Rayner's vastly overrated. The 'scum' comments were wretched.
Agree about scum comments; that was two years ago and she has changed a lot and is generally OK on the media; not the smallest change is by starring in Basic Instinct which means that (while few will admit it) millions of people, mostly men, look at her differently and in a way which loses few votes.
I don’t find her at all fanciable. Too tall and masculine. Give me the submissive, coquettish, manic pixie dream girl that was the young Yvette Cooper
Why not a simple rule that developers cannot sell any houses they have built until they have built the roads, GP surgeries etc required for the development?
Who determines what is "required"? For example, is it okay to come to an arrangement with the existing GP surgery to enable them to expand, or do you need another on the side of town where the development is? Do roads in the area have sufficient capacity or does a major road need a dual carriageway or something?
And what if someone is building an estate of 100 homes? That won't, in itself, require a new primary school. But, if ten people are each building 100, it may do.
Also, what of viability? A developer will argue pretty vigorously that you can have your school if they can stick two more storeys on their buildings, and that if you demand a new road rather than a bit of resurfacing, the thing won't go ahead.
I think others have mentioned that the simpler approach, really, is a fairly straight levy for capital projects in the area. Otherwise you're into a world of endless haggling.
Are we able to avoid the somewhat misogynist evaluation of women in politics based on their looks? I understand this forum is lots of dirty old men, and I'm more than happy to leave you to your private pervy reveries as much as you like. But it is quite unbecoming to post pictures of politicians when they were younger, and describe current politicians in the way you find them attractive or not...
As an example, when they built my 'village' (actually a town now), there was no public transport aside from a bus. The developers built a short section of dual carriageway onto the A428, which HA later grudgigly extended to meet the existing dual carriageway near Cambridge.
For public transport, we still rely on busses, and are at the whim of Stagecoach (who have withdrawn many of the services, and cut the routes through the village), and Whippet, who are good but small. We have no railway, no tram,; not even a good cycle route to Cambridge.
Any new town should have excellent transport links. Nearby, the new Northstowe should have the misguided bus link into Cambridge (along an old railway line, natch). Waterbeach New Town is going to be served by moving the existing station a short distance north. All these are paid for by the council, not developers.
We cannot - and must not - so new towns on the cheap.
Absolutely any new towns should have excellent transport links, I said there should be new motorways.
But that should not be the "developers" responsibility.
If you want community infrastructure, then it is the responsibility of the entire community, the entire country, to pay for that - not just pile the burden on those who get a new house all alone while those who live in secure housing that was built years ago abscond from any responsibilities.
That's sorta my point. It should be paid for by the councils involved, and it should be there when it is needed.
As an example of where S106 can go wrong, see this story (yes, DM...). The first houses in Nortstowe (a development northwest of Cambridge) have been occupied for six years now, and it has no shops, pubs, cafes, public toilets, or even a GP practice.
I know Northstowe fairly well (I've run around all of it as of a few months ago, but the ****ards keep on opening new roads...), and although I'm not a fan of the architecture, the layout seems fairly well designed. But it's terrible that a place that is housing thousands does not have the basic amenities.
It's fine for the council to say: a 'community centre building will be provided before the 900th home was occupied, or a sports pavilion before the 500th - when there are 1,200 homes occupied and they have not been built.
The council should be able to make the developer stop all building works on houses - and sales of completed houses - until it meets its obligations.
S106 simply doesn't work very well, even on large developments.
The housing developer should have nothing to do with "obligations" on other things. The housing developer should be dealing with housing and housing alone.
It should be no more the housing developers responsibility to meet the Councils obligations than it is the Schools obligation to meet the GPs obligations.
Suggesting stopping housing until other things is resolved is like suggesting shutting schools until other things are resolved.
S106 should not exist.
I mean, it’s a view. Just an odd one. The theory of s106 is great. Make the entity already building lots of stuff, and due to make lots of cash from it, build in the infrastructure as it goes, in lieu of tax.
The issue is making the buggers actually do it, and the problem is too much power in the hands of local politicians, who are partial to a brown envelope, or even just a nice lunch and the feel of being important.
But there is no such thing as a free lunch. One of the main reasons that new housing is so expensive (and thus relatively scarce) in this country is that the developer is burdened with a long and expensive planning process and then ransomed by s106. Without this we would have more and cheaper houses.
Tories hate Angela Rayner so much because she’s proof that you can climb your way to the top through hard work instead of relying on privilege.
She terrifies them.
Can we all stop encouraging hard work? It’s been in political language for far too long. I have got where I am by being lazy but competent. That’s the key to a happy life.
All this “hard working families” stuff needs to stop. What about “lazy gits who build a niche and make money from it”. We made the empire.
Yes. I fully agree, though it is dangerous to say so in most contexts. The much missed David Graeber in 'Bullshit Jobs' makes a bullseye point about whole jobs and careers that are a fatuous waste of time. But in a sense even more important is the amount of energy, even within real jobs, that goes into having BS stuff (Graeber's 5 categories still apply) imposed on you to waste your time and theirs, and also (terrifying this) the number of people who impose it on themselves.
Yup. If you deliver the important things no one cares (or should care) if you quite like a lie in and a pint, and have a preferred working model of starting late and finishing early.
Rayner's vastly overrated. The 'scum' comments were wretched.
She hasn't actually done anything yet to be rated on.
Going to be fun to watch those who reckon governing is easy get confronted by the reality: it's mostly about 51:49 decisions. And the 49 who lose out know how to use social media.
One one level, they will be lucky. They won't face the combination of implementing Brexit, Covid, Ukraine and the consequent cost of living crisis all in one Parliament.
On another, they'll be unlucky: trying to make 51:49 decisions as part of a rainbow coalition.
A couple of years of that, then you can rate Rayner.
Rayner's vastly overrated. The 'scum' comments were wretched.
Agree about scum comments; that was two years ago and she has changed a lot and is generally OK on the media; not the smallest change is by starring in Basic Instinct which means that (while few will admit it) millions of people, mostly men, look at her differently and in a way which loses few votes.
I don’t find her at all fanciable. Too tall and masculine. Give me the submissive, coquettish, manic pixie dream girl that was the young Yvette Cooper
As an example, when they built my 'village' (actually a town now), there was no public transport aside from a bus. The developers built a short section of dual carriageway onto the A428, which HA later grudgigly extended to meet the existing dual carriageway near Cambridge.
For public transport, we still rely on busses, and are at the whim of Stagecoach (who have withdrawn many of the services, and cut the routes through the village), and Whippet, who are good but small. We have no railway, no tram,; not even a good cycle route to Cambridge.
Any new town should have excellent transport links. Nearby, the new Northstowe should have the misguided bus link into Cambridge (along an old railway line, natch). Waterbeach New Town is going to be served by moving the existing station a short distance north. All these are paid for by the council, not developers.
We cannot - and must not - so new towns on the cheap.
Absolutely any new towns should have excellent transport links, I said there should be new motorways.
But that should not be the "developers" responsibility.
If you want community infrastructure, then it is the responsibility of the entire community, the entire country, to pay for that - not just pile the burden on those who get a new house all alone while those who live in secure housing that was built years ago abscond from any responsibilities.
That's sorta my point. It should be paid for by the councils involved, and it should be there when it is needed.
As an example of where S106 can go wrong, see this story (yes, DM...). The first houses in Nortstowe (a development northwest of Cambridge) have been occupied for six years now, and it has no shops, pubs, cafes, public toilets, or even a GP practice.
I know Northstowe fairly well (I've run around all of it as of a few months ago, but the ****ards keep on opening new roads...), and although I'm not a fan of the architecture, the layout seems fairly well designed. But it's terrible that a place that is housing thousands does not have the basic amenities.
It's fine for the council to say: a 'community centre building will be provided before the 900th home was occupied, or a sports pavilion before the 500th - when there are 1,200 homes occupied and they have not been built.
The council should be able to make the developer stop all building works on houses - and sales of completed houses - until it meets its obligations.
S106 simply doesn't work very well, even on large developments.
The housing developer should have nothing to do with "obligations" on other things. The housing developer should be dealing with housing and housing alone.
It should be no more the housing developers responsibility to meet the Councils obligations than it is the Schools obligation to meet the GPs obligations.
Suggesting stopping housing until other things is resolved is like suggesting shutting schools until other things are resolved.
S106 should not exist.
I mean, it’s a view. Just an odd one. The theory of s106 is great. Make the entity already building lots of stuff, and due to make lots of cash from it, build in the infrastructure as it goes, in lieu of tax.
The issue is making the buggers actually do it, and the problem is too much power in the hands of local politicians, who are partial to a brown envelope, or even just a nice lunch and the feel of being important.
But there is no such thing as a free lunch. One of the main reasons that new housing is so expensive (and thus relatively scarce) in this country is that the developer is burdened with a long and expensive planning process and then ransomed by s106. Without this we would have more and cheaper houses.
Agree about the planning process; but in most cases the S106 work is required. If the developer does not pay for that, someone else does. In fact, we need more public infrastructure, not less.
Someone has to pay. And it makes sense for some of the burden to go on the new homeowner.
Not much clarity on the state of the border crossing from Gaza to Egypt.
Sisi needs to pull his finger out and show leadership here, otherwise he’s revealing what everyone else suspects I.E. most of the Arab world for all its talk doesn’t give a flying f*** about actual Palestinian people and Israel just gives them a bogeyman they can blame everything on.
Maybe MBS can house them in one of his mad linear cities?
Sisi doesn't give a sh1t. As with most of the Arab world, he sees the Palestinians as a problem.
I thought that Hamas had links with the Muslim Brotherhood? Sisi would not support Hamas as a result?
Sisi cracked down on the Brotherhood (in fact he led the coup against them).
See, I disagree about local politicians. We have the most centralised government and economic planning of any developed nation. And it has increasingly led to London getting investment and everywhere else basically getting shafted. We need national government to do the long term planning and specifications, alongside local government to manage the delivery and the nuances. Councils should be funded via national taxation - the wealth of people who live in London should be leverage to help grow the infrastructure of those who live in Stoke.
Not a bad theory until you meet local councillors. Nationalise it and give everyone the same.
I've met lots of local councillors and lots of MPs, and they seem to me drawn from much the same pool and cover much the same spectrum from clever to stupid, idealistic to cynical, and hard-working to lazy. On the whole, I think they're underestimated - the median councillor is motivated by concern for their local area and works hard for little reward, either financial or in terms of public esteem. People are ambivalent about MPs - scathing about them as a class, but often quite impressed by their local MP. They aren't ambivalent about councillors - they don't think much of them, like you. I think it's a mistaken generalisation.
Are we able to avoid the somewhat misogynist evaluation of women in politics based on their looks? I understand this forum is lots of dirty old men, and I'm more than happy to leave you to your private pervy reveries as much as you like. But it is quite unbecoming to post pictures of politicians when they were younger, and describe current politicians in the way you find them attractive or not...
There is plenty of comment of male politicians and their physical characteristics, Sunak’s height, SKS chunky neck spilling out of his collar, fabricant’s wig, JRM resembling a hatstand, Gove looking like Pob, backbench Tories not just acting like but looking like gammon etc etc.
I can’t imagine anyone will criticise you if you make a comment that x male MP is good looking or a bit rough. The fact is that image does play a part in how people perceive other people as does character and charm so all relevant for discussion. Is politician X telegenic or “looks a bit weird” is common as a discussion in most countries and forums.
As an example, when they built my 'village' (actually a town now), there was no public transport aside from a bus. The developers built a short section of dual carriageway onto the A428, which HA later grudgigly extended to meet the existing dual carriageway near Cambridge.
For public transport, we still rely on busses, and are at the whim of Stagecoach (who have withdrawn many of the services, and cut the routes through the village), and Whippet, who are good but small. We have no railway, no tram,; not even a good cycle route to Cambridge.
Any new town should have excellent transport links. Nearby, the new Northstowe should have the misguided bus link into Cambridge (along an old railway line, natch). Waterbeach New Town is going to be served by moving the existing station a short distance north. All these are paid for by the council, not developers.
We cannot - and must not - so new towns on the cheap.
Absolutely any new towns should have excellent transport links, I said there should be new motorways.
But that should not be the "developers" responsibility.
If you want community infrastructure, then it is the responsibility of the entire community, the entire country, to pay for that - not just pile the burden on those who get a new house all alone while those who live in secure housing that was built years ago abscond from any responsibilities.
That's sorta my point. It should be paid for by the councils involved, and it should be there when it is needed.
As an example of where S106 can go wrong, see this story (yes, DM...). The first houses in Nortstowe (a development northwest of Cambridge) have been occupied for six years now, and it has no shops, pubs, cafes, public toilets, or even a GP practice.
I know Northstowe fairly well (I've run around all of it as of a few months ago, but the ****ards keep on opening new roads...), and although I'm not a fan of the architecture, the layout seems fairly well designed. But it's terrible that a place that is housing thousands does not have the basic amenities.
It's fine for the council to say: a 'community centre building will be provided before the 900th home was occupied, or a sports pavilion before the 500th - when there are 1,200 homes occupied and they have not been built.
The council should be able to make the developer stop all building works on houses - and sales of completed houses - until it meets its obligations.
S106 simply doesn't work very well, even on large developments.
The housing developer should have nothing to do with "obligations" on other things. The housing developer should be dealing with housing and housing alone.
It should be no more the housing developers responsibility to meet the Councils obligations than it is the Schools obligation to meet the GPs obligations.
Suggesting stopping housing until other things is resolved is like suggesting shutting schools until other things are resolved.
S106 should not exist.
I mean, it’s a view. Just an odd one. The theory of s106 is great. Make the entity already building lots of stuff, and due to make lots of cash from it, build in the infrastructure as it goes, in lieu of tax.
The issue is making the buggers actually do it, and the problem is too much power in the hands of local politicians, who are partial to a brown envelope, or even just a nice lunch and the feel of being important.
But there is no such thing as a free lunch. One of the main reasons that new housing is so expensive (and thus relatively scarce) in this country is that the developer is burdened with a long and expensive planning process and then ransomed by s106. Without this we would have more and cheaper houses.
Clearly you have to find the sweet spot that the market will bear. I mean, on the other side of it, presumably you accept we can’t be a free for all? I could live with the predictable levy, as proposed by others, if I could be convinced it would be spend well.
Rayner's vastly overrated. The 'scum' comments were wretched.
Agree about scum comments; that was two years ago and she has changed a lot and is generally OK on the media; not the smallest change is by starring in Basic Instinct which means that (while few will admit it) millions of people, mostly men, look at her differently and in a way which loses few votes.
I don’t find her at all fanciable. Too tall and masculine. Give me the submissive, coquettish, manic pixie dream girl that was the young Yvette Cooper
There was a brownfield site near me. 20 years ago it was a parcel delivery warehouse on the edge of the industrial estate. When that closed the site was derelict for a decade. Now it has I think 60 low cost houses on it.
The strange bit is since the houses were completed earlier this year, the site has remained fenced off. No residents have moved in.
Expecting it to be used to house Calais boat-folk.
The sign they are erecting is the giveaway. "Welcome to Rwanda".....
The obvious fix is to abolish S106, and replace it with a "New Homes Levy" set at say 2% of revenue generated by the sales of the new homes. It goes to the local council, who have to ring fence it to spend on infrastructure.
If they wish, they can contract the same developer to spend it to say build a GP surgery on a new estate - but crucially, this is all done on a commercial basis. So the developer must pay up the levy as houses on the estate are sold. They only get the money for building the GP's surgery when it's completed and handed over to the council. That way there can't be the situation we have at the moment where the developers won't do their S106 stuff until the bitter end, and you get massive developments half built and sold with no matching infrastructure.
The other virtue of this is it wipes out all the stupid S106 haggling holding up planning applications (at which most councils seem pretty bad - ours managed to win a pointless roundabout in the middle of no-where in return for a housing estate the other side of town!) - level playing field, you build, you sell, you cough up, and some money goes in a "new infrastructure" pot.
That's not very different to the CIL (https://www.gov.uk/guidance/community-infrastructure-levy), which has largely replaced S106. I'm chair of the local cross-party CIL committee, and we set a range of criteria for projects, invite bids, and allocate several million £ a year to infrastructure. It's an exhaustive (and exhausting) process but it works quite well.
Are we able to avoid the somewhat misogynist evaluation of women in politics based on their looks? I understand this forum is lots of dirty old men, and I'm more than happy to leave you to your private pervy reveries as much as you like. But it is quite unbecoming to post pictures of politicians when they were younger, and describe current politicians in the way you find them attractive or not...
There is plenty of comment of male politicians and their physical characteristics, Sunak’s height, SKS chunky neck spilling out of his collar, fabricant’s wig, JRM resembling a hatstand, Gove looking like Pob, backbench Tories not just acting like but looking like gammon etc etc.
I can’t imagine anyone will criticise you if you make a comment that x male MP is good looking or a bit rough. The fact is that image does play a part in how people perceive other people as does character and charm so all relevant for discussion. Is politician X telegenic or “looks a bit weird” is common as a discussion in most countries and forums.
Whilst I'm also generally not in favour of commenting on any politician's looks - there is a difference between describing what a politician looks like and then rating their shagability based on that. That with women politicians it goes almost immediately to the second again talks to the misogynistic nature of the distinction.
Are we able to avoid the somewhat misogynist evaluation of women in politics based on their looks? I understand this forum is lots of dirty old men, and I'm more than happy to leave you to your private pervy reveries as much as you like. But it is quite unbecoming to post pictures of politicians when they were younger, and describe current politicians in the way you find them attractive or not...
There is plenty of comment of male politicians and their physical characteristics, Sunak’s height, SKS chunky neck spilling out of his collar, fabricant’s wig, JRM resembling a hatstand, Gove looking like Pob, backbench Tories not just acting like but looking like gammon etc etc.
I can’t imagine anyone will criticise you if you make a comment that x male MP is good looking or a bit rough. The fact is that image does play a part in how people perceive other people as does character and charm so all relevant for discussion. Is politician X telegenic or “looks a bit weird” is common as a discussion in most countries and forums.
Quite so. We spend an awful lot of time discussing the telegenicity - or otherwise - of male politicians. Sunak being such a shorty is the classic example
Boris’ hair, weight and relative musculature have been the subjects of entire threads
So women also come under scrutiny. It’s human nature. Looks matter (they probably shouldn’t but they do)
Are we able to avoid the somewhat misogynist evaluation of women in politics based on their looks? I understand this forum is lots of dirty old men, and I'm more than happy to leave you to your private pervy reveries as much as you like. But it is quite unbecoming to post pictures of politicians when they were younger, and describe current politicians in the way you find them attractive or not...
There is plenty of comment of male politicians and their physical characteristics, Sunak’s height, SKS chunky neck spilling out of his collar, fabricant’s wig, JRM resembling a hatstand, Gove looking like Pob, backbench Tories not just acting like but looking like gammon etc etc.
I can’t imagine anyone will criticise you if you make a comment that x male MP is good looking or a bit rough. The fact is that image does play a part in how people perceive other people as does character and charm so all relevant for discussion. Is politician X telegenic or “looks a bit weird” is common as a discussion in most countries and forums.
True, but also nobody’s drooling and phwoaring over Sir Edward Leigh.
I’ve always thought the young Yvette Cooper has the look of a beautiful girl in the French Resistance, right down to the wayward hair, recently tousled by a rough night in a Normandy barn, hiding from the Gestapo
As an example, when they built my 'village' (actually a town now), there was no public transport aside from a bus. The developers built a short section of dual carriageway onto the A428, which HA later grudgigly extended to meet the existing dual carriageway near Cambridge.
For public transport, we still rely on busses, and are at the whim of Stagecoach (who have withdrawn many of the services, and cut the routes through the village), and Whippet, who are good but small. We have no railway, no tram,; not even a good cycle route to Cambridge.
Any new town should have excellent transport links. Nearby, the new Northstowe should have the misguided bus link into Cambridge (along an old railway line, natch). Waterbeach New Town is going to be served by moving the existing station a short distance north. All these are paid for by the council, not developers.
We cannot - and must not - so new towns on the cheap.
Absolutely any new towns should have excellent transport links, I said there should be new motorways.
But that should not be the "developers" responsibility.
If you want community infrastructure, then it is the responsibility of the entire community, the entire country, to pay for that - not just pile the burden on those who get a new house all alone while those who live in secure housing that was built years ago abscond from any responsibilities.
That's sorta my point. It should be paid for by the councils involved, and it should be there when it is needed.
As an example of where S106 can go wrong, see this story (yes, DM...). The first houses in Nortstowe (a development northwest of Cambridge) have been occupied for six years now, and it has no shops, pubs, cafes, public toilets, or even a GP practice.
I know Northstowe fairly well (I've run around all of it as of a few months ago, but the ****ards keep on opening new roads...), and although I'm not a fan of the architecture, the layout seems fairly well designed. But it's terrible that a place that is housing thousands does not have the basic amenities.
It's fine for the council to say: a 'community centre building will be provided before the 900th home was occupied, or a sports pavilion before the 500th - when there are 1,200 homes occupied and they have not been built.
The council should be able to make the developer stop all building works on houses - and sales of completed houses - until it meets its obligations.
S106 simply doesn't work very well, even on large developments.
The housing developer should have nothing to do with "obligations" on other things. The housing developer should be dealing with housing and housing alone.
It should be no more the housing developers responsibility to meet the Councils obligations than it is the Schools obligation to meet the GPs obligations.
Suggesting stopping housing until other things is resolved is like suggesting shutting schools until other things are resolved.
S106 should not exist.
I mean, it’s a view. Just an odd one. The theory of s106 is great. Make the entity already building lots of stuff, and due to make lots of cash from it, build in the infrastructure as it goes, in lieu of tax.
The issue is making the buggers actually do it, and the problem is too much power in the hands of local politicians, who are partial to a brown envelope, or even just a nice lunch and the feel of being important.
But there is no such thing as a free lunch. One of the main reasons that new housing is so expensive (and thus relatively scarce) in this country is that the developer is burdened with a long and expensive planning process and then ransomed by s106. Without this we would have more and cheaper houses.
Clearly you have to find the sweet spot that the market will bear. I mean, on the other side of it, presumably you accept we can’t be a free for all? I could live with the predictable levy, as proposed by others, if I could be convinced it would be spend well.
No, I wouldn't want a free for all. But the cost of new housing also pumps up the cost of existing housing and we all pay for that.
See, I disagree about local politicians. We have the most centralised government and economic planning of any developed nation. And it has increasingly led to London getting investment and everywhere else basically getting shafted. We need national government to do the long term planning and specifications, alongside local government to manage the delivery and the nuances. Councils should be funded via national taxation - the wealth of people who live in London should be leverage to help grow the infrastructure of those who live in Stoke.
Not a bad theory until you meet local councillors. Nationalise it and give everyone the same.
I've met lots of local councillors and lots of MPs, and they seem to me drawn from much the same pool and cover much the same spectrum from clever to stupid, idealistic to cynical, and hard-working to lazy. On the whole, I think they're underestimated - the median councillor is motivated by concern for their local area and works hard for little reward, either financial or in terms of public esteem. People are ambivalent about MPs - scathing about them as a class, but often quite impressed by their local MP. They aren't ambivalent about councillors - they don't think much of them, like you. I think it's a mistaken generalisation.
I may have been unlucky, but I haven’t met many who don’t seem to get an ego trip from it, and I have only ever got a bad impression from the meetings I have seen. But I do respect you enough to accept there may be something in what you say.
They are still getting binning when I am Supreme Leader though.
Are we able to avoid the somewhat misogynist evaluation of women in politics based on their looks? I understand this forum is lots of dirty old men, and I'm more than happy to leave you to your private pervy reveries as much as you like. But it is quite unbecoming to post pictures of politicians when they were younger, and describe current politicians in the way you find them attractive or not...
There is plenty of comment of male politicians and their physical characteristics, Sunak’s height, SKS chunky neck spilling out of his collar, fabricant’s wig, JRM resembling a hatstand, Gove looking like Pob, backbench Tories not just acting like but looking like gammon etc etc.
I can’t imagine anyone will criticise you if you make a comment that x male MP is good looking or a bit rough. The fact is that image does play a part in how people perceive other people as does character and charm so all relevant for discussion. Is politician X telegenic or “looks a bit weird” is common as a discussion in most countries and forums.
True, but also nobody’s drooling and phwoaring over Sir Edward Leigh.
Are we able to avoid the somewhat misogynist evaluation of women in politics based on their looks? I understand this forum is lots of dirty old men, and I'm more than happy to leave you to your private pervy reveries as much as you like. But it is quite unbecoming to post pictures of politicians when they were younger, and describe current politicians in the way you find them attractive or not...
There is plenty of comment of male politicians and their physical characteristics, Sunak’s height, SKS chunky neck spilling out of his collar, fabricant’s wig, JRM resembling a hatstand, Gove looking like Pob, backbench Tories not just acting like but looking like gammon etc etc.
I can’t imagine anyone will criticise you if you make a comment that x male MP is good looking or a bit rough. The fact is that image does play a part in how people perceive other people as does character and charm so all relevant for discussion. Is politician X telegenic or “looks a bit weird” is common as a discussion in most countries and forums.
True, but also nobody’s drooling and phwoaring over Sir Edward Leigh.
But handsome male politicians DO get admiration
There just aren’t many of them. Showbiz for ugly people, etc
Are we able to avoid the somewhat misogynist evaluation of women in politics based on their looks? I understand this forum is lots of dirty old men, and I'm more than happy to leave you to your private pervy reveries as much as you like. But it is quite unbecoming to post pictures of politicians when they were younger, and describe current politicians in the way you find them attractive or not...
There is plenty of comment of male politicians and their physical characteristics, Sunak’s height, SKS chunky neck spilling out of his collar, fabricant’s wig, JRM resembling a hatstand, Gove looking like Pob, backbench Tories not just acting like but looking like gammon etc etc.
I can’t imagine anyone will criticise you if you make a comment that x male MP is good looking or a bit rough. The fact is that image does play a part in how people perceive other people as does character and charm so all relevant for discussion. Is politician X telegenic or “looks a bit weird” is common as a discussion in most countries and forums.
True, but also nobody’s drooling and phwoaring over Sir Edward Leigh.
Are we able to avoid the somewhat misogynist evaluation of women in politics based on their looks? I understand this forum is lots of dirty old men, and I'm more than happy to leave you to your private pervy reveries as much as you like. But it is quite unbecoming to post pictures of politicians when they were younger, and describe current politicians in the way you find them attractive or not...
There is plenty of comment of male politicians and their physical characteristics, Sunak’s height, SKS chunky neck spilling out of his collar, fabricant’s wig, JRM resembling a hatstand, Gove looking like Pob, backbench Tories not just acting like but looking like gammon etc etc.
I can’t imagine anyone will criticise you if you make a comment that x male MP is good looking or a bit rough. The fact is that image does play a part in how people perceive other people as does character and charm so all relevant for discussion. Is politician X telegenic or “looks a bit weird” is common as a discussion in most countries and forums.
True, but also nobody’s drooling and phwoaring over Sir Edward Leigh.
"Pat McFadden, Labour's campaign co-ordinator, has been talking to the BBC this morning, saying the dream of home ownership has become “more and more difficult to achieve” and the party want build the next generation of "new towns" near English cities.
New towns were the most ambitious town building programme ever undertaken in the UK and began happening after World War Two to relocate people away from big cities.
McFadden tells BBC Radio 4's Today programme that currently developers pick where houses go and it’s often a contentious process.
"We’ve got a different idea here which is to build a new generation of new towns, which are of course about housing, but not just about housing but about the other things that make up a community – a GP surgery, this primary school, transport links, businesses – things that make a community more than a collection of houses.""
That's something I could get behind.
Although around here there're already two/three new towns under construction...
Are we able to avoid the somewhat misogynist evaluation of women in politics based on their looks? I understand this forum is lots of dirty old men, and I'm more than happy to leave you to your private pervy reveries as much as you like. But it is quite unbecoming to post pictures of politicians when they were younger, and describe current politicians in the way you find them attractive or not...
There is plenty of comment of male politicians and their physical characteristics, Sunak’s height, SKS chunky neck spilling out of his collar, fabricant’s wig, JRM resembling a hatstand, Gove looking like Pob, backbench Tories not just acting like but looking like gammon etc etc.
I can’t imagine anyone will criticise you if you make a comment that x male MP is good looking or a bit rough. The fact is that image does play a part in how people perceive other people as does character and charm so all relevant for discussion. Is politician X telegenic or “looks a bit weird” is common as a discussion in most countries and forums.
True, but also nobody’s drooling and phwoaring over Sir Edward Leigh.
But handsome male politicians DO get admiration
There just aren’t many of them. Showbiz for ugly people, etc
And I don't think anyone is going to spend much time here discussing their secret desires for Castro's secret son, Justin Trudeau, even if his is conventionally attractive. Partly because they want to discuss his politics more, and partly because most posters here seem to be straight men and so have no interest in discussing that kind of thing. Whereas you are just openly fantasising about some women in politics.
Are we able to avoid the somewhat misogynist evaluation of women in politics based on their looks? I understand this forum is lots of dirty old men, and I'm more than happy to leave you to your private pervy reveries as much as you like. But it is quite unbecoming to post pictures of politicians when they were younger, and describe current politicians in the way you find them attractive or not...
There is plenty of comment of male politicians and their physical characteristics, Sunak’s height, SKS chunky neck spilling out of his collar, fabricant’s wig, JRM resembling a hatstand, Gove looking like Pob, backbench Tories not just acting like but looking like gammon etc etc.
I can’t imagine anyone will criticise you if you make a comment that x male MP is good looking or a bit rough. The fact is that image does play a part in how people perceive other people as does character and charm so all relevant for discussion. Is politician X telegenic or “looks a bit weird” is common as a discussion in most countries and forums.
True, but also nobody’s drooling and phwoaring over Sir Edward Leigh.
But handsome male politicians DO get admiration
There just aren’t many of them. Showbiz for ugly people, etc
If anything we are much more brutal about male looks - on PB - than we are about the women. Probably because we are nearly all chivalrous older gentlemen
I still smile about @Dura_Ace’s crack, vis a vis the tiny Sunak, that “the British won’t vote for a fucking Borrower”
One of the wittiest lines to ever grace these august pages. But also deeply cruel
Someone close to me has had tea with Keir Starmer and said he was great: relaxed, easy to get on with, and funny.
The issue is more that people don't yet see Starmer. If my friend is right then it will come through during the GE campaign.
What's abundantly clear to all of us who actually live in this country Robert @rcs1000 is that the more we see of Sunak, the worse he appears.
A lot if people say the same thing, but isn’t it strange that he never comes across as anything other than really stiff and boring?
Two examples - he is genuinely a football fan; season ticket at Arsenal, plays 5 a side in Camden, so you’d think he would be in a relaxed environment talking about it. Yet…
Rayner's vastly overrated. The 'scum' comments were wretched.
Not the unparliamentary language I would use, but particularly during the Johnson era one could understand the sentiments. British people including veterans living in doorways or in Halfords tents while certain MPs were using their Parliamentary privilege to execute another unnecessary grift.
Rayner's vastly overrated. The 'scum' comments were wretched.
She hasn't actually done anything yet to be rated on.
Going to be fun to watch those who reckon governing is easy get confronted by the reality: it's mostly about 51:49 decisions. And the 49 who lose out know how to use social media.
One one level, they will be lucky. They won't face the combination of implementing Brexit, Covid, Ukraine and the consequent cost of living crisis all in one Parliament.
On another, they'll be unlucky: trying to make 51:49 decisions as part of a rainbow coalition.
A couple of years of that, then you can rate Rayner.
Many of the things said about Rayner were said about Prescott. He didn't exactly shine when if office.
Given the RMT strikes are avowedly political they may well settle with Starmer far more easily than with the Tories, and the same goes for the BMA who have already said in England they won't settle for what they have in the devolved regions because, the Tories, innit
ASLEF will be a tougher nut to crack.
They unashamedly just want the money.
I yield to no one in how irritating I find the train strikes, but my god I’m jealous of those unions’ members. They do a brilliant job for them.
Point of order - the RMT is not affiliated to Labour and sharply critical from the left. But I wouldn't say the strikes were avowedly political either - they have a lot of station staff who are simultaneously low-paid and under threat of redundancy.
ASLEF, I agree, just want the money. A relentlessly free-market Tory friend says that if he was a train driver he'd certainly support the leadership - "they are doing what you're supposed to do in a free economy, simply whatever is needed to maximise your benefit. It's not their job to seek popularity."
As an example, when they built my 'village' (actually a town now), there was no public transport aside from a bus. The developers built a short section of dual carriageway onto the A428, which HA later grudgigly extended to meet the existing dual carriageway near Cambridge.
For public transport, we still rely on busses, and are at the whim of Stagecoach (who have withdrawn many of the services, and cut the routes through the village), and Whippet, who are good but small. We have no railway, no tram,; not even a good cycle route to Cambridge.
Any new town should have excellent transport links. Nearby, the new Northstowe should have the misguided bus link into Cambridge (along an old railway line, natch). Waterbeach New Town is going to be served by moving the existing station a short distance north. All these are paid for by the council, not developers.
We cannot - and must not - so new towns on the cheap.
Absolutely any new towns should have excellent transport links, I said there should be new motorways.
But that should not be the "developers" responsibility.
If you want community infrastructure, then it is the responsibility of the entire community, the entire country, to pay for that - not just pile the burden on those who get a new house all alone while those who live in secure housing that was built years ago abscond from any responsibilities.
That's sorta my point. It should be paid for by the councils involved, and it should be there when it is needed.
As an example of where S106 can go wrong, see this story (yes, DM...). The first houses in Nortstowe (a development northwest of Cambridge) have been occupied for six years now, and it has no shops, pubs, cafes, public toilets, or even a GP practice.
I know Northstowe fairly well (I've run around all of it as of a few months ago, but the ****ards keep on opening new roads...), and although I'm not a fan of the architecture, the layout seems fairly well designed. But it's terrible that a place that is housing thousands does not have the basic amenities.
It's fine for the council to say: a 'community centre building will be provided before the 900th home was occupied, or a sports pavilion before the 500th - when there are 1,200 homes occupied and they have not been built.
The council should be able to make the developer stop all building works on houses - and sales of completed houses - until it meets its obligations.
S106 simply doesn't work very well, even on large developments.
The housing developer should have nothing to do with "obligations" on other things. The housing developer should be dealing with housing and housing alone.
It should be no more the housing developers responsibility to meet the Councils obligations than it is the Schools obligation to meet the GPs obligations.
Suggesting stopping housing until other things is resolved is like suggesting shutting schools until other things are resolved.
S106 should not exist.
I mean, it’s a view. Just an odd one. The theory of s106 is great. Make the entity already building lots of stuff, and due to make lots of cash from it, build in the infrastructure as it goes, in lieu of tax.
The issue is making the buggers actually do it, and the problem is too much power in the hands of local politicians, who are partial to a brown envelope, or even just a nice lunch and the feel of being important.
But there is no such thing as a free lunch. One of the main reasons that new housing is so expensive (and thus relatively scarce) in this country is that the developer is burdened with a long and expensive planning process and then ransomed by s106. Without this we would have more and cheaper houses.
I think it's much simpler than "regulations". Developers need to balance two things:
1) Reduce costs. Build homes as cheaply as possible. 2) Increase profits. Implement a supply constraint on land (and therefore homes) by using up as much as possible, including by not building on it
The equilibrium they have landed on is thousands of identical detached homes with no public services.
If you ensured that all homes were, say, at most a 15 minute walk/cycle from a school, pub, bus stop/train station, post office, the equilibrium were shift dramatically towards flats and high density homes. Which means more homes.
You could implement this without obliging the developer to build all the services. They just need to leave room for them.
Are we able to avoid the somewhat misogynist evaluation of women in politics based on their looks? I understand this forum is lots of dirty old men, and I'm more than happy to leave you to your private pervy reveries as much as you like. But it is quite unbecoming to post pictures of politicians when they were younger, and describe current politicians in the way you find them attractive or not...
There is plenty of comment of male politicians and their physical characteristics, Sunak’s height, SKS chunky neck spilling out of his collar, fabricant’s wig, JRM resembling a hatstand, Gove looking like Pob, backbench Tories not just acting like but looking like gammon etc etc.
I can’t imagine anyone will criticise you if you make a comment that x male MP is good looking or a bit rough. The fact is that image does play a part in how people perceive other people as does character and charm so all relevant for discussion. Is politician X telegenic or “looks a bit weird” is common as a discussion in most countries and forums.
True, but also nobody’s drooling and phwoaring over Sir Edward Leigh.
But handsome male politicians DO get admiration
There just aren’t many of them. Showbiz for ugly people, etc
And I don't think anyone is going to spend much time here discussing their secret desires for Castro's secret son, Justin Trudeau, even if his is conventionally attractive. Partly because they want to discuss his politics more, and partly because most posters here seem to be straight men and so have no interest in discussing that kind of thing. Whereas you are just openly fantasising about some women in politics.
I know, why don’t you try and get me banned. It’s what humourless dorks always do on PB, so you’ll be joining a long and honourable tradition
PS @148grss - can I also say a belated Welcome to the forum
I have a sense I disagree with you on 99.56% of issues, but that makes for fun debate. Also you are young, female and an unapologetic communist - three things we seldom see on PB, and we need fresh young opinions. And you also seem highly articulate and confident of your views - even if they are ridiculous
I do hope you stick around. Sincerely. It’s a nice place to hang. Try the chocolate hob-nobs
Rayner's vastly overrated. The 'scum' comments were wretched.
She hasn't actually done anything yet to be rated on.
Going to be fun to watch those who reckon governing is easy get confronted by the reality: it's mostly about 51:49 decisions. And the 49 who lose out know how to use social media.
One one level, they will be lucky. They won't face the combination of implementing Brexit, Covid, Ukraine and the consequent cost of living crisis all in one Parliament.
On another, they'll be unlucky: trying to make 51:49 decisions as part of a rainbow coalition.
A couple of years of that, then you can rate Rayner.
Many of the things said about Rayner were said about Prescott. He didn't exactly shine when if office.
I get the Prescott comparisons, but I think they’re quite different characters.
PS @148grss - can I also say a belated Welcome to the forum
I have a sense I disagree with you on 99.56% of issues, but that makes for fun debate. Also you are young, female and an unapologetic communist - three things we seldom see on PB, and we need fresh young opinions. And you also seem highly articulate and confident of your views - even if they are ridiculous
I do hope you stick around. Sincerely. It’s a nice place to hang. Try the chocolate hob-nobs
Agree. Courageous stuff, and worth reading their posts given such a large number of people share those views outside of PB.
Not even the most ridiculous views on here anyway - the push Gaza into the sea crowd are far sillier.
364 it is then. A good two or three dozen short of what it could have been, and a bit too much of the old-fashioned slogging going on - but it’s still likely to be good enough.
Someone close to me has had tea with Keir Starmer and said he was great: relaxed, easy to get on with, and funny.
The issue is more that people don't yet see Starmer. If my friend is right then it will come through during the GE campaign.
What's abundantly clear to all of us who actually live in this country Robert @rcs1000 is that the more we see of Sunak, the worse he appears.
A lot if people say the same thing, but isn’t it strange that he never comes across as anything other than really stiff and boring?
Two examples - he is genuinely a football fan; season ticket at Arsenal, plays 5 a side in Camden, so you’d think he would be in a relaxed environment talking about it. Yet…
“Right in the 86th minute”??? Perhaps he neither writes or signs off his own social media, because no real football fan would ever speak like that
Starmer's a bit of a fanny which probably isn't the end of the world politically speaking. His post Rutherglen speech to the troops was a case in point; 'We blew the doors off!' is a bit of tone deaf Anglo geezerism, but SKS was too much of a fanny to say 'bloody doors'.
PS @148grss - can I also say a belated Welcome to the forum
I have a sense I disagree with you on 99.56% of issues, but that makes for fun debate. Also you are young, female and an unapologetic communist - three things we seldom see on PB, and we need fresh young opinions. And you also seem highly articulate and confident of your views - even if they are ridiculous
I do hope you stick around. Sincerely. It’s a nice place to hang. Try the chocolate hob-nobs
Agree. Courageous stuff, and worth reading their posts given such a large number of people share those views outside of PB.
Not even the most ridiculous views on here anyway - the push Gaza into the sea crowd are far sillier.
What’s Gaza done to deserve to be pushed into the sea? I know he’s a bit of a clown with the whole Raoul Moat nonsense and missing that goal v Germany but still harsh.
I have remembered one handsome male politician. Justin Trudeau. And people mention his looks a LOT. Esp when Trump’s wife obviously fancied him
George Weah has aged quite handsomely, with a nice salt and pepper beard.
Macron’s not a minger either.
Macron is good looking. A little epicene, but good looking
I also find VIktor Orban weirdly arousing. That brooding Magyar machismo. And don’t get me on to Drakeford. A coiled Welsh dragon of burning sexuality
Orban looks like a slab of sweaty cheddar left out in the hot sun to me.
The Drake goes without saying, of course. The pinnacle of millions of years of sexual selection to create genetic aesthetic perfection in a single man.
I have remembered one handsome male politician. Justin Trudeau. And people mention his looks a LOT. Esp when Trump’s wife obviously fancied him
George Weah has aged quite handsomely, with a nice salt and pepper beard.
Macron’s not a minger either.
Macron is good looking. A little epicene, but good looking
I also find VIktor Orban weirdly arousing. That brooding Magyar machismo. And don’t get me on to Drakeford. A coiled Welsh dragon of burning sexuality
Orban looks like a slab of sweaty cheddar left out in the hot sun to me.
The Drake goes without saying, of course. The pinnacle of millions of years of sexual selection to create genetic aesthetic perfection in a single man.
The 20mph gives him more time before the husbands get home from work.
As an example, when they built my 'village' (actually a town now), there was no public transport aside from a bus. The developers built a short section of dual carriageway onto the A428, which HA later grudgigly extended to meet the existing dual carriageway near Cambridge.
For public transport, we still rely on busses, and are at the whim of Stagecoach (who have withdrawn many of the services, and cut the routes through the village), and Whippet, who are good but small. We have no railway, no tram,; not even a good cycle route to Cambridge.
Any new town should have excellent transport links. Nearby, the new Northstowe should have the misguided bus link into Cambridge (along an old railway line, natch). Waterbeach New Town is going to be served by moving the existing station a short distance north. All these are paid for by the council, not developers.
We cannot - and must not - so new towns on the cheap.
Absolutely any new towns should have excellent transport links, I said there should be new motorways.
But that should not be the "developers" responsibility.
If you want community infrastructure, then it is the responsibility of the entire community, the entire country, to pay for that - not just pile the burden on those who get a new house all alone while those who live in secure housing that was built years ago abscond from any responsibilities.
That's sorta my point. It should be paid for by the councils involved, and it should be there when it is needed.
As an example of where S106 can go wrong, see this story (yes, DM...). The first houses in Nortstowe (a development northwest of Cambridge) have been occupied for six years now, and it has no shops, pubs, cafes, public toilets, or even a GP practice.
I know Northstowe fairly well (I've run around all of it as of a few months ago, but the ****ards keep on opening new roads...), and although I'm not a fan of the architecture, the layout seems fairly well designed. But it's terrible that a place that is housing thousands does not have the basic amenities.
It's fine for the council to say: a 'community centre building will be provided before the 900th home was occupied, or a sports pavilion before the 500th - when there are 1,200 homes occupied and they have not been built.
The council should be able to make the developer stop all building works on houses - and sales of completed houses - until it meets its obligations.
S106 simply doesn't work very well, even on large developments.
As an example, when they built my 'village' (actually a town now), there was no public transport aside from a bus. The developers built a short section of dual carriageway onto the A428, which HA later grudgigly extended to meet the existing dual carriageway near Cambridge.
For public transport, we still rely on busses, and are at the whim of Stagecoach (who have withdrawn many of the services, and cut the routes through the village), and Whippet, who are good but small. We have no railway, no tram,; not even a good cycle route to Cambridge.
Any new town should have excellent transport links. Nearby, the new Northstowe should have the misguided bus link into Cambridge (along an old railway line, natch). Waterbeach New Town is going to be served by moving the existing station a short distance north. All these are paid for by the council, not developers.
We cannot - and must not - so new towns on the cheap.
Absolutely any new towns should have excellent transport links, I said there should be new motorways.
But that should not be the "developers" responsibility.
If you want community infrastructure, then it is the responsibility of the entire community, the entire country, to pay for that - not just pile the burden on those who get a new house all alone while those who live in secure housing that was built years ago abscond from any responsibilities.
That's sorta my point. It should be paid for by the councils involved, and it should be there when it is needed.
As an example of where S106 can go wrong, see this story (yes, DM...). The first houses in Nortstowe (a development northwest of Cambridge) have been occupied for six years now, and it has no shops, pubs, cafes, public toilets, or even a GP practice.
I know Northstowe fairly well (I've run around all of it as of a few months ago, but the ****ards keep on opening new roads...), and although I'm not a fan of the architecture, the layout seems fairly well designed. But it's terrible that a place that is housing thousands does not have the basic amenities.
It's fine for the council to say: a 'community centre building will be provided before the 900th home was occupied, or a sports pavilion before the 500th - when there are 1,200 homes occupied and they have not been built.
The council should be able to make the developer stop all building works on houses - and sales of completed houses - until it meets its obligations.
S106 simply doesn't work very well, even on large developments.
The housing developer should have nothing to do with "obligations" on other things. The housing developer should be dealing with housing and housing alone.
It should be no more the housing developers responsibility to meet the Councils obligations than it is the Schools obligation to meet the GPs obligations.
Suggesting stopping housing until other things is resolved is like suggesting shutting schools until other things are resolved.
S106 should not exist.
I mean, it’s a view. Just an odd one. The theory of s106 is great. Make the entity already building lots of stuff, and due to make lots of cash from it, build in the infrastructure as it goes, in lieu of tax.
The issue is making the buggers actually do it, and the problem is too much power in the hands of local politicians, who are partial to a brown envelope, or even just a nice lunch and the feel of being important.
The entity making cash doesn't pay for it, the buyers of the houses get the price added on to pay for it as it gets built in.
Why should they pay for it? Why shouldn't the whole of society pay for societal infrastructure?
Just cut out the middle man and get Councils to pull their finger out and do their own job.
The obvious reason why buyers of new homes should pay for infrastructure (via the developer) is that a town of 40k people needs quite a bit more infrastructure than one of 20k.
Whilst it's true the tax base expands, the bulk of that is going on the revenue budget - the income generated from Council Tax for the extra people isn't on a scale for the level of capital investment needed on the infrastructure.
Sorry but if a town of 40k needs more infrastructure then the entire 40k should pay for it.
There's no such thing as an externality here.
Homes don't need schools, people do.
If there's been population growth then the Taxpayer needs to pay for any Tax funded education, or other Tax funded infrastructure, not just those who were unfortunate enough to need a new house while those who are fortunate enough to already have one abscond from their responsibilities.
UK on course to have worst-performing G7 economy in election year Britain’s economy will underperform Russia and Ukraine, warns IMF ... The IMF said higher interest rates were weighing on households and businesses as it downgraded its UK growth forecast from 1pc in 2024 to just 0.6pc.
This discussion is the essence of what Barty would call Nimbyism. He would build 20 houses in the field next door to him and sod everyone else because development. But people forget externalities. That is why there is the planning procedure. If those 20 houses need sewers, water, electricity, road access then that affects the community and has to be paid for. It can't be hand waved away.
If it needs paying for then everyone should pay for it, if it's public infrastructure.
Don't want to pay for new schools? Then we need to live in a state without population growth. But if we live in a state with population growth then absolutely everyone in that state should pay their taxes not just a minority.
There's no pollution or externality from new homes. Extra people bring extra demand but cramming those extra people into overcrowded slums doesn't cut demand. A child living in an overcrowded home needs a school just as much, and needs extra support from teachers/schools/taxpayers because they don't have space of their own at home to study.
Someone close to me has had tea with Keir Starmer and said he was great: relaxed, easy to get on with, and funny.
The issue is more that people don't yet see Starmer. If my friend is right then it will come through during the GE campaign.
What's abundantly clear to all of us who actually live in this country Robert @rcs1000 is that the more we see of Sunak, the worse he appears.
A lot if people say the same thing, but isn’t it strange that he never comes across as anything other than really stiff and boring?
Two examples - he is genuinely a football fan; season ticket at Arsenal, plays 5 a side in Camden, so you’d think he would be in a relaxed environment talking about it. Yet…
I hope you enjoy it because it's in your interests to get to know and like Keir. He'll be on your various screens a lot in the next few years. It's distressing when that's the case with a politician you can't stand.
I know this only too well because of Donald Trump and Boris "Boris" Johnson. Cannot abide either of them and that period from July 2019 to January 2021 when they were both simultaneously squatting atop their respective trees was (quite literally) a hell on earth.
As an example, when they built my 'village' (actually a town now), there was no public transport aside from a bus. The developers built a short section of dual carriageway onto the A428, which HA later grudgigly extended to meet the existing dual carriageway near Cambridge.
For public transport, we still rely on busses, and are at the whim of Stagecoach (who have withdrawn many of the services, and cut the routes through the village), and Whippet, who are good but small. We have no railway, no tram,; not even a good cycle route to Cambridge.
Any new town should have excellent transport links. Nearby, the new Northstowe should have the misguided bus link into Cambridge (along an old railway line, natch). Waterbeach New Town is going to be served by moving the existing station a short distance north. All these are paid for by the council, not developers.
We cannot - and must not - so new towns on the cheap.
Absolutely any new towns should have excellent transport links, I said there should be new motorways.
But that should not be the "developers" responsibility.
If you want community infrastructure, then it is the responsibility of the entire community, the entire country, to pay for that - not just pile the burden on those who get a new house all alone while those who live in secure housing that was built years ago abscond from any responsibilities.
That's sorta my point. It should be paid for by the councils involved, and it should be there when it is needed.
As an example of where S106 can go wrong, see this story (yes, DM...). The first houses in Nortstowe (a development northwest of Cambridge) have been occupied for six years now, and it has no shops, pubs, cafes, public toilets, or even a GP practice.
I know Northstowe fairly well (I've run around all of it as of a few months ago, but the ****ards keep on opening new roads...), and although I'm not a fan of the architecture, the layout seems fairly well designed. But it's terrible that a place that is housing thousands does not have the basic amenities.
It's fine for the council to say: a 'community centre building will be provided before the 900th home was occupied, or a sports pavilion before the 500th - when there are 1,200 homes occupied and they have not been built.
The council should be able to make the developer stop all building works on houses - and sales of completed houses - until it meets its obligations.
S106 simply doesn't work very well, even on large developments.
As an example, when they built my 'village' (actually a town now), there was no public transport aside from a bus. The developers built a short section of dual carriageway onto the A428, which HA later grudgigly extended to meet the existing dual carriageway near Cambridge.
For public transport, we still rely on busses, and are at the whim of Stagecoach (who have withdrawn many of the services, and cut the routes through the village), and Whippet, who are good but small. We have no railway, no tram,; not even a good cycle route to Cambridge.
Any new town should have excellent transport links. Nearby, the new Northstowe should have the misguided bus link into Cambridge (along an old railway line, natch). Waterbeach New Town is going to be served by moving the existing station a short distance north. All these are paid for by the council, not developers.
We cannot - and must not - so new towns on the cheap.
Absolutely any new towns should have excellent transport links, I said there should be new motorways.
But that should not be the "developers" responsibility.
If you want community infrastructure, then it is the responsibility of the entire community, the entire country, to pay for that - not just pile the burden on those who get a new house all alone while those who live in secure housing that was built years ago abscond from any responsibilities.
That's sorta my point. It should be paid for by the councils involved, and it should be there when it is needed.
As an example of where S106 can go wrong, see this story (yes, DM...). The first houses in Nortstowe (a development northwest of Cambridge) have been occupied for six years now, and it has no shops, pubs, cafes, public toilets, or even a GP practice.
I know Northstowe fairly well (I've run around all of it as of a few months ago, but the ****ards keep on opening new roads...), and although I'm not a fan of the architecture, the layout seems fairly well designed. But it's terrible that a place that is housing thousands does not have the basic amenities.
It's fine for the council to say: a 'community centre building will be provided before the 900th home was occupied, or a sports pavilion before the 500th - when there are 1,200 homes occupied and they have not been built.
The council should be able to make the developer stop all building works on houses - and sales of completed houses - until it meets its obligations.
S106 simply doesn't work very well, even on large developments.
The housing developer should have nothing to do with "obligations" on other things. The housing developer should be dealing with housing and housing alone.
It should be no more the housing developers responsibility to meet the Councils obligations than it is the Schools obligation to meet the GPs obligations.
Suggesting stopping housing until other things is resolved is like suggesting shutting schools until other things are resolved.
S106 should not exist.
I mean, it’s a view. Just an odd one. The theory of s106 is great. Make the entity already building lots of stuff, and due to make lots of cash from it, build in the infrastructure as it goes, in lieu of tax.
The issue is making the buggers actually do it, and the problem is too much power in the hands of local politicians, who are partial to a brown envelope, or even just a nice lunch and the feel of being important.
The entity making cash doesn't pay for it, the buyers of the houses get the price added on to pay for it as it gets built in.
Why should they pay for it? Why shouldn't the whole of society pay for societal infrastructure?
Just cut out the middle man and get Councils to pull their finger out and do their own job.
The obvious reason why buyers of new homes should pay for infrastructure (via the developer) is that a town of 40k people needs quite a bit more infrastructure than one of 20k.
Whilst it's true the tax base expands, the bulk of that is going on the revenue budget - the income generated from Council Tax for the extra people isn't on a scale for the level of capital investment needed on the infrastructure.
Sorry but if a town of 40k needs more infrastructure then the entire 40k should pay for it.
There's no such thing as an externality here.
Homes don't need schools, people do.
If there's been population growth then the Taxpayer needs to pay for any Tax funded education, or other Tax funded infrastructure, not just those who were unfortunate enough to need a new house while those who are fortunate enough to already have one abscond from their responsibilities.
"There is no such thing as an externality here"
Interesting question. Can we think of any human activity they doesn't have an externality, positive or negative?
UK on course to have worst-performing G7 economy in election year Britain’s economy will underperform Russia and Ukraine, warns IMF ... The IMF said higher interest rates were weighing on households and businesses as it downgraded its UK growth forecast from 1pc in 2024 to just 0.6pc.
UK on course to have worst-performing G7 economy in election year Britain’s economy will underperform Russia and Ukraine, warns IMF ... The IMF said higher interest rates were weighing on households and businesses as it downgraded its UK growth forecast from 1pc in 2024 to just 0.6pc.
I have remembered one handsome male politician. Justin Trudeau. And people mention his looks a LOT. Esp when Trump’s wife obviously fancied him
George Weah has aged quite handsomely, with a nice salt and pepper beard.
Macron’s not a minger either.
Macron is good looking. A little epicene, but good looking
I also find VIktor Orban weirdly arousing. That brooding Magyar machismo. And don’t get me on to Drakeford. A coiled Welsh dragon of burning sexuality
Orban looks like a slab of sweaty cheddar left out in the hot sun to me.
The Drake goes without saying, of course. The pinnacle of millions of years of sexual selection to create genetic aesthetic perfection in a single man.
Sometimes to achieve tumescence I just have to think of The Drake announcing 20mph speed limits in Mold and suddenly I’m a monster of desire
What is it about him? Obviously he’s a beautiful man on a basic level, but he also has this deep, animal, volcanic inner sexuality which feels like it could fire entire power stations
PS @148grss - can I also say a belated Welcome to the forum
I have a sense I disagree with you on 99.56% of issues, but that makes for fun debate. Also you are young, female and an unapologetic communist - three things we seldom see on PB, and we need fresh young opinions. And you also seem highly articulate and confident of your views - even if they are ridiculous
I do hope you stick around. Sincerely. It’s a nice place to hang. Try the chocolate hob-nobs
They're better without the chocolate imo. The classic 'oaty biscuit' needs no embellishment.
UK on course to have worst-performing G7 economy in election year Britain’s economy will underperform Russia and Ukraine, warns IMF ... The IMF said higher interest rates were weighing on households and businesses as it downgraded its UK growth forecast from 1pc in 2024 to just 0.6pc.
Well that’s one way for the IMF to lose any remaining credibility they might have.
To be fair to them, they say in the footnotes that the recent huge revision in 2020/2021 could not be taken into account due to the data arriving past a cut-off date.
I have remembered one handsome male politician. Justin Trudeau. And people mention his looks a LOT. Esp when Trump’s wife obviously fancied him
George Weah has aged quite handsomely, with a nice salt and pepper beard.
Macron’s not a minger either.
Macron is good looking. A little epicene, but good looking
I also find VIktor Orban weirdly arousing. That brooding Magyar machismo. And don’t get me on to Drakeford. A coiled Welsh dragon of burning sexuality
Orban looks like a slab of sweaty cheddar left out in the hot sun to me.
The Drake goes without saying, of course. The pinnacle of millions of years of sexual selection to create genetic aesthetic perfection in a single man.
The 20mph gives him more time before the husbands get home from work.
Indeed, his concern for the safety of Welsh children is much more personal than usual.
Incidentally, those areas of Wales which signed the petition most desperately also have some of the highest divorce rates in the nation.
Justin Trudeau has all the sex appeal of a pint of milk. A lot of boys - just before puberty - look like their mothers. You can see it in school plays when they play female parts. Then they grow into men. Justin looks like someone who has never grown up
Can't think of any male politician in the UK who is remotely fanciable. Most of them can't even dress well.
Quite admire Rayner for making something of herself from a difficult background. That is worth celebrating. Whether she will be good in office is another matter.
Someone close to me has had tea with Keir Starmer and said he was great: relaxed, easy to get on with, and funny.
The issue is more that people don't yet see Starmer. If my friend is right then it will come through during the GE campaign.
What's abundantly clear to all of us who actually live in this country Robert @rcs1000 is that the more we see of Sunak, the worse he appears.
A lot if people say the same thing, but isn’t it strange that he never comes across as anything other than really stiff and boring?
Two examples - he is genuinely a football fan; season ticket at Arsenal, plays 5 a side in Camden, so you’d think he would be in a relaxed environment talking about it. Yet…
I hope you enjoy it because it's in your interests to get to know and like Keir. He'll be on your various screens a lot in the next few years. It's distressing when that's the case with a politician you can't stand.
I know this only too well because of Donald Trump and Boris "Boris" Johnson. Cannot abide either of them and that period from July 2019 to January 2021 when they were both simultaneously squatting atop their respective trees was (quite literally) a hell on earth.
We do not want the same for you.
Cheers.
It’s ok though, I am lucky to have been able to watch & learn from the excruciating behaviour of those who lost the referendum & GE19. A perfect lesson in how not to do it
Are we able to avoid the somewhat misogynist evaluation of women in politics based on their looks? I understand this forum is lots of dirty old men, and I'm more than happy to leave you to your private pervy reveries as much as you like. But it is quite unbecoming to post pictures of politicians when they were younger, and describe current politicians in the way you find them attractive or not...
There is plenty of comment of male politicians and their physical characteristics, Sunak’s height, SKS chunky neck spilling out of his collar, fabricant’s wig, JRM resembling a hatstand, Gove looking like Pob, backbench Tories not just acting like but looking like gammon etc etc.
I can’t imagine anyone will criticise you if you make a comment that x male MP is good looking or a bit rough. The fact is that image does play a part in how people perceive other people as does character and charm so all relevant for discussion. Is politician X telegenic or “looks a bit weird” is common as a discussion in most countries and forums.
True, but also nobody’s drooling and phwoaring over Sir Edward Leigh.
Not even his wife.
Unless he wears a pineapple ring in bed.
The PB debate is "pineapple on pizza".
Not - and I repeat, not - "pineapple on peni[That's enough - Ed]
Justin Trudeau has all the sex appeal of a pint of milk. A lot of boys - just before puberty - look like their mothers. You can see it in school plays when they play female parts. Then they grow into men. Justin looks like someone who has never grown up
Can't think of any male politician in the UK who is remotely fanciable. Most of them can't even dress well.
Quite admire Rayner for making something of herself from a difficult background. That is worth celebrating. Whether she will be good in office is another matter.
As an example, when they built my 'village' (actually a town now), there was no public transport aside from a bus. The developers built a short section of dual carriageway onto the A428, which HA later grudgigly extended to meet the existing dual carriageway near Cambridge.
For public transport, we still rely on busses, and are at the whim of Stagecoach (who have withdrawn many of the services, and cut the routes through the village), and Whippet, who are good but small. We have no railway, no tram,; not even a good cycle route to Cambridge.
Any new town should have excellent transport links. Nearby, the new Northstowe should have the misguided bus link into Cambridge (along an old railway line, natch). Waterbeach New Town is going to be served by moving the existing station a short distance north. All these are paid for by the council, not developers.
We cannot - and must not - so new towns on the cheap.
Absolutely any new towns should have excellent transport links, I said there should be new motorways.
But that should not be the "developers" responsibility.
If you want community infrastructure, then it is the responsibility of the entire community, the entire country, to pay for that - not just pile the burden on those who get a new house all alone while those who live in secure housing that was built years ago abscond from any responsibilities.
That's sorta my point. It should be paid for by the councils involved, and it should be there when it is needed.
As an example of where S106 can go wrong, see this story (yes, DM...). The first houses in Nortstowe (a development northwest of Cambridge) have been occupied for six years now, and it has no shops, pubs, cafes, public toilets, or even a GP practice.
I know Northstowe fairly well (I've run around all of it as of a few months ago, but the ****ards keep on opening new roads...), and although I'm not a fan of the architecture, the layout seems fairly well designed. But it's terrible that a place that is housing thousands does not have the basic amenities.
It's fine for the council to say: a 'community centre building will be provided before the 900th home was occupied, or a sports pavilion before the 500th - when there are 1,200 homes occupied and they have not been built.
The council should be able to make the developer stop all building works on houses - and sales of completed houses - until it meets its obligations.
S106 simply doesn't work very well, even on large developments.
The housing developer should have nothing to do with "obligations" on other things. The housing developer should be dealing with housing and housing alone.
It should be no more the housing developers responsibility to meet the Councils obligations than it is the Schools obligation to meet the GPs obligations.
Suggesting stopping housing until other things is resolved is like suggesting shutting schools until other things are resolved.
S106 should not exist.
I mean, it’s a view. Just an odd one. The theory of s106 is great. Make the entity already building lots of stuff, and due to make lots of cash from it, build in the infrastructure as it goes, in lieu of tax.
The issue is making the buggers actually do it, and the problem is too much power in the hands of local politicians, who are partial to a brown envelope, or even just a nice lunch and the feel of being important.
But there is no such thing as a free lunch. One of the main reasons that new housing is so expensive (and thus relatively scarce) in this country is that the developer is burdened with a long and expensive planning process and then ransomed by s106. Without this we would have more and cheaper houses.
I think it's much simpler than "regulations". Developers need to balance two things:
1) Reduce costs. Build homes as cheaply as possible. 2) Increase profits. Implement a supply constraint on land (and therefore homes) by using up as much as possible, including by not building on it
The equilibrium they have landed on is thousands of identical detached homes with no public services.
If you ensured that all homes were, say, at most a 15 minute walk/cycle from a school, pub, bus stop/train station, post office, the equilibrium were shift dramatically towards flats and high density homes. Which means more homes.
You could implement this without obliging the developer to build all the services. They just need to leave room for them.
I suggest they already do (1). Are they not constantly accused of doing things on the cheap? ... With the aim of achieving (2).
We don't have thousands of identical homes in any one place - that was Council Estates 75 years ago. The mix of required home size is determined by Councils, and Planning Applications reflect that. Are some places different?
At present it will be a selection from a wide range of standard types in a developer's catalogue.
If you want "as cheap as possible" AND "as good as possible", they have to be consistent. Customisation and individuality boosts expense. That's why cars for the masses stopped being coach-built from the moment they were introduced in around 1910.
Availability of local services are already basic parts of Planning Policy - I won't bother to look up the Paragraph Numbers in the NPPF or the regional / local guideline docs based on it. In our patch that is part of the analysis for ranking of all potential sites submitted as part of the Local Plan preparation process, which are the ranked and the number required taken from the top of the list down.
Then any required services to make the development "acceptable in planning terms" are part or fully funded as part of the S106 or Community Infrastructure Levy - subject to a viability review process.
This existing process is why the critics of the 15 Minute City principle are as boneheaded as the critics of Low Traffic Neighbourhoods. They are whining about extant and long term practice, going down a rabbithole (that turns out to be their own anus) until only the soles of their feet are showing.
Reform is difficult because it is adjustment on top of what already exists; anything more fundamental involves ignoring "what about my doorstep" NIMBYs, which the Tories will never do as they are their powerbase, and the Lib Dems rely on for their pure populist politics.
If we remove Planning Gain taxes that is 5-10bn a year spent on public realm and services that will need to come from somewhere else - where?
But I suspect you and me agree on almost all of this.
PS @148grss - can I also say a belated Welcome to the forum
I have a sense I disagree with you on 99.56% of issues, but that makes for fun debate. Also you are young, female and an unapologetic communist - three things we seldom see on PB, and we need fresh young opinions. And you also seem highly articulate and confident of your views - even if they are ridiculous
I do hope you stick around. Sincerely. It’s a nice place to hang. Try the chocolate hob-nobs
Or have I got this wrong? Not that I care one way or the other.
How anyone can take communism seriously beats me. A revolting ideology which has brought misery to millions wherever it has been tried. But it takes all sorts.
We now know the EU is *not* suspending all aid to Palestinians in response to the #HamasAttack.
What we don't know is whether this was a policy u-turn from 🇪🇺President @VonDerLeyen, or one of her commissioners going rogue and announcing something he wasn't authorised to do. #FAC
Either way, this doesn't look good for VDL.
Either she acted unilaterally in suspending aid without consulting national governments, or she's lost control of her college and Commissioner #Varhelyi went rogue.
From all accounts it was absolute chaos at the Commission last night.
Someone close to me has had tea with Keir Starmer and said he was great: relaxed, easy to get on with, and funny.
The issue is more that people don't yet see Starmer. If my friend is right then it will come through during the GE campaign.
What's abundantly clear to all of us who actually live in this country Robert @rcs1000 is that the more we see of Sunak, the worse he appears.
A lot if people say the same thing, but isn’t it strange that he never comes across as anything other than really stiff and boring?
Two examples - he is genuinely a football fan; season ticket at Arsenal, plays 5 a side in Camden, so you’d think he would be in a relaxed environment talking about it. Yet…
I hope you enjoy it because it's in your interests to get to know and like Keir. He'll be on your various screens a lot in the next few years. It's distressing when that's the case with a politician you can't stand.
I know this only too well because of Donald Trump and Boris "Boris" Johnson. Cannot abide either of them and that period from July 2019 to January 2021 when they were both simultaneously squatting atop their respective trees was (quite literally) a hell on earth.
We do not want the same for you.
Cheers.
It’s ok though, I am lucky to have been able to watch & learn from the excruciating behaviour of those who lost the referendum & GE19. A perfect lesson in how not to do it
Ok. But I genuinely hope you do find a quiet few minutes to listen to it.
Can't think of any male politician in the UK who is remotely fanciable. Most of them can't even dress well.
Not for the first time, an entire episode of The Hollowmen is relevant here. It is dedicated to trying to improve the image of a PM by hiring a stylist
UK on course to have worst-performing G7 economy in election year Britain’s economy will underperform Russia and Ukraine, warns IMF ... The IMF said higher interest rates were weighing on households and businesses as it downgraded its UK growth forecast from 1pc in 2024 to just 0.6pc.
PS @148grss - can I also say a belated Welcome to the forum
I have a sense I disagree with you on 99.56% of issues, but that makes for fun debate. Also you are young, female and an unapologetic communist - three things we seldom see on PB, and we need fresh young opinions. And you also seem highly articulate and confident of your views - even if they are ridiculous
I do hope you stick around. Sincerely. It’s a nice place to hang. Try the chocolate hob-nobs
Or have I got this wrong? Not that I care one way or the other.
How anyone can take communism seriously beats me. A revolting ideology which has brought misery to millions wherever it has been tried. But it takes all sorts.
My mistake if so. But I’m sure she’s said she’s female? We desperately need more feminine voices on here..
UK on course to have worst-performing G7 economy in election year Britain’s economy will underperform Russia and Ukraine, warns IMF ... The IMF said higher interest rates were weighing on households and businesses as it downgraded its UK growth forecast from 1pc in 2024 to just 0.6pc.
Well that’s one way for the IMF to lose any remaining credibility they might have.
To be fair to them, they say in the footnotes that the recent huge revision in 2020/2021 could not be taken into account due to the data arriving past a cut-off date.
Well then maybe they should have delayed their report, to try and get a better understanding of why their recent numbers have turned out to be total bollocks compared to the outturn?
Thanks for recommending The Great Post Office Scandal, by Nick Wallis. It is riveting, and full of life lessons.
No need to tell you what you already know but this must surely be the worst UK scandal of my lifetime.
It is a thoroughly instructive example of how the justice system can fail, and how far reaching the consequences can be when it does.
Yes - the legal failures are some of the very worst aspects of this. As well as the failures of the politicians to control a state owned body. This latter has implications for our politics given the likely approach of a Labour government. It will be worth exploring both these aspects more fully. I intend doing so tho' I don't want to try people's patience on this here too much.
Justin Trudeau has all the sex appeal of a pint of milk. A lot of boys - just before puberty - look like their mothers. You can see it in school plays when they play female parts. Then they grow into men. Justin looks like someone who has never grown up
Can't think of any male politician in the UK who is remotely fanciable. Most of them can't even dress well.
Quite admire Rayner for making something of herself from a difficult background. That is worth celebrating. Whether she will be good in office is another matter.
UK on course to have worst-performing G7 economy in election year Britain’s economy will underperform Russia and Ukraine, warns IMF ... The IMF said higher interest rates were weighing on households and businesses as it downgraded its UK growth forecast from 1pc in 2024 to just 0.6pc.
Well that’s one way for the IMF to lose any remaining credibility they might have.
To be fair to them, they say in the footnotes that the recent huge revision in 2020/2021 could not be taken into account due to the data arriving past a cut-off date.
Well then maybe they should have delayed their report, to try and get a better understanding of why their recent numbers have turned out to be total bollocks compared to the outturn?
Probably because they are based on UK-supplied economic statistics which are also subject to revision.
As an example, when they built my 'village' (actually a town now), there was no public transport aside from a bus. The developers built a short section of dual carriageway onto the A428, which HA later grudgigly extended to meet the existing dual carriageway near Cambridge.
For public transport, we still rely on busses, and are at the whim of Stagecoach (who have withdrawn many of the services, and cut the routes through the village), and Whippet, who are good but small. We have no railway, no tram,; not even a good cycle route to Cambridge.
Any new town should have excellent transport links. Nearby, the new Northstowe should have the misguided bus link into Cambridge (along an old railway line, natch). Waterbeach New Town is going to be served by moving the existing station a short distance north. All these are paid for by the council, not developers.
We cannot - and must not - so new towns on the cheap.
Absolutely any new towns should have excellent transport links, I said there should be new motorways.
But that should not be the "developers" responsibility.
If you want community infrastructure, then it is the responsibility of the entire community, the entire country, to pay for that - not just pile the burden on those who get a new house all alone while those who live in secure housing that was built years ago abscond from any responsibilities.
That's sorta my point. It should be paid for by the councils involved, and it should be there when it is needed.
As an example of where S106 can go wrong, see this story (yes, DM...). The first houses in Nortstowe (a development northwest of Cambridge) have been occupied for six years now, and it has no shops, pubs, cafes, public toilets, or even a GP practice.
I know Northstowe fairly well (I've run around all of it as of a few months ago, but the ****ards keep on opening new roads...), and although I'm not a fan of the architecture, the layout seems fairly well designed. But it's terrible that a place that is housing thousands does not have the basic amenities.
It's fine for the council to say: a 'community centre building will be provided before the 900th home was occupied, or a sports pavilion before the 500th - when there are 1,200 homes occupied and they have not been built.
The council should be able to make the developer stop all building works on houses - and sales of completed houses - until it meets its obligations.
S106 simply doesn't work very well, even on large developments.
As an example, when they built my 'village' (actually a town now), there was no public transport aside from a bus. The developers built a short section of dual carriageway onto the A428, which HA later grudgigly extended to meet the existing dual carriageway near Cambridge.
For public transport, we still rely on busses, and are at the whim of Stagecoach (who have withdrawn many of the services, and cut the routes through the village), and Whippet, who are good but small. We have no railway, no tram,; not even a good cycle route to Cambridge.
Any new town should have excellent transport links. Nearby, the new Northstowe should have the misguided bus link into Cambridge (along an old railway line, natch). Waterbeach New Town is going to be served by moving the existing station a short distance north. All these are paid for by the council, not developers.
We cannot - and must not - so new towns on the cheap.
Absolutely any new towns should have excellent transport links, I said there should be new motorways.
But that should not be the "developers" responsibility.
If you want community infrastructure, then it is the responsibility of the entire community, the entire country, to pay for that - not just pile the burden on those who get a new house all alone while those who live in secure housing that was built years ago abscond from any responsibilities.
That's sorta my point. It should be paid for by the councils involved, and it should be there when it is needed.
As an example of where S106 can go wrong, see this story (yes, DM...). The first houses in Nortstowe (a development northwest of Cambridge) have been occupied for six years now, and it has no shops, pubs, cafes, public toilets, or even a GP practice.
I know Northstowe fairly well (I've run around all of it as of a few months ago, but the ****ards keep on opening new roads...), and although I'm not a fan of the architecture, the layout seems fairly well designed. But it's terrible that a place that is housing thousands does not have the basic amenities.
It's fine for the council to say: a 'community centre building will be provided before the 900th home was occupied, or a sports pavilion before the 500th - when there are 1,200 homes occupied and they have not been built.
The council should be able to make the developer stop all building works on houses - and sales of completed houses - until it meets its obligations.
S106 simply doesn't work very well, even on large developments.
The housing developer should have nothing to do with "obligations" on other things. The housing developer should be dealing with housing and housing alone.
It should be no more the housing developers responsibility to meet the Councils obligations than it is the Schools obligation to meet the GPs obligations.
Suggesting stopping housing until other things is resolved is like suggesting shutting schools until other things are resolved.
S106 should not exist.
I mean, it’s a view. Just an odd one. The theory of s106 is great. Make the entity already building lots of stuff, and due to make lots of cash from it, build in the infrastructure as it goes, in lieu of tax.
The issue is making the buggers actually do it, and the problem is too much power in the hands of local politicians, who are partial to a brown envelope, or even just a nice lunch and the feel of being important.
The entity making cash doesn't pay for it, the buyers of the houses get the price added on to pay for it as it gets built in.
Why should they pay for it? Why shouldn't the whole of society pay for societal infrastructure?
Just cut out the middle man and get Councils to pull their finger out and do their own job.
The obvious reason why buyers of new homes should pay for infrastructure (via the developer) is that a town of 40k people needs quite a bit more infrastructure than one of 20k.
Whilst it's true the tax base expands, the bulk of that is going on the revenue budget - the income generated from Council Tax for the extra people isn't on a scale for the level of capital investment needed on the infrastructure.
Sorry but if a town of 40k needs more infrastructure then the entire 40k should pay for it.
There's no such thing as an externality here.
Homes don't need schools, people do.
If there's been population growth then the Taxpayer needs to pay for any Tax funded education, or other Tax funded infrastructure, not just those who were unfortunate enough to need a new house while those who are fortunate enough to already have one abscond from their responsibilities.
"There is no such thing as an externality here"
Interesting question. Can we think of any human activity they doesn't have an externality, positive or negative?
Yes humans bring externalities.
Humans having children means schools are needed.
Buildings existing does not.
The infrastructure demand comes from people. Slamming 40k people into houses meant for 20k does not reduce demand from 40k living in houses meant for 40k
People seem to want immigration and childbirth etc for the benefits but when it comes to paying for infrastructure then suddenly that's someone else's responsibility. No, it's not. If it's public infrastructure it's communal for all, so all should pay.
Private infrastructure? Different matter. But none of what's been mentioned is private so far.
As an example, when they built my 'village' (actually a town now), there was no public transport aside from a bus. The developers built a short section of dual carriageway onto the A428, which HA later grudgigly extended to meet the existing dual carriageway near Cambridge.
For public transport, we still rely on busses, and are at the whim of Stagecoach (who have withdrawn many of the services, and cut the routes through the village), and Whippet, who are good but small. We have no railway, no tram,; not even a good cycle route to Cambridge.
Any new town should have excellent transport links. Nearby, the new Northstowe should have the misguided bus link into Cambridge (along an old railway line, natch). Waterbeach New Town is going to be served by moving the existing station a short distance north. All these are paid for by the council, not developers.
We cannot - and must not - so new towns on the cheap.
Absolutely any new towns should have excellent transport links, I said there should be new motorways.
But that should not be the "developers" responsibility.
If you want community infrastructure, then it is the responsibility of the entire community, the entire country, to pay for that - not just pile the burden on those who get a new house all alone while those who live in secure housing that was built years ago abscond from any responsibilities.
That's sorta my point. It should be paid for by the councils involved, and it should be there when it is needed.
As an example of where S106 can go wrong, see this story (yes, DM...). The first houses in Nortstowe (a development northwest of Cambridge) have been occupied for six years now, and it has no shops, pubs, cafes, public toilets, or even a GP practice.
I know Northstowe fairly well (I've run around all of it as of a few months ago, but the ****ards keep on opening new roads...), and although I'm not a fan of the architecture, the layout seems fairly well designed. But it's terrible that a place that is housing thousands does not have the basic amenities.
It's fine for the council to say: a 'community centre building will be provided before the 900th home was occupied, or a sports pavilion before the 500th - when there are 1,200 homes occupied and they have not been built.
The council should be able to make the developer stop all building works on houses - and sales of completed houses - until it meets its obligations.
S106 simply doesn't work very well, even on large developments.
As an example, when they built my 'village' (actually a town now), there was no public transport aside from a bus. The developers built a short section of dual carriageway onto the A428, which HA later grudgigly extended to meet the existing dual carriageway near Cambridge.
For public transport, we still rely on busses, and are at the whim of Stagecoach (who have withdrawn many of the services, and cut the routes through the village), and Whippet, who are good but small. We have no railway, no tram,; not even a good cycle route to Cambridge.
Any new town should have excellent transport links. Nearby, the new Northstowe should have the misguided bus link into Cambridge (along an old railway line, natch). Waterbeach New Town is going to be served by moving the existing station a short distance north. All these are paid for by the council, not developers.
We cannot - and must not - so new towns on the cheap.
Absolutely any new towns should have excellent transport links, I said there should be new motorways.
But that should not be the "developers" responsibility.
If you want community infrastructure, then it is the responsibility of the entire community, the entire country, to pay for that - not just pile the burden on those who get a new house all alone while those who live in secure housing that was built years ago abscond from any responsibilities.
That's sorta my point. It should be paid for by the councils involved, and it should be there when it is needed.
As an example of where S106 can go wrong, see this story (yes, DM...). The first houses in Nortstowe (a development northwest of Cambridge) have been occupied for six years now, and it has no shops, pubs, cafes, public toilets, or even a GP practice.
I know Northstowe fairly well (I've run around all of it as of a few months ago, but the ****ards keep on opening new roads...), and although I'm not a fan of the architecture, the layout seems fairly well designed. But it's terrible that a place that is housing thousands does not have the basic amenities.
It's fine for the council to say: a 'community centre building will be provided before the 900th home was occupied, or a sports pavilion before the 500th - when there are 1,200 homes occupied and they have not been built.
The council should be able to make the developer stop all building works on houses - and sales of completed houses - until it meets its obligations.
S106 simply doesn't work very well, even on large developments.
The housing developer should have nothing to do with "obligations" on other things. The housing developer should be dealing with housing and housing alone.
It should be no more the housing developers responsibility to meet the Councils obligations than it is the Schools obligation to meet the GPs obligations.
Suggesting stopping housing until other things is resolved is like suggesting shutting schools until other things are resolved.
S106 should not exist.
I mean, it’s a view. Just an odd one. The theory of s106 is great. Make the entity already building lots of stuff, and due to make lots of cash from it, build in the infrastructure as it goes, in lieu of tax.
The issue is making the buggers actually do it, and the problem is too much power in the hands of local politicians, who are partial to a brown envelope, or even just a nice lunch and the feel of being important.
The entity making cash doesn't pay for it, the buyers of the houses get the price added on to pay for it as it gets built in.
Why should they pay for it? Why shouldn't the whole of society pay for societal infrastructure?
Just cut out the middle man and get Councils to pull their finger out and do their own job.
The obvious reason why buyers of new homes should pay for infrastructure (via the developer) is that a town of 40k people needs quite a bit more infrastructure than one of 20k.
Whilst it's true the tax base expands, the bulk of that is going on the revenue budget - the income generated from Council Tax for the extra people isn't on a scale for the level of capital investment needed on the infrastructure.
Sorry but if a town of 40k needs more infrastructure then the entire 40k should pay for it.
There's no such thing as an externality here.
Homes don't need schools, people do.
If there's been population growth then the Taxpayer needs to pay for any Tax funded education, or other Tax funded infrastructure, not just those who were unfortunate enough to need a new house while those who are fortunate enough to already have one abscond from their responsibilities.
"There is no such thing as an externality here"
Interesting question. Can we think of any human activity they doesn't have an externality, positive or negative?
Yes humans bring externalities.
Humans having children means schools are needed.
Buildings existing does not.
The infrastructure demand comes from people. Slamming 40k people into houses meant for 20k does not reduce demand from 40k living in houses meant for 40k
People seem to want immigration and childbirth etc for the benefits but when it comes to paying for infrastructure then suddenly that's someone else's responsibility. No, it's not. If it's public infrastructure it's communal for all, so all should pay.
Private infrastructure? Different matter. But none of what's been mentioned is private so far.
Look at you wiggling about like Dylan's big fat snake.
As an example, when they built my 'village' (actually a town now), there was no public transport aside from a bus. The developers built a short section of dual carriageway onto the A428, which HA later grudgigly extended to meet the existing dual carriageway near Cambridge.
For public transport, we still rely on busses, and are at the whim of Stagecoach (who have withdrawn many of the services, and cut the routes through the village), and Whippet, who are good but small. We have no railway, no tram,; not even a good cycle route to Cambridge.
Any new town should have excellent transport links. Nearby, the new Northstowe should have the misguided bus link into Cambridge (along an old railway line, natch). Waterbeach New Town is going to be served by moving the existing station a short distance north. All these are paid for by the council, not developers.
We cannot - and must not - so new towns on the cheap.
Absolutely any new towns should have excellent transport links, I said there should be new motorways.
But that should not be the "developers" responsibility.
If you want community infrastructure, then it is the responsibility of the entire community, the entire country, to pay for that - not just pile the burden on those who get a new house all alone while those who live in secure housing that was built years ago abscond from any responsibilities.
That's sorta my point. It should be paid for by the councils involved, and it should be there when it is needed.
As an example of where S106 can go wrong, see this story (yes, DM...). The first houses in Nortstowe (a development northwest of Cambridge) have been occupied for six years now, and it has no shops, pubs, cafes, public toilets, or even a GP practice.
I know Northstowe fairly well (I've run around all of it as of a few months ago, but the ****ards keep on opening new roads...), and although I'm not a fan of the architecture, the layout seems fairly well designed. But it's terrible that a place that is housing thousands does not have the basic amenities.
It's fine for the council to say: a 'community centre building will be provided before the 900th home was occupied, or a sports pavilion before the 500th - when there are 1,200 homes occupied and they have not been built.
The council should be able to make the developer stop all building works on houses - and sales of completed houses - until it meets its obligations.
S106 simply doesn't work very well, even on large developments.
As an example, when they built my 'village' (actually a town now), there was no public transport aside from a bus. The developers built a short section of dual carriageway onto the A428, which HA later grudgigly extended to meet the existing dual carriageway near Cambridge.
For public transport, we still rely on busses, and are at the whim of Stagecoach (who have withdrawn many of the services, and cut the routes through the village), and Whippet, who are good but small. We have no railway, no tram,; not even a good cycle route to Cambridge.
Any new town should have excellent transport links. Nearby, the new Northstowe should have the misguided bus link into Cambridge (along an old railway line, natch). Waterbeach New Town is going to be served by moving the existing station a short distance north. All these are paid for by the council, not developers.
We cannot - and must not - so new towns on the cheap.
Absolutely any new towns should have excellent transport links, I said there should be new motorways.
But that should not be the "developers" responsibility.
If you want community infrastructure, then it is the responsibility of the entire community, the entire country, to pay for that - not just pile the burden on those who get a new house all alone while those who live in secure housing that was built years ago abscond from any responsibilities.
That's sorta my point. It should be paid for by the councils involved, and it should be there when it is needed.
As an example of where S106 can go wrong, see this story (yes, DM...). The first houses in Nortstowe (a development northwest of Cambridge) have been occupied for six years now, and it has no shops, pubs, cafes, public toilets, or even a GP practice.
I know Northstowe fairly well (I've run around all of it as of a few months ago, but the ****ards keep on opening new roads...), and although I'm not a fan of the architecture, the layout seems fairly well designed. But it's terrible that a place that is housing thousands does not have the basic amenities.
It's fine for the council to say: a 'community centre building will be provided before the 900th home was occupied, or a sports pavilion before the 500th - when there are 1,200 homes occupied and they have not been built.
The council should be able to make the developer stop all building works on houses - and sales of completed houses - until it meets its obligations.
S106 simply doesn't work very well, even on large developments.
The housing developer should have nothing to do with "obligations" on other things. The housing developer should be dealing with housing and housing alone.
It should be no more the housing developers responsibility to meet the Councils obligations than it is the Schools obligation to meet the GPs obligations.
Suggesting stopping housing until other things is resolved is like suggesting shutting schools until other things are resolved.
S106 should not exist.
I mean, it’s a view. Just an odd one. The theory of s106 is great. Make the entity already building lots of stuff, and due to make lots of cash from it, build in the infrastructure as it goes, in lieu of tax.
The issue is making the buggers actually do it, and the problem is too much power in the hands of local politicians, who are partial to a brown envelope, or even just a nice lunch and the feel of being important.
The entity making cash doesn't pay for it, the buyers of the houses get the price added on to pay for it as it gets built in.
Why should they pay for it? Why shouldn't the whole of society pay for societal infrastructure?
Just cut out the middle man and get Councils to pull their finger out and do their own job.
The obvious reason why buyers of new homes should pay for infrastructure (via the developer) is that a town of 40k people needs quite a bit more infrastructure than one of 20k.
Whilst it's true the tax base expands, the bulk of that is going on the revenue budget - the income generated from Council Tax for the extra people isn't on a scale for the level of capital investment needed on the infrastructure.
Sorry but if a town of 40k needs more infrastructure then the entire 40k should pay for it.
There's no such thing as an externality here.
Homes don't need schools, people do.
If there's been population growth then the Taxpayer needs to pay for any Tax funded education, or other Tax funded infrastructure, not just those who were unfortunate enough to need a new house while those who are fortunate enough to already have one abscond from their responsibilities.
"There is no such thing as an externality here"
Interesting question. Can we think of any human activity they doesn't have an externality, positive or negative?
Someone close to me has had tea with Keir Starmer and said he was great: relaxed, easy to get on with, and funny.
The issue is more that people don't yet see Starmer. If my friend is right then it will come through during the GE campaign.
What's abundantly clear to all of us who actually live in this country Robert @rcs1000 is that the more we see of Sunak, the worse he appears.
A lot if people say the same thing, but isn’t it strange that he never comes across as anything other than really stiff and boring?
Two examples - he is genuinely a football fan; season ticket at Arsenal, plays 5 a side in Camden, so you’d think he would be in a relaxed environment talking about it. Yet…
I hope you enjoy it because it's in your interests to get to know and like Keir. He'll be on your various screens a lot in the next few years. It's distressing when that's the case with a politician you can't stand.
I know this only too well because of Donald Trump and Boris "Boris" Johnson. Cannot abide either of them and that period from July 2019 to January 2021 when they were both simultaneously squatting atop their respective trees was (quite literally) a hell on earth.
We do not want the same for you.
Cheers.
It’s ok though, I am lucky to have been able to watch & learn from the excruciating behaviour of those who lost the referendum & GE19. A perfect lesson in how not to do it
Ok. But I genuinely hope you do find a quiet few minutes to listen to it.
I love Desert Island Discs. Perfect for bathtime! My Dad listened to Sir Keir’s show when it was broadcast and said he came across well.
But I won’t be listening to it. I only really listen to those ft people I like. I barely watch the news or any politics programmes anyway now, so it’s easy to not let him being PM affect me in the way Boris winning seemed to have sent others to the brink of lunacy
We won the referendum, Sir Keir & co tried for three years to stop the result being implemented, then we won again & it felt great - I think the pandemic ruined what could have been a great opportunity, but we are where we are; if the public want to elect the chief Remainer/Brexit blocker as PM next time, then that’s the way it is.
I’d recommend George Michael’s DID, as well as Richard E Grant’s
As an example, when they built my 'village' (actually a town now), there was no public transport aside from a bus. The developers built a short section of dual carriageway onto the A428, which HA later grudgigly extended to meet the existing dual carriageway near Cambridge.
For public transport, we still rely on busses, and are at the whim of Stagecoach (who have withdrawn many of the services, and cut the routes through the village), and Whippet, who are good but small. We have no railway, no tram,; not even a good cycle route to Cambridge.
Any new town should have excellent transport links. Nearby, the new Northstowe should have the misguided bus link into Cambridge (along an old railway line, natch). Waterbeach New Town is going to be served by moving the existing station a short distance north. All these are paid for by the council, not developers.
We cannot - and must not - so new towns on the cheap.
Absolutely any new towns should have excellent transport links, I said there should be new motorways.
But that should not be the "developers" responsibility.
If you want community infrastructure, then it is the responsibility of the entire community, the entire country, to pay for that - not just pile the burden on those who get a new house all alone while those who live in secure housing that was built years ago abscond from any responsibilities.
That's sorta my point. It should be paid for by the councils involved, and it should be there when it is needed.
As an example of where S106 can go wrong, see this story (yes, DM...). The first houses in Nortstowe (a development northwest of Cambridge) have been occupied for six years now, and it has no shops, pubs, cafes, public toilets, or even a GP practice.
I know Northstowe fairly well (I've run around all of it as of a few months ago, but the ****ards keep on opening new roads...), and although I'm not a fan of the architecture, the layout seems fairly well designed. But it's terrible that a place that is housing thousands does not have the basic amenities.
It's fine for the council to say: a 'community centre building will be provided before the 900th home was occupied, or a sports pavilion before the 500th - when there are 1,200 homes occupied and they have not been built.
The council should be able to make the developer stop all building works on houses - and sales of completed houses - until it meets its obligations.
S106 simply doesn't work very well, even on large developments.
The housing developer should have nothing to do with "obligations" on other things. The housing developer should be dealing with housing and housing alone.
It should be no more the housing developers responsibility to meet the Councils obligations than it is the Schools obligation to meet the GPs obligations.
Suggesting stopping housing until other things is resolved is like suggesting shutting schools until other things are resolved.
S106 should not exist.
I mean, it’s a view. Just an odd one. The theory of s106 is great. Make the entity already building lots of stuff, and due to make lots of cash from it, build in the infrastructure as it goes, in lieu of tax.
The issue is making the buggers actually do it, and the problem is too much power in the hands of local politicians, who are partial to a brown envelope, or even just a nice lunch and the feel of being important.
But there is no such thing as a free lunch. One of the main reasons that new housing is so expensive (and thus relatively scarce) in this country is that the developer is burdened with a long and expensive planning process and then ransomed by s106. Without this we would have more and cheaper houses.
I think it's much simpler than "regulations". Developers need to balance two things:
1) Reduce costs. Build homes as cheaply as possible. 2) Increase profits. Implement a supply constraint on land (and therefore homes) by using up as much as possible, including by not building on it
The equilibrium they have landed on is thousands of identical detached homes with no public services.
If you ensured that all homes were, say, at most a 15 minute walk/cycle from a school, pub, bus stop/train station, post office, the equilibrium were shift dramatically towards flats and high density homes. Which means more homes.
You could implement this without obliging the developer to build all the services. They just need to leave room for them.
That last para is interesting, and serviced plots (*) can be a creative approach especially for self-build. But one problem is that services are not separate - much of it is built first or simultaneously, and all of it has to be planned to required standards, with required justification, first. That all makes Planning Applications more difficult, more time consuming and more expensive.
The more Local Authorities do, the more their lack of ability to actually do developer-things compared to developers will be obvious.
Currently it is normal for estates to start being occupied as each group of 2 or 3 houses are built - quite a cost saving and risk reduction over building in groups of say 20 or 50. That lesson was learnt the hard way in 2012-13, when umpteen housing developments suddenly became unviable (the poster child for this being Ireland).
That brings in other problems - the half built partly occupied estate across from me has horrible antisocial pavement parking problems, and since it is still not adopted the Council can't touch it. Obviously the police just aren't interested, despite being the only body that can enforce.
(*) The biggest current example is Graven Hill near Bicester. I know half a dozen people on there and the complexity / expense is horrific. They have a complex tax avoidance structure based around something called a Golden Brick, which requires the plot-seller to supply the foundation, drainage etc, and is really in part a way to dodge taxes on that part of the build.
I could equally point to one of the first of the current wave of serviced plot setups where the local Council spend nearly the entire value of the plots for sale on preparatory work.
This discussion is the essence of what Barty would call Nimbyism. He would build 20 houses in the field next door to him and sod everyone else because development. But people forget externalities. That is why there is the planning procedure. If those 20 houses need sewers, water, electricity, road access then that affects the community and has to be paid for. It can't be hand waved away.
If it needs paying for then everyone should pay for it, if it's public infrastructure.
Don't want to pay for new schools? Then we need to live in a state without population growth. But if we live in a state with population growth then absolutely everyone in that state should pay their taxes not just a minority.
There's no pollution or externality from new homes. Extra people bring extra demand but cramming those extra people into overcrowded slums doesn't cut demand. A child living in an overcrowded home needs a school just as much, and needs extra support from teachers/schools/taxpayers because they don't have space of their own at home to study.
Your position fosters the very NIMBYism you profess to hate.
Say there is a need for 50k homes across two adjacent local authority areas.
If you just say the 50k homes pay Council Tax, but all the capital cost of infrastructure to support 100k+ new residents falls on taxpayers in the area as a whole, it's just deeply unattractive to have those new homes in your area. Not only do you get your area built on, but you pay a fortune for the privilege. Much better to put every obstacle in the way of it happening so the neighbouring authority has to deal with it.
If, however, the buyers of the homes (via the developer) pay a levy for additional infrastructure (as well as expanding the tax base), sure you've still got some NIMBYs complaining. But some of the people in the area, and certainly councillors and the Council think, "Hang on, we're going to get that new school people want, plus a road upgrade nearby and a leisure centre... so maybe we can face down the people whining about a new estate being built because we all get an infrastructure upgrade".
Thanks for recommending The Great Post Office Scandal, by Nick Wallis. It is riveting, and full of life lessons.
No need to tell you what you already know but this must surely be the worst UK scandal of my lifetime.
It is a thoroughly instructive example of how the justice system can fail, and how far reaching the consequences can be when it does.
Yes - the legal failures are some of the very worst aspects of this. As well as the failures of the politicians to control a state owned body. This latter has implications for our politics given the likely approach of a Labour government. It will be worth exploring both these aspects more fully. I intend doing so tho' I don't want to try people's patience on this here too much.
It is worthy of a lifetime's study, but not here, I agree.
I would appreciate it however if you could occasionally drop in with updates. At the moment, the lawyers seem to be getting it in the neck. I expect it will be the Post Office managers soon, and then its Board. Can't wait to see what excuses Vennells comes up with.
Apparently she is a near neighbour of Mike Smithson. I wonder if the two are acquainted, by chance?
Comments
And what if someone is building an estate of 100 homes? That won't, in itself, require a new primary school. But, if ten people are each building 100, it may do.
Also, what of viability? A developer will argue pretty vigorously that you can have your school if they can stick two more storeys on their buildings, and that if you demand a new road rather than a bit of resurfacing, the thing won't go ahead.
I think others have mentioned that the simpler approach, really, is a fairly straight levy for capital projects in the area. Otherwise you're into a world of endless haggling.
https://pubchem.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/compound/sodium bromide
Going to be fun to watch those who reckon governing is easy get confronted by the reality: it's mostly about 51:49 decisions. And the 49 who lose out know how to use social media.
One one level, they will be lucky. They won't face the combination of implementing Brexit, Covid, Ukraine and the consequent cost of living crisis all in one Parliament.
On another, they'll be unlucky: trying to make 51:49 decisions as part of a rainbow coalition.
A couple of years of that, then you can rate Rayner.
Someone has to pay. And it makes sense for some of the burden to go on the new homeowner.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2023/10/10/israel-palestine-latest-news-updates-hamas-gaza-live/ (£££)
From "live" coverage.
In an entirely unrelated note all my major relationships have been with very pretty, rather elfin women in their 20s
I can’t imagine anyone will criticise you if you make a comment that x male MP is good looking or a bit rough. The fact is that image does play a part in how people perceive other people as does character and charm so all relevant for discussion. Is politician X telegenic or “looks a bit weird” is common as a discussion in most countries and forums.
The sign they are erecting is the giveaway. "Welcome to Rwanda".....
Boris’ hair, weight and relative musculature have been the subjects of entire threads
So women also come under scrutiny. It’s human nature. Looks matter (they probably shouldn’t but they do)
They are still getting binning when I am Supreme Leader though.
There just aren’t many of them. Showbiz for ugly people, etc
"Pat McFadden, Labour's campaign co-ordinator, has been talking to the BBC this morning, saying the dream of home ownership has become “more and more difficult to achieve” and the party want build the next generation of "new towns" near English cities.
New towns were the most ambitious town building programme ever undertaken in the UK and began happening after World War Two to relocate people away from big cities.
McFadden tells BBC Radio 4's Today programme that currently developers pick where houses go and it’s often a contentious process.
"We’ve got a different idea here which is to build a new generation of new towns, which are of course about housing, but not just about housing but about the other things that make up a community – a GP surgery, this primary school, transport links, businesses – things that make a community more than a collection of houses.""
That's something I could get behind.
Although around here there're already two/three new towns under construction...
I still smile about @Dura_Ace’s crack, vis a vis the tiny Sunak, that “the British won’t vote for a fucking Borrower”
One of the wittiest lines to ever grace these august pages. But also deeply cruel
It'd be good if it happens.
Two examples - he is genuinely a football fan; season ticket at Arsenal, plays 5 a side in Camden, so you’d think he would be in a relaxed environment talking about it. Yet…
https://x.com/asfarasdelgados/status/1583374767653994501?s=46&t=CW4pL-mMpTqsJXCdjW0Z6Q
https://x.com/keir_starmer/status/1711082033756164214?s=46&t=CW4pL-mMpTqsJXCdjW0Z6Q
“Right in the 86th minute”??? Perhaps he neither writes or signs off his own social media, because no real football fan would ever speak like that
ASLEF, I agree, just want the money. A relentlessly free-market Tory friend says that if he was a train driver he'd certainly support the leadership - "they are doing what you're supposed to do in a free economy, simply whatever is needed to maximise your benefit. It's not their job to seek popularity."
1) Reduce costs. Build homes as cheaply as possible.
2) Increase profits. Implement a supply constraint on land (and therefore homes) by using up as much as possible, including by not building on it
The equilibrium they have landed on is thousands of identical detached homes with no public services.
If you ensured that all homes were, say, at most a 15 minute walk/cycle from a school, pub, bus stop/train station, post office, the equilibrium were shift dramatically towards flats and high density homes. Which means more homes.
You could implement this without obliging the developer to build all the services. They just need to leave room for them.
Macron’s not a minger either.
I have a sense I disagree with you on 99.56% of issues, but that makes for fun debate. Also you are young, female and an unapologetic communist - three things we seldom see on PB, and we need fresh young opinions. And you also seem highly articulate and confident of your views - even if they are ridiculous
I do hope you stick around. Sincerely. It’s a nice place to hang. Try the chocolate hob-nobs
I also find VIktor Orban weirdly arousing. That brooding Magyar machismo. And don’t get me on to Drakeford. A coiled Welsh dragon of burning sexuality
Not even the most ridiculous views on here anyway - the push Gaza into the sea crowd are far sillier.
His post Rutherglen speech to the troops was a case in point; 'We blew the doors off!' is a bit of tone deaf Anglo geezerism, but SKS was too much of a fanny to say 'bloody doors'.
The Drake goes without saying, of course. The pinnacle of millions of years of sexual selection to create genetic aesthetic perfection in a single man.
The housinf developer should have nothing to do with "obligations" on other things. The housing debel Sorry but if a town of 40k needs more infrastructure then the entire 40k should pay for it.
There's no such thing as an externality here.
Homes don't need schools, people do.
If there's been population growth then the Taxpayer needs to pay for any Tax funded education, or other Tax funded infrastructure, not just those who were unfortunate enough to need a new house while those who are fortunate enough to already have one abscond from their responsibilities.
Have you any pics that might convince me of the hunkiness of Dave?
Britain’s economy will underperform Russia and Ukraine, warns IMF
...
The IMF said higher interest rates were weighing on households and businesses as it downgraded its UK growth forecast from 1pc in 2024 to just 0.6pc.
It warned that UK inflation is expected to remain the highest in the G7 in 2023 and 2024, with Mr Sunak only just on track to meet his goal of halving the headline rate by the end of next year.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2023/10/10/uk-on-course-worst-performing-g7-economy/ (£££)
Don't want to pay for new schools? Then we need to live in a state without population growth. But if we live in a state with population growth then absolutely everyone in that state should pay their taxes not just a minority.
There's no pollution or externality from new homes. Extra people bring extra demand but cramming those extra people into overcrowded slums doesn't cut demand. A child living in an overcrowded home needs a school just as much, and needs extra support from teachers/schools/taxpayers because they don't have space of their own at home to study.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/m000pdqz
I hope you enjoy it because it's in your interests to get to know and like Keir. He'll be on your various screens a lot in the next few years. It's distressing when that's the case with a politician you can't stand.
I know this only too well because of Donald Trump and Boris "Boris" Johnson. Cannot abide either of them and that period from July 2019 to January 2021 when they were both simultaneously squatting atop their respective trees was (quite literally) a hell on earth.
We do not want the same for you.
Interesting question. Can we think of any human activity they doesn't have an externality, positive or negative?
Whch are then revised beyond recognition.
What is it about him? Obviously he’s a beautiful man on a basic level, but he also has this deep, animal, volcanic inner sexuality which feels like it could fire entire power stations
He’s just… primal
Incidentally, those areas of Wales which signed the petition most desperately also have some of the highest divorce rates in the nation.
Can't think of any male politician in the UK who is remotely fanciable. Most of them can't even dress well.
Quite admire Rayner for making something of herself from a difficult background. That is worth celebrating. Whether she will be good in office is another matter.
It’s ok though, I am lucky to have been able to watch & learn from the excruciating behaviour of those who lost the referendum & GE19. A perfect lesson in how not to do it
Not - and I repeat, not - "pineapple on peni[That's enough - Ed]
Thanks for recommending The Great Post Office Scandal, by Nick Wallis. It is riveting, and full of life lessons.
No need to tell you what you already know but this must surely be the worst UK scandal of my lifetime.
It is a thoroughly instructive example of how the justice system can fail, and how far reaching the consequences can be when it does.
... With the aim of achieving (2).
We don't have thousands of identical homes in any one place - that was Council Estates 75 years ago. The mix of required home size is determined by Councils, and Planning Applications reflect that. Are some places different?
At present it will be a selection from a wide range of standard types in a developer's catalogue.
If you want "as cheap as possible" AND "as good as possible", they have to be consistent. Customisation and individuality boosts expense. That's why cars for the masses stopped being coach-built from the moment they were introduced in around 1910.
Availability of local services are already basic parts of Planning Policy - I won't bother to look up the Paragraph Numbers in the NPPF or the regional / local guideline docs based on it. In our patch that is part of the analysis for ranking of all potential sites submitted as part of the Local Plan preparation process, which are the ranked and the number required taken from the top of the list down.
Then any required services to make the development "acceptable in planning terms" are part or fully funded as part of the S106 or Community Infrastructure Levy - subject to a viability review process.
This existing process is why the critics of the 15 Minute City principle are as boneheaded as the critics of Low Traffic Neighbourhoods. They are whining about extant and long term practice, going down a rabbithole (that turns out to be their own anus) until only the soles of their feet are showing.
Reform is difficult because it is adjustment on top of what already exists; anything more fundamental involves ignoring "what about my doorstep" NIMBYs, which the Tories will never do as they are their powerbase, and the Lib Dems rely on for their pure populist politics.
If we remove Planning Gain taxes that is 5-10bn a year spent on public realm and services that will need to come from somewhere else - where?
But I suspect you and me agree on almost all of this.
The young Tony Blair was actually attractive. Indeed even the very young Gordon Brown had a brooding, saturnine allure. Now he’s just jowly
Should this be applied to all professions?
Actors? Models? Members of the adult entertainment community?
Or have I got this wrong? Not that I care one way or the other.
How anyone can take communism seriously beats me. A revolting ideology which has brought misery to millions wherever it has been tried. But it takes all sorts.
https://x.com/davekeating/status/1711645951448768880
We now know the EU is *not* suspending all aid to Palestinians in response to the #HamasAttack.
What we don't know is whether this was a policy u-turn from 🇪🇺President @VonDerLeyen, or one of her commissioners going rogue and announcing something he wasn't authorised to do. #FAC
Either way, this doesn't look good for VDL.
Either she acted unilaterally in suspending aid without consulting national governments, or she's lost control of her college and Commissioner #Varhelyi went rogue.
From all accounts it was absolute chaos at the Commission last night.
Humans having children means schools are needed.
Buildings existing does not.
The infrastructure demand comes from people. Slamming 40k people into houses meant for 20k does not reduce demand from 40k living in houses meant for 40k
People seem to want immigration and childbirth etc for the benefits but when it comes to paying for infrastructure then suddenly that's someone else's responsibility. No, it's not. If it's public infrastructure it's communal for all, so all should pay.
Private infrastructure? Different matter. But none of what's been mentioned is private so far.
They may well be wonderful human beings. Without knowing them I cannot comment on that.
Have never seen or met any male politician I fancy. Whereas I've met lots of men in other walks of life I've fancied like mad.
But I won’t be listening to it. I only really listen to those ft people I like. I barely watch the news or any politics programmes anyway now, so it’s easy to not let him being PM affect me in the way Boris winning seemed to have sent others to the brink of lunacy
We won the referendum, Sir Keir & co tried for three years to stop the result being implemented, then we won again & it felt great - I think the pandemic ruined what could have been a great opportunity, but we are where we are; if the public want to elect the chief Remainer/Brexit blocker as PM next time, then that’s the way it is.
I’d recommend George Michael’s DID, as well as Richard E Grant’s
…& Enoch Powell’s… can’t whack a bit of Wagner
The more Local Authorities do, the more their lack of ability to actually do developer-things compared to developers will be obvious.
Currently it is normal for estates to start being occupied as each group of 2 or 3 houses are built - quite a cost saving and risk reduction over building in groups of say 20 or 50. That lesson was learnt the hard way in 2012-13, when umpteen housing developments suddenly became unviable (the poster child for this being Ireland).
That brings in other problems - the half built partly occupied estate across from me has horrible antisocial pavement parking problems, and since it is still not adopted the Council can't touch it. Obviously the police just aren't interested, despite being the only body that can enforce.
(*) The biggest current example is Graven Hill near Bicester. I know half a dozen people on there and the complexity / expense is horrific. They have a complex tax avoidance structure based around something called a Golden Brick, which requires the plot-seller to supply the foundation, drainage etc, and is really in part a way to dodge taxes on that part of the build.
I could equally point to one of the first of the current wave of serviced plot setups where the local Council spend nearly the entire value of the plots for sale on preparatory work.
Say there is a need for 50k homes across two adjacent local authority areas.
If you just say the 50k homes pay Council Tax, but all the capital cost of infrastructure to support 100k+ new residents falls on taxpayers in the area as a whole, it's just deeply unattractive to have those new homes in your area. Not only do you get your area built on, but you pay a fortune for the privilege. Much better to put every obstacle in the way of it happening so the neighbouring authority has to deal with it.
If, however, the buyers of the homes (via the developer) pay a levy for additional infrastructure (as well as expanding the tax base), sure you've still got some NIMBYs complaining. But some of the people in the area, and certainly councillors and the Council think, "Hang on, we're going to get that new school people want, plus a road upgrade nearby and a leisure centre... so maybe we can face down the people whining about a new estate being built because we all get an infrastructure upgrade".
I would appreciate it however if you could occasionally drop in with updates. At the moment, the lawyers seem to be getting it in the neck. I expect it will be the Post Office managers soon, and then its Board. Can't wait to see what excuses Vennells comes up with.
Apparently she is a near neighbour of Mike Smithson. I wonder if the two are acquainted, by chance?