supporters to pay for more generous rises. There's no violin small enough.
The reality we are reaching the end game for the Blairite/Thatcher-lite model
It used to be chunky public spending and low taxes with the difference funded by clever balance sheet tricks (PFI/securitisation) or straight up borrowing. Wages were kept down by relaxed views on immigration
Cost of borrowing is going up and the markets are twitchy after all that QE
Asset price bubbles have driven a reasonable standard of living beyond the reach of many
Effectively unlimited immigration has resulted in underinvestment in business (low wages partly due to immigration and partly due to tax credits) drove down returns (cost saving) on investment and increased the strain on public services (governments didn’t invest in capacity).
The electorate has been trained to believe the government will always bail them out
We need a grown up conversation. Either taxes have to go up massively or public services need to be completely rethought.
But neither politicians or the electorate are ready to have that conversation.
While much of this is true, it is also the case that other countries have had similar situations to us, and have managed to avoid excessively expensive housing or stagnant business investment.
They therefore cannot be the whole story.
It's almost as if our planning system might be different to theirs.
The largest cost in household budgets is Housing. Not food, not gas, not electricity or anything else it is housing.
A very large proportion of the cost of housing is the cost of land.
And the cost of land with planning permission is inflated over land without.
Resolve one and others follow.
Build new towns (or refurbish old ones) in the frozen north and left-behind regions. It solves the housing problem, levelling up and rebalancing the economy away from an overheated London in one fell swoop.
Not really
There are areas in the run down north with plenty of empty housing, just look at the photo at the top of this article....
Yes, hence the new town model, even if based on refurbishment, to include attracting new jobs. Rather than dumping grounds for borderline mentally ill drug addicts and thieves.
Why on earth would any company set up in a newly created new town that no doubt has awful connections to anywhere with any sort of existing economy ?
Government subsidies, tax concessions, northern powerhouse rail? Britain has built new towns before; there's nothing new.
NPR won't land until 2045 onwards and will connect Warrington, Manchester and Marsden, no new stops planned, just linking existing populations.
So you want to create new towns, with no links to existing economies and hope that lower taxes will attract businesses there ?
Our London based media's obsession over trains is part of the problem. Over 90% of the UK travels via Road, not Rail, especially in the North.
If you want new towns then new motorway junctions, or better yet new motorways with new junctions is the way to do it quickly. Rail can catch up afterwards.
Not just in the North, in the South away from London it's very possible too. Eg build a new motorway linking Oxford to Cambridge, extended to Bristol and Norwich perhaps, and with a junction approximately every 5 miles. New towns could spring up along that route, and not in or linked to London.
Sorry but new roads don’t solve problems - and it’s probably worth watching c4 to,or row to see Ben Elton comparing rail around London and the rest of the UK.
That sort of timid, self defeating attitude is part of the problem. Of course new roads do solve problems.
I live in a fast growing new town (they do still exist, just not enough of them). We have thousands of homes being built, all of which are getting snapped up. New shops, businesses, industry opening too.
And what is the key new transport infrastructure underpinning this? One new motorway junction, with one new A road.
There's talk we might get a train station in a few years time, I'm not holding my breath, but the new motorway junction? People who get about by road are happy with that. And outside London it's roads, not rail, that truly matters. Of course London is different but WE ARE NOT LONDON.
The problem here is that what you are now making is an argument for planning, which you claim to reject. The reason why everything is working in your development is more likely than not because decades of work went in to the new trunk roads and motorway junctions, negotiated by the Council with Highways England and the government, as well as the co-siting of commercial development and community infrastructure, and finding ways to fund all this, including through Section 106 contributions by developers. That is what planning is and the value that it adds. If you get rid of planning then none of that happens, houses get built but you can't get anywhere, there are crap roads, no shops, infrastructure etc.
You could say ok, why not just zone the land through the plan making process and then have a design code rather than having to go through the pain and delay of needing planning permission. You could well do that and some countries do. The main problem is it makes it harder to go through the first stage of the process (the plan making stage) because you need to be absolutely sure that everything is solved before you can confidently rely on a design code for the purposes of delivery.
A design code is just a delivery mechanism not an alternative to having a planning system. Looking at your example of Japan, my guess is just that they are better at planning because the state is more assertive and organised at building infrastructure. I'd guess the falling prices are more to do with historic deflation than falling demand. But I've never studied the Japanese system in detail so don't feel able to authoritively comment on it.
In summary the problem is not that a planning system exists in the first place, but because the one we have isn't working very well.
Sorry that's not remotely an argument for planning, you could not be more wrong. There isn't time for decades of work as our population levels weren't the same decades ago, and if decades of work are going into it then no wonder everything is so broken as the facts decades ago are not the facts today.
If everything is planned then I'm curious where the new railway station, new schools, new GPs and everything else are. None of them exist. I still am registered at my old GP in my old town, I've not transferred my kids schooling either, and drive across the river to a different town for those.
Organic development works better. If houses are built, but no schools etc then people will vote for what they need. Unsurprisingly at the local elections the local Lib Dem (who got elected) was not campaigning on NIMBYism, but supporting new GPs to built and new schools to be built. Because that's what the new residents need and its not all there yet. Supermarkets have opened etc because businesses like Aldi and ASDA will open branches where their customers are. Thousands of people move into an area, they'll be in like a shot to get a shot at those customers.
The state is bloody useless at planning. Design transportation, sure, then let it organically grow in what's zoned there.
Ok, so you don't think there should be planning, with the exception of road building. There should be no state provision for day to day needs etc - shops, healthcare etc, because this will follow where people choose to build houses because politicians will be elected to make it happen. There would be no public realm, or town centres, just housing and roads, and supermarkets.
This all sounds like a total disaster to me.
No. I think there should be healthcare, and schools etc but it should evolve depending upon what the voters need.
Not spend decades planning what was needed decades ago, but is totally obsolete decades later as the facts have changed so much all your plans were based on faulty assumptions.
" The public primary was the size of a country school and now has 19 demountables. The closest shops were 20 minutes away; if she forgot milk, it was a 40-minute round trip, often in traffic. Trains came hourly, even at the peak. Narrow roads were choked. The hospital repeatedly promised for nearby Rouse Hill didn’t exist, and still doesn’t. Meanwhile, the population grows exponentially."... “They knew we were coming. Where did they think we were going to shop? Where did they think our children would go to school? It comes down to better planning. Stop rushing to get people into these houses.”...
But people moving into those areas say it takes more than a bunch of rapidly constructed houses to create a community. “So here’s what’s missing,” said Angela Van Dyke of the Riverstone Neighbourhood Centre and Community Aid Service. “Everything. Public education. Public transport. Good urban design. Livability.”... Michelle Rowland, the Labor federal member for the north-west seat of Greenway (and also the communications minister), said the problem was due to a long-term failure of different levels of government to coordinate. “Developers, basically, in a lot of aspects, they do have free rein,” she said. “The incentive of the developer is to maximise land use to maximise profit. Which is why you have a lot of residents complaining [about] what normally they’d call overdevelopment, but a lot of it is to do with a lack of trees, a lack of environmental controls, houses are close together, streets are narrow.”
Presumably he'd say that given the people exist, that is better to have houses and no schools, than to have neither houses nor schools.
There is something in that argument , but I don't think that is what he is saying. I think he sees the idea of town planning as being socially destructive and a massive cost with no benefits. The usual libertarian thing. But the contradiction is, that when you go and look at the libertarian societies they hold up as examples they tend to actually be quite well planned, ie Singapore and the USA, there is always an active state authority doing the zoning, brokering the economic development etc. I am pretty sure Japan will come in to this category as well.
It kind of is what I'm saying actually, yes.
As far as zoning etc is concerned, I'm perfectly fine with that. Pick your agricultural, natural and residential zones etc and the let the Council get out of the way of development within residential zones, even if natural/agricultural zones can't be developed. Which incidentally can work with 'green belt' desires, since you don't zone the green belt residential then.
Now of course personally I'd prefer the residential zones to be bigger than they are now, but that's a semi-separate debate.
Beyond that though, I am saying since we have a shortage of 3 million homes today, and we don't have 3 million homes with planning permission let alone under construction, then JFDI applies. Just frigging do it.
Get the homes built. Better to not be homeless.
Once the homes are built, of course better ideally to have commerce, schools etc - but in the mean time better to have a home than no home.
And of course since this is the UK, not Australia or Canada, even if there's no school [yet] within your area there will be schools not very far away. This isn't rural Alberta or Western Australia where your nearest town is 400 km away.
As I said, my kids go to a different school, in a different town, than the one where I live. There is a small primary and secondary school where I live, which kind of used to be a village but is now a new town [the overwhelming majority of houses in this town did not exist in 2010], but they are small and I like my kids school so we're not transferring them. My kids still have places in the school over the river and I drive them there. Oh and if I didn't drive, there are school buses that come down our road to collect kids to take them to where my kids go to school. I'm guessing we're far from unique in crossing the river to get to school, and there's an option via dedicated school buses for those who don't drive.
OK then. Your planning reform is to have residential 'zones' with planning permission granted for 3 million plus new houses. You now seem to be accepting that there is a heavy sacrifice (over and beyond what was identified in the example in linked to above) in terms of infrastructure provision, placemaking etc, but consider it is all necessary to deal with the over-riding housing need. You believe that it can and will all be worked out in some way afterwards.
I think this would be a disaster. It bakes in dependency on the car and the need for continuous expensive upgrades to roads and bridges for generations. I also think that the JFDI direction will not actually deliver much more housing. Because as I have pointed out before, the housebuilding industry deliver about 100-150 k houses a year and nothing more and all the signs are that they would continue to do this under any new policy.
There would be some SME/self building going on but the industry is small and it is not going to be at any significant scale. It won't seriously come on stream until capacity in the construction industry is massively increased. And on these projects, someone else still has to build and fund the roads, the streetlights, the drains etc.
Prices may fall because of oversupply but they would quickly hit a level where new housebuilding becomes uneconomic in many areas because of build cost inflation. So my best guess is that you would quickly end up with lots of empty plots and a recession.
If you look through the post war history of housebuilding it is very clear that the only time the government delivers 300,000 houses a year is when it builds half of them itself.
Sorry but you've got your own assumptions then have worked backwards from there.
Firstly there's no need for it all to be dependent on the car, in fact the opposite is possible too. If existing residential zones become denser and build up then that can lead to public transport becoming more efficient, not less. Not that I have any objection to the motor vehicle, but I think my proposal if implemented would see places like London seeing building up happening and I wouldn't expect those to be all homes relying upon cars.
Secondly all the evidence from around the planet is that without planning being an insurmountable obstacle is that SME/self-building should happen at a very significant scale. In almost every country with my proposed system, SME/self-builds happen at orders of magnitude more than here.
As far as funding the roads etc is concerned that needs to happen either way, planning or no planning. That's what the tax system is for. We pay our taxes, we need roads and transportation. Politicians need to do their job. If you want to put a tax on new houses that goes to a pot to pay towards new roads, then I have no philosophical objection to that, but we pay our taxes either way.
As far as prices are concerned, too much of the price of new homes currently is planning itself. If that ceases to be the case, then prices can fall without hurting development. If land becomes cheaper, but taxed more [two prongs to this] then land-banking would never happen and people are encouraged to get on with it rather than to dawdle.
Finally its very clear in the history of housebuilding around the planet, that when competition is allowed to flourish and demand is high then people can and do get on with it. The city of Tokyo alone [population 14 million] has consistently delivered more new homes than the entirety of England combined. As a former cheese loving Prime Minister might have said: That. Is. A. Disgrace.
Saying that our current system isn't working, so therefore reform is pointless, rather misses the point don't you think?
Ok. So you are now going to insist that the houses are built more densely to avoid the problem of 'suburban sprawl'. How is public transport going to work efficiently - Do the authorities put in the transit routes before the zoning or afterwards? At what point would the authorities consider something like walkways, cycle paths etc? At the point when the land is zoned, or afterwards? Regarding your comments about much of the cost of new housing being 'planning', this is true to a point, but what about other factors such as 'desirability of location'? Would you agree that the cost of land for housing (and reflected in sale prices) is also influenced by this? For instance, in that article I linked to above, the houses in the suburbs of Sydney were not cheap - the defective planning had not reduced the desirability of the location.
I would agree that the system isn't working that well and needs to be reformed, but that is an altogether different idea from 'getting rid of planning'.
FWIW your ideas are very similar to what the government (via policy exchange) actually proposed in January 2020.
Unfortunately this work basically went nowhere. The only legacy of it is a set of perplexing reforms to the use classes order, making it difficult for Council's to control changes of use.
No, I'm not going to "insist" that houses are built more densely. What part of it is it that you're struggling to understand, I don't think anyone should insist upon anything, myself included.
Let the owner of the land decide.
Where land is valuable in its own right, rather than because of planning, eg in cities then building up will probably happen not because you or I want it, but because that's the most effective use of land so people will choose to do it.
Transit routes, along with schooling and other public services should evolve over time, you might have an initial idea but it shouldn't ever be ossified. People change and adapt what they use. An area that is bought out by young people may end up becoming embraced by old people - sometimes the same ex-young people who never moved.
We need to evolve over time, not plan something based on the needs of decades ago.
Yes the 2020 reforms were a good idea, didn't go as far as I'd like but a big step in the right direction, its a shame they were dropped.
In the end I think you probably want a different system of planning, not the abolition of planning.
My criticism however is that you are presenting a superficially easy answer ("scrap planning") to a complicated question.
Zoning rather than our current Byzantine planning laws. If land is zoned residential, then let people build whatever they want on it subject to residential regulations, without input from local politicians or NIMBY neighbours.
That doesn't mean a skyscraper of apartments will be built in the middle of national parks though, since skyscrapers won't meet regulations and national parks won't be zoned residential.
Ok zoning, subject to regulations and design codes. Not a bad idea and works in many countries. I struggle to really see how it is that different to outline planning permission or permission in principle. All the same issues would come up that come up at the point when the land was zoned as would be the case in an outline planning application, IE the roads, congestion, drainage, flooding, ecological, social infrastructure, impact on landscape. The delays that people associate with Council bureaucracy are usually actually rooted in a deeper and more pathological problems with the decision making processes of the British state, the legacy of shoddy attempts at privatisation and the aversion to spend public money on the part of government. None of that gets swept away with a new planning system.
The only way you could immediately zone land for 3 million houses is to ignore the real planning consequences of doing so which would then become apparent extremely quickly.
Absurd Luddism - but this is perhaps the last electoral cycle someone might get away with such gibberish.
What new word did little Donald learn today?
He doesn't know what decimate means. He thinks it means cutting 50% or whatever other numbers he has in his mind.
Decimate is either one of the words in the English language that is most widely misused, or its usage has strayed so far from its original meaning that the latter is no longer relevant. I tend to go with the second statement.
Yes, lots of examples of that, although right now, under pressure, all eyes on me, I can't think of a single one.
Literally is literally no 1 on the misuse front.
The misuse of literally is out of control, especially among millenials. If you walk past a large group of people in their twenties or thirties you will almost certainly hear at least one of them say "literally" while you pass. It's not just misused though, it is also inserted into conversation when it is not technically wrong, but is redundant. It's become a verbal tic for a lot of people, and generally marks out its user as basic.
I think it is widely understood as an intensifier rather than literally having its literal meaning now. Fusty types like me still use it 'properly', and find amusement in people like Jamie Redknapp saying 'he's literally been on fire this season'; 'he's literally turned his opponent inside out' etc. but I have accepted that usage has changed and we have to move on.
I still pronounce 'harassment' to rhyme with 'embarrassment' too (without, fnarr, the hard 'ass') too.
The reason for the rear-guard action here (though I will defend the meaning of pretty much all words) is that when used as an intsensifier, it's use is not just different to but the exact opposite of it's literal meaning. And if 'literally' no longer means 'literally', which word should I use when I mean 'literally'?
“Awesome” (something that is so terrifying it produces awe) used to mean something was bad, while “awful” meant something was good (something awe-inspiring and worthy of respect). Likewise, “terrific” was something bad, as in something terrifying.
To “flirt” used to mean a give someone a sharp blow or to sneer at them. “Cute” used to mean quick-witted. “Nice” used to mean ignorant.
Words change their meaning, and every generation is irked by this.
Nice also used to mean 'neat/tidy'.
But the fact that words have changed in the past doesn't mean we should give up now. Can you think of an example of a word changing where you think the English speaking world was better off as a result?
Pretty much the English language, yes.
If it hadn't evolved, we'd still be speaking Latin.
No we wouldn't - we never spoke Latin!
To be clear, I don't mind us adding to our language. But I don't see how it benefits anyone when words change their meanings. We might be using words differently to how our ancestors used them. But that doesn't mean the process of them changing their meanings was positive.
Well, the world changes.
Shouldn't language also change?
Well yes. We need new words to describe new concepts. Wifi, weekend, railway. A new thing came along and a new word was needed. Fine and dandy. But the world hasn't changed in the respect that it has stopped needing a word for 'literally' but needs an extra one for 'figuratively'; or that it no longer needs to describe the concept of being disinterested but does need another synonym for indifferent. Those things have only happened because people have misunderstood what those words mean. This isn't someone like Shakespeare or the writers of the Simpsons cleverly innovating new words into existence. This is meanings of words changing through stupidity.
What about words that have gone missing? Some on here get very disgruntled, but never gruntled? If we get too far down that route, we may wish for our opponent to be disemboweled. But what about emboweled, which means the same thing?
Whilst politics in the UK might appear to be going sternforemost, if we look out to larboard you might see some fuzzled cockalorums lunting merrily away.
I know you can be overwhelmed, and I know you can be underwhelmed, but can you ever just be whelmed?
Surprised nobody has mentioned what the kids say when they are underwhelmed or thought something was a bit shit....its was mid....as in Gun n Roses at Glasto were mid.
On the subject of linguistic monstrosities, the one I can't stand is "yourself" when people mean "you". It really grates for reasons I can't really explain.
And "myself" in the same usage.
"How's yourself", meanwhile makes me want to kill people.
Perfectly valid Scots/N Eng - but on the lines of "your self" as in "your good self".
As in g'oan yer self there, big man. Yeah it isn't that usage that bugs me. On this topic, one excellent Scottish linguistic innovation is the use of the second person plural, yous or yous yins, which can sometimes remove ambiguity.
While we're at it, I've also been a bit puzzled by the disappearance of 'thrice'. It's a perfectly useful word, but no one would ever now think of using it in a serious context. Why did it die off and when?
I blame Lionel Ritchie.
I rather like 'thrice'. I'm not averse to using it, though I might demur from using it in a document I'm writing for work. But I hate the Americanism 'threepeat'.
That's not because it wouldn't be useful to have a word meaning 'do somthing three times'. It just feels linguistically wrong. It would only work if the word for repeat was 'twopeat'.
Don't hear fortnight so much these days either
It was only a few years ago I found out fortnight was in any way endangered, and that Americans find our use of it quaint. Did you know that as well as fortnight (a contraction of 'fourteen night', of course) there was once a term 'sennight' as a perfectly cromulent synonym for 'week'?
That's very embiggening to know
Embiggen is a great word. I use it probably at least once a week. "Can you just embiggen the screen a bit?" How did we go for so long without a word for 'make it bigger'?
UK's National Cancer Research Institute is to close down after more than 20 years over concerns about its funding. I am told this infrastructure is vital to cancer clinical trials across UK.
Not because it doesn't have important work to do but because no-one in Government wants to pay for it.
The Tories won’t do themselves any favours overruling independent pay bodies on public sector pay.
We are just likely to see more and more strikes and disruption and not just from the likes of the RMT who are politically motivated.
They're in a complete bind. They'll trot out the wage-price spiral excuse to justify bearing down on public sector pay, but the plain fact is that they're struggling to find politically acceptable cuts to fund extra spending in this area, borrowing is enormous and becoming ever more expensive, and so they're left with either digging their heels in and offering workers peanuts, or raising taxes on their core supporters to pay for more generous rises. There's no violin small enough.
The reality we are reaching the end game for the Blairite/Thatcher-lite model
It used to be chunky public spending and low taxes with the difference funded by clever balance sheet tricks (PFI/securitisation) or straight up borrowing. Wages were kept down by relaxed views on immigration
Cost of borrowing is going up and the markets are twitchy after all that QE
Asset price bubbles have driven a reasonable standard of living beyond the reach of many
Effectively unlimited immigration has resulted in underinvestment in business (low wages partly due to immigration and partly due to tax credits) drove down returns (cost saving) on investment and increased the strain on public services (governments didn’t invest in capacity).
The electorate has been trained to believe the government will always bail them out
We need a grown up conversation. Either taxes have to go up massively or public services need to be completely rethought.
But neither politicians or the electorate are ready to have that conversation.
While much of this is true, it is also the case that other countries have had similar situations to us, and have managed to avoid excessively expensive housing or stagnant business investment.
They therefore cannot be the whole story.
It's almost as if our planning system might be different to theirs.
The largest cost in household budgets is Housing. Not food, not gas, not electricity or anything else it is housing.
A very large proportion of the cost of housing is the cost of land.
And the cost of land with planning permission is inflated over land without.
Resolve one and others follow.
Build new towns (or refurbish old ones) in the frozen north and left-behind regions. It solves the housing problem, levelling up and rebalancing the economy away from an overheated London in one fell swoop.
Not really
There are areas in the run down north with plenty of empty housing, just look at the photo at the top of this article....
Yes, hence the new town model, even if based on refurbishment, to include attracting new jobs. Rather than dumping grounds for borderline mentally ill drug addicts and thieves.
Why on earth would any company set up in a newly created new town that no doubt has awful connections to anywhere with any sort of existing economy ?
Government subsidies, tax concessions, northern powerhouse rail? Britain has built new towns before; there's nothing new.
NPR won't land until 2045 onwards and will connect Warrington, Manchester and Marsden, no new stops planned, just linking existing populations.
So you want to create new towns, with no links to existing economies and hope that lower taxes will attract businesses there ?
Our London based media's obsession over trains is part of the problem. Over 90% of the UK travels via Road, not Rail, especially in the North.
If you want new towns then new motorway junctions, or better yet new motorways with new junctions is the way to do it quickly. Rail can catch up afterwards.
Not just in the North, in the South away from London it's very possible too. Eg build a new motorway linking Oxford to Cambridge, extended to Bristol and Norwich perhaps, and with a junction approximately every 5 miles. New towns could spring up along that route, and not in or linked to London.
Sorry but new roads don’t solve problems - and it’s probably worth watching c4 to,or row to see Ben Elton comparing rail around London and the rest of the UK.
That sort of timid, self defeating attitude is part of the problem. Of course new roads do solve problems.
I live in a fast growing new town (they do still exist, just not enough of them). We have thousands of homes being built, all of which are getting snapped up. New shops, businesses, industry opening too.
And what is the key new transport infrastructure underpinning this? One new motorway junction, with one new A road.
There's talk we might get a train station in a few years time, I'm not holding my breath, but the new motorway junction? People who get about by road are happy with that. And outside London it's roads, not rail, that truly matters. Of course London is different but WE ARE NOT LONDON.
The problem here is that what you are now making is an argument for planning, which you claim to reject. The reason why everything is working in your development is more likely than not because decades of work went in to the new trunk roads and motorway junctions, negotiated by the Council with Highways England and the government, as well as the co-siting of commercial development and community infrastructure, and finding ways to fund all this, including through Section 106 contributions by developers. That is what planning is and the value that it adds. If you get rid of planning then none of that happens, houses get built but you can't get anywhere, there are crap roads, no shops, infrastructure etc.
You could say ok, why not just zone the land through the plan making process and then have a design code rather than having to go through the pain and delay of needing planning permission. You could well do that and some countries do. The main problem is it makes it harder to go through the first stage of the process (the plan making stage) because you need to be absolutely sure that everything is solved before you can confidently rely on a design code for the purposes of delivery.
A design code is just a delivery mechanism not an alternative to having a planning system. Looking at your example of Japan, my guess is just that they are better at planning because the state is more assertive and organised at building infrastructure. I'd guess the falling prices are more to do with historic deflation than falling demand. But I've never studied the Japanese system in detail so don't feel able to authoritively comment on it.
In summary the problem is not that a planning system exists in the first place, but because the one we have isn't working very well.
Sorry that's not remotely an argument for planning, you could not be more wrong. There isn't time for decades of work as our population levels weren't the same decades ago, and if decades of work are going into it then no wonder everything is so broken as the facts decades ago are not the facts today.
If everything is planned then I'm curious where the new railway station, new schools, new GPs and everything else are. None of them exist. I still am registered at my old GP in my old town, I've not transferred my kids schooling either, and drive across the river to a different town for those.
Organic development works better. If houses are built, but no schools etc then people will vote for what they need. Unsurprisingly at the local elections the local Lib Dem (who got elected) was not campaigning on NIMBYism, but supporting new GPs to built and new schools to be built. Because that's what the new residents need and its not all there yet. Supermarkets have opened etc because businesses like Aldi and ASDA will open branches where their customers are. Thousands of people move into an area, they'll be in like a shot to get a shot at those customers.
The state is bloody useless at planning. Design transportation, sure, then let it organically grow in what's zoned there.
Ok, so you don't think there should be planning, with the exception of road building. There should be no state provision for day to day needs etc - shops, healthcare etc, because this will follow where people choose to build houses because politicians will be elected to make it happen. There would be no public realm, or town centres, just housing and roads, and supermarkets.
This all sounds like a total disaster to me.
No. I think there should be healthcare, and schools etc but it should evolve depending upon what the voters need.
Not spend decades planning what was needed decades ago, but is totally obsolete decades later as the facts have changed so much all your plans were based on faulty assumptions.
" The public primary was the size of a country school and now has 19 demountables. The closest shops were 20 minutes away; if she forgot milk, it was a 40-minute round trip, often in traffic. Trains came hourly, even at the peak. Narrow roads were choked. The hospital repeatedly promised for nearby Rouse Hill didn’t exist, and still doesn’t. Meanwhile, the population grows exponentially."... “They knew we were coming. Where did they think we were going to shop? Where did they think our children would go to school? It comes down to better planning. Stop rushing to get people into these houses.”...
But people moving into those areas say it takes more than a bunch of rapidly constructed houses to create a community. “So here’s what’s missing,” said Angela Van Dyke of the Riverstone Neighbourhood Centre and Community Aid Service. “Everything. Public education. Public transport. Good urban design. Livability.”... Michelle Rowland, the Labor federal member for the north-west seat of Greenway (and also the communications minister), said the problem was due to a long-term failure of different levels of government to coordinate. “Developers, basically, in a lot of aspects, they do have free rein,” she said. “The incentive of the developer is to maximise land use to maximise profit. Which is why you have a lot of residents complaining [about] what normally they’d call overdevelopment, but a lot of it is to do with a lack of trees, a lack of environmental controls, houses are close together, streets are narrow.”
Presumably he'd say that given the people exist, that is better to have houses and no schools, than to have neither houses nor schools.
There is something in that argument , but I don't think that is what he is saying. I think he sees the idea of town planning as being socially destructive and a massive cost with no benefits. The usual libertarian thing. But the contradiction is, that when you go and look at the libertarian societies they hold up as examples they tend to actually be quite well planned, ie Singapore and the USA, there is always an active state authority doing the zoning, brokering the economic development etc. I am pretty sure Japan will come in to this category as well.
It kind of is what I'm saying actually, yes.
As far as zoning etc is concerned, I'm perfectly fine with that. Pick your agricultural, natural and residential zones etc and the let the Council get out of the way of development within residential zones, even if natural/agricultural zones can't be developed. Which incidentally can work with 'green belt' desires, since you don't zone the green belt residential then.
Now of course personally I'd prefer the residential zones to be bigger than they are now, but that's a semi-separate debate.
Beyond that though, I am saying since we have a shortage of 3 million homes today, and we don't have 3 million homes with planning permission let alone under construction, then JFDI applies. Just frigging do it.
Get the homes built. Better to not be homeless.
Once the homes are built, of course better ideally to have commerce, schools etc - but in the mean time better to have a home than no home.
And of course since this is the UK, not Australia or Canada, even if there's no school [yet] within your area there will be schools not very far away. This isn't rural Alberta or Western Australia where your nearest town is 400 km away.
As I said, my kids go to a different school, in a different town, than the one where I live. There is a small primary and secondary school where I live, which kind of used to be a village but is now a new town [the overwhelming majority of houses in this town did not exist in 2010], but they are small and I like my kids school so we're not transferring them. My kids still have places in the school over the river and I drive them there. Oh and if I didn't drive, there are school buses that come down our road to collect kids to take them to where my kids go to school. I'm guessing we're far from unique in crossing the river to get to school, and there's an option via dedicated school buses for those who don't drive.
OK then. Your planning reform is to have residential 'zones' with planning permission granted for 3 million plus new houses. You now seem to be accepting that there is a heavy sacrifice (over and beyond what was identified in the example in linked to above) in terms of infrastructure provision, placemaking etc, but consider it is all necessary to deal with the over-riding housing need. You believe that it can and will all be worked out in some way afterwards.
I think this would be a disaster. It bakes in dependency on the car and the need for continuous expensive upgrades to roads and bridges for generations. I also think that the JFDI direction will not actually deliver much more housing. Because as I have pointed out before, the housebuilding industry deliver about 100-150 k houses a year and nothing more and all the signs are that they would continue to do this under any new policy.
There would be some SME/self building going on but the industry is small and it is not going to be at any significant scale. It won't seriously come on stream until capacity in the construction industry is massively increased. And on these projects, someone else still has to build and fund the roads, the streetlights, the drains etc.
Prices may fall because of oversupply but they would quickly hit a level where new housebuilding becomes uneconomic in many areas because of build cost inflation. So my best guess is that you would quickly end up with lots of empty plots and a recession.
If you look through the post war history of housebuilding it is very clear that the only time the government delivers 300,000 houses a year is when it builds half of them itself.
Sorry but you've got your own assumptions then have worked backwards from there.
Firstly there's no need for it all to be dependent on the car, in fact the opposite is possible too. If existing residential zones become denser and build up then that can lead to public transport becoming more efficient, not less. Not that I have any objection to the motor vehicle, but I think my proposal if implemented would see places like London seeing building up happening and I wouldn't expect those to be all homes relying upon cars.
Secondly all the evidence from around the planet is that without planning being an insurmountable obstacle is that SME/self-building should happen at a very significant scale. In almost every country with my proposed system, SME/self-builds happen at orders of magnitude more than here.
As far as funding the roads etc is concerned that needs to happen either way, planning or no planning. That's what the tax system is for. We pay our taxes, we need roads and transportation. Politicians need to do their job. If you want to put a tax on new houses that goes to a pot to pay towards new roads, then I have no philosophical objection to that, but we pay our taxes either way.
As far as prices are concerned, too much of the price of new homes currently is planning itself. If that ceases to be the case, then prices can fall without hurting development. If land becomes cheaper, but taxed more [two prongs to this] then land-banking would never happen and people are encouraged to get on with it rather than to dawdle.
Finally its very clear in the history of housebuilding around the planet, that when competition is allowed to flourish and demand is high then people can and do get on with it. The city of Tokyo alone [population 14 million] has consistently delivered more new homes than the entirety of England combined. As a former cheese loving Prime Minister might have said: That. Is. A. Disgrace.
Saying that our current system isn't working, so therefore reform is pointless, rather misses the point don't you think?
Ok. So you are now going to insist that the houses are built more densely to avoid the problem of 'suburban sprawl'. How is public transport going to work efficiently - Do the authorities put in the transit routes before the zoning or afterwards? At what point would the authorities consider something like walkways, cycle paths etc? At the point when the land is zoned, or afterwards? Regarding your comments about much of the cost of new housing being 'planning', this is true to a point, but what about other factors such as 'desirability of location'? Would you agree that the cost of land for housing (and reflected in sale prices) is also influenced by this? For instance, in that article I linked to above, the houses in the suburbs of Sydney were not cheap - the defective planning had not reduced the desirability of the location.
I would agree that the system isn't working that well and needs to be reformed, but that is an altogether different idea from 'getting rid of planning'.
FWIW your ideas are very similar to what the government (via policy exchange) actually proposed in January 2020.
Unfortunately this work basically went nowhere. The only legacy of it is a set of perplexing reforms to the use classes order, making it difficult for Council's to control changes of use.
No, I'm not going to "insist" that houses are built more densely. What part of it is it that you're struggling to understand, I don't think anyone should insist upon anything, myself included.
Let the owner of the land decide.
Where land is valuable in its own right, rather than because of planning, eg in cities then building up will probably happen not because you or I want it, but because that's the most effective use of land so people will choose to do it.
Transit routes, along with schooling and other public services should evolve over time, you might have an initial idea but it shouldn't ever be ossified. People change and adapt what they use. An area that is bought out by young people may end up becoming embraced by old people - sometimes the same ex-young people who never moved.
We need to evolve over time, not plan something based on the needs of decades ago.
Yes the 2020 reforms were a good idea, didn't go as far as I'd like but a big step in the right direction, its a shame they were dropped.
In the end I think you probably want a different system of planning, not the abolition of planning.
My criticism however is that you are presenting a superficially easy answer ("scrap planning") to a complicated question.
Zoning rather than our current Byzantine planning laws. If land is zoned residential, then let people build whatever they want on it subject to residential regulations, without input from local politicians or NIMBY neighbours.
That doesn't mean a skyscraper of apartments will be built in the middle of national parks though, since skyscrapers won't meet regulations and national parks won't be zoned residential.
Apparently using Byzantine is in such contexts now a problematic word in academia, as in solving the Byzantine Generals problem. Amusingly it was only called the Byzantine Generals problem as not to cause any offense.
@JohnRentoul Cooper found 75% said it was “time for a change” in 2009, but only 37% said time for a change to the Tories Now, 79% say it is “time for a change”; and 37% say time for a change to Labour
It matters not much. There are only two parties who can lead a government, so if it's time for a change, there is no alternative to Labour.
Corbyn got more voters than Blair 2005 iirc. GE 2024 won't be about massive support for Labour, it'll be the wholesale collapse of the Conservative vote a la 97 and 01.
At the moment, this looks like the most likely first draft of any post election analysis.
I’d say, maybe 50% chance.
Still lots of moving cogs, though. Things may look very different in 6/12 months. I haven’t looked at the betting markets for a while, but I sniff a little value in Sunak (to remain PM), relative to the apparent consensus.
While we're at it, I've also been a bit puzzled by the disappearance of 'thrice'. It's a perfectly useful word, but no one would ever now think of using it in a serious context. Why did it die off and when?
I blame Lionel Ritchie.
I rather like 'thrice'. I'm not averse to using it, though I might demur from using it in a document I'm writing for work. But I hate the Americanism 'threepeat'.
That's not because it wouldn't be useful to have a word meaning 'do somthing three times'. It just feels linguistically wrong. It would only work if the word for repeat was 'twopeat'.
Don't hear fortnight so much these days either
It was only a few years ago I found out fortnight was in any way endangered, and that Americans find our use of it quaint. Did you know that as well as fortnight (a contraction of 'fourteen night', of course) there was once a term 'sennight' as a perfectly cromulent synonym for 'week'?
That's very embiggening to know
Embiggen is a great word. I use it probably at least once a week. "Can you just embiggen the screen a bit?" How did we go for so long without a word for 'make it bigger'?
@DeltapollUK 🚨🚨New Voting Intention🚨🚨 Labour lead is twenty-three percentage points in the latest results from Deltapoll. Con 24% (-3) Lab 47% (+1) Lib Dem 12% (+2) Other 16% (-) Fieldwork: 23rd - 26th June 2023 Sample: 1,089 GB adults (Changes from 16th - 19th June 2023)
On the subject of linguistic monstrosities, the one I can't stand is "yourself" when people mean "you". It really grates for reasons I can't really explain.
While I'm happy for language to evolve, many American idioms are just thick.
The one that makes my skin crawl is "I could care less" to mean "I couldn't care less".
Comments
https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=thrice,twice&year_start=1800&year_end=2019&case_insensitive=on&corpus=en-2019&smoothing=3#
But again: just because we are normally largely unsuccessful at a course of action doesn't mean we shouldn't even bother.
I shall endeavour to use one of these in the next week. I will report back.
...
"How's yourself", meanwhile makes me want to kill people.
https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/ufos-or-not-something-is-up/
Her: We were playing a game in which she was the protagonist and I was the antagonist...
Me (admiringly): You're very articulate. I don't think I was using words like 'antagonist' when I was 13
Her (smiling theatrically-inanely): I can WORD!
https://twitter.com/AnnQuann/status/1673312156010569728
https://twitter.com/dusunbildergisi/status/1673046425515507715
Shouldn't language also change?
* Bods is a word whose meaning has evolved. Sorry.
The linked article might equally be titled "Why do we never talk about UFOs ?"
https://twitter.com/RUSI_org
https://twitter.com/RUSI_org/status/1673294354973073409
My one annoyance is that I can't connect it directly to a cloudflare front end and so need to add a small internet facing proxy server in the middle...
https://twitter.com/RUSI_org/status/1673307749667545088
https://twitter.com/RUSI_org/status/1673322574078521355
Whilst politics in the UK might appear to be going sternforemost, if we look out to larboard you might see some fuzzled cockalorums lunting merrily away.
I use Tailscale to access my home Internet from afar. Basically, my phone and laptop are always connected to our home automation stuff, and there's no need to mess with port forwarding or any of that stuff.
Why do you think millennials have those characteristics? And why do you think those characteristics are right wing? I see a lot of moral certainty from the left. And extreme individualism doesn't strike me as right wing but is more in the liberal/libertarian direction. The far left and far right both de-emphasise the individual in favour of group goals.
Full disclosure, I'm late Gen-X, liberal, and entirely joking when I criticise millennials.
'He spoke with a certain what-is-it in his voice, and I could see that, if not actually disgruntled, he was far from being gruntled.'
That doesn't mean a skyscraper of apartments will be built in the middle of national parks though, since skyscrapers won't meet regulations and national parks won't be zoned residential.
https://twitter.com/JohnRentoul/status/1673229977595129857
@JohnRentoul
Cooper found 75% said it was “time for a change” in 2009, but only 37% said time for a change to the Tories
Now, 79% say it is “time for a change”; and 37% say time for a change to Labour
After the appropriate gender classification.
The one that makes my skin crawl is "I could care less" to mean "I couldn't care less".
It's almost as if the journalist has worked out what the readers want, and how to hook them in. I understand this is quite a desirable gift in today's ruthless journalstic world. But then I am but a mere knapper, knee high to a stonemason
But I can never remember whether "lucked out" is good or bad. (Good.)
Or perhaps you just studied Physics or Economics?
EDIT: Goddamn it, ninjaed by Selebian
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-65972168
So it is interesting. Somehow I'm rather sceptical about the prospects of a Daveygasm.
I am, also, as I hope comes across in my posts here, incredibly right wing. Up Braverman! Down with this sort of thing!
ETA: 'labeit' being millenial speak for 'very fortunately'
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_language_argument#
Of course Humpty Dumpty's words are self referentially incoherent in that it is impossible to know what he means by them
Like most sporting jargon - an old English specialty - disdained by language purists and/or older speakers . . . at least until THEY start using it. Then it's AOK!
On Topic - Boris Johnson is a {banned word} wrapped in a cad inside a bounder.
The only way you could immediately zone land for 3 million houses is to ignore the real planning consequences of doing so which would then become apparent extremely quickly.
We need new words to describe new concepts. Wifi, weekend, railway. A new thing came along and a new word was needed. Fine and dandy.
But the world hasn't changed in the respect that it has stopped needing a word for 'literally' but needs an extra one for 'figuratively'; or that it no longer needs to describe the concept of being disinterested but does need another synonym for indifferent. Those things have only happened because people have misunderstood what those words mean.
This isn't someone like Shakespeare or the writers of the Simpsons cleverly innovating new words into existence. This is meanings of words changing through stupidity.
I’d say, maybe 50% chance.
Still lots of moving cogs, though. Things may look very different in 6/12 months. I haven’t looked at the betting markets for a while, but I sniff a little value in Sunak (to remain PM), relative to the apparent consensus.
Still fairly long odds, though, imo.
🚨🚨New Voting Intention🚨🚨
Labour lead is twenty-three percentage points in the latest results from Deltapoll.
Con 24% (-3)
Lab 47% (+1)
Lib Dem 12% (+2)
Other 16% (-)
Fieldwork: 23rd - 26th June 2023
Sample: 1,089 GB adults
(Changes from 16th - 19th June 2023)