Tonight on Channel 4 at 7.55pm, the Reform Party will release one of the most exciting Party Election Broadcasts ever produced.
I’m amazed it even got past compliance, but we did it.
You won’t want to miss this.
Does anyone know what "compliance" refers to in this context?
Farage seems to imply there is some official body vetting party election broadcasts before they are transmitted, with the power to exclude content or forbid broadcast.
Is there anything that could be presented as a shred of truth in that?
It would be the compliance function within the broadcaster itself.
It's not the producer of a TV programme that's ultimately responsible for compliance with Ofcom's Broadcasting Code, but the licensed broadcaster that puts it out.
So broadcasters will put bought in programmes through internal compliance to check they aren't going to run into trouble. Same for PPBs.
Farage is over-egging it, of course. Assuming it's not stuffed with nudity, salty language, and allegations of misconduct with goats, there's a lot of leeway.
In reference to an earlier comment, I've just been sent two tweets on Sunak and Sky TV by the youth. I can't find a link to them, but:
1. Sunak chatting intimately with a veteran at D-Day thingy. Caption: "You think you had it bad - I didn't have Sky TV" 2. Photo of Sunak's family pharmacy, with a satellite dish clearly circled on the flat above. Scurrilous, I know - but he's being laughed at.
Even if the photo is kosher, I don't think the Sunaks lived above the shop!
Didn't they live in a five-bedroomed detached house in a secluded leafy avenue?
Tonight on Channel 4 at 7.55pm, the Reform Party will release one of the most exciting Party Election Broadcasts ever produced.
I’m amazed it even got past compliance, but we did it.
You won’t want to miss this.
Does anyone know what "compliance" refers to in this context?
Farage seems to imply there is some official body vetting party election broadcasts before they are transmitted, with the power to exclude content or forbid broadcast.
Is there anything that could be presented as a shred of truth in that?
Does anyone know the details of Labour's proposed planning reforms?
All I can see on BBC is that "planning is at the heart of reforms" but then silence on what those reforms are?
Our planning system and NIMBYism is the biggest barrier to growth and development in this country. But as far as reforms are concerned, I'll believe it when I see it.
Labour Manifesto:
Planning reform to build 1.5 million new homes ... Britain is hampered by a planning regime that means we struggle to build either the infrastructure or housing the country needs. ... The current planning regime acts as a major brake on economic growth. Labour will make the changes we need to forge ahead with new roads, railways, reservoirs, and other nationally significant infrastructure. We will set out new national policy statements, make major projects faster and cheaper by slashing red tape, and build support for developments by ensuring communities directly benefit. We will also update national planning policy to ensure the planning system meets the needs of a modern economy, making it easier to build laboratories, digital infrastructure, and gigafactories. ... We will ensure our industrial strategy supports the development of the Artificial Intelligence (AI) sector, removes planning barriers to new datacentres. ... We will immediately update the National Policy Planning Framework to undo damaging Conservative changes, including restoring mandatory housing targets...strengthen the presumption in favour of sustainable development. ... Appoint 300 new planning officers
The above is essentially everything from the Labour manifesto that mentions planning. There's a bit more detail on local plans, green belt, (& 5G!) etc, but nothing you'd miss.
The best thing you can say about it is that recruiting more planning officers should at least mean that planning applications are processed more quickly.
I guess we'd have to wait and see a future Planning Bill to get the detail. I expect that it's a long way from what you want.
Thanks.
Abolishing planning officers altogether by making planning automatic would be a far better policy. But looks like nobody is brave enough to embrace that approach unfortunately.
Looks like Labour at least understand the problem and are attempting a solution, even if its not enough its better than nothing.
I may have to lend them my vote.
Abolishing planning officers? Nonsense. Would make planning completely nonexistent. Housing estates built without the sewerage and processing ability, that sort of tyhing, a shitstorm in the most literal sense.
Yes, planning should be completely non existent.
It's the water firms responsibility to handle sewerage not housing developers. They need to do their own job, not pass the buck.
All developments should pay for is to connect to the network. Once it's in the network, it's not their responsibility anymore.
You obviously dfon't know that the sewerage network consists of pipes and processing plants. It's the latter that are the issue. They need to be built first. Before the houses. How else is that going to happen, if not planning? Otherwise you are demanding urban level sewerage facilities all over farmland, is the logical consequence of your vision. Just in case some dodgy shoebox merchant might want to build houses 15 miles from nowhere.
It's the water firms job to deal with processing plants.
If they haven't built enough they need to do their own job.
That's not an excuse to prevent construction any more than a shortage of construction is preventing population growth.
Absolutely urban level sewerage facilities are needed wherever they are needed.
But you keep ignoring the fact it's slower to build shit processing plants than the sort of shit houses you get now. Very tricky to find sites for them, too. So advance planning is needed.
The water firms actually have a veto at some planning levels. They have to agree that they can provide water and sewage treatment otherwise the development doesn't happen.
Of course, they never say no, because more houses = more customers.
Running out of water from an aquifer and not having sufficient sewage capacity are things to worry about later.
Aquifers are not an issue here, believe me: and they did consider sewerage here (and upgrade the plant).
The aquifer is definitely a problem here, and we've had an awful lot of house building recently. Admittedly we won't run of water this year as we've had 175% of normal rainfall - but a couple of drought years and there will be trouble. This probably applies across large parts of the south and east.
I hope there is extra sewage processing capacity being planned for all the new housing (there's a lot of it) as my local works still has spillages in heavy rain with the current discharge volumes.
Oxford University has been forced to cancel exams after pro-Palestinian protesters occupied a building. The demonstrators entered the hall in the East School ahead of the scheduled exams on Thursday morning. Around six protestors were reportedly seen inside the Examination Schools carrying Palestine flags.
6...6...f##king don't piss out, throw them out.
I feel sorry for the students whose exams are affected by thee pro-Hamas shitheads,
No way that six people, unless they're heavily armed, should be able to disrupt exams. The university administration is being incredibly weak and allowing itself to be walked over.
£27,750 in tuition fees for a degree and six people can cause your exam to be cancelled? That's a joke.
Well 99.9% of exams go undisrupted. Stationing a dozen burly blokes outside every exam hall in the country would be... expensive.
You don't need a dozen burly blokes at every exam hall. You simply need a plan to deal with disruption that isn't simply to meekly roll over and let it happen.
Does anyone know the details of Labour's proposed planning reforms?
All I can see on BBC is that "planning is at the heart of reforms" but then silence on what those reforms are?
Our planning system and NIMBYism is the biggest barrier to growth and development in this country. But as far as reforms are concerned, I'll believe it when I see it.
If they dick about with planning, making conditions less stringent, I'm voting LD.
So you oppose growth and development?
And still we hear on here "everyone believes in growth" - bullshit do they!
Far too many people have a vested interest in preventing growth.
You can build houses on brownfield sites. There are loads of opportunities. We are deindustralizing.
Bullshit. Our population is growing by hundreds of thousands a year. Over a million in the past two years alone. And demographically our population is ageing with more people living longer in houses without children in them.
There simply is NOT enough brownfield land.
People need a place to live. That has to trump greenfield as a population.
Only way to avoid building on greenfield is to have a falling population, given our demographics. Falling by about ten million to reverse our current housing shortage. We don't.
New towns is the answer, as it has been in decades past. Green fields but not green belt.
No thank you. I don't care about some arbitrary designation. A green field site is a green field site and should not be built on. If it isn't required for agriculture, it should be rewilded.
Mrs Flatlander surveyed a brownfield colliery site not long ago. It had about 200 species of plant and some fairly rare butterflies.
The 'green field' next to it has less than 10 species and actively nukes insects.
If we aren't going to worry about food imports, I know which one I'd build on.
Absolutely. The most valuable green space by far is that in cities, much of it on so called "brownfield" sites which are in the process of reverting to nature, although many of them have already now been built on. Our present planning rules allow open season on such sites, yet they treat green deserts well outside city boundaries as sacrosanct. A rebalancing to prioritise development on the monoculture subsidised agrideserts in the countryside is long overdue.
Also that eliminates some of the issues caused by use of contaminated/undermined land for housing (and for that matter its frequent sensitivity to flooding given its often riparian location).
I actually took another nibble on the 22 on NOM this morning. It might trade.
Seems risky to me. What do you think might drive a change here?
I have had a read of the labour manifesto. It is totally risk averse and vanilla. There is not much in it. It is a continuation of Starmers centrist approach. It is essentially offering a 'change of management' - a managerial solution to all the problems the country faces. But I sense people are actually fed up and want a more radical change of direction. It may not find its expression in this election but eventually it will.
Does anyone know the details of Labour's proposed planning reforms?
All I can see on BBC is that "planning is at the heart of reforms" but then silence on what those reforms are?
Our planning system and NIMBYism is the biggest barrier to growth and development in this country. But as far as reforms are concerned, I'll believe it when I see it.
Labour Manifesto:
Planning reform to build 1.5 million new homes ... Britain is hampered by a planning regime that means we struggle to build either the infrastructure or housing the country needs. ... The current planning regime acts as a major brake on economic growth. Labour will make the changes we need to forge ahead with new roads, railways, reservoirs, and other nationally significant infrastructure. We will set out new national policy statements, make major projects faster and cheaper by slashing red tape, and build support for developments by ensuring communities directly benefit. We will also update national planning policy to ensure the planning system meets the needs of a modern economy, making it easier to build laboratories, digital infrastructure, and gigafactories. ... We will ensure our industrial strategy supports the development of the Artificial Intelligence (AI) sector, removes planning barriers to new datacentres. ... We will immediately update the National Policy Planning Framework to undo damaging Conservative changes, including restoring mandatory housing targets...strengthen the presumption in favour of sustainable development. ... Appoint 300 new planning officers
The above is essentially everything from the Labour manifesto that mentions planning. There's a bit more detail on local plans, green belt, (& 5G!) etc, but nothing you'd miss.
The best thing you can say about it is that recruiting more planning officers should at least mean that planning applications are processed more quickly.
I guess we'd have to wait and see a future Planning Bill to get the detail. I expect that it's a long way from what you want.
Thanks.
Abolishing planning officers altogether by making planning automatic would be a far better policy. But looks like nobody is brave enough to embrace that approach unfortunately.
Looks like Labour at least understand the problem and are attempting a solution, even if its not enough its better than nothing.
I may have to lend them my vote.
Abolishing planning officers? Nonsense. Would make planning completely nonexistent. Housing estates built without the sewerage and processing ability, that sort of tyhing, a shitstorm in the most literal sense.
Yes, planning should be completely non existent.
It's the water firms responsibility to handle sewerage not housing developers. They need to do their own job, not pass the buck.
All developments should pay for is to connect to the network. Once it's in the network, it's not their responsibility anymore.
You obviously dfon't know that the sewerage network consists of pipes and processing plants. It's the latter that are the issue. They need to be built first. Before the houses. How else is that going to happen, if not planning? Otherwise you are demanding urban level sewerage facilities all over farmland, is the logical consequence of your vision. Just in case some dodgy shoebox merchant might want to build houses 15 miles from nowhere.
It's the water firms job to deal with processing plants.
If they haven't built enough they need to do their own job.
That's not an excuse to prevent construction any more than a shortage of construction is preventing population growth.
Absolutely urban level sewerage facilities are needed wherever they are needed.
But you keep ignoring the fact it's slower to build shit processing plants than the sort of shit houses you get now. Very tricky to find sites for them, too. So advance planning is needed.
Edit: where I live, the council has over the years repeatedly identified large swathes of land for new housing, but made sure the sewerage issue was handed over to the water authority in advance.
And you keep ignoring the fact it doesn't matter. People live here now.
You complain that if planning is reformed we'd get more houses now. Good! We need them now, not years from now.
Our population has already grown. Our demographics have already changed. We have a shortage of houses today, not years from now.
The water firms need to do their own bloody job. And if they don't they need to be fined heavily until they either do, or go bankrupt and have their assets taken from them as a result and given to someone who will do their job.
The water firms should be dealing with in advance of population changes, not housing changes. Housing needs to keep up with population and demographic changes and if water has fallen behind that is NOT an excuse to fail to build houses.
Unless you're prepared to identify millions of people to execute or deport, the houses are needed today not years from now.
Does anyone know the details of Labour's proposed planning reforms?
All I can see on BBC is that "planning is at the heart of reforms" but then silence on what those reforms are?
Our planning system and NIMBYism is the biggest barrier to growth and development in this country. But as far as reforms are concerned, I'll believe it when I see it.
Labour Manifesto:
Planning reform to build 1.5 million new homes ... Britain is hampered by a planning regime that means we struggle to build either the infrastructure or housing the country needs. ... The current planning regime acts as a major brake on economic growth. Labour will make the changes we need to forge ahead with new roads, railways, reservoirs, and other nationally significant infrastructure. We will set out new national policy statements, make major projects faster and cheaper by slashing red tape, and build support for developments by ensuring communities directly benefit. We will also update national planning policy to ensure the planning system meets the needs of a modern economy, making it easier to build laboratories, digital infrastructure, and gigafactories. ... We will ensure our industrial strategy supports the development of the Artificial Intelligence (AI) sector, removes planning barriers to new datacentres. ... We will immediately update the National Policy Planning Framework to undo damaging Conservative changes, including restoring mandatory housing targets...strengthen the presumption in favour of sustainable development. ... Appoint 300 new planning officers
The above is essentially everything from the Labour manifesto that mentions planning. There's a bit more detail on local plans, green belt, (& 5G!) etc, but nothing you'd miss.
The best thing you can say about it is that recruiting more planning officers should at least mean that planning applications are processed more quickly.
I guess we'd have to wait and see a future Planning Bill to get the detail. I expect that it's a long way from what you want.
Thanks.
Abolishing planning officers altogether by making planning automatic would be a far better policy. But looks like nobody is brave enough to embrace that approach unfortunately.
Looks like Labour at least understand the problem and are attempting a solution, even if its not enough its better than nothing.
I may have to lend them my vote.
Abolishing planning officers? Nonsense. Would make planning completely nonexistent. Housing estates built without the sewerage and processing ability, that sort of tyhing, a shitstorm in the most literal sense.
Yes, planning should be completely non existent.
It's the water firms responsibility to handle sewerage not housing developers. They need to do their own job, not pass the buck.
All developments should pay for is to connect to the network. Once it's in the network, it's not their responsibility anymore.
You obviously dfon't know that the sewerage network consists of pipes and processing plants. It's the latter that are the issue. They need to be built first. Before the houses. How else is that going to happen, if not planning? Otherwise you are demanding urban level sewerage facilities all over farmland, is the logical consequence of your vision. Just in case some dodgy shoebox merchant might want to build houses 15 miles from nowhere.
It's the water firms job to deal with processing plants.
If they haven't built enough they need to do their own job.
That's not an excuse to prevent construction any more than a shortage of construction is preventing population growth.
Absolutely urban level sewerage facilities are needed wherever they are needed.
But you keep ignoring the fact it's slower to build shit processing plants than the sort of shit houses you get now. Very tricky to find sites for them, too. So advance planning is needed.
The water firms actually have a veto at some planning levels. They have to agree that they can provide water and sewage treatment otherwise the development doesn't happen.
Of course, they never say no, because more houses = more customers.
Running out of water from an aquifer and not having sufficient sewage capacity are things to worry about later.
Aquifers are not an issue here, believe me: and they did consider sewerage here (and upgrade the plant).
The aquifer is definitely a problem here, and we've had an awful lot of house building recently. Admittedly we won't run of water this year as we've had 175% of normal rainfall - but a couple of drought years and there will be trouble. This probably applies across large parts of the south and east.
I hope there is extra sewage processing capacity being planned for all the new housing (there's a lot of it) as my local works still has spillages in heavy rain with the current discharge volumes.
WeThink out a day early this week 🔴 Lab 43% (-2) 🔵 Con 20% (NC) ⚪ Ref 14% (-1) 🟠 LD 11% (+1) 🟢 Green 6% (+1) 🟡 SNP 2% (-1) ⚫ Ind 2% 12-13 Jun
We've still not had the full set of numbers from yesterday's PeoplePolling. Anyone know what's going on there, or was that Goodwin guy lying?
Lib Dems 10%, apparently.
I thought it was a condition of the BPC membership that pollsters have to produce a) the complete set of numbers and b) publish the full set of tables.
Has the ludicrous Goodwin done this? If not, why is he still a member?
Does anyone know the details of Labour's proposed planning reforms?
All I can see on BBC is that "planning is at the heart of reforms" but then silence on what those reforms are?
Our planning system and NIMBYism is the biggest barrier to growth and development in this country. But as far as reforms are concerned, I'll believe it when I see it.
Labour Manifesto:
Planning reform to build 1.5 million new homes ... Britain is hampered by a planning regime that means we struggle to build either the infrastructure or housing the country needs. ... The current planning regime acts as a major brake on economic growth. Labour will make the changes we need to forge ahead with new roads, railways, reservoirs, and other nationally significant infrastructure. We will set out new national policy statements, make major projects faster and cheaper by slashing red tape, and build support for developments by ensuring communities directly benefit. We will also update national planning policy to ensure the planning system meets the needs of a modern economy, making it easier to build laboratories, digital infrastructure, and gigafactories. ... We will ensure our industrial strategy supports the development of the Artificial Intelligence (AI) sector, removes planning barriers to new datacentres. ... We will immediately update the National Policy Planning Framework to undo damaging Conservative changes, including restoring mandatory housing targets...strengthen the presumption in favour of sustainable development. ... Appoint 300 new planning officers
The above is essentially everything from the Labour manifesto that mentions planning. There's a bit more detail on local plans, green belt, (& 5G!) etc, but nothing you'd miss.
The best thing you can say about it is that recruiting more planning officers should at least mean that planning applications are processed more quickly.
I guess we'd have to wait and see a future Planning Bill to get the detail. I expect that it's a long way from what you want.
Thanks.
Abolishing planning officers altogether by making planning automatic would be a far better policy. But looks like nobody is brave enough to embrace that approach unfortunately.
Looks like Labour at least understand the problem and are attempting a solution, even if its not enough its better than nothing.
I may have to lend them my vote.
Abolishing planning officers? Nonsense. Would make planning completely nonexistent. Housing estates built without the sewerage and processing ability, that sort of tyhing, a shitstorm in the most literal sense.
Abolition of Planning (incl. officers) would give us gin palaces all over the national talks.
"Money talks" needs a bridle, which is what the planning system is for - and we like it being controlled.
There are opportunities to do much - for example in London quite a lot of the Green Belt can be quite accurately called "brown field", and could be used. And there is a lot of opportunity for intensification of modern estates fairly close to Inner London which are near the end of their design life.
When you say things like 'we need to get rid of planning officers' I think you mean that you want to allocate land for development, with design codes, rather than a process of 'case by case' wrangling. But someone still has to allocate the land for development and write the design code and then enforce it.
Yes I want design codes but no planning permission or consent required.
If you own land that is zoned for construction then you should be able to decide today you want to start building on it and get the builders in tomorrow, without discussions with the Council or neighbours or anyone else.
Nigel Farage has defended the 41 candidates found to be social media “friends” of fascist leader, saying: “I apologise that not all of our candidates have been to Eton.”
Close to one in ten candidates for the Reform UK party in England was found to be connected on Facebook with Gary Raikes, the British fascist leader, The Times found.
Does anyone know the details of Labour's proposed planning reforms?
All I can see on BBC is that "planning is at the heart of reforms" but then silence on what those reforms are?
Our planning system and NIMBYism is the biggest barrier to growth and development in this country. But as far as reforms are concerned, I'll believe it when I see it.
Labour Manifesto:
Planning reform to build 1.5 million new homes ... Britain is hampered by a planning regime that means we struggle to build either the infrastructure or housing the country needs. ... The current planning regime acts as a major brake on economic growth. Labour will make the changes we need to forge ahead with new roads, railways, reservoirs, and other nationally significant infrastructure. We will set out new national policy statements, make major projects faster and cheaper by slashing red tape, and build support for developments by ensuring communities directly benefit. We will also update national planning policy to ensure the planning system meets the needs of a modern economy, making it easier to build laboratories, digital infrastructure, and gigafactories. ... We will ensure our industrial strategy supports the development of the Artificial Intelligence (AI) sector, removes planning barriers to new datacentres. ... We will immediately update the National Policy Planning Framework to undo damaging Conservative changes, including restoring mandatory housing targets...strengthen the presumption in favour of sustainable development. ... Appoint 300 new planning officers
The above is essentially everything from the Labour manifesto that mentions planning. There's a bit more detail on local plans, green belt, (& 5G!) etc, but nothing you'd miss.
The best thing you can say about it is that recruiting more planning officers should at least mean that planning applications are processed more quickly.
I guess we'd have to wait and see a future Planning Bill to get the detail. I expect that it's a long way from what you want.
Thanks.
Abolishing planning officers altogether by making planning automatic would be a far better policy. But looks like nobody is brave enough to embrace that approach unfortunately.
Looks like Labour at least understand the problem and are attempting a solution, even if its not enough its better than nothing.
I may have to lend them my vote.
Abolishing planning officers? Nonsense. Would make planning completely nonexistent. Housing estates built without the sewerage and processing ability, that sort of tyhing, a shitstorm in the most literal sense.
Yes, planning should be completely non existent.
It's the water firms responsibility to handle sewerage not housing developers. They need to do their own job, not pass the buck.
All developments should pay for is to connect to the network. Once it's in the network, it's not their responsibility anymore.
You obviously dfon't know that the sewerage network consists of pipes and processing plants. It's the latter that are the issue. They need to be built first. Before the houses. How else is that going to happen, if not planning? Otherwise you are demanding urban level sewerage facilities all over farmland, is the logical consequence of your vision. Just in case some dodgy shoebox merchant might want to build houses 15 miles from nowhere.
It's the water firms job to deal with processing plants.
If they haven't built enough they need to do their own job.
That's not an excuse to prevent construction any more than a shortage of construction is preventing population growth.
Absolutely urban level sewerage facilities are needed wherever they are needed.
But you keep ignoring the fact it's slower to build shit processing plants than the sort of shit houses you get now. Very tricky to find sites for them, too. So advance planning is needed.
Edit: where I live, the council has over the years repeatedly identified large swathes of land for new housing, but made sure the sewerage issue was handed over to the water authority in advance.
At the moment my Council are targetting urban green spaces for Council Housing. They've done 100+, and they are promising another 400. They have form on this; a sports centre was built on the Lammas Field via some legal shenanigans.
One is an allegedly "excess" recreation ground in a Council Estate. There has long been a requirement for 10% green space on new estates; I don't understand why old ones are fair game.
Husband pursues Apple after wife finds ‘deleted’ messages to prostitute
A businessman is preparing a legal case, claiming that his divorce was a direct result of compromising texts that had been wiped from his iPhone still being visible on the family iMac
An unfaithful husband who arranged meetings with prostitutes via messages on his iPhone is pursuing legal action against Apple after his wife discovered that his deleted messages were still stored on a linked computer.
Richard, not his real name, said he had turned to prostitutes in the last years of his marriage and had arranged the meetings through the iMessages app. After making the arrangements he would delete the messages, believing the trail of his infidelity had been hidden.
However, when his wife clicked on the same app on the family iMac, it showed that the last message he had sent to another person’s iPhone was to a prostitute. When she looked further she found several years’ worth of supposedly deleted messages to prostitutes.
She filed for divorce within a month.
Richard, a middle-aged businessman and father who lives in England but does not want to disclose his home town, is pursuing legal action against Apple in the hope of recovering more than £5 million he lost in the divorce, plus legal costs.
Does anyone know the details of Labour's proposed planning reforms?
All I can see on BBC is that "planning is at the heart of reforms" but then silence on what those reforms are?
Our planning system and NIMBYism is the biggest barrier to growth and development in this country. But as far as reforms are concerned, I'll believe it when I see it.
Labour Manifesto:
Planning reform to build 1.5 million new homes ... Britain is hampered by a planning regime that means we struggle to build either the infrastructure or housing the country needs. ... The current planning regime acts as a major brake on economic growth. Labour will make the changes we need to forge ahead with new roads, railways, reservoirs, and other nationally significant infrastructure. We will set out new national policy statements, make major projects faster and cheaper by slashing red tape, and build support for developments by ensuring communities directly benefit. We will also update national planning policy to ensure the planning system meets the needs of a modern economy, making it easier to build laboratories, digital infrastructure, and gigafactories. ... We will ensure our industrial strategy supports the development of the Artificial Intelligence (AI) sector, removes planning barriers to new datacentres. ... We will immediately update the National Policy Planning Framework to undo damaging Conservative changes, including restoring mandatory housing targets...strengthen the presumption in favour of sustainable development. ... Appoint 300 new planning officers
The above is essentially everything from the Labour manifesto that mentions planning. There's a bit more detail on local plans, green belt, (& 5G!) etc, but nothing you'd miss.
The best thing you can say about it is that recruiting more planning officers should at least mean that planning applications are processed more quickly.
I guess we'd have to wait and see a future Planning Bill to get the detail. I expect that it's a long way from what you want.
Thanks.
Abolishing planning officers altogether by making planning automatic would be a far better policy. But looks like nobody is brave enough to embrace that approach unfortunately.
Looks like Labour at least understand the problem and are attempting a solution, even if its not enough its better than nothing.
I may have to lend them my vote.
Abolishing planning officers? Nonsense. Would make planning completely nonexistent. Housing estates built without the sewerage and processing ability, that sort of tyhing, a shitstorm in the most literal sense.
Yes, planning should be completely non existent.
It's the water firms responsibility to handle sewerage not housing developers. They need to do their own job, not pass the buck.
All developments should pay for is to connect to the network. Once it's in the network, it's not their responsibility anymore.
You obviously dfon't know that the sewerage network consists of pipes and processing plants. It's the latter that are the issue. They need to be built first. Before the houses. How else is that going to happen, if not planning? Otherwise you are demanding urban level sewerage facilities all over farmland, is the logical consequence of your vision. Just in case some dodgy shoebox merchant might want to build houses 15 miles from nowhere.
It's the water firms job to deal with processing plants.
If they haven't built enough they need to do their own job.
That's not an excuse to prevent construction any more than a shortage of construction is preventing population growth.
Absolutely urban level sewerage facilities are needed wherever they are needed.
But you keep ignoring the fact it's slower to build shit processing plants than the sort of shit houses you get now. Very tricky to find sites for them, too. So advance planning is needed.
Edit: where I live, the council has over the years repeatedly identified large swathes of land for new housing, but made sure the sewerage issue was handed over to the water authority in advance.
And you keep ignoring the fact it doesn't matter. People live here now.
You complain that if planning is reformed we'd get more houses now. Good! We need them now, not years from now.
Our population has already grown. Our demographics have already changed. We have a shortage of houses today, not years from now.
The water firms need to do their own bloody job. And if they don't they need to be fined heavily until they either do, or go bankrupt and have their assets taken from them as a result and given to someone who will do their job.
The water firms should be dealing with in advance of population changes, not housing changes. Housing needs to keep up with population and demographic changes and if water has fallen behind that is NOT an excuse to fail to build houses.
Unless you're prepared to identify millions of people to execute or deport, the houses are needed today not years from now.
Piss off, there's a good chum. I don't need any absolutist lectures from you. My area has expanded enormously and beyond recognition in terms of population and houses, repeatedly, with more coming as I can see from the Local Plan. Having the houses in reasonably sensible areas and with at least some shit processing ready first is a pretty small thing to ask.
What we do get from the libertarian and greedy developer is the attempt to cram more houses on school playing fields and children's local play areas - and that is the only time I've ever put in a complaint about a planning application: when a school was losing some of its playing fields. Your demand for no planning officers would allow that to run riot.
Oxford University has been forced to cancel exams after pro-Palestinian protesters occupied a building. The demonstrators entered the hall in the East School ahead of the scheduled exams on Thursday morning. Around six protestors were reportedly seen inside the Examination Schools carrying Palestine flags.
6...6...f##king don't piss out, throw them out.
I feel sorry for the students whose exams are affected by thee pro-Hamas shitheads,
No way that six people, unless they're heavily armed, should be able to disrupt exams. The university administration is being incredibly weak and allowing itself to be walked over.
£27,750 in tuition fees for a degree and six people can cause your exam to be cancelled? That's a joke.
Well 99.9% of exams go undisrupted. Stationing a dozen burly blokes outside every exam hall in the country would be... expensive.
You don't need a dozen burly blokes at every exam hall. You simply need a plan to deal with disruption that isn't simply to meekly roll over and let it happen.
Such as?
Calling the police would be a good start. Making clear to the protestors, if students or staff, that they would be kicked off their course/dismissed for gross misconduct and sued to recover the costs for the disruption. Having a procedure to delay/reschedule.
Although I’m sure it’s vague with respect to public services, it’s pretty clear what Labour’s fiscal policy will be and their planning policies also seem to be decently constructed.
We need growth, and I actually think Reeves gets that.
Everybody gets that we need growth. The problem is we haven't had sustained stonking growth since around 2001. Brown and what followed certainly eliminated boom and bust, we don't get any boom anymore (excluding the one post-pandemic year). Most years sub 2% growth.
With an inflation target of 2%, if you don't even grow 2% you falling behind.
I think a lot of people DON’T get that we need growth.
Reeves does, and she recognises that within the terrible inheritance she is getting, she needs to see a reform in planning policy, an unlocking of capital investment (even if PFI is having to be considered in order to keep it off-balance sheet, and improved relations with the EU.
We also need to avoid taxing income and unlock some of the wealth stored up in non-productive assets.
It will be incredibly interesting to watch this play out. Also immigration policy will be fascinating, as it appears to have been used by the Tories to essentially cover up a collapse in GDP.
Easy to promise. Look at how this government fared within planning reform in this Parliament.
WeThink out a day early this week 🔴 Lab 43% (-2) 🔵 Con 20% (NC) ⚪ Ref 14% (-1) 🟠 LD 11% (+1) 🟢 Green 6% (+1) 🟡 SNP 2% (-1) ⚫ Ind 2% 12-13 Jun
We've still not had the full set of numbers from yesterday's PeoplePolling. Anyone know what's going on there, or was that Goodwin guy lying?
Lib Dems 10%, apparently.
I thought it was a condition of the BPC membership that pollsters have to produce a) the complete set of numbers and b) publish the full set of tables.
Has the ludicrous Goodwin done this? If not, why is he still a member?
it's not on his website yet. Many polls commissioned for a client don't have the data tables published straight away. Not sure what the BPC time limit is.
Neither Sacoolas or representatives from the US embassy attended the inquest - prompting the Dunn family spokesperson Radd Seiger to say the US government's position is that "lives of UK citizens like Harry ultimately do not matter".
Speaking after the inquest, he said: "It was not enough for them to kill Harry. It wasn't enough for them to then kick Harry's family in their darkest hour and seek to deny and delay the justice that they were entitled to.
"As we have all seen this week their attitude and approach to keeping their British hosts safe has been laid to bare and they have positively obstructed the coroner's inquiry and deprived the family of the answers they were entitled to as to why no-one has ever addressed the issue of safety of UK citizens.""
Nigel Farage has defended the 41 candidates found to be social media “friends” of fascist leader, saying: “I apologise that not all of our candidates have been to Eton.”
Close to one in ten candidates for the Reform UK party in England was found to be connected on Facebook with Gary Raikes, the British fascist leader, The Times found.
I think all of this stuff is contributing to their current low ceiling, which might be around 14-17%. , The Tories equally seem to be stuck, just a little bit higher, at around the 18-22% mark. The one that is interesting me most at moment is the LD's, because their share is looking a bit more mobile and hard to predict, to me,
Does anyone know the details of Labour's proposed planning reforms?
All I can see on BBC is that "planning is at the heart of reforms" but then silence on what those reforms are?
Our planning system and NIMBYism is the biggest barrier to growth and development in this country. But as far as reforms are concerned, I'll believe it when I see it.
If they dick about with planning, making conditions less stringent, I'm voting LD.
So you oppose growth and development?
And still we hear on here "everyone believes in growth" - bullshit do they!
Far too many people have a vested interest in preventing growth.
You can build houses on brownfield sites. There are loads of opportunities. We are deindustralizing.
Bullshit. Our population is growing by hundreds of thousands a year. Over a million in the past two years alone. And demographically our population is ageing with more people living longer in houses without children in them.
There simply is NOT enough brownfield land.
People need a place to live. That has to trump greenfield as a population.
Only way to avoid building on greenfield is to have a falling population, given our demographics. Falling by about ten million to reverse our current housing shortage. We don't.
New towns is the answer, as it has been in decades past. Green fields but not green belt.
No thank you. I don't care about some arbitrary designation. A green field site is a green field site and should not be built on. If it isn't required for agriculture, it should be rewilded.
Mrs Flatlander surveyed a brownfield colliery site not long ago. It had about 200 species of plant and some fairly rare butterflies.
The 'green field' next to it has less than 10 species and actively nukes insects.
If we aren't going to worry about food imports, I know which one I'd build on.
Achieving biodiversity net gain as a result of building on the first site would certainly be more challenging.
Husband pursues Apple after wife finds ‘deleted’ messages to prostitute
A businessman is preparing a legal case, claiming that his divorce was a direct result of compromising texts that had been wiped from his iPhone still being visible on the family iMac
An unfaithful husband who arranged meetings with prostitutes via messages on his iPhone is pursuing legal action against Apple after his wife discovered that his deleted messages were still stored on a linked computer.
Richard, not his real name, said he had turned to prostitutes in the last years of his marriage and had arranged the meetings through the iMessages app. After making the arrangements he would delete the messages, believing the trail of his infidelity had been hidden.
However, when his wife clicked on the same app on the family iMac, it showed that the last message he had sent to another person’s iPhone was to a prostitute. When she looked further she found several years’ worth of supposedly deleted messages to prostitutes.
She filed for divorce within a month.
Richard, a middle-aged businessman and father who lives in England but does not want to disclose his home town, is pursuing legal action against Apple in the hope of recovering more than £5 million he lost in the divorce, plus legal costs.
The Labour vote is soft as babyfood. See how much it has slipped in 2 weeks of campaigning. Some polls have them down 7 points. No one is enthusiastic about Starmer, it’s just anti Tory sentiment
So there’s a huge target of Labour Remainers waiting to be tempted by an eu offer from the Lib Dem’s. People like @Roger and many many others
Millions of them. Also lots of media people
And they don’t offer it?? This is the one chance they will get. They are dumb as rocks
I don't often agree with you Leon, but on this I do. I've said it before and I'll say it again. Everyone hates the Labour party in Bootle, and will never vote for them again.... except on General Election day.
John Major managed 30.7% in 1997. Blair 43.2%.
Is Sunak as bad as Major was in 1997? Maybe, maybe not. Is Starmer as good as Blair? No.
The Conservatives aren't going to win, but I'm far from convinced Labour will get the 120 seat gain they need to avoid a hung parliament.
Edit - And I'd love to be wrong, I really would - but history has taught me Labour almost always fail to meet the expected grade.
The LDs got 17% in 1997, polling around 10-11% now. That gap is in Labour's camp.
WeThink out a day early this week 🔴 Lab 43% (-2) 🔵 Con 20% (NC) ⚪ Ref 14% (-1) 🟠 LD 11% (+1) 🟢 Green 6% (+1) 🟡 SNP 2% (-1) ⚫ Ind 2% 12-13 Jun
We've still not had the full set of numbers from yesterday's PeoplePolling. Anyone know what's going on there, or was that Goodwin guy lying?
Lib Dems 10%, apparently.
I thought it was a condition of the BPC membership that pollsters have to produce a) the complete set of numbers and b) publish the full set of tables.
Has the ludicrous Goodwin done this? If not, why is he still a member?
it's not on his website yet. Many polls commissioned for a client don't have the data tables published straight away. Not sure what the BPC time limit is.
Limit is for the full tables to be published within two working days after the headline figures are released.
Most pollsters are at a point where they release the full data tables at the time of the headline figures being published.
Does anyone know the details of Labour's proposed planning reforms?
All I can see on BBC is that "planning is at the heart of reforms" but then silence on what those reforms are?
Our planning system and NIMBYism is the biggest barrier to growth and development in this country. But as far as reforms are concerned, I'll believe it when I see it.
Labour Manifesto:
Planning reform to build 1.5 million new homes ... Britain is hampered by a planning regime that means we struggle to build either the infrastructure or housing the country needs. ... The current planning regime acts as a major brake on economic growth. Labour will make the changes we need to forge ahead with new roads, railways, reservoirs, and other nationally significant infrastructure. We will set out new national policy statements, make major projects faster and cheaper by slashing red tape, and build support for developments by ensuring communities directly benefit. We will also update national planning policy to ensure the planning system meets the needs of a modern economy, making it easier to build laboratories, digital infrastructure, and gigafactories. ... We will ensure our industrial strategy supports the development of the Artificial Intelligence (AI) sector, removes planning barriers to new datacentres. ... We will immediately update the National Policy Planning Framework to undo damaging Conservative changes, including restoring mandatory housing targets...strengthen the presumption in favour of sustainable development. ... Appoint 300 new planning officers
The above is essentially everything from the Labour manifesto that mentions planning. There's a bit more detail on local plans, green belt, (& 5G!) etc, but nothing you'd miss.
The best thing you can say about it is that recruiting more planning officers should at least mean that planning applications are processed more quickly.
I guess we'd have to wait and see a future Planning Bill to get the detail. I expect that it's a long way from what you want.
Thanks.
Abolishing planning officers altogether by making planning automatic would be a far better policy. But looks like nobody is brave enough to embrace that approach unfortunately.
Looks like Labour at least understand the problem and are attempting a solution, even if its not enough its better than nothing.
I may have to lend them my vote.
Abolishing planning officers? Nonsense. Would make planning completely nonexistent. Housing estates built without the sewerage and processing ability, that sort of tyhing, a shitstorm in the most literal sense.
Yes, planning should be completely non existent.
It's the water firms responsibility to handle sewerage not housing developers. They need to do their own job, not pass the buck.
All developments should pay for is to connect to the network. Once it's in the network, it's not their responsibility anymore.
You obviously dfon't know that the sewerage network consists of pipes and processing plants. It's the latter that are the issue. They need to be built first. Before the houses. How else is that going to happen, if not planning? Otherwise you are demanding urban level sewerage facilities all over farmland, is the logical consequence of your vision. Just in case some dodgy shoebox merchant might want to build houses 15 miles from nowhere.
It's the water firms job to deal with processing plants.
If they haven't built enough they need to do their own job.
That's not an excuse to prevent construction any more than a shortage of construction is preventing population growth.
Absolutely urban level sewerage facilities are needed wherever they are needed.
But you keep ignoring the fact it's slower to build shit processing plants than the sort of shit houses you get now. Very tricky to find sites for them, too. So advance planning is needed.
Edit: where I live, the council has over the years repeatedly identified large swathes of land for new housing, but made sure the sewerage issue was handed over to the water authority in advance.
At the moment my Council are targetting urban green spaces for Council Housing. They've done 100+, and they are promising another 400. They have form on this; a sports centre was built on the Lammas Field via some legal shenanigans.
One is an allegedly "excess" recreation ground in a Council Estate. There has long been a requirement for 10% green space on new estates; I don't understand why old ones are fair game.
I can sympathise. Developers were allowed to cram houses into my 1960s housing estate's only open space big enough for children to play games on the grass.
But mostd of the new housing by the council was on farmland adjacent to the existing housing, and some brownland sites.
Husband pursues Apple after wife finds ‘deleted’ messages to prostitute
A businessman is preparing a legal case, claiming that his divorce was a direct result of compromising texts that had been wiped from his iPhone still being visible on the family iMac
An unfaithful husband who arranged meetings with prostitutes via messages on his iPhone is pursuing legal action against Apple after his wife discovered that his deleted messages were still stored on a linked computer.
Richard, not his real name, said he had turned to prostitutes in the last years of his marriage and had arranged the meetings through the iMessages app. After making the arrangements he would delete the messages, believing the trail of his infidelity had been hidden.
However, when his wife clicked on the same app on the family iMac, it showed that the last message he had sent to another person’s iPhone was to a prostitute. When she looked further she found several years’ worth of supposedly deleted messages to prostitutes.
She filed for divorce within a month.
Richard, a middle-aged businessman and father who lives in England but does not want to disclose his home town, is pursuing legal action against Apple in the hope of recovering more than £5 million he lost in the divorce, plus legal costs.
The Labour vote is soft as babyfood. See how much it has slipped in 2 weeks of campaigning. Some polls have them down 7 points. No one is enthusiastic about Starmer, it’s just anti Tory sentiment
So there’s a huge target of Labour Remainers waiting to be tempted by an eu offer from the Lib Dem’s. People like @Roger and many many others
Millions of them. Also lots of media people
And they don’t offer it?? This is the one chance they will get. They are dumb as rocks
I don't often agree with you Leon, but on this I do. I've said it before and I'll say it again. Everyone hates the Labour party in Bootle, and will never vote for them again.... except on General Election day.
John Major managed 30.7% in 1997. Blair 43.2%.
Is Sunak as bad as Major was in 1997? Maybe, maybe not. Is Starmer as good as Blair? No.
The Conservatives aren't going to win, but I'm far from convinced Labour will get the 120 seat gain they need to avoid a hung parliament.
Edit - And I'd love to be wrong, I really would - but history has taught me Labour almost always fail to meet the expected grade.
Everyone hates Labour in Bootle but they usually get 80% of the vote anyway. Interesting way of looking at it.
Does anyone know the details of Labour's proposed planning reforms?
All I can see on BBC is that "planning is at the heart of reforms" but then silence on what those reforms are?
Our planning system and NIMBYism is the biggest barrier to growth and development in this country. But as far as reforms are concerned, I'll believe it when I see it.
Labour Manifesto:
Planning reform to build 1.5 million new homes ... Britain is hampered by a planning regime that means we struggle to build either the infrastructure or housing the country needs. ... The current planning regime acts as a major brake on economic growth. Labour will make the changes we need to forge ahead with new roads, railways, reservoirs, and other nationally significant infrastructure. We will set out new national policy statements, make major projects faster and cheaper by slashing red tape, and build support for developments by ensuring communities directly benefit. We will also update national planning policy to ensure the planning system meets the needs of a modern economy, making it easier to build laboratories, digital infrastructure, and gigafactories. ... We will ensure our industrial strategy supports the development of the Artificial Intelligence (AI) sector, removes planning barriers to new datacentres. ... We will immediately update the National Policy Planning Framework to undo damaging Conservative changes, including restoring mandatory housing targets...strengthen the presumption in favour of sustainable development. ... Appoint 300 new planning officers
The above is essentially everything from the Labour manifesto that mentions planning. There's a bit more detail on local plans, green belt, (& 5G!) etc, but nothing you'd miss.
The best thing you can say about it is that recruiting more planning officers should at least mean that planning applications are processed more quickly.
I guess we'd have to wait and see a future Planning Bill to get the detail. I expect that it's a long way from what you want.
Thanks.
Abolishing planning officers altogether by making planning automatic would be a far better policy. But looks like nobody is brave enough to embrace that approach unfortunately.
Looks like Labour at least understand the problem and are attempting a solution, even if its not enough its better than nothing.
I may have to lend them my vote.
Abolishing planning officers? Nonsense. Would make planning completely nonexistent. Housing estates built without the sewerage and processing ability, that sort of tyhing, a shitstorm in the most literal sense.
Abolition of Planning (incl. officers) would give us gin palaces all over the national talks.
"Money talks" needs a bridle, which is what the planning system is for - and we like it being controlled.
There are opportunities to do much - for example in London quite a lot of the Green Belt can be quite accurately called "brown field", and could be used. And there is a lot of opportunity for intensification of modern estates fairly close to Inner London which are near the end of their design life.
When you say things like 'we need to get rid of planning officers' I think you mean that you want to allocate land for development, with design codes, rather than a process of 'case by case' wrangling. But someone still has to allocate the land for development and write the design code and then enforce it.
Yes I want design codes but no planning permission or consent required.
If you own land that is zoned for construction then you should be able to decide today you want to start building on it and get the builders in tomorrow, without discussions with the Council or neighbours or anyone else.
Can you have a go at writing a design code?
How high, and how close to the boundary? What about balconies/windows, can they overlook neighbours? how many houses on each plot? what about access. Can you connect to the road at any point on your land? noise from plant, impacts on trees in neighbouring gardens?
Husband pursues Apple after wife finds ‘deleted’ messages to prostitute
A businessman is preparing a legal case, claiming that his divorce was a direct result of compromising texts that had been wiped from his iPhone still being visible on the family iMac
An unfaithful husband who arranged meetings with prostitutes via messages on his iPhone is pursuing legal action against Apple after his wife discovered that his deleted messages were still stored on a linked computer.
Richard, not his real name, said he had turned to prostitutes in the last years of his marriage and had arranged the meetings through the iMessages app. After making the arrangements he would delete the messages, believing the trail of his infidelity had been hidden.
However, when his wife clicked on the same app on the family iMac, it showed that the last message he had sent to another person’s iPhone was to a prostitute. When she looked further she found several years’ worth of supposedly deleted messages to prostitutes.
She filed for divorce within a month.
Richard, a middle-aged businessman and father who lives in England but does not want to disclose his home town, is pursuing legal action against Apple in the hope of recovering more than £5 million he lost in the divorce, plus legal costs.
Husband pursues Apple after wife finds ‘deleted’ messages to prostitute
A businessman is preparing a legal case, claiming that his divorce was a direct result of compromising texts that had been wiped from his iPhone still being visible on the family iMac
An unfaithful husband who arranged meetings with prostitutes via messages on his iPhone is pursuing legal action against Apple after his wife discovered that his deleted messages were still stored on a linked computer.
Richard, not his real name, said he had turned to prostitutes in the last years of his marriage and had arranged the meetings through the iMessages app. After making the arrangements he would delete the messages, believing the trail of his infidelity had been hidden.
However, when his wife clicked on the same app on the family iMac, it showed that the last message he had sent to another person’s iPhone was to a prostitute. When she looked further she found several years’ worth of supposedly deleted messages to prostitutes.
She filed for divorce within a month.
Richard, a middle-aged businessman and father who lives in England but does not want to disclose his home town, is pursuing legal action against Apple in the hope of recovering more than £5 million he lost in the divorce, plus legal costs.
Does anyone know the details of Labour's proposed planning reforms?
All I can see on BBC is that "planning is at the heart of reforms" but then silence on what those reforms are?
Our planning system and NIMBYism is the biggest barrier to growth and development in this country. But as far as reforms are concerned, I'll believe it when I see it.
Labour Manifesto:
Planning reform to build 1.5 million new homes ... Britain is hampered by a planning regime that means we struggle to build either the infrastructure or housing the country needs. ... The current planning regime acts as a major brake on economic growth. Labour will make the changes we need to forge ahead with new roads, railways, reservoirs, and other nationally significant infrastructure. We will set out new national policy statements, make major projects faster and cheaper by slashing red tape, and build support for developments by ensuring communities directly benefit. We will also update national planning policy to ensure the planning system meets the needs of a modern economy, making it easier to build laboratories, digital infrastructure, and gigafactories. ... We will ensure our industrial strategy supports the development of the Artificial Intelligence (AI) sector, removes planning barriers to new datacentres. ... We will immediately update the National Policy Planning Framework to undo damaging Conservative changes, including restoring mandatory housing targets...strengthen the presumption in favour of sustainable development. ... Appoint 300 new planning officers
The above is essentially everything from the Labour manifesto that mentions planning. There's a bit more detail on local plans, green belt, (& 5G!) etc, but nothing you'd miss.
The best thing you can say about it is that recruiting more planning officers should at least mean that planning applications are processed more quickly.
I guess we'd have to wait and see a future Planning Bill to get the detail. I expect that it's a long way from what you want.
Thanks.
Abolishing planning officers altogether by making planning automatic would be a far better policy. But looks like nobody is brave enough to embrace that approach unfortunately.
Looks like Labour at least understand the problem and are attempting a solution, even if its not enough its better than nothing.
I may have to lend them my vote.
Abolishing planning officers? Nonsense. Would make planning completely nonexistent. Housing estates built without the sewerage and processing ability, that sort of tyhing, a shitstorm in the most literal sense.
Yes, planning should be completely non existent.
It's the water firms responsibility to handle sewerage not housing developers. They need to do their own job, not pass the buck.
All developments should pay for is to connect to the network. Once it's in the network, it's not their responsibility anymore.
You obviously dfon't know that the sewerage network consists of pipes and processing plants. It's the latter that are the issue. They need to be built first. Before the houses. How else is that going to happen, if not planning? Otherwise you are demanding urban level sewerage facilities all over farmland, is the logical consequence of your vision. Just in case some dodgy shoebox merchant might want to build houses 15 miles from nowhere.
It's the water firms job to deal with processing plants.
If they haven't built enough they need to do their own job.
That's not an excuse to prevent construction any more than a shortage of construction is preventing population growth.
Absolutely urban level sewerage facilities are needed wherever they are needed.
But you keep ignoring the fact it's slower to build shit processing plants than the sort of shit houses you get now. Very tricky to find sites for them, too. So advance planning is needed.
The water firms actually have a veto at some planning levels. They have to agree that they can provide water and sewage treatment otherwise the development doesn't happen.
Of course, they never say no, because more houses = more customers.
Running out of water from an aquifer and not having sufficient sewage capacity are things to worry about later.
Aquifers are not an issue here, believe me: and they did consider sewerage here (and upgrade the plant).
"I am a fighter, not aquifer" as the fan of chip shop guacamole nearly said.
Oxford University has been forced to cancel exams after pro-Palestinian protesters occupied a building. The demonstrators entered the hall in the East School ahead of the scheduled exams on Thursday morning. Around six protestors were reportedly seen inside the Examination Schools carrying Palestine flags.
6...6...f##king don't piss out, throw them out.
I feel sorry for the students whose exams are affected by thee pro-Hamas shitheads,
No way that six people, unless they're heavily armed, should be able to disrupt exams. The university administration is being incredibly weak and allowing itself to be walked over.
£27,750 in tuition fees for a degree and six people can cause your exam to be cancelled? That's a joke.
Well 99.9% of exams go undisrupted. Stationing a dozen burly blokes outside every exam hall in the country would be... expensive.
You don't need a dozen burly blokes at every exam hall. You simply need a plan to deal with disruption that isn't simply to meekly roll over and let it happen.
Such as?
Think positive feedback loops.
I recall when the Tankies at Uni. decided making Stalinist jokes about murdering Poles was funny. On the day that was being suggested as the Memorial Day for Katyn.
I had nothing to do with the head of the Polish society overhearing the comments. And it wasn’t my fault that the Polish Society was having a meeting in the bar, either.
Does anyone know the details of Labour's proposed planning reforms?
All I can see on BBC is that "planning is at the heart of reforms" but then silence on what those reforms are?
Our planning system and NIMBYism is the biggest barrier to growth and development in this country. But as far as reforms are concerned, I'll believe it when I see it.
Labour Manifesto:
Planning reform to build 1.5 million new homes ... Britain is hampered by a planning regime that means we struggle to build either the infrastructure or housing the country needs. ... The current planning regime acts as a major brake on economic growth. Labour will make the changes we need to forge ahead with new roads, railways, reservoirs, and other nationally significant infrastructure. We will set out new national policy statements, make major projects faster and cheaper by slashing red tape, and build support for developments by ensuring communities directly benefit. We will also update national planning policy to ensure the planning system meets the needs of a modern economy, making it easier to build laboratories, digital infrastructure, and gigafactories. ... We will ensure our industrial strategy supports the development of the Artificial Intelligence (AI) sector, removes planning barriers to new datacentres. ... We will immediately update the National Policy Planning Framework to undo damaging Conservative changes, including restoring mandatory housing targets...strengthen the presumption in favour of sustainable development. ... Appoint 300 new planning officers
The above is essentially everything from the Labour manifesto that mentions planning. There's a bit more detail on local plans, green belt, (& 5G!) etc, but nothing you'd miss.
The best thing you can say about it is that recruiting more planning officers should at least mean that planning applications are processed more quickly.
I guess we'd have to wait and see a future Planning Bill to get the detail. I expect that it's a long way from what you want.
Thanks.
Abolishing planning officers altogether by making planning automatic would be a far better policy. But looks like nobody is brave enough to embrace that approach unfortunately.
Looks like Labour at least understand the problem and are attempting a solution, even if its not enough its better than nothing.
I may have to lend them my vote.
Abolishing planning officers? Nonsense. Would make planning completely nonexistent. Housing estates built without the sewerage and processing ability, that sort of tyhing, a shitstorm in the most literal sense.
Yes, planning should be completely non existent.
It's the water firms responsibility to handle sewerage not housing developers. They need to do their own job, not pass the buck.
All developments should pay for is to connect to the network. Once it's in the network, it's not their responsibility anymore.
You obviously dfon't know that the sewerage network consists of pipes and processing plants. It's the latter that are the issue. They need to be built first. Before the houses. How else is that going to happen, if not planning? Otherwise you are demanding urban level sewerage facilities all over farmland, is the logical consequence of your vision. Just in case some dodgy shoebox merchant might want to build houses 15 miles from nowhere.
It's the water firms job to deal with processing plants.
If they haven't built enough they need to do their own job.
That's not an excuse to prevent construction any more than a shortage of construction is preventing population growth.
Absolutely urban level sewerage facilities are needed wherever they are needed.
But you keep ignoring the fact it's slower to build shit processing plants than the sort of shit houses you get now. Very tricky to find sites for them, too. So advance planning is needed.
Edit: where I live, the council has over the years repeatedly identified large swathes of land for new housing, but made sure the sewerage issue was handed over to the water authority in advance.
At the moment my Council are targetting urban green spaces for Council Housing. They've done 100+, and they are promising another 400. They have form on this; a sports centre was built on the Lammas Field via some legal shenanigans.
One is an allegedly "excess" recreation ground in a Council Estate. There has long been a requirement for 10% green space on new estates; I don't understand why old ones are fair game.
I can sympathise. Developers were allowed to cram houses into my 1960s housing estate's only open space big enough for children to play games on the grass.
But mostd of the new housing by the council was on farmland adjacent to the existing housing, and some brownland sites.
I suggest the driver here is that the Council will already in all likelihood already own the land.
Does anyone know the details of Labour's proposed planning reforms?
All I can see on BBC is that "planning is at the heart of reforms" but then silence on what those reforms are?
Our planning system and NIMBYism is the biggest barrier to growth and development in this country. But as far as reforms are concerned, I'll believe it when I see it.
Labour Manifesto:
Planning reform to build 1.5 million new homes ... Britain is hampered by a planning regime that means we struggle to build either the infrastructure or housing the country needs. ... The current planning regime acts as a major brake on economic growth. Labour will make the changes we need to forge ahead with new roads, railways, reservoirs, and other nationally significant infrastructure. We will set out new national policy statements, make major projects faster and cheaper by slashing red tape, and build support for developments by ensuring communities directly benefit. We will also update national planning policy to ensure the planning system meets the needs of a modern economy, making it easier to build laboratories, digital infrastructure, and gigafactories. ... We will ensure our industrial strategy supports the development of the Artificial Intelligence (AI) sector, removes planning barriers to new datacentres. ... We will immediately update the National Policy Planning Framework to undo damaging Conservative changes, including restoring mandatory housing targets...strengthen the presumption in favour of sustainable development. ... Appoint 300 new planning officers
The above is essentially everything from the Labour manifesto that mentions planning. There's a bit more detail on local plans, green belt, (& 5G!) etc, but nothing you'd miss.
The best thing you can say about it is that recruiting more planning officers should at least mean that planning applications are processed more quickly.
I guess we'd have to wait and see a future Planning Bill to get the detail. I expect that it's a long way from what you want.
Thanks.
Abolishing planning officers altogether by making planning automatic would be a far better policy. But looks like nobody is brave enough to embrace that approach unfortunately.
Looks like Labour at least understand the problem and are attempting a solution, even if its not enough its better than nothing.
I may have to lend them my vote.
Abolishing planning officers? Nonsense. Would make planning completely nonexistent. Housing estates built without the sewerage and processing ability, that sort of tyhing, a shitstorm in the most literal sense.
Yes, planning should be completely non existent.
It's the water firms responsibility to handle sewerage not housing developers. They need to do their own job, not pass the buck.
All developments should pay for is to connect to the network. Once it's in the network, it's not their responsibility anymore.
You obviously dfon't know that the sewerage network consists of pipes and processing plants. It's the latter that are the issue. They need to be built first. Before the houses. How else is that going to happen, if not planning? Otherwise you are demanding urban level sewerage facilities all over farmland, is the logical consequence of your vision. Just in case some dodgy shoebox merchant might want to build houses 15 miles from nowhere.
It's the water firms job to deal with processing plants.
If they haven't built enough they need to do their own job.
That's not an excuse to prevent construction any more than a shortage of construction is preventing population growth.
Absolutely urban level sewerage facilities are needed wherever they are needed.
But you keep ignoring the fact it's slower to build shit processing plants than the sort of shit houses you get now. Very tricky to find sites for them, too. So advance planning is needed.
The water firms actually have a veto at some planning levels. They have to agree that they can provide water and sewage treatment otherwise the development doesn't happen.
Of course, they never say no, because more houses = more customers.
Running out of water from an aquifer and not having sufficient sewage capacity are things to worry about later.
Aquifers are not an issue here, believe me: and they did consider sewerage here (and upgrade the plant).
"I am a fighter, not aquifer" as the fan of chip shop guacamole nearly said.
Husband pursues Apple after wife finds ‘deleted’ messages to prostitute
A businessman is preparing a legal case, claiming that his divorce was a direct result of compromising texts that had been wiped from his iPhone still being visible on the family iMac
An unfaithful husband who arranged meetings with prostitutes via messages on his iPhone is pursuing legal action against Apple after his wife discovered that his deleted messages were still stored on a linked computer.
Richard, not his real name, said he had turned to prostitutes in the last years of his marriage and had arranged the meetings through the iMessages app. After making the arrangements he would delete the messages, believing the trail of his infidelity had been hidden.
However, when his wife clicked on the same app on the family iMac, it showed that the last message he had sent to another person’s iPhone was to a prostitute. When she looked further she found several years’ worth of supposedly deleted messages to prostitutes.
She filed for divorce within a month.
Richard, a middle-aged businessman and father who lives in England but does not want to disclose his home town, is pursuing legal action against Apple in the hope of recovering more than £5 million he lost in the divorce, plus legal costs.
WeThink out a day early this week 🔴 Lab 43% (-2) 🔵 Con 20% (NC) ⚪ Ref 14% (-1) 🟠 LD 11% (+1) 🟢 Green 6% (+1) 🟡 SNP 2% (-1) ⚫ Ind 2% 12-13 Jun
We've still not had the full set of numbers from yesterday's PeoplePolling. Anyone know what's going on there, or was that Goodwin guy lying?
Lib Dems 10%, apparently.
I thought it was a condition of the BPC membership that pollsters have to produce a) the complete set of numbers and b) publish the full set of tables.
Has the ludicrous Goodwin done this? If not, why is he still a member?
it's not on his website yet. Many polls commissioned for a client don't have the data tables published straight away. Not sure what the BPC time limit is.
The rules are on the BPC website. Two working days, or on request.
Does anyone know the details of Labour's proposed planning reforms?
All I can see on BBC is that "planning is at the heart of reforms" but then silence on what those reforms are?
Our planning system and NIMBYism is the biggest barrier to growth and development in this country. But as far as reforms are concerned, I'll believe it when I see it.
Labour Manifesto:
Planning reform to build 1.5 million new homes ... Britain is hampered by a planning regime that means we struggle to build either the infrastructure or housing the country needs. ... The current planning regime acts as a major brake on economic growth. Labour will make the changes we need to forge ahead with new roads, railways, reservoirs, and other nationally significant infrastructure. We will set out new national policy statements, make major projects faster and cheaper by slashing red tape, and build support for developments by ensuring communities directly benefit. We will also update national planning policy to ensure the planning system meets the needs of a modern economy, making it easier to build laboratories, digital infrastructure, and gigafactories. ... We will ensure our industrial strategy supports the development of the Artificial Intelligence (AI) sector, removes planning barriers to new datacentres. ... We will immediately update the National Policy Planning Framework to undo damaging Conservative changes, including restoring mandatory housing targets...strengthen the presumption in favour of sustainable development. ... Appoint 300 new planning officers
The above is essentially everything from the Labour manifesto that mentions planning. There's a bit more detail on local plans, green belt, (& 5G!) etc, but nothing you'd miss.
The best thing you can say about it is that recruiting more planning officers should at least mean that planning applications are processed more quickly.
I guess we'd have to wait and see a future Planning Bill to get the detail. I expect that it's a long way from what you want.
Thanks.
Abolishing planning officers altogether by making planning automatic would be a far better policy. But looks like nobody is brave enough to embrace that approach unfortunately.
Looks like Labour at least understand the problem and are attempting a solution, even if its not enough its better than nothing.
I may have to lend them my vote.
Abolishing planning officers? Nonsense. Would make planning completely nonexistent. Housing estates built without the sewerage and processing ability, that sort of tyhing, a shitstorm in the most literal sense.
Yes, planning should be completely non existent.
It's the water firms responsibility to handle sewerage not housing developers. They need to do their own job, not pass the buck.
All developments should pay for is to connect to the network. Once it's in the network, it's not their responsibility anymore.
You obviously dfon't know that the sewerage network consists of pipes and processing plants. It's the latter that are the issue. They need to be built first. Before the houses. How else is that going to happen, if not planning? Otherwise you are demanding urban level sewerage facilities all over farmland, is the logical consequence of your vision. Just in case some dodgy shoebox merchant might want to build houses 15 miles from nowhere.
It's the water firms job to deal with processing plants.
If they haven't built enough they need to do their own job.
That's not an excuse to prevent construction any more than a shortage of construction is preventing population growth.
Absolutely urban level sewerage facilities are needed wherever they are needed.
But you keep ignoring the fact it's slower to build shit processing plants than the sort of shit houses you get now. Very tricky to find sites for them, too. So advance planning is needed.
Edit: where I live, the council has over the years repeatedly identified large swathes of land for new housing, but made sure the sewerage issue was handed over to the water authority in advance.
And you keep ignoring the fact it doesn't matter. People live here now.
You complain that if planning is reformed we'd get more houses now. Good! We need them now, not years from now.
Our population has already grown. Our demographics have already changed. We have a shortage of houses today, not years from now.
The water firms need to do their own bloody job. And if they don't they need to be fined heavily until they either do, or go bankrupt and have their assets taken from them as a result and given to someone who will do their job.
The water firms should be dealing with in advance of population changes, not housing changes. Housing needs to keep up with population and demographic changes and if water has fallen behind that is NOT an excuse to fail to build houses.
Unless you're prepared to identify millions of people to execute or deport, the houses are needed today not years from now.
Piss off, there's a good chum. I don't need any absolutist lectures from you. My area has expanded enormously and beyond recognition in terms of population and houses, repeatedly, with more coming as I can see from the Local Plan. Having the houses in reasonably sensible areas and with at least some shit processing ready first is a pretty small thing to ask.
What we do get from the libertarian and greedy developer is the attempt to cram more houses on school playing fields and children's local play areas - and that is the only time I've ever put in a complaint about a planning application: when a school was losing some of its playing fields. Your demand for no planning officers would allow that to run riot.
Excuses, excuses.
Nowhere has grown enough "beyond recognition".
Our population has grown. That means villages need to become towns, towns become cities and cities become bigger.
Tough shit if that means you don't recognise changes. Don't be so xenophobic, people need somewhere to live.
Does anyone know the details of Labour's proposed planning reforms?
All I can see on BBC is that "planning is at the heart of reforms" but then silence on what those reforms are?
Our planning system and NIMBYism is the biggest barrier to growth and development in this country. But as far as reforms are concerned, I'll believe it when I see it.
Labour Manifesto:
Planning reform to build 1.5 million new homes ... Britain is hampered by a planning regime that means we struggle to build either the infrastructure or housing the country needs. ... The current planning regime acts as a major brake on economic growth. Labour will make the changes we need to forge ahead with new roads, railways, reservoirs, and other nationally significant infrastructure. We will set out new national policy statements, make major projects faster and cheaper by slashing red tape, and build support for developments by ensuring communities directly benefit. We will also update national planning policy to ensure the planning system meets the needs of a modern economy, making it easier to build laboratories, digital infrastructure, and gigafactories. ... We will ensure our industrial strategy supports the development of the Artificial Intelligence (AI) sector, removes planning barriers to new datacentres. ... We will immediately update the National Policy Planning Framework to undo damaging Conservative changes, including restoring mandatory housing targets...strengthen the presumption in favour of sustainable development. ... Appoint 300 new planning officers
The above is essentially everything from the Labour manifesto that mentions planning. There's a bit more detail on local plans, green belt, (& 5G!) etc, but nothing you'd miss.
The best thing you can say about it is that recruiting more planning officers should at least mean that planning applications are processed more quickly.
I guess we'd have to wait and see a future Planning Bill to get the detail. I expect that it's a long way from what you want.
Thanks.
Abolishing planning officers altogether by making planning automatic would be a far better policy. But looks like nobody is brave enough to embrace that approach unfortunately.
Looks like Labour at least understand the problem and are attempting a solution, even if its not enough its better than nothing.
I may have to lend them my vote.
Abolishing planning officers? Nonsense. Would make planning completely nonexistent. Housing estates built without the sewerage and processing ability, that sort of tyhing, a shitstorm in the most literal sense.
Yes, planning should be completely non existent.
It's the water firms responsibility to handle sewerage not housing developers. They need to do their own job, not pass the buck.
All developments should pay for is to connect to the network. Once it's in the network, it's not their responsibility anymore.
You obviously dfon't know that the sewerage network consists of pipes and processing plants. It's the latter that are the issue. They need to be built first. Before the houses. How else is that going to happen, if not planning? Otherwise you are demanding urban level sewerage facilities all over farmland, is the logical consequence of your vision. Just in case some dodgy shoebox merchant might want to build houses 15 miles from nowhere.
It's the water firms job to deal with processing plants.
If they haven't built enough they need to do their own job.
That's not an excuse to prevent construction any more than a shortage of construction is preventing population growth.
Absolutely urban level sewerage facilities are needed wherever they are needed.
But you keep ignoring the fact it's slower to build shit processing plants than the sort of shit houses you get now. Very tricky to find sites for them, too. So advance planning is needed.
Edit: where I live, the council has over the years repeatedly identified large swathes of land for new housing, but made sure the sewerage issue was handed over to the water authority in advance.
At the moment my Council are targetting urban green spaces for Council Housing. They've done 100+, and they are promising another 400. They have form on this; a sports centre was built on the Lammas Field via some legal shenanigans.
One is an allegedly "excess" recreation ground in a Council Estate. There has long been a requirement for 10% green space on new estates; I don't understand why old ones are fair game.
I can sympathise. Developers were allowed to cram houses into my 1960s housing estate's only open space big enough for children to play games on the grass.
But mostd of the new housing by the council was on farmland adjacent to the existing housing, and some brownland sites.
I suggest the driver here is that the Council will already in all likelihood already own the land.
Sorry - my slip - I should have saud, "new housing authorised by the Council" - the land was developer owned in most c ases. Thge developers evidently wanted large swathes of land.
The new council housing tended to be on brownfield sites already owned by the council.
Nigel Farage has defended the 41 candidates found to be social media “friends” of fascist leader, saying: “I apologise that not all of our candidates have been to Eton.”
Close to one in ten candidates for the Reform UK party in England was found to be connected on Facebook with Gary Raikes, the British fascist leader, The Times found.
Wonder how many of them actually know what a Zionist is?
Its repeatedly shown when these people asked simple questions like what River, what Sea, etc, absolutely clueless. That's TikTok for you, 15s soundbite is all you need. Lots of useful idiots being lead by hardcore antisemites.
Konstantin Kisin and Tim Dillon both have some great videos of what happens when you ask protestors some really simple questions, and they have no idea at all.
It’s almost as if these protests, which let’s not forget started on 8th October last year, were being organised rather than happening organically.
Husband pursues Apple after wife finds ‘deleted’ messages to prostitute
A businessman is preparing a legal case, claiming that his divorce was a direct result of compromising texts that had been wiped from his iPhone still being visible on the family iMac
An unfaithful husband who arranged meetings with prostitutes via messages on his iPhone is pursuing legal action against Apple after his wife discovered that his deleted messages were still stored on a linked computer.
Richard, not his real name, said he had turned to prostitutes in the last years of his marriage and had arranged the meetings through the iMessages app. After making the arrangements he would delete the messages, believing the trail of his infidelity had been hidden.
However, when his wife clicked on the same app on the family iMac, it showed that the last message he had sent to another person’s iPhone was to a prostitute. When she looked further she found several years’ worth of supposedly deleted messages to prostitutes.
She filed for divorce within a month.
Richard, a middle-aged businessman and father who lives in England but does not want to disclose his home town, is pursuing legal action against Apple in the hope of recovering more than £5 million he lost in the divorce, plus legal costs.
Does anyone know the details of Labour's proposed planning reforms?
All I can see on BBC is that "planning is at the heart of reforms" but then silence on what those reforms are?
Our planning system and NIMBYism is the biggest barrier to growth and development in this country. But as far as reforms are concerned, I'll believe it when I see it.
Labour Manifesto:
Planning reform to build 1.5 million new homes ... Britain is hampered by a planning regime that means we struggle to build either the infrastructure or housing the country needs. ... The current planning regime acts as a major brake on economic growth. Labour will make the changes we need to forge ahead with new roads, railways, reservoirs, and other nationally significant infrastructure. We will set out new national policy statements, make major projects faster and cheaper by slashing red tape, and build support for developments by ensuring communities directly benefit. We will also update national planning policy to ensure the planning system meets the needs of a modern economy, making it easier to build laboratories, digital infrastructure, and gigafactories. ... We will ensure our industrial strategy supports the development of the Artificial Intelligence (AI) sector, removes planning barriers to new datacentres. ... We will immediately update the National Policy Planning Framework to undo damaging Conservative changes, including restoring mandatory housing targets...strengthen the presumption in favour of sustainable development. ... Appoint 300 new planning officers
The above is essentially everything from the Labour manifesto that mentions planning. There's a bit more detail on local plans, green belt, (& 5G!) etc, but nothing you'd miss.
The best thing you can say about it is that recruiting more planning officers should at least mean that planning applications are processed more quickly.
I guess we'd have to wait and see a future Planning Bill to get the detail. I expect that it's a long way from what you want.
Thanks.
Abolishing planning officers altogether by making planning automatic would be a far better policy. But looks like nobody is brave enough to embrace that approach unfortunately.
Looks like Labour at least understand the problem and are attempting a solution, even if its not enough its better than nothing.
I may have to lend them my vote.
Abolishing planning officers? Nonsense. Would make planning completely nonexistent. Housing estates built without the sewerage and processing ability, that sort of tyhing, a shitstorm in the most literal sense.
Yes, planning should be completely non existent.
It's the water firms responsibility to handle sewerage not housing developers. They need to do their own job, not pass the buck.
All developments should pay for is to connect to the network. Once it's in the network, it's not their responsibility anymore.
You obviously dfon't know that the sewerage network consists of pipes and processing plants. It's the latter that are the issue. They need to be built first. Before the houses. How else is that going to happen, if not planning? Otherwise you are demanding urban level sewerage facilities all over farmland, is the logical consequence of your vision. Just in case some dodgy shoebox merchant might want to build houses 15 miles from nowhere.
It's the water firms job to deal with processing plants.
If they haven't built enough they need to do their own job.
That's not an excuse to prevent construction any more than a shortage of construction is preventing population growth.
Absolutely urban level sewerage facilities are needed wherever they are needed.
But you keep ignoring the fact it's slower to build shit processing plants than the sort of shit houses you get now. Very tricky to find sites for them, too. So advance planning is needed.
Edit: where I live, the council has over the years repeatedly identified large swathes of land for new housing, but made sure the sewerage issue was handed over to the water authority in advance.
At the moment my Council are targetting urban green spaces for Council Housing. They've done 100+, and they are promising another 400. They have form on this; a sports centre was built on the Lammas Field via some legal shenanigans.
One is an allegedly "excess" recreation ground in a Council Estate. There has long been a requirement for 10% green space on new estates; I don't understand why old ones are fair game.
I can sympathise. Developers were allowed to cram houses into my 1960s housing estate's only open space big enough for children to play games on the grass.
But mostd of the new housing by the council was on farmland adjacent to the existing housing, and some brownland sites.
I suggest the driver here is that the Council will already in all likelihood already own the land.
Sorry - my slip - I should have saud, "new housing authorised by the Council" - the land was developer owned in most c ases. Thge developers evidently wanted large swathes of land.
The new council housing tended to be on brownfield sites already owned by the council.
I was actually referring to my local playing fields
The Labour vote is soft as babyfood. See how much it has slipped in 2 weeks of campaigning. Some polls have them down 7 points. No one is enthusiastic about Starmer, it’s just anti Tory sentiment
So there’s a huge target of Labour Remainers waiting to be tempted by an eu offer from the Lib Dem’s. People like @Roger and many many others
Millions of them. Also lots of media people
And they don’t offer it?? This is the one chance they will get. They are dumb as rocks
I don't often agree with you Leon, but on this I do. I've said it before and I'll say it again. Everyone hates the Labour party in Bootle, and will never vote for them again.... except on General Election day.
John Major managed 30.7% in 1997. Blair 43.2%.
Is Sunak as bad as Major was in 1997? Maybe, maybe not. Is Starmer as good as Blair? No.
The Conservatives aren't going to win, but I'm far from convinced Labour will get the 120 seat gain they need to avoid a hung parliament.
Edit - And I'd love to be wrong, I really would - but history has taught me Labour almost always fail to meet the expected grade.
The LDs got 17% in 1997, polling around 10-11% now. That gap is in Labour's camp.
No - I think it is the roughly 5% NOTA vote which is probably mostly with Reform and partly Green.
Nigel Farage has defended the 41 candidates found to be social media “friends” of fascist leader, saying: “I apologise that not all of our candidates have been to Eton.”
Close to one in ten candidates for the Reform UK party in England was found to be connected on Facebook with Gary Raikes, the British fascist leader, The Times found.
I think all of this stuff is contributing to their current low ceiling, which might be around 14-17%. , The Tories equally seem to be stuck, just a little bit higher, at around the 18-22% mark. The one that is interesting me most at moment is the LD's, because their share is looking a bit more mobile and hard to predict, to me,
I'm long of LD seats at 40. I think they have a lot of upside with the dynamics of this election.
Does anyone know the details of Labour's proposed planning reforms?
All I can see on BBC is that "planning is at the heart of reforms" but then silence on what those reforms are?
Our planning system and NIMBYism is the biggest barrier to growth and development in this country. But as far as reforms are concerned, I'll believe it when I see it.
Labour Manifesto:
Planning reform to build 1.5 million new homes ... Britain is hampered by a planning regime that means we struggle to build either the infrastructure or housing the country needs. ... The current planning regime acts as a major brake on economic growth. Labour will make the changes we need to forge ahead with new roads, railways, reservoirs, and other nationally significant infrastructure. We will set out new national policy statements, make major projects faster and cheaper by slashing red tape, and build support for developments by ensuring communities directly benefit. We will also update national planning policy to ensure the planning system meets the needs of a modern economy, making it easier to build laboratories, digital infrastructure, and gigafactories. ... We will ensure our industrial strategy supports the development of the Artificial Intelligence (AI) sector, removes planning barriers to new datacentres. ... We will immediately update the National Policy Planning Framework to undo damaging Conservative changes, including restoring mandatory housing targets...strengthen the presumption in favour of sustainable development. ... Appoint 300 new planning officers
The above is essentially everything from the Labour manifesto that mentions planning. There's a bit more detail on local plans, green belt, (& 5G!) etc, but nothing you'd miss.
The best thing you can say about it is that recruiting more planning officers should at least mean that planning applications are processed more quickly.
I guess we'd have to wait and see a future Planning Bill to get the detail. I expect that it's a long way from what you want.
Thanks.
Abolishing planning officers altogether by making planning automatic would be a far better policy. But looks like nobody is brave enough to embrace that approach unfortunately.
Looks like Labour at least understand the problem and are attempting a solution, even if its not enough its better than nothing.
I may have to lend them my vote.
Abolishing planning officers? Nonsense. Would make planning completely nonexistent. Housing estates built without the sewerage and processing ability, that sort of tyhing, a shitstorm in the most literal sense.
Abolition of Planning (incl. officers) would give us gin palaces all over the national talks.
"Money talks" needs a bridle, which is what the planning system is for - and we like it being controlled.
There are opportunities to do much - for example in London quite a lot of the Green Belt can be quite accurately called "brown field", and could be used. And there is a lot of opportunity for intensification of modern estates fairly close to Inner London which are near the end of their design life.
When you say things like 'we need to get rid of planning officers' I think you mean that you want to allocate land for development, with design codes, rather than a process of 'case by case' wrangling. But someone still has to allocate the land for development and write the design code and then enforce it.
Yes I want design codes but no planning permission or consent required.
If you own land that is zoned for construction then you should be able to decide today you want to start building on it and get the builders in tomorrow, without discussions with the Council or neighbours or anyone else.
Can you have a go at writing a design code?
How high, and how close to the boundary? What about balconies/windows, can they overlook neighbours? how many houses on each plot? what about access. Can you connect to the road at any point on your land? noise from plant, impacts on trees in neighbouring gardens?
How high? 3 stories should be automatic. 4+ I can see requiring permission.
How close to the boundary? Touching but not crossing the boundary.
Can they overlook neighbours? Of course.
How many houses on each plot? Owner/developers choice.
Road access, that's a good question. Have to think on that one.
Trees etc should be treated the same as if someone who already lives in a property wants to plant a tree.
Husband pursues Apple after wife finds ‘deleted’ messages to prostitute
A businessman is preparing a legal case, claiming that his divorce was a direct result of compromising texts that had been wiped from his iPhone still being visible on the family iMac
An unfaithful husband who arranged meetings with prostitutes via messages on his iPhone is pursuing legal action against Apple after his wife discovered that his deleted messages were still stored on a linked computer.
Richard, not his real name, said he had turned to prostitutes in the last years of his marriage and had arranged the meetings through the iMessages app. After making the arrangements he would delete the messages, believing the trail of his infidelity had been hidden.
However, when his wife clicked on the same app on the family iMac, it showed that the last message he had sent to another person’s iPhone was to a prostitute. When she looked further she found several years’ worth of supposedly deleted messages to prostitutes.
She filed for divorce within a month.
Richard, a middle-aged businessman and father who lives in England but does not want to disclose his home town, is pursuing legal action against Apple in the hope of recovering more than £5 million he lost in the divorce, plus legal costs.
Does anyone know the details of Labour's proposed planning reforms?
All I can see on BBC is that "planning is at the heart of reforms" but then silence on what those reforms are?
Our planning system and NIMBYism is the biggest barrier to growth and development in this country. But as far as reforms are concerned, I'll believe it when I see it.
If they dick about with planning, making conditions less stringent, I'm voting LD.
So you oppose growth and development?
And still we hear on here "everyone believes in growth" - bullshit do they!
Far too many people have a vested interest in preventing growth.
You can build houses on brownfield sites. There are loads of opportunities. We are deindustralizing.
Bullshit. Our population is growing by hundreds of thousands a year. Over a million in the past two years alone. And demographically our population is ageing with more people living longer in houses without children in them.
There simply is NOT enough brownfield land.
People need a place to live. That has to trump greenfield as a population.
Only way to avoid building on greenfield is to have a falling population, given our demographics. Falling by about ten million to reverse our current housing shortage. We don't.
New towns is the answer, as it has been in decades past. Green fields but not green belt.
No thank you. I don't care about some arbitrary designation. A green field site is a green field site and should not be built on. If it isn't required for agriculture, it should be rewilded.
Mrs Flatlander surveyed a brownfield colliery site not long ago. It had about 200 species of plant and some fairly rare butterflies.
The 'green field' next to it has less than 10 species and actively nukes insects.
If we aren't going to worry about food imports, I know which one I'd build on.
Achieving biodiversity net gain as a result of building on the first site would certainly be more challenging.
Aaagh, trigger warning please.
Mentioning BNG gives me flashbacks to terrible VBA infested DEFRA spreadsheets.
I've just caught up with Guido's revelation that Starmer in his younger days was a very bad man and liked the ladies.
TSE, is there a header here?
I tried writing a thread header on the Guido story but died of cellular ennui reading Guido's article.
I read it twice before giving up as I could not see what the alleged scandal was. Is this the October surprise? Starmer had a couple of girlfriends who moved onto other people, all a decade before his marriage.
Does anyone know the details of Labour's proposed planning reforms?
All I can see on BBC is that "planning is at the heart of reforms" but then silence on what those reforms are?
Our planning system and NIMBYism is the biggest barrier to growth and development in this country. But as far as reforms are concerned, I'll believe it when I see it.
Labour Manifesto:
Planning reform to build 1.5 million new homes ... Britain is hampered by a planning regime that means we struggle to build either the infrastructure or housing the country needs. ... The current planning regime acts as a major brake on economic growth. Labour will make the changes we need to forge ahead with new roads, railways, reservoirs, and other nationally significant infrastructure. We will set out new national policy statements, make major projects faster and cheaper by slashing red tape, and build support for developments by ensuring communities directly benefit. We will also update national planning policy to ensure the planning system meets the needs of a modern economy, making it easier to build laboratories, digital infrastructure, and gigafactories. ... We will ensure our industrial strategy supports the development of the Artificial Intelligence (AI) sector, removes planning barriers to new datacentres. ... We will immediately update the National Policy Planning Framework to undo damaging Conservative changes, including restoring mandatory housing targets...strengthen the presumption in favour of sustainable development. ... Appoint 300 new planning officers
The above is essentially everything from the Labour manifesto that mentions planning. There's a bit more detail on local plans, green belt, (& 5G!) etc, but nothing you'd miss.
The best thing you can say about it is that recruiting more planning officers should at least mean that planning applications are processed more quickly.
I guess we'd have to wait and see a future Planning Bill to get the detail. I expect that it's a long way from what you want.
Thanks.
Abolishing planning officers altogether by making planning automatic would be a far better policy. But looks like nobody is brave enough to embrace that approach unfortunately.
Looks like Labour at least understand the problem and are attempting a solution, even if its not enough its better than nothing.
I may have to lend them my vote.
Abolishing planning officers? Nonsense. Would make planning completely nonexistent. Housing estates built without the sewerage and processing ability, that sort of tyhing, a shitstorm in the most literal sense.
Yes, planning should be completely non existent.
It's the water firms responsibility to handle sewerage not housing developers. They need to do their own job, not pass the buck.
All developments should pay for is to connect to the network. Once it's in the network, it's not their responsibility anymore.
You obviously dfon't know that the sewerage network consists of pipes and processing plants. It's the latter that are the issue. They need to be built first. Before the houses. How else is that going to happen, if not planning? Otherwise you are demanding urban level sewerage facilities all over farmland, is the logical consequence of your vision. Just in case some dodgy shoebox merchant might want to build houses 15 miles from nowhere.
It's the water firms job to deal with processing plants.
If they haven't built enough they need to do their own job.
That's not an excuse to prevent construction any more than a shortage of construction is preventing population growth.
Absolutely urban level sewerage facilities are needed wherever they are needed.
But you keep ignoring the fact it's slower to build shit processing plants than the sort of shit houses you get now. Very tricky to find sites for them, too. So advance planning is needed.
Edit: where I live, the council has over the years repeatedly identified large swathes of land for new housing, but made sure the sewerage issue was handed over to the water authority in advance.
And you keep ignoring the fact it doesn't matter. People live here now.
You complain that if planning is reformed we'd get more houses now. Good! We need them now, not years from now.
Our population has already grown. Our demographics have already changed. We have a shortage of houses today, not years from now.
The water firms need to do their own bloody job. And if they don't they need to be fined heavily until they either do, or go bankrupt and have their assets taken from them as a result and given to someone who will do their job.
The water firms should be dealing with in advance of population changes, not housing changes. Housing needs to keep up with population and demographic changes and if water has fallen behind that is NOT an excuse to fail to build houses.
Unless you're prepared to identify millions of people to execute or deport, the houses are needed today not years from now.
Piss off, there's a good chum. I don't need any absolutist lectures from you. My area has expanded enormously and beyond recognition in terms of population and houses, repeatedly, with more coming as I can see from the Local Plan. Having the houses in reasonably sensible areas and with at least some shit processing ready first is a pretty small thing to ask.
What we do get from the libertarian and greedy developer is the attempt to cram more houses on school playing fields and children's local play areas - and that is the only time I've ever put in a complaint about a planning application: when a school was losing some of its playing fields. Your demand for no planning officers would allow that to run riot.
Excuses, excuses.
Nowhere has grown enough "beyond recognition".
Our population has grown. That means villages need to become towns, towns become cities and cities become bigger.
Tough shit if that means you don't recognise changes. Don't be so xenophobic, people need somewhere to live.
A icnrease of a factor of 3-4 times - not per cent - in my area is obviously not good enough for you. And I have tried to explain that I have recognised the need for the changes and didn't complain about them except where they were directly hurting people's most basic existi9ng amenities - no shitstorms, the need to keep places for children actually to play games. But as I can't do it in words of fewer than four letters I will just have to leave it at that.
Meanwhile, the more you come out with the stuff you do, the more the need for planning officers is confirmed.
Husband pursues Apple after wife finds ‘deleted’ messages to prostitute
A businessman is preparing a legal case, claiming that his divorce was a direct result of compromising texts that had been wiped from his iPhone still being visible on the family iMac
An unfaithful husband who arranged meetings with prostitutes via messages on his iPhone is pursuing legal action against Apple after his wife discovered that his deleted messages were still stored on a linked computer.
Richard, not his real name, said he had turned to prostitutes in the last years of his marriage and had arranged the meetings through the iMessages app. After making the arrangements he would delete the messages, believing the trail of his infidelity had been hidden.
However, when his wife clicked on the same app on the family iMac, it showed that the last message he had sent to another person’s iPhone was to a prostitute. When she looked further she found several years’ worth of supposedly deleted messages to prostitutes.
She filed for divorce within a month.
Richard, a middle-aged businessman and father who lives in England but does not want to disclose his home town, is pursuing legal action against Apple in the hope of recovering more than £5 million he lost in the divorce, plus legal costs.
Neither Sacoolas or representatives from the US embassy attended the inquest - prompting the Dunn family spokesperson Radd Seiger to say the US government's position is that "lives of UK citizens like Harry ultimately do not matter".
Speaking after the inquest, he said: "It was not enough for them to kill Harry. It wasn't enough for them to then kick Harry's family in their darkest hour and seek to deny and delay the justice that they were entitled to.
"As we have all seen this week their attitude and approach to keeping their British hosts safe has been laid to bare and they have positively obstructed the coroner's inquiry and deprived the family of the answers they were entitled to as to why no-one has ever addressed the issue of safety of UK citizens.""
If only the British PM were to be in the same room as the US president today, and could ask him about this case?
Does anyone know the details of Labour's proposed planning reforms?
All I can see on BBC is that "planning is at the heart of reforms" but then silence on what those reforms are?
Our planning system and NIMBYism is the biggest barrier to growth and development in this country. But as far as reforms are concerned, I'll believe it when I see it.
If they dick about with planning, making conditions less stringent, I'm voting LD.
So you oppose growth and development?
And still we hear on here "everyone believes in growth" - bullshit do they!
Far too many people have a vested interest in preventing growth.
You can build houses on brownfield sites. There are loads of opportunities. We are deindustralizing.
Bullshit. Our population is growing by hundreds of thousands a year. Over a million in the past two years alone. And demographically our population is ageing with more people living longer in houses without children in them.
There simply is NOT enough brownfield land.
People need a place to live. That has to trump greenfield as a population.
Only way to avoid building on greenfield is to have a falling population, given our demographics. Falling by about ten million to reverse our current housing shortage. We don't.
New towns is the answer, as it has been in decades past. Green fields but not green belt.
No thank you. I don't care about some arbitrary designation. A green field site is a green field site and should not be built on. If it isn't required for agriculture, it should be rewilded.
Mrs Flatlander surveyed a brownfield colliery site not long ago. It had about 200 species of plant and some fairly rare butterflies.
The 'green field' next to it has less than 10 species and actively nukes insects.
If we aren't going to worry about food imports, I know which one I'd build on.
Achieving biodiversity net gain as a result of building on the first site would certainly be more challenging.
Aaagh, trigger warning please.
Mentioning BNG gives me flashbacks to terrible VBA infested DEFRA spreadsheets.
Does anyone know the details of Labour's proposed planning reforms?
All I can see on BBC is that "planning is at the heart of reforms" but then silence on what those reforms are?
Our planning system and NIMBYism is the biggest barrier to growth and development in this country. But as far as reforms are concerned, I'll believe it when I see it.
Labour Manifesto:
Planning reform to build 1.5 million new homes ... Britain is hampered by a planning regime that means we struggle to build either the infrastructure or housing the country needs. ... The current planning regime acts as a major brake on economic growth. Labour will make the changes we need to forge ahead with new roads, railways, reservoirs, and other nationally significant infrastructure. We will set out new national policy statements, make major projects faster and cheaper by slashing red tape, and build support for developments by ensuring communities directly benefit. We will also update national planning policy to ensure the planning system meets the needs of a modern economy, making it easier to build laboratories, digital infrastructure, and gigafactories. ... We will ensure our industrial strategy supports the development of the Artificial Intelligence (AI) sector, removes planning barriers to new datacentres. ... We will immediately update the National Policy Planning Framework to undo damaging Conservative changes, including restoring mandatory housing targets...strengthen the presumption in favour of sustainable development. ... Appoint 300 new planning officers
The above is essentially everything from the Labour manifesto that mentions planning. There's a bit more detail on local plans, green belt, (& 5G!) etc, but nothing you'd miss.
The best thing you can say about it is that recruiting more planning officers should at least mean that planning applications are processed more quickly.
I guess we'd have to wait and see a future Planning Bill to get the detail. I expect that it's a long way from what you want.
Thanks.
Abolishing planning officers altogether by making planning automatic would be a far better policy. But looks like nobody is brave enough to embrace that approach unfortunately.
Looks like Labour at least understand the problem and are attempting a solution, even if its not enough its better than nothing.
I may have to lend them my vote.
Abolishing planning officers? Nonsense. Would make planning completely nonexistent. Housing estates built without the sewerage and processing ability, that sort of tyhing, a shitstorm in the most literal sense.
Yes, planning should be completely non existent.
It's the water firms responsibility to handle sewerage not housing developers. They need to do their own job, not pass the buck.
All developments should pay for is to connect to the network. Once it's in the network, it's not their responsibility anymore.
You obviously dfon't know that the sewerage network consists of pipes and processing plants. It's the latter that are the issue. They need to be built first. Before the houses. How else is that going to happen, if not planning? Otherwise you are demanding urban level sewerage facilities all over farmland, is the logical consequence of your vision. Just in case some dodgy shoebox merchant might want to build houses 15 miles from nowhere.
It's the water firms job to deal with processing plants.
If they haven't built enough they need to do their own job.
That's not an excuse to prevent construction any more than a shortage of construction is preventing population growth.
Absolutely urban level sewerage facilities are needed wherever they are needed.
But you keep ignoring the fact it's slower to build shit processing plants than the sort of shit houses you get now. Very tricky to find sites for them, too. So advance planning is needed.
Edit: where I live, the council has over the years repeatedly identified large swathes of land for new housing, but made sure the sewerage issue was handed over to the water authority in advance.
And you keep ignoring the fact it doesn't matter. People live here now.
You complain that if planning is reformed we'd get more houses now. Good! We need them now, not years from now.
Our population has already grown. Our demographics have already changed. We have a shortage of houses today, not years from now.
The water firms need to do their own bloody job. And if they don't they need to be fined heavily until they either do, or go bankrupt and have their assets taken from them as a result and given to someone who will do their job.
The water firms should be dealing with in advance of population changes, not housing changes. Housing needs to keep up with population and demographic changes and if water has fallen behind that is NOT an excuse to fail to build houses.
Unless you're prepared to identify millions of people to execute or deport, the houses are needed today not years from now.
Piss off, there's a good chum. I don't need any absolutist lectures from you. My area has expanded enormously and beyond recognition in terms of population and houses, repeatedly, with more coming as I can see from the Local Plan. Having the houses in reasonably sensible areas and with at least some shit processing ready first is a pretty small thing to ask.
What we do get from the libertarian and greedy developer is the attempt to cram more houses on school playing fields and children's local play areas - and that is the only time I've ever put in a complaint about a planning application: when a school was losing some of its playing fields. Your demand for no planning officers would allow that to run riot.
Excuses, excuses.
Nowhere has grown enough "beyond recognition".
Our population has grown. That means villages need to become towns, towns become cities and cities become bigger.
Tough shit if that means you don't recognise changes. Don't be so xenophobic, people need somewhere to live.
A icnrease of a factor of 3-4 in my area is obviously not good enough for you. And I have tried to explain that I have recognised the need for the changes and didn't complain about them except where they were directly hurting people's most basic existi9ng amenities - no shitstorms, the need to keep places for children actually to play games. But as I can't do it in words of fewer than four letters I will just have to leave it at that.
Meanwhile, the more you come out with the stuff you do, the more the need for planning officers is confirmed.
No, of course that pathetically small amount is not good enough.
An increase of 100x may be needed in some places. Villages turning into new towns with hundreds of thousands of extra homes.
We are millions of homes short of what we need. So your xenophobia at not recognising changes can piss right off.
Nigel Farage has defended the 41 candidates found to be social media “friends” of fascist leader, saying: “I apologise that not all of our candidates have been to Eton.”
Close to one in ten candidates for the Reform UK party in England was found to be connected on Facebook with Gary Raikes, the British fascist leader, The Times found.
I think all of this stuff is contributing to their current low ceiling, which might be around 14-17%. , The Tories equally seem to be stuck, just a little bit higher, at around the 18-22% mark. The one that is interesting me most at moment is the LD's, because their share is looking a bit more mobile and hard to predict, to me,
I'm long of LD seats at 40. I think they have a lot of upside with the dynamics of this election.
I'm in the naughty corner along with CR and RCS. We thought Sporting's opening offer of 36-40 screamed 'sell'. I've reversed out since and bought in recently at 44.
WeThink out a day early this week 🔴 Lab 43% (-2) 🔵 Con 20% (NC) ⚪ Ref 14% (-1) 🟠 LD 11% (+1) 🟢 Green 6% (+1) 🟡 SNP 2% (-1) ⚫ Ind 2% 12-13 Jun
We've still not had the full set of numbers from yesterday's PeoplePolling. Anyone know what's going on there, or was that Goodwin guy lying?
Lib Dems 10%, apparently.
I thought it was a condition of the BPC membership that pollsters have to produce a) the complete set of numbers and b) publish the full set of tables.
Has the ludicrous Goodwin done this? If not, why is he still a member?
Full tables only need to be published within 2 days according to the BPC rules - but:
All data and research findings made on the basis of social or political polls conducted in the United Kingdom by member organisations that enter the public domain, must include reference to the following: Client commissioning the survey; Dates of interviewing; Method of obtaining the interviews (e.g. in-person, telephone, internet) The universe effectively represented (all adults, voters etc) The percentages upon which conclusions are based; Size of the sample and geographic coverage; (Section 2.1 of https://www.britishpollingcouncil.org/objects-and-rules/)
Goodwin didn't even give the percentages for half the parties, let alone sample size - so he certainly seems to be in breach of the last two points.
WeThink out a day early this week 🔴 Lab 43% (-2) 🔵 Con 20% (NC) ⚪ Ref 14% (-1) 🟠 LD 11% (+1) 🟢 Green 6% (+1) 🟡 SNP 2% (-1) ⚫ Ind 2% 12-13 Jun
We've still not had the full set of numbers from yesterday's PeoplePolling. Anyone know what's going on there, or was that Goodwin guy lying?
Lib Dems 10%, apparently.
I thought it was a condition of the BPC membership that pollsters have to produce a) the complete set of numbers and b) publish the full set of tables.
Has the ludicrous Goodwin done this? If not, why is he still a member?
it's not on his website yet. Many polls commissioned for a client don't have the data tables published straight away. Not sure what the BPC time limit is.
The rules are on the BPC website. Two working days, or on request.
Does anyone know the details of Labour's proposed planning reforms?
All I can see on BBC is that "planning is at the heart of reforms" but then silence on what those reforms are?
Our planning system and NIMBYism is the biggest barrier to growth and development in this country. But as far as reforms are concerned, I'll believe it when I see it.
Labour Manifesto:
Planning reform to build 1.5 million new homes ... Britain is hampered by a planning regime that means we struggle to build either the infrastructure or housing the country needs. ... The current planning regime acts as a major brake on economic growth. Labour will make the changes we need to forge ahead with new roads, railways, reservoirs, and other nationally significant infrastructure. We will set out new national policy statements, make major projects faster and cheaper by slashing red tape, and build support for developments by ensuring communities directly benefit. We will also update national planning policy to ensure the planning system meets the needs of a modern economy, making it easier to build laboratories, digital infrastructure, and gigafactories. ... We will ensure our industrial strategy supports the development of the Artificial Intelligence (AI) sector, removes planning barriers to new datacentres. ... We will immediately update the National Policy Planning Framework to undo damaging Conservative changes, including restoring mandatory housing targets...strengthen the presumption in favour of sustainable development. ... Appoint 300 new planning officers
The above is essentially everything from the Labour manifesto that mentions planning. There's a bit more detail on local plans, green belt, (& 5G!) etc, but nothing you'd miss.
The best thing you can say about it is that recruiting more planning officers should at least mean that planning applications are processed more quickly.
I guess we'd have to wait and see a future Planning Bill to get the detail. I expect that it's a long way from what you want.
Thanks.
Abolishing planning officers altogether by making planning automatic would be a far better policy. But looks like nobody is brave enough to embrace that approach unfortunately.
Looks like Labour at least understand the problem and are attempting a solution, even if its not enough its better than nothing.
I may have to lend them my vote.
Abolishing planning officers? Nonsense. Would make planning completely nonexistent. Housing estates built without the sewerage and processing ability, that sort of tyhing, a shitstorm in the most literal sense.
Yes, planning should be completely non existent.
It's the water firms responsibility to handle sewerage not housing developers. They need to do their own job, not pass the buck.
All developments should pay for is to connect to the network. Once it's in the network, it's not their responsibility anymore.
You obviously dfon't know that the sewerage network consists of pipes and processing plants. It's the latter that are the issue. They need to be built first. Before the houses. How else is that going to happen, if not planning? Otherwise you are demanding urban level sewerage facilities all over farmland, is the logical consequence of your vision. Just in case some dodgy shoebox merchant might want to build houses 15 miles from nowhere.
It's the water firms job to deal with processing plants.
If they haven't built enough they need to do their own job.
That's not an excuse to prevent construction any more than a shortage of construction is preventing population growth.
Absolutely urban level sewerage facilities are needed wherever they are needed.
But you keep ignoring the fact it's slower to build shit processing plants than the sort of shit houses you get now. Very tricky to find sites for them, too. So advance planning is needed.
Edit: where I live, the council has over the years repeatedly identified large swathes of land for new housing, but made sure the sewerage issue was handed over to the water authority in advance.
And you keep ignoring the fact it doesn't matter. People live here now.
You complain that if planning is reformed we'd get more houses now. Good! We need them now, not years from now.
Our population has already grown. Our demographics have already changed. We have a shortage of houses today, not years from now.
The water firms need to do their own bloody job. And if they don't they need to be fined heavily until they either do, or go bankrupt and have their assets taken from them as a result and given to someone who will do their job.
The water firms should be dealing with in advance of population changes, not housing changes. Housing needs to keep up with population and demographic changes and if water has fallen behind that is NOT an excuse to fail to build houses.
Unless you're prepared to identify millions of people to execute or deport, the houses are needed today not years from now.
Piss off, there's a good chum. I don't need any absolutist lectures from you. My area has expanded enormously and beyond recognition in terms of population and houses, repeatedly, with more coming as I can see from the Local Plan. Having the houses in reasonably sensible areas and with at least some shit processing ready first is a pretty small thing to ask.
What we do get from the libertarian and greedy developer is the attempt to cram more houses on school playing fields and children's local play areas - and that is the only time I've ever put in a complaint about a planning application: when a school was losing some of its playing fields. Your demand for no planning officers would allow that to run riot.
Excuses, excuses.
Nowhere has grown enough "beyond recognition".
Our population has grown. That means villages need to become towns, towns become cities and cities become bigger.
Tough shit if that means you don't recognise changes. Don't be so xenophobic, people need somewhere to live.
A icnrease of a factor of 3-4 in my area is obviously not good enough for you. And I have tried to explain that I have recognised the need for the changes and didn't complain about them except where they were directly hurting people's most basic existi9ng amenities - no shitstorms, the need to keep places for children actually to play games. But as I can't do it in words of fewer than four letters I will just have to leave it at that.
Meanwhile, the more you come out with the stuff you do, the more the need for planning officers is confirmed.
No, of course that pathetically small amount is not good enough.
An increase of 100x may be needed in some places. Villages turning into new towns with hundreds of thousands of extra homes.
We are millions of homes short of what we need. So your xenophobia at not recognising changes can piss right off.
A factor of 3 or 4 means: 3 or 4 times the *existing* number of houses.
Neither Sacoolas or representatives from the US embassy attended the inquest - prompting the Dunn family spokesperson Radd Seiger to say the US government's position is that "lives of UK citizens like Harry ultimately do not matter".
Speaking after the inquest, he said: "It was not enough for them to kill Harry. It wasn't enough for them to then kick Harry's family in their darkest hour and seek to deny and delay the justice that they were entitled to.
"As we have all seen this week their attitude and approach to keeping their British hosts safe has been laid to bare and they have positively obstructed the coroner's inquiry and deprived the family of the answers they were entitled to as to why no-one has ever addressed the issue of safety of UK citizens.""
If only the British PM were to be in the same room as the US president today, and could ask him about this case?
Does anyone know the details of Labour's proposed planning reforms?
All I can see on BBC is that "planning is at the heart of reforms" but then silence on what those reforms are?
Our planning system and NIMBYism is the biggest barrier to growth and development in this country. But as far as reforms are concerned, I'll believe it when I see it.
Labour Manifesto:
Planning reform to build 1.5 million new homes ... Britain is hampered by a planning regime that means we struggle to build either the infrastructure or housing the country needs. ... The current planning regime acts as a major brake on economic growth. Labour will make the changes we need to forge ahead with new roads, railways, reservoirs, and other nationally significant infrastructure. We will set out new national policy statements, make major projects faster and cheaper by slashing red tape, and build support for developments by ensuring communities directly benefit. We will also update national planning policy to ensure the planning system meets the needs of a modern economy, making it easier to build laboratories, digital infrastructure, and gigafactories. ... We will ensure our industrial strategy supports the development of the Artificial Intelligence (AI) sector, removes planning barriers to new datacentres. ... We will immediately update the National Policy Planning Framework to undo damaging Conservative changes, including restoring mandatory housing targets...strengthen the presumption in favour of sustainable development. ... Appoint 300 new planning officers
The above is essentially everything from the Labour manifesto that mentions planning. There's a bit more detail on local plans, green belt, (& 5G!) etc, but nothing you'd miss.
The best thing you can say about it is that recruiting more planning officers should at least mean that planning applications are processed more quickly.
I guess we'd have to wait and see a future Planning Bill to get the detail. I expect that it's a long way from what you want.
Thanks.
Abolishing planning officers altogether by making planning automatic would be a far better policy. But looks like nobody is brave enough to embrace that approach unfortunately.
Looks like Labour at least understand the problem and are attempting a solution, even if its not enough its better than nothing.
I may have to lend them my vote.
Abolishing planning officers? Nonsense. Would make planning completely nonexistent. Housing estates built without the sewerage and processing ability, that sort of tyhing, a shitstorm in the most literal sense.
Yes, planning should be completely non existent.
It's the water firms responsibility to handle sewerage not housing developers. They need to do their own job, not pass the buck.
All developments should pay for is to connect to the network. Once it's in the network, it's not their responsibility anymore.
You obviously dfon't know that the sewerage network consists of pipes and processing plants. It's the latter that are the issue. They need to be built first. Before the houses. How else is that going to happen, if not planning? Otherwise you are demanding urban level sewerage facilities all over farmland, is the logical consequence of your vision. Just in case some dodgy shoebox merchant might want to build houses 15 miles from nowhere.
It's the water firms job to deal with processing plants.
If they haven't built enough they need to do their own job.
That's not an excuse to prevent construction any more than a shortage of construction is preventing population growth.
Absolutely urban level sewerage facilities are needed wherever they are needed.
But you keep ignoring the fact it's slower to build shit processing plants than the sort of shit houses you get now. Very tricky to find sites for them, too. So advance planning is needed.
Edit: where I live, the council has over the years repeatedly identified large swathes of land for new housing, but made sure the sewerage issue was handed over to the water authority in advance.
And you keep ignoring the fact it doesn't matter. People live here now.
You complain that if planning is reformed we'd get more houses now. Good! We need them now, not years from now.
Our population has already grown. Our demographics have already changed. We have a shortage of houses today, not years from now.
The water firms need to do their own bloody job. And if they don't they need to be fined heavily until they either do, or go bankrupt and have their assets taken from them as a result and given to someone who will do their job.
The water firms should be dealing with in advance of population changes, not housing changes. Housing needs to keep up with population and demographic changes and if water has fallen behind that is NOT an excuse to fail to build houses.
Unless you're prepared to identify millions of people to execute or deport, the houses are needed today not years from now.
Piss off, there's a good chum. I don't need any absolutist lectures from you. My area has expanded enormously and beyond recognition in terms of population and houses, repeatedly, with more coming as I can see from the Local Plan. Having the houses in reasonably sensible areas and with at least some shit processing ready first is a pretty small thing to ask.
What we do get from the libertarian and greedy developer is the attempt to cram more houses on school playing fields and children's local play areas - and that is the only time I've ever put in a complaint about a planning application: when a school was losing some of its playing fields. Your demand for no planning officers would allow that to run riot.
Excuses, excuses.
Nowhere has grown enough "beyond recognition".
Our population has grown. That means villages need to become towns, towns become cities and cities become bigger.
Tough shit if that means you don't recognise changes. Don't be so xenophobic, people need somewhere to live.
A icnrease of a factor of 3-4 in my area is obviously not good enough for you. And I have tried to explain that I have recognised the need for the changes and didn't complain about them except where they were directly hurting people's most basic existi9ng amenities - no shitstorms, the need to keep places for children actually to play games. But as I can't do it in words of fewer than four letters I will just have to leave it at that.
Meanwhile, the more you come out with the stuff you do, the more the need for planning officers is confirmed.
No, of course that pathetically small amount is not good enough.
An increase of 100x may be needed in some places. Villages turning into new towns with hundreds of thousands of extra homes.
We are millions of homes short of what we need. So your xenophobia at not recognising changes can piss right off.
A factor of 3 or 4 means: 3 or 4 times the *existing* number of houses.
Now look at your post and see how stupid it is.
So if it was 100 and goes to 300 you think that's "enough"?
Don't be stupid. We need millions. Going from 100 to 100,000 in many places would be a good start.
Husband pursues Apple after wife finds ‘deleted’ messages to prostitute
A businessman is preparing a legal case, claiming that his divorce was a direct result of compromising texts that had been wiped from his iPhone still being visible on the family iMac
An unfaithful husband who arranged meetings with prostitutes via messages on his iPhone is pursuing legal action against Apple after his wife discovered that his deleted messages were still stored on a linked computer.
Richard, not his real name, said he had turned to prostitutes in the last years of his marriage and had arranged the meetings through the iMessages app. After making the arrangements he would delete the messages, believing the trail of his infidelity had been hidden.
However, when his wife clicked on the same app on the family iMac, it showed that the last message he had sent to another person’s iPhone was to a prostitute. When she looked further she found several years’ worth of supposedly deleted messages to prostitutes.
She filed for divorce within a month.
Richard, a middle-aged businessman and father who lives in England but does not want to disclose his home town, is pursuing legal action against Apple in the hope of recovering more than £5 million he lost in the divorce, plus legal costs.
I have hopes that he might be rinsed for more than £5m if he pursues this case for long enough.
I am far from being an expert, but it'd be interesting to see exactly what his complaint is (the article is paywalled...). But the old adage of "the Internet never forgets" should always be borne in mind.
Does anyone know the details of Labour's proposed planning reforms?
All I can see on BBC is that "planning is at the heart of reforms" but then silence on what those reforms are?
Our planning system and NIMBYism is the biggest barrier to growth and development in this country. But as far as reforms are concerned, I'll believe it when I see it.
Labour Manifesto:
Planning reform to build 1.5 million new homes ... Britain is hampered by a planning regime that means we struggle to build either the infrastructure or housing the country needs. ... The current planning regime acts as a major brake on economic growth. Labour will make the changes we need to forge ahead with new roads, railways, reservoirs, and other nationally significant infrastructure. We will set out new national policy statements, make major projects faster and cheaper by slashing red tape, and build support for developments by ensuring communities directly benefit. We will also update national planning policy to ensure the planning system meets the needs of a modern economy, making it easier to build laboratories, digital infrastructure, and gigafactories. ... We will ensure our industrial strategy supports the development of the Artificial Intelligence (AI) sector, removes planning barriers to new datacentres. ... We will immediately update the National Policy Planning Framework to undo damaging Conservative changes, including restoring mandatory housing targets...strengthen the presumption in favour of sustainable development. ... Appoint 300 new planning officers
The above is essentially everything from the Labour manifesto that mentions planning. There's a bit more detail on local plans, green belt, (& 5G!) etc, but nothing you'd miss.
The best thing you can say about it is that recruiting more planning officers should at least mean that planning applications are processed more quickly.
I guess we'd have to wait and see a future Planning Bill to get the detail. I expect that it's a long way from what you want.
Thanks.
Abolishing planning officers altogether by making planning automatic would be a far better policy. But looks like nobody is brave enough to embrace that approach unfortunately.
Looks like Labour at least understand the problem and are attempting a solution, even if its not enough its better than nothing.
I may have to lend them my vote.
Abolishing planning officers? Nonsense. Would make planning completely nonexistent. Housing estates built without the sewerage and processing ability, that sort of tyhing, a shitstorm in the most literal sense.
Yes, planning should be completely non existent.
It's the water firms responsibility to handle sewerage not housing developers. They need to do their own job, not pass the buck.
All developments should pay for is to connect to the network. Once it's in the network, it's not their responsibility anymore.
You obviously dfon't know that the sewerage network consists of pipes and processing plants. It's the latter that are the issue. They need to be built first. Before the houses. How else is that going to happen, if not planning? Otherwise you are demanding urban level sewerage facilities all over farmland, is the logical consequence of your vision. Just in case some dodgy shoebox merchant might want to build houses 15 miles from nowhere.
It's the water firms job to deal with processing plants.
If they haven't built enough they need to do their own job.
That's not an excuse to prevent construction any more than a shortage of construction is preventing population growth.
Absolutely urban level sewerage facilities are needed wherever they are needed.
But you keep ignoring the fact it's slower to build shit processing plants than the sort of shit houses you get now. Very tricky to find sites for them, too. So advance planning is needed.
Edit: where I live, the council has over the years repeatedly identified large swathes of land for new housing, but made sure the sewerage issue was handed over to the water authority in advance.
And you keep ignoring the fact it doesn't matter. People live here now.
You complain that if planning is reformed we'd get more houses now. Good! We need them now, not years from now.
Our population has already grown. Our demographics have already changed. We have a shortage of houses today, not years from now.
The water firms need to do their own bloody job. And if they don't they need to be fined heavily until they either do, or go bankrupt and have their assets taken from them as a result and given to someone who will do their job.
The water firms should be dealing with in advance of population changes, not housing changes. Housing needs to keep up with population and demographic changes and if water has fallen behind that is NOT an excuse to fail to build houses.
Unless you're prepared to identify millions of people to execute or deport, the houses are needed today not years from now.
Piss off, there's a good chum. I don't need any absolutist lectures from you. My area has expanded enormously and beyond recognition in terms of population and houses, repeatedly, with more coming as I can see from the Local Plan. Having the houses in reasonably sensible areas and with at least some shit processing ready first is a pretty small thing to ask.
What we do get from the libertarian and greedy developer is the attempt to cram more houses on school playing fields and children's local play areas - and that is the only time I've ever put in a complaint about a planning application: when a school was losing some of its playing fields. Your demand for no planning officers would allow that to run riot.
Excuses, excuses.
Nowhere has grown enough "beyond recognition".
Our population has grown. That means villages need to become towns, towns become cities and cities become bigger.
Tough shit if that means you don't recognise changes. Don't be so xenophobic, people need somewhere to live.
A icnrease of a factor of 3-4 times - not per cent - in my area is obviously not good enough for you. And I have tried to explain that I have recognised the need for the changes and didn't complain about them except where they were directly hurting people's most basic existi9ng amenities - no shitstorms, the need to keep places for children actually to play games. But as I can't do it in words of fewer than four letters I will just have to leave it at that.
Meanwhile, the more you come out with the stuff you do, the more the need for planning officers is confirmed.
I wouldn't worry. If he gets what he wants we can crowd fund a sardine tinning factory up wind of his estate.
Does anyone know the details of Labour's proposed planning reforms?
All I can see on BBC is that "planning is at the heart of reforms" but then silence on what those reforms are?
Our planning system and NIMBYism is the biggest barrier to growth and development in this country. But as far as reforms are concerned, I'll believe it when I see it.
Labour Manifesto:
Planning reform to build 1.5 million new homes ... Britain is hampered by a planning regime that means we struggle to build either the infrastructure or housing the country needs. ... The current planning regime acts as a major brake on economic growth. Labour will make the changes we need to forge ahead with new roads, railways, reservoirs, and other nationally significant infrastructure. We will set out new national policy statements, make major projects faster and cheaper by slashing red tape, and build support for developments by ensuring communities directly benefit. We will also update national planning policy to ensure the planning system meets the needs of a modern economy, making it easier to build laboratories, digital infrastructure, and gigafactories. ... We will ensure our industrial strategy supports the development of the Artificial Intelligence (AI) sector, removes planning barriers to new datacentres. ... We will immediately update the National Policy Planning Framework to undo damaging Conservative changes, including restoring mandatory housing targets...strengthen the presumption in favour of sustainable development. ... Appoint 300 new planning officers
The above is essentially everything from the Labour manifesto that mentions planning. There's a bit more detail on local plans, green belt, (& 5G!) etc, but nothing you'd miss.
The best thing you can say about it is that recruiting more planning officers should at least mean that planning applications are processed more quickly.
I guess we'd have to wait and see a future Planning Bill to get the detail. I expect that it's a long way from what you want.
Thanks.
Abolishing planning officers altogether by making planning automatic would be a far better policy. But looks like nobody is brave enough to embrace that approach unfortunately.
Looks like Labour at least understand the problem and are attempting a solution, even if its not enough its better than nothing.
I may have to lend them my vote.
Abolishing planning officers? Nonsense. Would make planning completely nonexistent. Housing estates built without the sewerage and processing ability, that sort of tyhing, a shitstorm in the most literal sense.
Yes, planning should be completely non existent.
It's the water firms responsibility to handle sewerage not housing developers. They need to do their own job, not pass the buck.
All developments should pay for is to connect to the network. Once it's in the network, it's not their responsibility anymore.
You obviously dfon't know that the sewerage network consists of pipes and processing plants. It's the latter that are the issue. They need to be built first. Before the houses. How else is that going to happen, if not planning? Otherwise you are demanding urban level sewerage facilities all over farmland, is the logical consequence of your vision. Just in case some dodgy shoebox merchant might want to build houses 15 miles from nowhere.
It's the water firms job to deal with processing plants.
If they haven't built enough they need to do their own job.
That's not an excuse to prevent construction any more than a shortage of construction is preventing population growth.
Absolutely urban level sewerage facilities are needed wherever they are needed.
But you keep ignoring the fact it's slower to build shit processing plants than the sort of shit houses you get now. Very tricky to find sites for them, too. So advance planning is needed.
Edit: where I live, the council has over the years repeatedly identified large swathes of land for new housing, but made sure the sewerage issue was handed over to the water authority in advance.
And you keep ignoring the fact it doesn't matter. People live here now.
You complain that if planning is reformed we'd get more houses now. Good! We need them now, not years from now.
Our population has already grown. Our demographics have already changed. We have a shortage of houses today, not years from now.
The water firms need to do their own bloody job. And if they don't they need to be fined heavily until they either do, or go bankrupt and have their assets taken from them as a result and given to someone who will do their job.
The water firms should be dealing with in advance of population changes, not housing changes. Housing needs to keep up with population and demographic changes and if water has fallen behind that is NOT an excuse to fail to build houses.
Unless you're prepared to identify millions of people to execute or deport, the houses are needed today not years from now.
Piss off, there's a good chum. I don't need any absolutist lectures from you. My area has expanded enormously and beyond recognition in terms of population and houses, repeatedly, with more coming as I can see from the Local Plan. Having the houses in reasonably sensible areas and with at least some shit processing ready first is a pretty small thing to ask.
What we do get from the libertarian and greedy developer is the attempt to cram more houses on school playing fields and children's local play areas - and that is the only time I've ever put in a complaint about a planning application: when a school was losing some of its playing fields. Your demand for no planning officers would allow that to run riot.
Excuses, excuses.
Nowhere has grown enough "beyond recognition".
Our population has grown. That means villages need to become towns, towns become cities and cities become bigger.
Tough shit if that means you don't recognise changes. Don't be so xenophobic, people need somewhere to live.
A icnrease of a factor of 3-4 in my area is obviously not good enough for you. And I have tried to explain that I have recognised the need for the changes and didn't complain about them except where they were directly hurting people's most basic existi9ng amenities - no shitstorms, the need to keep places for children actually to play games. But as I can't do it in words of fewer than four letters I will just have to leave it at that.
Meanwhile, the more you come out with the stuff you do, the more the need for planning officers is confirmed.
No, of course that pathetically small amount is not good enough.
An increase of 100x may be needed in some places. Villages turning into new towns with hundreds of thousands of extra homes.
We are millions of homes short of what we need. So your xenophobia at not recognising changes can piss right off.
A factor of 3 or 4 means: 3 or 4 times the *existing* number of houses.
Now look at your post and see how stupid it is.
So if it was 100 and goes to 300 you think that's "enough"?
Don't be stupid. We need millions. Going from 100 to 100,000 in many places would be a good start.
My place *was* a town to begin with! So it's made a very substantial contribution. Other places can do their share.
Husband pursues Apple after wife finds ‘deleted’ messages to prostitute
A businessman is preparing a legal case, claiming that his divorce was a direct result of compromising texts that had been wiped from his iPhone still being visible on the family iMac
An unfaithful husband who arranged meetings with prostitutes via messages on his iPhone is pursuing legal action against Apple after his wife discovered that his deleted messages were still stored on a linked computer.
Richard, not his real name, said he had turned to prostitutes in the last years of his marriage and had arranged the meetings through the iMessages app. After making the arrangements he would delete the messages, believing the trail of his infidelity had been hidden.
However, when his wife clicked on the same app on the family iMac, it showed that the last message he had sent to another person’s iPhone was to a prostitute. When she looked further she found several years’ worth of supposedly deleted messages to prostitutes.
She filed for divorce within a month.
Richard, a middle-aged businessman and father who lives in England but does not want to disclose his home town, is pursuing legal action against Apple in the hope of recovering more than £5 million he lost in the divorce, plus legal costs.
I have hopes that he might be rinsed for more than £5m if he pursues this case for long enough.
I am far from being an expert, but it'd be interesting to see exactly what his complaint is (the article is paywalled...). But the old adage of "the Internet never forgets" should always be borne in mind.
His argument boils down to 'if I delete a message on my phone it should automatically delete it from all Apple devices. Apple never told me about this.'
Does anyone know the details of Labour's proposed planning reforms?
All I can see on BBC is that "planning is at the heart of reforms" but then silence on what those reforms are?
Our planning system and NIMBYism is the biggest barrier to growth and development in this country. But as far as reforms are concerned, I'll believe it when I see it.
Labour Manifesto:
Planning reform to build 1.5 million new homes ... Britain is hampered by a planning regime that means we struggle to build either the infrastructure or housing the country needs. ... The current planning regime acts as a major brake on economic growth. Labour will make the changes we need to forge ahead with new roads, railways, reservoirs, and other nationally significant infrastructure. We will set out new national policy statements, make major projects faster and cheaper by slashing red tape, and build support for developments by ensuring communities directly benefit. We will also update national planning policy to ensure the planning system meets the needs of a modern economy, making it easier to build laboratories, digital infrastructure, and gigafactories. ... We will ensure our industrial strategy supports the development of the Artificial Intelligence (AI) sector, removes planning barriers to new datacentres. ... We will immediately update the National Policy Planning Framework to undo damaging Conservative changes, including restoring mandatory housing targets...strengthen the presumption in favour of sustainable development. ... Appoint 300 new planning officers
The above is essentially everything from the Labour manifesto that mentions planning. There's a bit more detail on local plans, green belt, (& 5G!) etc, but nothing you'd miss.
The best thing you can say about it is that recruiting more planning officers should at least mean that planning applications are processed more quickly.
I guess we'd have to wait and see a future Planning Bill to get the detail. I expect that it's a long way from what you want.
Thanks.
Abolishing planning officers altogether by making planning automatic would be a far better policy. But looks like nobody is brave enough to embrace that approach unfortunately.
Looks like Labour at least understand the problem and are attempting a solution, even if its not enough its better than nothing.
I may have to lend them my vote.
Abolishing planning officers? Nonsense. Would make planning completely nonexistent. Housing estates built without the sewerage and processing ability, that sort of tyhing, a shitstorm in the most literal sense.
Yes, planning should be completely non existent.
It's the water firms responsibility to handle sewerage not housing developers. They need to do their own job, not pass the buck.
All developments should pay for is to connect to the network. Once it's in the network, it's not their responsibility anymore.
You obviously dfon't know that the sewerage network consists of pipes and processing plants. It's the latter that are the issue. They need to be built first. Before the houses. How else is that going to happen, if not planning? Otherwise you are demanding urban level sewerage facilities all over farmland, is the logical consequence of your vision. Just in case some dodgy shoebox merchant might want to build houses 15 miles from nowhere.
It's the water firms job to deal with processing plants.
If they haven't built enough they need to do their own job.
That's not an excuse to prevent construction any more than a shortage of construction is preventing population growth.
Absolutely urban level sewerage facilities are needed wherever they are needed.
But you keep ignoring the fact it's slower to build shit processing plants than the sort of shit houses you get now. Very tricky to find sites for them, too. So advance planning is needed.
Edit: where I live, the council has over the years repeatedly identified large swathes of land for new housing, but made sure the sewerage issue was handed over to the water authority in advance.
And you keep ignoring the fact it doesn't matter. People live here now.
You complain that if planning is reformed we'd get more houses now. Good! We need them now, not years from now.
Our population has already grown. Our demographics have already changed. We have a shortage of houses today, not years from now.
The water firms need to do their own bloody job. And if they don't they need to be fined heavily until they either do, or go bankrupt and have their assets taken from them as a result and given to someone who will do their job.
The water firms should be dealing with in advance of population changes, not housing changes. Housing needs to keep up with population and demographic changes and if water has fallen behind that is NOT an excuse to fail to build houses.
Unless you're prepared to identify millions of people to execute or deport, the houses are needed today not years from now.
Piss off, there's a good chum. I don't need any absolutist lectures from you. My area has expanded enormously and beyond recognition in terms of population and houses, repeatedly, with more coming as I can see from the Local Plan. Having the houses in reasonably sensible areas and with at least some shit processing ready first is a pretty small thing to ask.
What we do get from the libertarian and greedy developer is the attempt to cram more houses on school playing fields and children's local play areas - and that is the only time I've ever put in a complaint about a planning application: when a school was losing some of its playing fields. Your demand for no planning officers would allow that to run riot.
Excuses, excuses.
Nowhere has grown enough "beyond recognition".
Our population has grown. That means villages need to become towns, towns become cities and cities become bigger.
Tough shit if that means you don't recognise changes. Don't be so xenophobic, people need somewhere to live.
A icnrease of a factor of 3-4 times - not per cent - in my area is obviously not good enough for you. And I have tried to explain that I have recognised the need for the changes and didn't complain about them except where they were directly hurting people's most basic existi9ng amenities - no shitstorms, the need to keep places for children actually to play games. But as I can't do it in words of fewer than four letters I will just have to leave it at that.
Meanwhile, the more you come out with the stuff you do, the more the need for planning officers is confirmed.
I wouldn't worry. If he gets what he wants we can crowd fund a sardine tinning factory up wind of his estate.
Cellophane factory, and a sewage plant that overflows because there are too many houses.
Does anyone know the details of Labour's proposed planning reforms?
All I can see on BBC is that "planning is at the heart of reforms" but then silence on what those reforms are?
Our planning system and NIMBYism is the biggest barrier to growth and development in this country. But as far as reforms are concerned, I'll believe it when I see it.
Labour Manifesto:
Planning reform to build 1.5 million new homes ... Britain is hampered by a planning regime that means we struggle to build either the infrastructure or housing the country needs. ... The current planning regime acts as a major brake on economic growth. Labour will make the changes we need to forge ahead with new roads, railways, reservoirs, and other nationally significant infrastructure. We will set out new national policy statements, make major projects faster and cheaper by slashing red tape, and build support for developments by ensuring communities directly benefit. We will also update national planning policy to ensure the planning system meets the needs of a modern economy, making it easier to build laboratories, digital infrastructure, and gigafactories. ... We will ensure our industrial strategy supports the development of the Artificial Intelligence (AI) sector, removes planning barriers to new datacentres. ... We will immediately update the National Policy Planning Framework to undo damaging Conservative changes, including restoring mandatory housing targets...strengthen the presumption in favour of sustainable development. ... Appoint 300 new planning officers
The above is essentially everything from the Labour manifesto that mentions planning. There's a bit more detail on local plans, green belt, (& 5G!) etc, but nothing you'd miss.
The best thing you can say about it is that recruiting more planning officers should at least mean that planning applications are processed more quickly.
I guess we'd have to wait and see a future Planning Bill to get the detail. I expect that it's a long way from what you want.
Thanks.
Abolishing planning officers altogether by making planning automatic would be a far better policy. But looks like nobody is brave enough to embrace that approach unfortunately.
Looks like Labour at least understand the problem and are attempting a solution, even if its not enough its better than nothing.
I may have to lend them my vote.
Abolishing planning officers? Nonsense. Would make planning completely nonexistent. Housing estates built without the sewerage and processing ability, that sort of tyhing, a shitstorm in the most literal sense.
Yes, planning should be completely non existent.
It's the water firms responsibility to handle sewerage not housing developers. They need to do their own job, not pass the buck.
All developments should pay for is to connect to the network. Once it's in the network, it's not their responsibility anymore.
You obviously dfon't know that the sewerage network consists of pipes and processing plants. It's the latter that are the issue. They need to be built first. Before the houses. How else is that going to happen, if not planning? Otherwise you are demanding urban level sewerage facilities all over farmland, is the logical consequence of your vision. Just in case some dodgy shoebox merchant might want to build houses 15 miles from nowhere.
It's the water firms job to deal with processing plants.
If they haven't built enough they need to do their own job.
That's not an excuse to prevent construction any more than a shortage of construction is preventing population growth.
Absolutely urban level sewerage facilities are needed wherever they are needed.
But you keep ignoring the fact it's slower to build shit processing plants than the sort of shit houses you get now. Very tricky to find sites for them, too. So advance planning is needed.
Edit: where I live, the council has over the years repeatedly identified large swathes of land for new housing, but made sure the sewerage issue was handed over to the water authority in advance.
And you keep ignoring the fact it doesn't matter. People live here now.
You complain that if planning is reformed we'd get more houses now. Good! We need them now, not years from now.
Our population has already grown. Our demographics have already changed. We have a shortage of houses today, not years from now.
The water firms need to do their own bloody job. And if they don't they need to be fined heavily until they either do, or go bankrupt and have their assets taken from them as a result and given to someone who will do their job.
The water firms should be dealing with in advance of population changes, not housing changes. Housing needs to keep up with population and demographic changes and if water has fallen behind that is NOT an excuse to fail to build houses.
Unless you're prepared to identify millions of people to execute or deport, the houses are needed today not years from now.
Piss off, there's a good chum. I don't need any absolutist lectures from you. My area has expanded enormously and beyond recognition in terms of population and houses, repeatedly, with more coming as I can see from the Local Plan. Having the houses in reasonably sensible areas and with at least some shit processing ready first is a pretty small thing to ask.
What we do get from the libertarian and greedy developer is the attempt to cram more houses on school playing fields and children's local play areas - and that is the only time I've ever put in a complaint about a planning application: when a school was losing some of its playing fields. Your demand for no planning officers would allow that to run riot.
Excuses, excuses.
Nowhere has grown enough "beyond recognition".
Our population has grown. That means villages need to become towns, towns become cities and cities become bigger.
Tough shit if that means you don't recognise changes. Don't be so xenophobic, people need somewhere to live.
A icnrease of a factor of 3-4 times - not per cent - in my area is obviously not good enough for you. And I have tried to explain that I have recognised the need for the changes and didn't complain about them except where they were directly hurting people's most basic existi9ng amenities - no shitstorms, the need to keep places for children actually to play games. But as I can't do it in words of fewer than four letters I will just have to leave it at that.
Meanwhile, the more you come out with the stuff you do, the more the need for planning officers is confirmed.
I wouldn't worry. If he gets what he wants we can crowd fund a sardine tinning factory up wind of his estate.
And I'd have absolutely no objection to that.
So you're saying if we get what I want, we might have both housing growth and economic growth too?
Does anyone know the details of Labour's proposed planning reforms?
All I can see on BBC is that "planning is at the heart of reforms" but then silence on what those reforms are?
Our planning system and NIMBYism is the biggest barrier to growth and development in this country. But as far as reforms are concerned, I'll believe it when I see it.
Labour Manifesto:
Planning reform to build 1.5 million new homes ... Britain is hampered by a planning regime that means we struggle to build either the infrastructure or housing the country needs. ... The current planning regime acts as a major brake on economic growth. Labour will make the changes we need to forge ahead with new roads, railways, reservoirs, and other nationally significant infrastructure. We will set out new national policy statements, make major projects faster and cheaper by slashing red tape, and build support for developments by ensuring communities directly benefit. We will also update national planning policy to ensure the planning system meets the needs of a modern economy, making it easier to build laboratories, digital infrastructure, and gigafactories. ... We will ensure our industrial strategy supports the development of the Artificial Intelligence (AI) sector, removes planning barriers to new datacentres. ... We will immediately update the National Policy Planning Framework to undo damaging Conservative changes, including restoring mandatory housing targets...strengthen the presumption in favour of sustainable development. ... Appoint 300 new planning officers
The above is essentially everything from the Labour manifesto that mentions planning. There's a bit more detail on local plans, green belt, (& 5G!) etc, but nothing you'd miss.
The best thing you can say about it is that recruiting more planning officers should at least mean that planning applications are processed more quickly.
I guess we'd have to wait and see a future Planning Bill to get the detail. I expect that it's a long way from what you want.
Thanks.
Abolishing planning officers altogether by making planning automatic would be a far better policy. But looks like nobody is brave enough to embrace that approach unfortunately.
Looks like Labour at least understand the problem and are attempting a solution, even if its not enough its better than nothing.
I may have to lend them my vote.
Abolishing planning officers? Nonsense. Would make planning completely nonexistent. Housing estates built without the sewerage and processing ability, that sort of tyhing, a shitstorm in the most literal sense.
Yes, planning should be completely non existent.
It's the water firms responsibility to handle sewerage not housing developers. They need to do their own job, not pass the buck.
All developments should pay for is to connect to the network. Once it's in the network, it's not their responsibility anymore.
You obviously dfon't know that the sewerage network consists of pipes and processing plants. It's the latter that are the issue. They need to be built first. Before the houses. How else is that going to happen, if not planning? Otherwise you are demanding urban level sewerage facilities all over farmland, is the logical consequence of your vision. Just in case some dodgy shoebox merchant might want to build houses 15 miles from nowhere.
It's the water firms job to deal with processing plants.
If they haven't built enough they need to do their own job.
That's not an excuse to prevent construction any more than a shortage of construction is preventing population growth.
Absolutely urban level sewerage facilities are needed wherever they are needed.
But you keep ignoring the fact it's slower to build shit processing plants than the sort of shit houses you get now. Very tricky to find sites for them, too. So advance planning is needed.
Edit: where I live, the council has over the years repeatedly identified large swathes of land for new housing, but made sure the sewerage issue was handed over to the water authority in advance.
And you keep ignoring the fact it doesn't matter. People live here now.
You complain that if planning is reformed we'd get more houses now. Good! We need them now, not years from now.
Our population has already grown. Our demographics have already changed. We have a shortage of houses today, not years from now.
The water firms need to do their own bloody job. And if they don't they need to be fined heavily until they either do, or go bankrupt and have their assets taken from them as a result and given to someone who will do their job.
The water firms should be dealing with in advance of population changes, not housing changes. Housing needs to keep up with population and demographic changes and if water has fallen behind that is NOT an excuse to fail to build houses.
Unless you're prepared to identify millions of people to execute or deport, the houses are needed today not years from now.
Piss off, there's a good chum. I don't need any absolutist lectures from you. My area has expanded enormously and beyond recognition in terms of population and houses, repeatedly, with more coming as I can see from the Local Plan. Having the houses in reasonably sensible areas and with at least some shit processing ready first is a pretty small thing to ask.
What we do get from the libertarian and greedy developer is the attempt to cram more houses on school playing fields and children's local play areas - and that is the only time I've ever put in a complaint about a planning application: when a school was losing some of its playing fields. Your demand for no planning officers would allow that to run riot.
Excuses, excuses.
Nowhere has grown enough "beyond recognition".
Our population has grown. That means villages need to become towns, towns become cities and cities become bigger.
Tough shit if that means you don't recognise changes. Don't be so xenophobic, people need somewhere to live.
A icnrease of a factor of 3-4 in my area is obviously not good enough for you. And I have tried to explain that I have recognised the need for the changes and didn't complain about them except where they were directly hurting people's most basic existi9ng amenities - no shitstorms, the need to keep places for children actually to play games. But as I can't do it in words of fewer than four letters I will just have to leave it at that.
Meanwhile, the more you come out with the stuff you do, the more the need for planning officers is confirmed.
No, of course that pathetically small amount is not good enough.
An increase of 100x may be needed in some places. Villages turning into new towns with hundreds of thousands of extra homes.
We are millions of homes short of what we need. So your xenophobia at not recognising changes can piss right off.
A factor of 3 or 4 means: 3 or 4 times the *existing* number of houses.
Now look at your post and see how stupid it is.
So if it was 100 and goes to 300 you think that's "enough"?
Don't be stupid. We need millions. Going from 100 to 100,000 in many places would be a good start.
My place *was* a town to begin with! So it's made a very substantial contribution. Other places can do their share.
More xenophobia.
I'd be curious to see some data, but I'm calling bullshit. Just more xenophobic excuse making.
Nigel Farage has defended the 41 candidates found to be social media “friends” of fascist leader, saying: “I apologise that not all of our candidates have been to Eton.”
Close to one in ten candidates for the Reform UK party in England was found to be connected on Facebook with Gary Raikes, the British fascist leader, The Times found.
I still think he needs Sleeve Garters like Morpheus to contain those voluminous shirts. Where he's going he's going to need the superhero skills too, maybe.
Does anyone know the details of Labour's proposed planning reforms?
All I can see on BBC is that "planning is at the heart of reforms" but then silence on what those reforms are?
Our planning system and NIMBYism is the biggest barrier to growth and development in this country. But as far as reforms are concerned, I'll believe it when I see it.
If they dick about with planning, making conditions less stringent, I'm voting LD.
So you oppose growth and development?
And still we hear on here "everyone believes in growth" - bullshit do they!
Far too many people have a vested interest in preventing growth.
You can build houses on brownfield sites. There are loads of opportunities. We are deindustralizing.
Bullshit. Our population is growing by hundreds of thousands a year. Over a million in the past two years alone. And demographically our population is ageing with more people living longer in houses without children in them.
There simply is NOT enough brownfield land.
People need a place to live. That has to trump greenfield as a population.
Only way to avoid building on greenfield is to have a falling population, given our demographics. Falling by about ten million to reverse our current housing shortage. We don't.
New towns is the answer, as it has been in decades past. Green fields but not green belt.
No thank you. I don't care about some arbitrary designation. A green field site is a green field site and should not be built on. If it isn't required for agriculture, it should be rewilded.
Mrs Flatlander surveyed a brownfield colliery site not long ago. It had about 200 species of plant and some fairly rare butterflies.
The 'green field' next to it has less than 10 species and actively nukes insects.
If we aren't going to worry about food imports, I know which one I'd build on.
Achieving biodiversity net gain as a result of building on the first site would certainly be more challenging.
Aaagh, trigger warning please.
Mentioning BNG gives me flashbacks to terrible VBA infested DEFRA spreadsheets.
Did you try a suitable disinfectant?
Such as Dioxygen Diflouride?
I fear even direct application of FOOF would be insufficient for DEFRA. You might need to use it to do a bit of pre-processing instead before deploying the results.
Seriously though, they really do love a hideous spreadsheet.
It isn't even that they are Windows/Excel only - they are often so incomprehensible that they take months to work out. The farm stewardship one was truly terrible.
Strange when other parts of .gov can apparently manage to create usable websites.
Husband pursues Apple after wife finds ‘deleted’ messages to prostitute
A businessman is preparing a legal case, claiming that his divorce was a direct result of compromising texts that had been wiped from his iPhone still being visible on the family iMac
An unfaithful husband who arranged meetings with prostitutes via messages on his iPhone is pursuing legal action against Apple after his wife discovered that his deleted messages were still stored on a linked computer.
Richard, not his real name, said he had turned to prostitutes in the last years of his marriage and had arranged the meetings through the iMessages app. After making the arrangements he would delete the messages, believing the trail of his infidelity had been hidden.
However, when his wife clicked on the same app on the family iMac, it showed that the last message he had sent to another person’s iPhone was to a prostitute. When she looked further she found several years’ worth of supposedly deleted messages to prostitutes.
She filed for divorce within a month.
Richard, a middle-aged businessman and father who lives in England but does not want to disclose his home town, is pursuing legal action against Apple in the hope of recovering more than £5 million he lost in the divorce, plus legal costs.
I have hopes that he might be rinsed for more than £5m if he pursues this case for long enough.
I am far from being an expert, but it'd be interesting to see exactly what his complaint is (the article is paywalled...). But the old adage of "the Internet never forgets" should always be borne in mind.
I'd guess he would argue that if he presses a "delete" key then he has a reasonable expectation of that deleting the data everywhere, and not just on the device where he presses the button, and that he suffered losses because Apple's software didn't conform to that reasonable expectation.
If the data had been found in the cloud, then he might have half an argument, but since it was on one of his other devices, he does not. And Apple could reasonably claim that his divorce was ultimately inevitable, given his behaviour. The wife would have found out another way eventually.
But, hopefully, he has just enough of an argument to keep lawyers gainfully employed for as long as the rest of his money lasts.
Does anyone know the details of Labour's proposed planning reforms?
All I can see on BBC is that "planning is at the heart of reforms" but then silence on what those reforms are?
Our planning system and NIMBYism is the biggest barrier to growth and development in this country. But as far as reforms are concerned, I'll believe it when I see it.
Labour Manifesto:
Planning reform to build 1.5 million new homes ... Britain is hampered by a planning regime that means we struggle to build either the infrastructure or housing the country needs. ... The current planning regime acts as a major brake on economic growth. Labour will make the changes we need to forge ahead with new roads, railways, reservoirs, and other nationally significant infrastructure. We will set out new national policy statements, make major projects faster and cheaper by slashing red tape, and build support for developments by ensuring communities directly benefit. We will also update national planning policy to ensure the planning system meets the needs of a modern economy, making it easier to build laboratories, digital infrastructure, and gigafactories. ... We will ensure our industrial strategy supports the development of the Artificial Intelligence (AI) sector, removes planning barriers to new datacentres. ... We will immediately update the National Policy Planning Framework to undo damaging Conservative changes, including restoring mandatory housing targets...strengthen the presumption in favour of sustainable development. ... Appoint 300 new planning officers
The above is essentially everything from the Labour manifesto that mentions planning. There's a bit more detail on local plans, green belt, (& 5G!) etc, but nothing you'd miss.
The best thing you can say about it is that recruiting more planning officers should at least mean that planning applications are processed more quickly.
I guess we'd have to wait and see a future Planning Bill to get the detail. I expect that it's a long way from what you want.
Thanks.
Abolishing planning officers altogether by making planning automatic would be a far better policy. But looks like nobody is brave enough to embrace that approach unfortunately.
Looks like Labour at least understand the problem and are attempting a solution, even if its not enough its better than nothing.
I may have to lend them my vote.
Abolishing planning officers? Nonsense. Would make planning completely nonexistent. Housing estates built without the sewerage and processing ability, that sort of tyhing, a shitstorm in the most literal sense.
Yes, planning should be completely non existent.
It's the water firms responsibility to handle sewerage not housing developers. They need to do their own job, not pass the buck.
All developments should pay for is to connect to the network. Once it's in the network, it's not their responsibility anymore.
You obviously dfon't know that the sewerage network consists of pipes and processing plants. It's the latter that are the issue. They need to be built first. Before the houses. How else is that going to happen, if not planning? Otherwise you are demanding urban level sewerage facilities all over farmland, is the logical consequence of your vision. Just in case some dodgy shoebox merchant might want to build houses 15 miles from nowhere.
It's the water firms job to deal with processing plants.
If they haven't built enough they need to do their own job.
That's not an excuse to prevent construction any more than a shortage of construction is preventing population growth.
Absolutely urban level sewerage facilities are needed wherever they are needed.
But you keep ignoring the fact it's slower to build shit processing plants than the sort of shit houses you get now. Very tricky to find sites for them, too. So advance planning is needed.
Edit: where I live, the council has over the years repeatedly identified large swathes of land for new housing, but made sure the sewerage issue was handed over to the water authority in advance.
And you keep ignoring the fact it doesn't matter. People live here now.
You complain that if planning is reformed we'd get more houses now. Good! We need them now, not years from now.
Our population has already grown. Our demographics have already changed. We have a shortage of houses today, not years from now.
The water firms need to do their own bloody job. And if they don't they need to be fined heavily until they either do, or go bankrupt and have their assets taken from them as a result and given to someone who will do their job.
The water firms should be dealing with in advance of population changes, not housing changes. Housing needs to keep up with population and demographic changes and if water has fallen behind that is NOT an excuse to fail to build houses.
Unless you're prepared to identify millions of people to execute or deport, the houses are needed today not years from now.
Piss off, there's a good chum. I don't need any absolutist lectures from you. My area has expanded enormously and beyond recognition in terms of population and houses, repeatedly, with more coming as I can see from the Local Plan. Having the houses in reasonably sensible areas and with at least some shit processing ready first is a pretty small thing to ask.
What we do get from the libertarian and greedy developer is the attempt to cram more houses on school playing fields and children's local play areas - and that is the only time I've ever put in a complaint about a planning application: when a school was losing some of its playing fields. Your demand for no planning officers would allow that to run riot.
Excuses, excuses.
Nowhere has grown enough "beyond recognition".
Our population has grown. That means villages need to become towns, towns become cities and cities become bigger.
Tough shit if that means you don't recognise changes. Don't be so xenophobic, people need somewhere to live.
A icnrease of a factor of 3-4 in my area is obviously not good enough for you. And I have tried to explain that I have recognised the need for the changes and didn't complain about them except where they were directly hurting people's most basic existi9ng amenities - no shitstorms, the need to keep places for children actually to play games. But as I can't do it in words of fewer than four letters I will just have to leave it at that.
Meanwhile, the more you come out with the stuff you do, the more the need for planning officers is confirmed.
No, of course that pathetically small amount is not good enough.
An increase of 100x may be needed in some places. Villages turning into new towns with hundreds of thousands of extra homes.
We are millions of homes short of what we need. So your xenophobia at not recognising changes can piss right off.
A factor of 3 or 4 means: 3 or 4 times the *existing* number of houses.
Now look at your post and see how stupid it is.
So if it was 100 and goes to 300 you think that's "enough"?
Don't be stupid. We need millions. Going from 100 to 100,000 in many places would be a good start.
My place *was* a town to begin with! So it's made a very substantial contribution. Other places can do their share.
More xenophobia.
I'd be curious to see some data, but I'm calling bullshit. Just more xenophobic excuse making.
The level of your argument is shown by the idea that *not complaining* about the expansion of the town is xenophobic. And that complainiong about children's playgrounds being built on is xenoiphobic. And I'm not letting on where I live in case you buy up the land around it.
Neither Sacoolas or representatives from the US embassy attended the inquest - prompting the Dunn family spokesperson Radd Seiger to say the US government's position is that "lives of UK citizens like Harry ultimately do not matter".
Speaking after the inquest, he said: "It was not enough for them to kill Harry. It wasn't enough for them to then kick Harry's family in their darkest hour and seek to deny and delay the justice that they were entitled to.
"As we have all seen this week their attitude and approach to keeping their British hosts safe has been laid to bare and they have positively obstructed the coroner's inquiry and deprived the family of the answers they were entitled to as to why no-one has ever addressed the issue of safety of UK citizens.""
If only the British PM were to be in the same room as the US president today, and could ask him about this case?
Husband pursues Apple after wife finds ‘deleted’ messages to prostitute
A businessman is preparing a legal case, claiming that his divorce was a direct result of compromising texts that had been wiped from his iPhone still being visible on the family iMac
An unfaithful husband who arranged meetings with prostitutes via messages on his iPhone is pursuing legal action against Apple after his wife discovered that his deleted messages were still stored on a linked computer.
Richard, not his real name, said he had turned to prostitutes in the last years of his marriage and had arranged the meetings through the iMessages app. After making the arrangements he would delete the messages, believing the trail of his infidelity had been hidden.
However, when his wife clicked on the same app on the family iMac, it showed that the last message he had sent to another person’s iPhone was to a prostitute. When she looked further she found several years’ worth of supposedly deleted messages to prostitutes.
She filed for divorce within a month.
Richard, a middle-aged businessman and father who lives in England but does not want to disclose his home town, is pursuing legal action against Apple in the hope of recovering more than £5 million he lost in the divorce, plus legal costs.
I have hopes that he might be rinsed for more than £5m if he pursues this case for long enough.
I am far from being an expert, but it'd be interesting to see exactly what his complaint is (the article is paywalled...). But the old adage of "the Internet never forgets" should always be borne in mind.
I'd guess he would argue that if he presses a "delete" key then he has a reasonable expectation of that deleting the data everywhere, and not just on the device where he presses the button, and that he suffered losses because Apple's software didn't conform to that reasonable expectation.
If the data had been found in the cloud, then he might have half an argument, but since it was on one of his other devices, he does not. And Apple could reasonably claim that his divorce was ultimately inevitable, given his behaviour. The wife would have found out another way eventually.
But, hopefully, he has just enough of an argument to keep lawyers gainfully employed for as long as the rest of his money lasts.
I just tested that, and was shocked it doesn’t delete on all devices - and I’m an IT manager! (Albeit one who never deletes anything that’s not spam).
The reasonable expectation would be that it works like modern cloud-based email, and not like 20-year-old POP email, that it actually syncs rather than simply downloading everywhere.
Does anyone know the details of Labour's proposed planning reforms?
All I can see on BBC is that "planning is at the heart of reforms" but then silence on what those reforms are?
Our planning system and NIMBYism is the biggest barrier to growth and development in this country. But as far as reforms are concerned, I'll believe it when I see it.
Labour Manifesto:
Planning reform to build 1.5 million new homes ... Britain is hampered by a planning regime that means we struggle to build either the infrastructure or housing the country needs. ... The current planning regime acts as a major brake on economic growth. Labour will make the changes we need to forge ahead with new roads, railways, reservoirs, and other nationally significant infrastructure. We will set out new national policy statements, make major projects faster and cheaper by slashing red tape, and build support for developments by ensuring communities directly benefit. We will also update national planning policy to ensure the planning system meets the needs of a modern economy, making it easier to build laboratories, digital infrastructure, and gigafactories. ... We will ensure our industrial strategy supports the development of the Artificial Intelligence (AI) sector, removes planning barriers to new datacentres. ... We will immediately update the National Policy Planning Framework to undo damaging Conservative changes, including restoring mandatory housing targets...strengthen the presumption in favour of sustainable development. ... Appoint 300 new planning officers
The above is essentially everything from the Labour manifesto that mentions planning. There's a bit more detail on local plans, green belt, (& 5G!) etc, but nothing you'd miss.
The best thing you can say about it is that recruiting more planning officers should at least mean that planning applications are processed more quickly.
I guess we'd have to wait and see a future Planning Bill to get the detail. I expect that it's a long way from what you want.
Thanks.
Abolishing planning officers altogether by making planning automatic would be a far better policy. But looks like nobody is brave enough to embrace that approach unfortunately.
Looks like Labour at least understand the problem and are attempting a solution, even if its not enough its better than nothing.
I may have to lend them my vote.
Abolishing planning officers? Nonsense. Would make planning completely nonexistent. Housing estates built without the sewerage and processing ability, that sort of tyhing, a shitstorm in the most literal sense.
Abolition of Planning (incl. officers) would give us gin palaces all over the national talks.
"Money talks" needs a bridle, which is what the planning system is for - and we like it being controlled.
There are opportunities to do much - for example in London quite a lot of the Green Belt can be quite accurately called "brown field", and could be used. And there is a lot of opportunity for intensification of modern estates fairly close to Inner London which are near the end of their design life.
When you say things like 'we need to get rid of planning officers' I think you mean that you want to allocate land for development, with design codes, rather than a process of 'case by case' wrangling. But someone still has to allocate the land for development and write the design code and then enforce it.
Yes I want design codes but no planning permission or consent required.
If you own land that is zoned for construction then you should be able to decide today you want to start building on it and get the builders in tomorrow, without discussions with the Council or neighbours or anyone else.
Can you have a go at writing a design code?
How high, and how close to the boundary? What about balconies/windows, can they overlook neighbours? how many houses on each plot? what about access. Can you connect to the road at any point on your land? noise from plant, impacts on trees in neighbouring gardens?
How high? 3 stories should be automatic. 4+ I can see requiring permission.
How close to the boundary? Touching but not crossing the boundary.
Can they overlook neighbours? Of course.
How many houses on each plot? Owner/developers choice.
Road access, that's a good question. Have to think on that one.
Trees etc should be treated the same as if someone who already lives in a property wants to plant a tree.
I'm not getting into this debate in detail, but a note from the 1960s, and that there is nothing new under the sun.
When my dad was laying out and selling off self-build plots for the local Council when he was a Town Architect back then, one of the conditions was that all purchasers should plant a tree.
A small measure, but it did help establish a green feel to estates, which is still there in some measure.
One feature of this country is that communities retain a lot of their original feel, given our master planning and local covenants - which are present, but far less obsessive and controlling than in other places such as the Land of the Free.
Does anyone know the details of Labour's proposed planning reforms?
All I can see on BBC is that "planning is at the heart of reforms" but then silence on what those reforms are?
Our planning system and NIMBYism is the biggest barrier to growth and development in this country. But as far as reforms are concerned, I'll believe it when I see it.
Labour Manifesto:
Planning reform to build 1.5 million new homes ... Britain is hampered by a planning regime that means we struggle to build either the infrastructure or housing the country needs. ... The current planning regime acts as a major brake on economic growth. Labour will make the changes we need to forge ahead with new roads, railways, reservoirs, and other nationally significant infrastructure. We will set out new national policy statements, make major projects faster and cheaper by slashing red tape, and build support for developments by ensuring communities directly benefit. We will also update national planning policy to ensure the planning system meets the needs of a modern economy, making it easier to build laboratories, digital infrastructure, and gigafactories. ... We will ensure our industrial strategy supports the development of the Artificial Intelligence (AI) sector, removes planning barriers to new datacentres. ... We will immediately update the National Policy Planning Framework to undo damaging Conservative changes, including restoring mandatory housing targets...strengthen the presumption in favour of sustainable development. ... Appoint 300 new planning officers
The above is essentially everything from the Labour manifesto that mentions planning. There's a bit more detail on local plans, green belt, (& 5G!) etc, but nothing you'd miss.
The best thing you can say about it is that recruiting more planning officers should at least mean that planning applications are processed more quickly.
I guess we'd have to wait and see a future Planning Bill to get the detail. I expect that it's a long way from what you want.
Thanks.
Abolishing planning officers altogether by making planning automatic would be a far better policy. But looks like nobody is brave enough to embrace that approach unfortunately.
Looks like Labour at least understand the problem and are attempting a solution, even if its not enough its better than nothing.
I may have to lend them my vote.
Abolishing planning officers? Nonsense. Would make planning completely nonexistent. Housing estates built without the sewerage and processing ability, that sort of tyhing, a shitstorm in the most literal sense.
Yes, planning should be completely non existent.
It's the water firms responsibility to handle sewerage not housing developers. They need to do their own job, not pass the buck.
All developments should pay for is to connect to the network. Once it's in the network, it's not their responsibility anymore.
You obviously dfon't know that the sewerage network consists of pipes and processing plants. It's the latter that are the issue. They need to be built first. Before the houses. How else is that going to happen, if not planning? Otherwise you are demanding urban level sewerage facilities all over farmland, is the logical consequence of your vision. Just in case some dodgy shoebox merchant might want to build houses 15 miles from nowhere.
It's the water firms job to deal with processing plants.
If they haven't built enough they need to do their own job.
That's not an excuse to prevent construction any more than a shortage of construction is preventing population growth.
Absolutely urban level sewerage facilities are needed wherever they are needed.
But you keep ignoring the fact it's slower to build shit processing plants than the sort of shit houses you get now. Very tricky to find sites for them, too. So advance planning is needed.
Edit: where I live, the council has over the years repeatedly identified large swathes of land for new housing, but made sure the sewerage issue was handed over to the water authority in advance.
And you keep ignoring the fact it doesn't matter. People live here now.
You complain that if planning is reformed we'd get more houses now. Good! We need them now, not years from now.
Our population has already grown. Our demographics have already changed. We have a shortage of houses today, not years from now.
The water firms need to do their own bloody job. And if they don't they need to be fined heavily until they either do, or go bankrupt and have their assets taken from them as a result and given to someone who will do their job.
The water firms should be dealing with in advance of population changes, not housing changes. Housing needs to keep up with population and demographic changes and if water has fallen behind that is NOT an excuse to fail to build houses.
Unless you're prepared to identify millions of people to execute or deport, the houses are needed today not years from now.
Piss off, there's a good chum. I don't need any absolutist lectures from you. My area has expanded enormously and beyond recognition in terms of population and houses, repeatedly, with more coming as I can see from the Local Plan. Having the houses in reasonably sensible areas and with at least some shit processing ready first is a pretty small thing to ask.
What we do get from the libertarian and greedy developer is the attempt to cram more houses on school playing fields and children's local play areas - and that is the only time I've ever put in a complaint about a planning application: when a school was losing some of its playing fields. Your demand for no planning officers would allow that to run riot.
Excuses, excuses.
Nowhere has grown enough "beyond recognition".
Our population has grown. That means villages need to become towns, towns become cities and cities become bigger.
Tough shit if that means you don't recognise changes. Don't be so xenophobic, people need somewhere to live.
A icnrease of a factor of 3-4 times - not per cent - in my area is obviously not good enough for you. And I have tried to explain that I have recognised the need for the changes and didn't complain about them except where they were directly hurting people's most basic existi9ng amenities - no shitstorms, the need to keep places for children actually to play games. But as I can't do it in words of fewer than four letters I will just have to leave it at that.
Meanwhile, the more you come out with the stuff you do, the more the need for planning officers is confirmed.
I wouldn't worry. If he gets what he wants we can crowd fund a sardine tinning factory up wind of his estate.
And I'd have absolutely no objection to that.
So you're saying if we get what I want, we might have both housing growth and economic growth too?
And your objection to that is ... ?
Good. You'll be able to lend a hand when we contract for Whiskers on the weekends.
Back online and I’ve caught up with the Labour manifesto launch (looks good) and the latest opinion poll from We Think.
Labour will be happy with the poll. Good numbers there and the story continues to be the low rating for the Conservatives.
No crossover by Reform and they don’t seem to be gaining a lot of ground. What happened there?
On the Reform side I think there’s a couple of possible explanations. Firstly there is almost certainly an upper limit on tub thumping hard right populism. Some of the Reform share will be NOTA but there is probably an inverse correlation between those and the ex-Tory voters attracted by supposed real turbocharged Conservatism.
I think when your leader is a 30 year veteran of selling the same snake oil in a variety of different wrappers, there’s probably a definite limit to how much it continues to work. So Reform is probably at or near its upper limits given it’s current iteration/circumstances.
Neither Sacoolas or representatives from the US embassy attended the inquest - prompting the Dunn family spokesperson Radd Seiger to say the US government's position is that "lives of UK citizens like Harry ultimately do not matter".
Speaking after the inquest, he said: "It was not enough for them to kill Harry. It wasn't enough for them to then kick Harry's family in their darkest hour and seek to deny and delay the justice that they were entitled to.
"As we have all seen this week their attitude and approach to keeping their British hosts safe has been laid to bare and they have positively obstructed the coroner's inquiry and deprived the family of the answers they were entitled to as to why no-one has ever addressed the issue of safety of UK citizens.""
If only the British PM were to be in the same room as the US president today, and could ask him about this case?
If only the US President was compis mentis.
Well that as well, but maybe Sunak’s people can have a word with Biden’s people?
It’s really horrible to watch Grandpa on TV every day, and to think they’re trying to run him again - which raises a lot of questions by itself, of who’s actually in charge and what’s their agenda?
How many drugs are they going to have to give him, to get him awake on stage for an hour’s debate with Trump?
Nigel Farage has defended the 41 candidates found to be social media “friends” of fascist leader, saying: “I apologise that not all of our candidates have been to Eton.”
Close to one in ten candidates for the Reform UK party in England was found to be connected on Facebook with Gary Raikes, the British fascist leader, The Times found.
Neither Sacoolas or representatives from the US embassy attended the inquest - prompting the Dunn family spokesperson Radd Seiger to say the US government's position is that "lives of UK citizens like Harry ultimately do not matter".
Speaking after the inquest, he said: "It was not enough for them to kill Harry. It wasn't enough for them to then kick Harry's family in their darkest hour and seek to deny and delay the justice that they were entitled to.
"As we have all seen this week their attitude and approach to keeping their British hosts safe has been laid to bare and they have positively obstructed the coroner's inquiry and deprived the family of the answers they were entitled to as to why no-one has ever addressed the issue of safety of UK citizens.""
If only the British PM were to be in the same room as the US president today, and could ask him about this case?
If only the US President was compis mentis.
I agree he'd have been a good candidate, but Governor Mentis announced ages ago that he'd not be standing, and that his entire focus was on the great state of Rhode Island.
I still think he needs Sleeve Garters like Morpheus to contain those voluminous shirts. Where he's going he's going to need the superhero skills too, maybe.
Edit timed out. I'm sure it's superb quality, but that shirt is billowing like a tent borrowed from Lawrence of Arabia.
Does anyone know the details of Labour's proposed planning reforms?
All I can see on BBC is that "planning is at the heart of reforms" but then silence on what those reforms are?
Our planning system and NIMBYism is the biggest barrier to growth and development in this country. But as far as reforms are concerned, I'll believe it when I see it.
Labour Manifesto:
Planning reform to build 1.5 million new homes ... Britain is hampered by a planning regime that means we struggle to build either the infrastructure or housing the country needs. ... The current planning regime acts as a major brake on economic growth. Labour will make the changes we need to forge ahead with new roads, railways, reservoirs, and other nationally significant infrastructure. We will set out new national policy statements, make major projects faster and cheaper by slashing red tape, and build support for developments by ensuring communities directly benefit. We will also update national planning policy to ensure the planning system meets the needs of a modern economy, making it easier to build laboratories, digital infrastructure, and gigafactories. ... We will ensure our industrial strategy supports the development of the Artificial Intelligence (AI) sector, removes planning barriers to new datacentres. ... We will immediately update the National Policy Planning Framework to undo damaging Conservative changes, including restoring mandatory housing targets...strengthen the presumption in favour of sustainable development. ... Appoint 300 new planning officers
The above is essentially everything from the Labour manifesto that mentions planning. There's a bit more detail on local plans, green belt, (& 5G!) etc, but nothing you'd miss.
The best thing you can say about it is that recruiting more planning officers should at least mean that planning applications are processed more quickly.
I guess we'd have to wait and see a future Planning Bill to get the detail. I expect that it's a long way from what you want.
Thanks.
Abolishing planning officers altogether by making planning automatic would be a far better policy. But looks like nobody is brave enough to embrace that approach unfortunately.
Looks like Labour at least understand the problem and are attempting a solution, even if its not enough its better than nothing.
I may have to lend them my vote.
Abolishing planning officers? Nonsense. Would make planning completely nonexistent. Housing estates built without the sewerage and processing ability, that sort of tyhing, a shitstorm in the most literal sense.
Abolition of Planning (incl. officers) would give us gin palaces all over the national talks.
"Money talks" needs a bridle, which is what the planning system is for - and we like it being controlled.
There are opportunities to do much - for example in London quite a lot of the Green Belt can be quite accurately called "brown field", and could be used. And there is a lot of opportunity for intensification of modern estates fairly close to Inner London which are near the end of their design life.
When you say things like 'we need to get rid of planning officers' I think you mean that you want to allocate land for development, with design codes, rather than a process of 'case by case' wrangling. But someone still has to allocate the land for development and write the design code and then enforce it.
Yes I want design codes but no planning permission or consent required.
If you own land that is zoned for construction then you should be able to decide today you want to start building on it and get the builders in tomorrow, without discussions with the Council or neighbours or anyone else.
Can you have a go at writing a design code?
How high, and how close to the boundary? What about balconies/windows, can they overlook neighbours? how many houses on each plot? what about access. Can you connect to the road at any point on your land? noise from plant, impacts on trees in neighbouring gardens?
How high? 3 stories should be automatic. 4+ I can see requiring permission.
How close to the boundary? Touching but not crossing the boundary.
Can they overlook neighbours? Of course.
How many houses on each plot? Owner/developers choice.
Road access, that's a good question. Have to think on that one.
Trees etc should be treated the same as if someone who already lives in a property wants to plant a tree.
I'm not getting into this debate in detail, but a note from the 1960s, and that there is nothing new under the sun.
When my dad was laying out and selling off self-build plots for the local Council when he was a Town Architect back then, one of the conditions was that all purchasers should plant a tree.
A small measure, but it did help establish a green feel to estates, which is still there in some measure.
One feature of this country is that communities retain a lot of their original feel, given our master planning and local covenants - which are present, but far less obsessive and controlling than in other places such as the Land of the Free.
That's how the New Town of Edinburgh was created. Plots sold off to lots of individuals and small developers, but they had to conform to the conditions set out in the feuing deeds and the conditions set by the Dean of Guild Court. The latter was a sort of planning operation, complete with compulsory notification of proposed changes and neighbour input. The archive is a much underestimated source for local history in Edinburegh - I have been looki9ng stuff up in it. It is pure gold and not just as a historical source. . Neighbours complaining because the piss and shite from the neighbour's cow came through the roof, that sort of unreasonable nimby stuff you know.
Nigel Farage has defended the 41 candidates found to be social media “friends” of fascist leader, saying: “I apologise that not all of our candidates have been to Eton.”
Close to one in ten candidates for the Reform UK party in England was found to be connected on Facebook with Gary Raikes, the British fascist leader, The Times found.
Comments
It's not the producer of a TV programme that's ultimately responsible for compliance with Ofcom's Broadcasting Code, but the licensed broadcaster that puts it out.
So broadcasters will put bought in programmes through internal compliance to check they aren't going to run into trouble. Same for PPBs.
Farage is over-egging it, of course. Assuming it's not stuffed with nudity, salty language, and allegations of misconduct with goats, there's a lot of leeway.
I hope there is extra sewage processing capacity being planned for all the new housing (there's a lot of it) as my local works still has spillages in heavy rain with the current discharge volumes.
You complain that if planning is reformed we'd get more houses now. Good! We need them now, not years from now.
Our population has already grown. Our demographics have already changed. We have a shortage of houses today, not years from now.
The water firms need to do their own bloody job. And if they don't they need to be fined heavily until they either do, or go bankrupt and have their assets taken from them as a result and given to someone who will do their job.
The water firms should be dealing with in advance of population changes, not housing changes. Housing needs to keep up with population and demographic changes and if water has fallen behind that is NOT an excuse to fail to build houses.
Unless you're prepared to identify millions of people to execute or deport, the houses are needed today not years from now.
Has the ludicrous Goodwin done this? If not, why is he still a member?
If you own land that is zoned for construction then you should be able to decide today you want to start building on it and get the builders in tomorrow, without discussions with the Council or neighbours or anyone else.
Close to one in ten candidates for the Reform UK party in England was found to be connected on Facebook with Gary Raikes, the British fascist leader, The Times found.
https://www.thetimes.com/article/a2268695-0b32-4ac8-871f-466f229dd30f
One is an allegedly "excess" recreation ground in a Council Estate. There has long been a requirement for 10% green space on new estates; I don't understand why old ones are fair game.
Here is the example. Zoom out for context.
https://www.google.com/maps/place/Willowbridge+Ln,+Sutton-in-Ashfield+NG17+1DS/@53.1215653,-1.2569394,163m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m6!3m5!1s0x487994264675c0b9:0x5e132e4f5ec21f20!8m2!3d53.1217054!4d-1.2730176!16s/g/1tqpys5d?entry=ttu
Husband pursues Apple after wife finds ‘deleted’ messages to prostitute
A businessman is preparing a legal case, claiming that his divorce was a direct result of compromising texts that had been wiped from his iPhone still being visible on the family iMac
An unfaithful husband who arranged meetings with prostitutes via messages on his iPhone is pursuing legal action against Apple after his wife discovered that his deleted messages were still stored on a linked computer.
Richard, not his real name, said he had turned to prostitutes in the last years of his marriage and had arranged the meetings through the iMessages app. After making the arrangements he would delete the messages, believing the trail of his infidelity had been hidden.
However, when his wife clicked on the same app on the family iMac, it showed that the last message he had sent to another person’s iPhone was to a prostitute. When she looked further she found several years’ worth of supposedly deleted messages to prostitutes.
She filed for divorce within a month.
Richard, a middle-aged businessman and father who lives in England but does not want to disclose his home town, is pursuing legal action against Apple in the hope of recovering more than £5 million he lost in the divorce, plus legal costs.
https://www.thetimes.com/article/husband-pursues-apple-after-wife-finds-deleted-messages-to-prostitute-bbhlg2x07
What we do get from the libertarian and greedy developer is the attempt to cram more houses on school playing fields and children's local play areas - and that is the only time I've ever put in a complaint about a planning application: when a school was losing some of its playing fields. Your demand for no planning officers would allow that to run riot.
There is plenty that you could do.
And they will have lots of backbenchers too.
https://news.sky.com/story/harry-dunn-died-as-result-of-road-traffic-collision-inquest-concludes-13152047
"Harry Dunn's family responds
Neither Sacoolas or representatives from the US embassy attended the inquest - prompting the Dunn family spokesperson Radd Seiger to say the US government's position is that "lives of UK citizens like Harry ultimately do not matter".
Speaking after the inquest, he said: "It was not enough for them to kill Harry. It wasn't enough for them to then kick Harry's family in their darkest hour and seek to deny and delay the justice that they were entitled to.
"As we have all seen this week their attitude and approach to keeping their British hosts safe has been laid to bare and they have positively obstructed the coroner's inquiry and deprived the family of the answers they were entitled to as to why no-one has ever addressed the issue of safety of UK citizens.""
,
The Tories equally seem to be stuck, just a little bit higher, at around the 18-22% mark. The one that is interesting me most at moment is the LD's, because their share is looking a bit more mobile and hard to predict, to me,
"P*ss off, you tw*t" in 5,000 words of legalese, unless plonkety-plonko can demonstrate a breach of contract or similar?
Most pollsters are at a point where they release the full data tables at the time of the headline figures being published.
But mostd of the new housing by the council was on farmland adjacent to the existing housing, and some brownland sites.
How high, and how close to the boundary?
What about balconies/windows, can they overlook neighbours?
how many houses on each plot?
what about access. Can you connect to the road at any point on your land?
noise from plant, impacts on trees in neighbouring gardens?
I recall when the Tankies at Uni. decided making Stalinist jokes about murdering Poles was funny. On the day that was being suggested as the Memorial Day for Katyn.
I had nothing to do with the head of the Polish society overhearing the comments. And it wasn’t my fault that the Polish Society was having a meeting in the bar, either.
No sir.
Solved the problem, though.
https://www.britishpollingcouncil.org/rules-of-disclosure/
Nowhere has grown enough "beyond recognition".
Our population has grown. That means villages need to become towns, towns become cities and cities become bigger.
Tough shit if that means you don't recognise changes. Don't be so xenophobic, people need somewhere to live.
The new council housing tended to be on brownfield sites already owned by the council.
(SKS fornicated pre-engagement)
How about, instead, and this may seem like a radical proposal, but give it some thought: fuck off.
It’s almost as if these protests, which let’s not forget started on 8th October last year, were being organised rather than happening organically.
But thanks.
How close to the boundary? Touching but not crossing the boundary.
Can they overlook neighbours? Of course.
How many houses on each plot? Owner/developers choice.
Road access, that's a good question. Have to think on that one.
Trees etc should be treated the same as if someone who already lives in a property wants to plant a tree.
Labour around or just above 40, Conservative around or just above 20.
That’ll be £3,543.62 plus VAT, please
Mentioning BNG gives me flashbacks to terrible VBA infested DEFRA spreadsheets.
Meanwhile, the more you come out with the stuff you do, the more the need for planning officers is confirmed.
Such as Dioxygen Diflouride?
An increase of 100x may be needed in some places. Villages turning into new towns with hundreds of thousands of extra homes.
We are millions of homes short of what we need. So your xenophobia at not recognising changes can piss right off.
Hope they did the same.
All data and research findings made on the basis of social or political polls conducted in the United Kingdom by member organisations that enter the public domain, must include reference to the following:
Client commissioning the survey;
Dates of interviewing;
Method of obtaining the interviews (e.g. in-person, telephone, internet)
The universe effectively represented (all adults, voters etc)
The percentages upon which conclusions are based;
Size of the sample and geographic coverage;
(Section 2.1 of https://www.britishpollingcouncil.org/objects-and-rules/)
Goodwin didn't even give the percentages for half the parties, let alone sample size - so he certainly seems to be in breach of the last two points.
Now look at your post and see how stupid it is.
Don't be stupid. We need millions. Going from 100 to 100,000 in many places would be a good start.
Perhaps you could get this chap to breath life on the embers
So you're saying if we get what I want, we might have both housing growth and economic growth too?
And your objection to that is ... ?
I'd be curious to see some data, but I'm calling bullshit. Just more xenophobic excuse making.
Back online and I’ve caught up with the Labour manifesto launch (looks good) and the latest opinion poll from We Think.
Labour will be happy with the poll. Good numbers there and the story continues to be the low rating for the Conservatives.
No crossover by Reform and they don’t seem to be gaining a lot of ground. What happened there?
I still think he needs Sleeve Garters like Morpheus to contain those voluminous shirts. Where he's going he's going to need the superhero skills too, maybe.
Seriously though, they really do love a hideous spreadsheet.
It isn't even that they are Windows/Excel only - they are often so incomprehensible that they take months to work out. The farm stewardship one was truly terrible.
Strange when other parts of .gov can apparently manage to create usable websites.
Are they worse than Education? I would say yes.
I thought we were promised by many e.g. Leon that Reform were going to re-write British politics?
If the data had been found in the cloud, then he might have half an argument, but since it was on one of his other devices, he does not. And Apple could reasonably claim that his divorce was ultimately inevitable, given his behaviour. The wife would have found out another way eventually.
But, hopefully, he has just enough of an argument to keep lawyers gainfully employed for as long as the rest of his money lasts.
On the day that he got married, all the girls they wore a frown 🙂
(usual Bowie tune)
The reasonable expectation would be that it works like modern cloud-based email, and not like 20-year-old POP email, that it actually syncs rather than simply downloading everywhere.
When my dad was laying out and selling off self-build plots for the local Council when he was a Town Architect back then, one of the conditions was that all purchasers should plant a tree.
A small measure, but it did help establish a green feel to estates, which is still there in some measure.
One feature of this country is that communities retain a lot of their original feel, given our master planning and local covenants - which are present, but far less obsessive and controlling than in other places such as the Land of the Free.
I think when your leader is a 30 year veteran of selling the same snake oil in a variety of different wrappers, there’s probably a definite limit to how much it continues to work. So Reform is probably at or near its upper limits given it’s current iteration/circumstances.
Average of all polls conducted between election being called, and the return of Farage: Con 24%, Lab 45%, LD 9%, Lead 21%
Average of all pools conducted since the return of Farage: Con 22%, Lab 43%, LD 10%, Lead 21%
I think this means that the Tories lose more seats - to the LDs.
It’s really horrible to watch Grandpa on TV every day, and to think they’re trying to run him again - which raises a lot of questions by itself, of who’s actually in charge and what’s their agenda?
How many drugs are they going to have to give him, to get him awake on stage for an hour’s debate with Trump?
Doesn't take an expensive education to not accidentally be a Nazi.
My pic for the day, Sir Keir:
https://oldedinburghclub.org.uk/resources/building-of-edinburghs-dean-of-guild-records/