Re Black Hole...as Paul Johnson from the IFS has said now with the OBR and more data than ever available there is no unknown surprise of a black hole. Excluding some rounding around the edge, all the numbers that are required are available to all. Its all theatre to claim you have only just discovered it.
No - it won't be a surprise to them because they were telling the truth during the election campaign and before. Meanwhile, Hunt was telling us that everything was wonderful - a delusion he carried forward to the King's Speech debate earlier this week.
Actually both Labour and the Tories were extremely reticent about addressing the implied 'black hole' in the finances which every financial commentator recognised was implied by Hunt's existing tax & spending plans.
Reeves is now fessing up to what everyone paying attention already knew.
Which makes her as least as much of a lying scumbag as the previous government.
My big gripe is with all the "Broken Britain" memes. I live in a small town that's rapidly being wrecked by excessive housebuilding without the construction of matching infrastructure ...
Sorry but there is no such thing as "excessive housebuilding".
We have a chronic housing shortage and there is nowhere in the country with a surplus of housing, so there is no "excessive" anywhere.
You may have a problem of a lack of infrastructure, many places do, but that is a reason to demand more infrastructure not fewer homes when we have a chronic housing shortage.
At last there seems to be a recognition of the importance of infrastructure in the housing/housebuilding crisis rather than the meaningless "build, build, build" mantra.
I'm more than happy to see hundreds of thousands of new homes built as long as the supporting infrastructure is in place and that's not just utilities or transport. It's making sure the existing community infrastructure of schools, libraries, health facilities, refuse collection and all the rest of the areas the pro-building lobby doesn't seem to either consider or think important are also in place or planned (I've used the "P" word, I'll be in trouble for that).
House builders and developers already contribute to this via Section 106 payments but these need to be ramped up as a development is far more than just the bricks, mortar and pipework. As an aside, there needs to be much rigorous inspection of newbuilds given the horror stories coming out about the poor quality of construction.
Sorry, but no "as long as".
Build, build, build is the only solution.
Yes we need other investments too, but they need to happen on top of (not before or instead of, or conditional upon or vice-versa) more housing.
Section 106 should be totally abolished in my view. All taxpayers equally should pay for new public infrastructure not just new home buyers. Private new infrastructure should be owned by the buyer privately, that's all they should be paying for.
Completely disagree.
Unplanned, uncontrolled, unrestricted housebuilding is a recipe for disaster.
Quite apart from the infrastructure issues which I've mentioned, there's the quality of what's being built which you don't seem to want to address. If you build bad, it ends up being a long term financial burden and poor quality of life for those who thought they were getting a decent home. The houses built in the 1930s for example have stood the test of time. We know some house builders cut corners to save time and money and it's the poor owners who end up having to deal with the consequences.
The problem with your policy re: Section 106 is that would, under the current system which I know you want to sweep away, lead to many more objections to each development on the basis of "why should I pay for the new infrastructure on the other side of town from which I'm not going to derive any benefit?". The current system also allows for what kind of community improvement will be provided whether it be a new primary school or health centre based on the actual need of the area.
I don't know what you mean by "private new infrastructure". We're not talking about self-contained gated communities but infrastructure from which everyone, both those moving in to the new builds and those already there, benefits.
Exactly right and without new infrastructure with new homes most voters would be NIMBYs
Re Black Hole...as Paul Johnson from the IFS has said now with the OBR and more data than ever available there is no unknown surprise of a black hole. Excluding some rounding around the edge, all the numbers that are required are available to all. Its all theatre to claim you have only just discovered it.
No - it won't be a surprise to them because they were telling the truth during the election campaign and before. Meanwhile, Hunt was telling us that everything was wonderful - a delusion he carried forward to the King's Speech debate earlier this week.
Actually both Labour and the Tories were extremely reticent about addressing the implied 'black hole' in the finances which every financial commentator recognised was implied by Hunt's existing tax & spending plans.
Reeves is now fessing up to what everyone paying attention already knew.
Which makes her as least as much of a lying scumbag as the previous government.
My big gripe is with all the "Broken Britain" memes. I live in a small town that's rapidly being wrecked by excessive housebuilding without the construction of matching infrastructure ...
Sorry but there is no such thing as "excessive housebuilding".
We have a chronic housing shortage and there is nowhere in the country with a surplus of housing, so there is no "excessive" anywhere.
You may have a problem of a lack of infrastructure, many places do, but that is a reason to demand more infrastructure not fewer homes when we have a chronic housing shortage.
At last there seems to be a recognition of the importance of infrastructure in the housing/housebuilding crisis rather than the meaningless "build, build, build" mantra.
I'm more than happy to see hundreds of thousands of new homes built as long as the supporting infrastructure is in place and that's not just utilities or transport. It's making sure the existing community infrastructure of schools, libraries, health facilities, refuse collection and all the rest of the areas the pro-building lobby doesn't seem to either consider or think important are also in place or planned (I've used the "P" word, I'll be in trouble for that).
House builders and developers already contribute to this via Section 106 payments but these need to be ramped up as a development is far more than just the bricks, mortar and pipework. As an aside, there needs to be much rigorous inspection of newbuilds given the horror stories coming out about the poor quality of construction.
Sorry, but no "as long as".
Build, build, build is the only solution.
Yes we need other investments too, but they need to happen on top of (not before or instead of, or conditional upon or vice-versa) more housing.
Section 106 should be totally abolished in my view. All taxpayers equally should pay for new public infrastructure not just new home buyers. Private new infrastructure should be owned by the buyer privately, that's all they should be paying for.
So you want to build huge estates with no facilities and no compulsion to provide them in the hope that they get built some time in the future. You are mad.
Thatcher had this right 40 years ago. Those who profit should pay. Developers make vast sums from housing and they should be the ones to contribute to the services that help them make those profits. Section 106 should be reformed but mostly to make the compulsion on builders stronger. They should be the ones carrying the burden not the tax payer.
The taxpayer will already be carrying the increased burden going forward for the actual staffing and running of those facilities. They should not be paying out for the actual infrastructure as well.
No you are the mad one.
Thatcher was governing in a time of stable population, not rampant population growth and chronic housing shortages.
And completely agreed those who profit (benefit) from new infrastructure should pay for it . . . those who benefit from new public infrastructure is everyone, not new builds alone. Why shouldn't existing residents pay for new public infrastructure they'll benefit from?
This is on a par with the sort of things that happened in Ireland in 1921.
"France’s train network sabotaged in ‘massive arson attack’ hours ahead of Olympics opening ceremony Services on several routes cancelled after TGV facilities damaged, country’s rail operator says
“SNCF was the victim of several simultaneous malicious acts overnight,” the national train operator said, adding that the attacks affected its Atlantic, northern and eastern lines."
Actually it happened in France before, on the 5th/6th of June 1944.
It was the only language they understood
The Russians are cruising for a hell of a kicking. This more or less open sabotage will lead to blow back. I came back from France yesterday and the mood towards Russia is increasingly hostile. If there is a successful sabotage, I think the DGSE will really go after the organisers as well as the perpetrators.
What makes you think it is the Russians?
Because the French government warned of a direct threat a couple of days ago when they arrested a sleeper agent.
Re Black Hole...as Paul Johnson from the IFS has said now with the OBR and more data than ever available there is no unknown surprise of a black hole. Excluding some rounding around the edge, all the numbers that are required are available to all. Its all theatre to claim you have only just discovered it.
No - it won't be a surprise to them because they were telling the truth during the election campaign and before. Meanwhile, Hunt was telling us that everything was wonderful - a delusion he carried forward to the King's Speech debate earlier this week.
Actually both Labour and the Tories were extremely reticent about addressing the implied 'black hole' in the finances which every financial commentator recognised was implied by Hunt's existing tax & spending plans.
Reeves is now fessing up to what everyone paying attention already knew.
Which makes her as least as much of a lying scumbag as the previous government.
My big gripe is with all the "Broken Britain" memes. I live in a small town that's rapidly being wrecked by excessive housebuilding without the construction of matching infrastructure, but even so last few times I've needed to see a doctor I've had appointments done on the same day. My wife had a baby a couple of weeks ago - whilst I've a few issues with some of the post birth care, none of that was anything to do with resources, and more to do with staff who didn't listen to what they were told (and I found out subsequently in a couple of cases wrote the exact opposite of what they were told on the notes). (Snip)
". I live in a small town that's rapidly being wrecked by excessive housebuilding without the construction of matching infrastructure, "
This is where I think politicians have got it all wrong. They're concentrating on housebuilding, when we need to be concentrating on building communities.
The first is relatively easy. The second is much harder and more expensive, but vital.
As an example, the new town I live in is being massively expanded. Yet the overworked GP surgery is not being expanded to suit. Neither is the library. We still don't have a High Street, and the rental costs of the few shop units available are astronomical.
Oh, and congrats on the new addition to your family. Hope you're all well.
Investment follows demand, it doesn't precede it.
If a second GP surgery is needed, then invest in it.
If enough customers are there to make a High Street viable, then firms will (privately) invest in it.
If investment in the library is needed, then invest in it.
But none of that is an excuse to block housing.
I'm not looking for an excuse to block housing. But at the moment we're getting housing but not enough supporting infrastructure - and this really matters. I fear your vision for housing would just be sink estates in a couple of decades' time.
The bit of Cambridgeshire I know is St Ives, which I think is a similar population to your gaff, but as a historic town has way more infrastructure.
It's all very well saying that more infrastructure should be provided, but right now it clearly isn't. So something, maybe beefing up state provision, maybe nudging the invisible hand of the market, needs to change. Either that, or we need benevolent nobility to manage the process, as at Poundbury.
I agree. As it happens, my gaff was 'designed' in such a ways as to have infrastructure, and tbf it isn't too bad. The core Masterplan of 30 years ago wasn't bad. There are, for instance, five children's playgrounds; two cricket pitches/pavilions, a country park, lakes, a library, police station (mostly unmanned...), fire station, two Co-Ops and a large supermarket.
As an aside, I'm bemused to see the bus accessway to Broadway (*), which has only just had the land cleared for it to be built, despite it being rather important...
But that's what we need for any new settlement of any size: a masterplan. And if it is extended with new housing, the new masterplan has to take into account the existing settlement, as well as the new.
(*) A local road.
"Masterplan" is just an excuse to do nothing, when there is a chronic shortage today.
What's wrong with just investing in services wherever they are needed?
You guys acting like "excessive housing" is the issue are ignoring the chronic housing shortage. Being short on housing and infrastructure is two problems, fixing one problem is better than fixing neither - and once people are there then investing in infrastructure is more viable than before they are there where there's no guarantee that customers/employees will be available.
"What's wrong with just investing in services wherever they are needed?"
Because 'services' are almost everything you need. For instance, one excuse why we have not yet got a High Street is because the builders laid the services for the street not along the road, but along the space the shops were meant to be on. Meaning they need to be moved at massive expense if the land above is built on. Because of a balls-up in the plan. Without a plan, it would have happened much more.
Also if you have crammed houses into an area, where can the services go? How can you build a library in an area of dense housing? You need a plan to allow everything to function well. Water supply, sewage, power, Internet/comms, transport... these are all important, and utterly fail without a centralised plan.
All good points.
For someone who likes to comment so much on housebuilding and planning topics, Bart seems to be remarkably ignorant of what actually goes into a development.
I come back to the Dutch system which cuts out the developers entirely. Local authorities lay out the infrastructure for new developments and then recoup that cost from the buyer when the buy a plot for self build.
She repeatedly says she has no interest whatsoever in running and won't run. Then a vacancy arises, and she doesn't run, and warmly endorses the person who is.
This is so textbook Micky O that I'm more convinced than ever that she's running - put your house on it.
This is on a par with the sort of things that happened in Ireland in 1921.
"France’s train network sabotaged in ‘massive arson attack’ hours ahead of Olympics opening ceremony Services on several routes cancelled after TGV facilities damaged, country’s rail operator says
“SNCF was the victim of several simultaneous malicious acts overnight,” the national train operator said, adding that the attacks affected its Atlantic, northern and eastern lines."
Actually it happened in France before, on the 5th/6th of June 1944.
It was the only language they understood
The Russians are cruising for a hell of a kicking. This more or less open sabotage will lead to blow back. I came back from France yesterday and the mood towards Russia is increasingly hostile. If there is a successful sabotage, I think the DGSE will really go after the organisers as well as the perpetrators.
What makes you think it is the Russians?
Because the French government warned of a direct threat a couple of days ago when they arrested a sleeper agent.
Re Black Hole...as Paul Johnson from the IFS has said now with the OBR and more data than ever available there is no unknown surprise of a black hole. Excluding some rounding around the edge, all the numbers that are required are available to all. Its all theatre to claim you have only just discovered it.
No - it won't be a surprise to them because they were telling the truth during the election campaign and before. Meanwhile, Hunt was telling us that everything was wonderful - a delusion he carried forward to the King's Speech debate earlier this week.
Actually both Labour and the Tories were extremely reticent about addressing the implied 'black hole' in the finances which every financial commentator recognised was implied by Hunt's existing tax & spending plans.
Reeves is now fessing up to what everyone paying attention already knew.
Which makes her as least as much of a lying scumbag as the previous government.
My big gripe is with all the "Broken Britain" memes. I live in a small town that's rapidly being wrecked by excessive housebuilding without the construction of matching infrastructure ...
Sorry but there is no such thing as "excessive housebuilding".
We have a chronic housing shortage and there is nowhere in the country with a surplus of housing, so there is no "excessive" anywhere.
You may have a problem of a lack of infrastructure, many places do, but that is a reason to demand more infrastructure not fewer homes when we have a chronic housing shortage.
At last there seems to be a recognition of the importance of infrastructure in the housing/housebuilding crisis rather than the meaningless "build, build, build" mantra.
I'm more than happy to see hundreds of thousands of new homes built as long as the supporting infrastructure is in place and that's not just utilities or transport. It's making sure the existing community infrastructure of schools, libraries, health facilities, refuse collection and all the rest of the areas the pro-building lobby doesn't seem to either consider or think important are also in place or planned (I've used the "P" word, I'll be in trouble for that).
House builders and developers already contribute to this via Section 106 payments but these need to be ramped up as a development is far more than just the bricks, mortar and pipework. As an aside, there needs to be much rigorous inspection of newbuilds given the horror stories coming out about the poor quality of construction.
Sorry, but no "as long as".
Build, build, build is the only solution.
Yes we need other investments too, but they need to happen on top of (not before or instead of, or conditional upon or vice-versa) more housing.
Section 106 should be totally abolished in my view. All taxpayers equally should pay for new public infrastructure not just new home buyers. Private new infrastructure should be owned by the buyer privately, that's all they should be paying for.
So you want to build huge estates with no facilities and no compulsion to provide them in the hope that they get built some time in the future. You are mad.
Thatcher had this right 40 years ago. Those who profit should pay. Developers make vast sums from housing and they should be the ones to contribute to the services that help them make those profits. Section 106 should be reformed but mostly to make the compulsion on builders stronger. They should be the ones carrying the burden not the tax payer.
The taxpayer will already be carrying the increased burden going forward for the actual staffing and running of those facilities. They should not be paying out for the actual infrastructure as well.
Barty ignores the externalities of his build, build, build vision. He says build anywhere in the middle of the field down the road, not understanding that to supply water and power and whatnot to the middle of that field will require amendment to the existing infrastructure of existing residents and I am sure he is enough of a democrat to appreciate that those locals should have a say in the development of that existing infrastructure.
There are no externalities is why.
People require housing and services. The people are already in this country.
Building houses doesn't increase the demand for services, it just lowers the shortage of supply of housing. The demand for services remains the same, since the population remains the same.
If this sabotage continues and “succeeds” then it could be the end of the Games as we know them. Who would ever want to host if there’s a major chance of disaster?
Short memory there @Leon . Do you not remember Munich? The biggest deterrent is the cost, but people now seem to be more realistic and the games are better for it. I was concerned for London for both cost and terrorist reasons, but we pulled off an excellent games. I guess a combination of (surprising) skill and luck.
Re your post on where you are in France. I went there and loved it and not a tourist in sight, but that was 25 years ago, so now probably pretty meaningless, but glad you seem to have found it similar.
This is on a par with the sort of things that happened in Ireland in 1921.
"France’s train network sabotaged in ‘massive arson attack’ hours ahead of Olympics opening ceremony Services on several routes cancelled after TGV facilities damaged, country’s rail operator says
“SNCF was the victim of several simultaneous malicious acts overnight,” the national train operator said, adding that the attacks affected its Atlantic, northern and eastern lines."
Actually it happened in France before, on the 5th/6th of June 1944.
It was the only language they understood
The Russians are cruising for a hell of a kicking. This more or less open sabotage will lead to blow back. I came back from France yesterday and the mood towards Russia is increasingly hostile. If there is a successful sabotage, I think the DGSE will really go after the organisers as well as the perpetrators.
What makes you think it is the Russians?
Because the French government warned of a direct threat a couple of days ago when they arrested a sleeper agent.
So its an old scholl physical attack on France's infrastructure rather than cyber. Some lost tourists looking for the French equivalent of Salisbury?
So far. If Russia is willing to sponsor a some terrorism then they’re likely to sponsor more.
At the risk of sounding like Leon, it’s time we in the west started getting our revenge on Russia, preferably in ways that embarrass Putin and make him look weak.
Given what we are seeing in Ukraine, doing something like this is incredible stupid.
Priestman removed as Olympic boss over drone incident https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/articles/c2x0y786rv0o Canada women's football manager Beverly Priestman has been removed as Olympic head coach and suspended by the country's football federation as the fall out continued after a drone was flown over New Zealand's training session on Monday. Canada Soccer said it took the action because "over the past 24 hours, additional information has come to our attention regarding previous drone use against opponents, predating the Paris 2024 Olympic Games". English-born Priestman, 38, had "voluntarily" withdrawn from her side's opening 2-0 victory over the Kiwis on Thursday, while Jasmine Mander, Priestman's assistant, was sent home along with "unaccredited analyst" Joseph Lombardi. On Thursday a French court said Lombardi had been handed an eight-month suspended jail sentence after pleading guilty to flying a drone in an urban area without a licence...
The prospect of weaponised drones at mass public events is now a pretty scary one. And there aren't, for now, any good answers to the problem.
License them very strictly.
They already are; that doesn't really address the problem of someone wanting to use them for disruption, or worse.
Looks like I can buy them off Amazon delivered tomorrow. Why? Essentially I am suggesting ban them as a leisure/hobby item.
After the Balkan wars there was a very large supply of AK47s etc around the whole of Europe which thankfully never really took off here. The participants in the Ukraine war are now producing hundreds of thousands of drones specifically designed to deliver explosive charges each a year. It is extremely optimistic to assume that criminals and terrorists are not going to get some of these.
Police and security forces need to learn how to knock these out, whether by lasers, ABMs, EMP pulses or whatever. If they don't events like the Olympics may become an unacceptable risk.
So its an old scholl physical attack on France's infrastructure rather than cyber. Some lost tourists looking for the French equivalent of Salisbury?
So far. If Russia is willing to sponsor a some terrorism then they’re likely to sponsor more.
At the risk of sounding like Leon, it’s time we in the west started getting our revenge on Russia, preferably in ways that embarrass Putin and make him look weak.
This is on a par with the sort of things that happened in Ireland in 1921.
"France’s train network sabotaged in ‘massive arson attack’ hours ahead of Olympics opening ceremony Services on several routes cancelled after TGV facilities damaged, country’s rail operator says
“SNCF was the victim of several simultaneous malicious acts overnight,” the national train operator said, adding that the attacks affected its Atlantic, northern and eastern lines."
Actually it happened in France before, on the 5th/6th of June 1944.
It was the only language they understood
The Russians are cruising for a hell of a kicking. This more or less open sabotage will lead to blow back. I came back from France yesterday and the mood towards Russia is increasingly hostile. If there is a successful sabotage, I think the DGSE will really go after the organisers as well as the perpetrators.
What makes you think it is the Russians?
Because the French government warned of a direct threat a couple of days ago when they arrested a sleeper agent.
Re Black Hole...as Paul Johnson from the IFS has said now with the OBR and more data than ever available there is no unknown surprise of a black hole. Excluding some rounding around the edge, all the numbers that are required are available to all. Its all theatre to claim you have only just discovered it.
No - it won't be a surprise to them because they were telling the truth during the election campaign and before. Meanwhile, Hunt was telling us that everything was wonderful - a delusion he carried forward to the King's Speech debate earlier this week.
Actually both Labour and the Tories were extremely reticent about addressing the implied 'black hole' in the finances which every financial commentator recognised was implied by Hunt's existing tax & spending plans.
Reeves is now fessing up to what everyone paying attention already knew.
Which makes her as least as much of a lying scumbag as the previous government.
My big gripe is with all the "Broken Britain" memes. I live in a small town that's rapidly being wrecked by excessive housebuilding without the construction of matching infrastructure ...
Sorry but there is no such thing as "excessive housebuilding".
We have a chronic housing shortage and there is nowhere in the country with a surplus of housing, so there is no "excessive" anywhere.
You may have a problem of a lack of infrastructure, many places do, but that is a reason to demand more infrastructure not fewer homes when we have a chronic housing shortage.
At last there seems to be a recognition of the importance of infrastructure in the housing/housebuilding crisis rather than the meaningless "build, build, build" mantra.
I'm more than happy to see hundreds of thousands of new homes built as long as the supporting infrastructure is in place and that's not just utilities or transport. It's making sure the existing community infrastructure of schools, libraries, health facilities, refuse collection and all the rest of the areas the pro-building lobby doesn't seem to either consider or think important are also in place or planned (I've used the "P" word, I'll be in trouble for that).
House builders and developers already contribute to this via Section 106 payments but these need to be ramped up as a development is far more than just the bricks, mortar and pipework. As an aside, there needs to be much rigorous inspection of newbuilds given the horror stories coming out about the poor quality of construction.
Sorry, but no "as long as".
Build, build, build is the only solution.
Yes we need other investments too, but they need to happen on top of (not before or instead of, or conditional upon or vice-versa) more housing.
Section 106 should be totally abolished in my view. All taxpayers equally should pay for new public infrastructure not just new home buyers. Private new infrastructure should be owned by the buyer privately, that's all they should be paying for.
So you want to build huge estates with no facilities and no compulsion to provide them in the hope that they get built some time in the future. You are mad.
Thatcher had this right 40 years ago. Those who profit should pay. Developers make vast sums from housing and they should be the ones to contribute to the services that help them make those profits. Section 106 should be reformed but mostly to make the compulsion on builders stronger. They should be the ones carrying the burden not the tax payer.
The taxpayer will already be carrying the increased burden going forward for the actual staffing and running of those facilities. They should not be paying out for the actual infrastructure as well.
Barty ignores the externalities of his build, build, build vision. He says build anywhere in the middle of the field down the road, not understanding that to supply water and power and whatnot to the middle of that field will require amendment to the existing infrastructure of existing residents and I am sure he is enough of a democrat to appreciate that those locals should have a say in the development of that existing infrastructure.
There are no externalities is why.
People require housing and services. The people are already in this country.
Building houses doesn't increase the demand for services, it just lowers the shortage of supply of housing. The demand for services remains the same, since the population remains the same.
Not true. It moves the demand for services which means new infrastructure to support it.
On topic, I’ll only truly believe that Kamala can do it when the more deranged sections of the GOP (which includes their candidate for POTUS) start preemptively talking about the election being stolen and whipping up the gun toters.
Re Black Hole...as Paul Johnson from the IFS has said now with the OBR and more data than ever available there is no unknown surprise of a black hole. Excluding some rounding around the edge, all the numbers that are required are available to all. Its all theatre to claim you have only just discovered it.
No - it won't be a surprise to them because they were telling the truth during the election campaign and before. Meanwhile, Hunt was telling us that everything was wonderful - a delusion he carried forward to the King's Speech debate earlier this week.
Actually both Labour and the Tories were extremely reticent about addressing the implied 'black hole' in the finances which every financial commentator recognised was implied by Hunt's existing tax & spending plans.
Reeves is now fessing up to what everyone paying attention already knew.
Which makes her as least as much of a lying scumbag as the previous government.
My big gripe is with all the "Broken Britain" memes. I live in a small town that's rapidly being wrecked by excessive housebuilding without the construction of matching infrastructure, but even so last few times I've needed to see a doctor I've had appointments done on the same day. My wife had a baby a couple of weeks ago - whilst I've a few issues with some of the post birth care, none of that was anything to do with resources, and more to do with staff who didn't listen to what they were told (and I found out subsequently in a couple of cases wrote the exact opposite of what they were told on the notes). (Snip)
". I live in a small town that's rapidly being wrecked by excessive housebuilding without the construction of matching infrastructure, "
This is where I think politicians have got it all wrong. They're concentrating on housebuilding, when we need to be concentrating on building communities.
The first is relatively easy. The second is much harder and more expensive, but vital.
As an example, the new town I live in is being massively expanded. Yet the overworked GP surgery is not being expanded to suit. Neither is the library. We still don't have a High Street, and the rental costs of the few shop units available are astronomical.
Oh, and congrats on the new addition to your family. Hope you're all well.
Investment follows demand, it doesn't precede it.
If a second GP surgery is needed, then invest in it.
If enough customers are there to make a High Street viable, then firms will (privately) invest in it.
If investment in the library is needed, then invest in it.
But none of that is an excuse to block housing.
I'm not looking for an excuse to block housing. But at the moment we're getting housing but not enough supporting infrastructure - and this really matters. I fear your vision for housing would just be sink estates in a couple of decades' time.
The bit of Cambridgeshire I know is St Ives, which I think is a similar population to your gaff, but as a historic town has way more infrastructure.
It's all very well saying that more infrastructure should be provided, but right now it clearly isn't. So something, maybe beefing up state provision, maybe nudging the invisible hand of the market, needs to change. Either that, or we need benevolent nobility to manage the process, as at Poundbury.
I agree. As it happens, my gaff was 'designed' in such a ways as to have infrastructure, and tbf it isn't too bad. The core Masterplan of 30 years ago wasn't bad. There are, for instance, five children's playgrounds; two cricket pitches/pavilions, a country park, lakes, a library, police station (mostly unmanned...), fire station, two Co-Ops and a large supermarket.
As an aside, I'm bemused to see the bus accessway to Broadway (*), which has only just had the land cleared for it to be built, despite it being rather important...
But that's what we need for any new settlement of any size: a masterplan. And if it is extended with new housing, the new masterplan has to take into account the existing settlement, as well as the new.
(*) A local road.
"Masterplan" is just an excuse to do nothing, when there is a chronic shortage today.
What's wrong with just investing in services wherever they are needed?
You guys acting like "excessive housing" is the issue are ignoring the chronic housing shortage. Being short on housing and infrastructure is two problems, fixing one problem is better than fixing neither - and once people are there then investing in infrastructure is more viable than before they are there where there's no guarantee that customers/employees will be available.
"What's wrong with just investing in services wherever they are needed?"
Because 'services' are almost everything you need. For instance, one excuse why we have not yet got a High Street is because the builders laid the services for the street not along the road, but along the space the shops were meant to be on. Meaning they need to be moved at massive expense if the land above is built on. Because of a balls-up in the plan. Without a plan, it would have happened much more.
Also if you have crammed houses into an area, where can the services go? How can you build a library in an area of dense housing? You need a plan to allow everything to function well. Water supply, sewage, power, Internet/comms, transport... these are all important, and utterly fail without a centralised plan.
"How can you build a library in an area of dense housing?"
Very easily.
Indeed just as you can convert shops to houses (its being done in much of the country, you can do the other way around too if need be.
If town is expanding outwards, then there's no reason you can't invest in a new library on the new edge of town either, if that's where the demand is. Which as town continues to expand it will not remain the edge either.
The builders for houses should only be building houses, not shops. The shops should have their own builders and fitters to lay down whatever they require, to their own specifications.
If you're talking about knocking down existing houses to build a library (or GP surgery, or whatever...) then that'd be massively more expensive that just building it in the first place.
"The shops should have their own builders and fitters to lay down whatever they require, to their own specifications."
I'd hate to see how many times the road would need to be dug up, and where all the sh*t goes...
"... then there's no reason you can't invest in a new library on the new edge of town either, if that's where the demand is."
You can, but that assumes that that's where the demand all is. It also means you need transport links to the new library, and that requires... yes, you've guessed it:
PLANNING.
Everything requires planning if it is to be done well.
On a minor point, my Mum was a GP. Her surgery was in an adapted house. Nothing needed to be knocked down. The practice she'd been with before she went solo was the same. The practice she'd trained in was the same. The practice she continued to work at part-time after partial retirement was the same.
Now, governments have pushed GPs away from small practices to big multi-GP clinics in purpose built facilities, but that's not a necessity.
Looks pretty grisly in Paris. The whole tgv network derailed? Those are the arteries of France
“Astonishment more than cacophony at Montparnasse station. Several thousand travelers wait, stunned, and scrutinize the notice board where 90% of departures are pending #TGV @sudouest”
This is on a par with the sort of things that happened in Ireland in 1921.
"France’s train network sabotaged in ‘massive arson attack’ hours ahead of Olympics opening ceremony Services on several routes cancelled after TGV facilities damaged, country’s rail operator says
“SNCF was the victim of several simultaneous malicious acts overnight,” the national train operator said, adding that the attacks affected its Atlantic, northern and eastern lines."
Actually it happened in France before, on the 5th/6th of June 1944.
It was the only language they understood
The Russians are cruising for a hell of a kicking. This more or less open sabotage will lead to blow back. I came back from France yesterday and the mood towards Russia is increasingly hostile. If there is a successful sabotage, I think the DGSE will really go after the organisers as well as the perpetrators.
What makes you think it is the Russians?
Because the French government warned of a direct threat a couple of days ago when they arrested a sleeper agent.
Re Black Hole...as Paul Johnson from the IFS has said now with the OBR and more data than ever available there is no unknown surprise of a black hole. Excluding some rounding around the edge, all the numbers that are required are available to all. Its all theatre to claim you have only just discovered it.
No - it won't be a surprise to them because they were telling the truth during the election campaign and before. Meanwhile, Hunt was telling us that everything was wonderful - a delusion he carried forward to the King's Speech debate earlier this week.
Actually both Labour and the Tories were extremely reticent about addressing the implied 'black hole' in the finances which every financial commentator recognised was implied by Hunt's existing tax & spending plans.
Reeves is now fessing up to what everyone paying attention already knew.
Which makes her as least as much of a lying scumbag as the previous government.
My big gripe is with all the "Broken Britain" memes. I live in a small town that's rapidly being wrecked by excessive housebuilding without the construction of matching infrastructure ...
Sorry but there is no such thing as "excessive housebuilding".
We have a chronic housing shortage and there is nowhere in the country with a surplus of housing, so there is no "excessive" anywhere.
You may have a problem of a lack of infrastructure, many places do, but that is a reason to demand more infrastructure not fewer homes when we have a chronic housing shortage.
At last there seems to be a recognition of the importance of infrastructure in the housing/housebuilding crisis rather than the meaningless "build, build, build" mantra.
I'm more than happy to see hundreds of thousands of new homes built as long as the supporting infrastructure is in place and that's not just utilities or transport. It's making sure the existing community infrastructure of schools, libraries, health facilities, refuse collection and all the rest of the areas the pro-building lobby doesn't seem to either consider or think important are also in place or planned (I've used the "P" word, I'll be in trouble for that).
House builders and developers already contribute to this via Section 106 payments but these need to be ramped up as a development is far more than just the bricks, mortar and pipework. As an aside, there needs to be much rigorous inspection of newbuilds given the horror stories coming out about the poor quality of construction.
Sorry, but no "as long as".
Build, build, build is the only solution.
Yes we need other investments too, but they need to happen on top of (not before or instead of, or conditional upon or vice-versa) more housing.
Section 106 should be totally abolished in my view. All taxpayers equally should pay for new public infrastructure not just new home buyers. Private new infrastructure should be owned by the buyer privately, that's all they should be paying for.
So you want to build huge estates with no facilities and no compulsion to provide them in the hope that they get built some time in the future. You are mad.
Thatcher had this right 40 years ago. Those who profit should pay. Developers make vast sums from housing and they should be the ones to contribute to the services that help them make those profits. Section 106 should be reformed but mostly to make the compulsion on builders stronger. They should be the ones carrying the burden not the tax payer.
The taxpayer will already be carrying the increased burden going forward for the actual staffing and running of those facilities. They should not be paying out for the actual infrastructure as well.
No you are the mad one.
Thatcher was governing in a time of stable population, not rampant population growth and chronic housing shortages.
And completely agreed those who profit (benefit) from new infrastructure should pay for it . . . those who benefit from new public infrastructure is everyone, not new builds alone. Why shouldn't existing residents pay for new public infrastructure they'll benefit from?
Not so. The existing population does not benefit if new infrastructure is built to accomodate an increased population on new estates. GPs and schools operate on specific catchment areas and if you are not in those areas - ie not in the new estates - then you don't get to use the new infrastructure.
Re Black Hole...as Paul Johnson from the IFS has said now with the OBR and more data than ever available there is no unknown surprise of a black hole. Excluding some rounding around the edge, all the numbers that are required are available to all. Its all theatre to claim you have only just discovered it.
No - it won't be a surprise to them because they were telling the truth during the election campaign and before. Meanwhile, Hunt was telling us that everything was wonderful - a delusion he carried forward to the King's Speech debate earlier this week.
Actually both Labour and the Tories were extremely reticent about addressing the implied 'black hole' in the finances which every financial commentator recognised was implied by Hunt's existing tax & spending plans.
Reeves is now fessing up to what everyone paying attention already knew.
Which makes her as least as much of a lying scumbag as the previous government.
My big gripe is with all the "Broken Britain" memes. I live in a small town that's rapidly being wrecked by excessive housebuilding without the construction of matching infrastructure ...
Sorry but there is no such thing as "excessive housebuilding".
We have a chronic housing shortage and there is nowhere in the country with a surplus of housing, so there is no "excessive" anywhere.
You may have a problem of a lack of infrastructure, many places do, but that is a reason to demand more infrastructure not fewer homes when we have a chronic housing shortage.
At last there seems to be a recognition of the importance of infrastructure in the housing/housebuilding crisis rather than the meaningless "build, build, build" mantra.
I'm more than happy to see hundreds of thousands of new homes built as long as the supporting infrastructure is in place and that's not just utilities or transport. It's making sure the existing community infrastructure of schools, libraries, health facilities, refuse collection and all the rest of the areas the pro-building lobby doesn't seem to either consider or think important are also in place or planned (I've used the "P" word, I'll be in trouble for that).
House builders and developers already contribute to this via Section 106 payments but these need to be ramped up as a development is far more than just the bricks, mortar and pipework. As an aside, there needs to be much rigorous inspection of newbuilds given the horror stories coming out about the poor quality of construction.
Sorry, but no "as long as".
Build, build, build is the only solution.
Yes we need other investments too, but they need to happen on top of (not before or instead of, or conditional upon or vice-versa) more housing.
Section 106 should be totally abolished in my view. All taxpayers equally should pay for new public infrastructure not just new home buyers. Private new infrastructure should be owned by the buyer privately, that's all they should be paying for.
So you want to build huge estates with no facilities and no compulsion to provide them in the hope that they get built some time in the future. You are mad.
Thatcher had this right 40 years ago. Those who profit should pay. Developers make vast sums from housing and they should be the ones to contribute to the services that help them make those profits. Section 106 should be reformed but mostly to make the compulsion on builders stronger. They should be the ones carrying the burden not the tax payer.
The taxpayer will already be carrying the increased burden going forward for the actual staffing and running of those facilities. They should not be paying out for the actual infrastructure as well.
Barty ignores the externalities of his build, build, build vision. He says build anywhere in the middle of the field down the road, not understanding that to supply water and power and whatnot to the middle of that field will require amendment to the existing infrastructure of existing residents and I am sure he is enough of a democrat to appreciate that those locals should have a say in the development of that existing infrastructure.
There are no externalities is why.
People require housing and services. The people are already in this country.
Building houses doesn't increase the demand for services, it just lowers the shortage of supply of housing. The demand for services remains the same, since the population remains the same.
Not true. It moves the demand for services which means new infrastructure to support it.
Yes, it moves them from overcrowded homes to ones they can live in. That doesn't require new infrastructure, since the demand was already there.
There are many young people in this country with kids who live in their childhood bedroom with their own children because they can't afford a home of their own. If a new home is built and they can move into their own home that doesn't increase demand for schools, since the pupils were already there.
We have a chronic housing shortage everywhere in this country. There is absolutely nowhere in the entire country with a surplus of housing that people are moving from, to an area with a shortage of housing.
If this sabotage continues and “succeeds” then it could be the end of the Games as we know them. Who would ever want to host if there’s a major chance of disaster?
Short memory there @Leon . Do you not remember Munich? The biggest deterrent is the cost, but people now seem to be more realistic and the games are better for it. I was concerned for London for both cost and terrorist reasons, but we pulled off an excellent games. I guess a combination of (surprising) skill and luck.
Re your post on where you are in France. I went there and loved it and not a tourist in sight, but that was 25 years ago, so now probably pretty meaningless, but glad you seem to have found it similar.
Indeed.
Its a dick waving contest to host.
I'd imagine all the oil & gas middle east states are absolutely desperate to hold it. Probably think they could host the winter olympics as well.
Re Black Hole...as Paul Johnson from the IFS has said now with the OBR and more data than ever available there is no unknown surprise of a black hole. Excluding some rounding around the edge, all the numbers that are required are available to all. Its all theatre to claim you have only just discovered it.
No - it won't be a surprise to them because they were telling the truth during the election campaign and before. Meanwhile, Hunt was telling us that everything was wonderful - a delusion he carried forward to the King's Speech debate earlier this week.
Actually both Labour and the Tories were extremely reticent about addressing the implied 'black hole' in the finances which every financial commentator recognised was implied by Hunt's existing tax & spending plans.
Reeves is now fessing up to what everyone paying attention already knew.
Which makes her as least as much of a lying scumbag as the previous government.
My big gripe is with all the "Broken Britain" memes. I live in a small town that's rapidly being wrecked by excessive housebuilding without the construction of matching infrastructure ...
Sorry but there is no such thing as "excessive housebuilding".
We have a chronic housing shortage and there is nowhere in the country with a surplus of housing, so there is no "excessive" anywhere.
You may have a problem of a lack of infrastructure, many places do, but that is a reason to demand more infrastructure not fewer homes when we have a chronic housing shortage.
At last there seems to be a recognition of the importance of infrastructure in the housing/housebuilding crisis rather than the meaningless "build, build, build" mantra.
I'm more than happy to see hundreds of thousands of new homes built as long as the supporting infrastructure is in place and that's not just utilities or transport. It's making sure the existing community infrastructure of schools, libraries, health facilities, refuse collection and all the rest of the areas the pro-building lobby doesn't seem to either consider or think important are also in place or planned (I've used the "P" word, I'll be in trouble for that).
House builders and developers already contribute to this via Section 106 payments but these need to be ramped up as a development is far more than just the bricks, mortar and pipework. As an aside, there needs to be much rigorous inspection of newbuilds given the horror stories coming out about the poor quality of construction.
Sorry, but no "as long as".
Build, build, build is the only solution.
Yes we need other investments too, but they need to happen on top of (not before or instead of, or conditional upon or vice-versa) more housing.
Section 106 should be totally abolished in my view. All taxpayers equally should pay for new public infrastructure not just new home buyers. Private new infrastructure should be owned by the buyer privately, that's all they should be paying for.
So you want to build huge estates with no facilities and no compulsion to provide them in the hope that they get built some time in the future. You are mad.
Thatcher had this right 40 years ago. Those who profit should pay. Developers make vast sums from housing and they should be the ones to contribute to the services that help them make those profits. Section 106 should be reformed but mostly to make the compulsion on builders stronger. They should be the ones carrying the burden not the tax payer.
The taxpayer will already be carrying the increased burden going forward for the actual staffing and running of those facilities. They should not be paying out for the actual infrastructure as well.
No you are the mad one.
Thatcher was governing in a time of stable population, not rampant population growth and chronic housing shortages.
And completely agreed those who profit (benefit) from new infrastructure should pay for it . . . those who benefit from new public infrastructure is everyone, not new builds alone. Why shouldn't existing residents pay for new public infrastructure they'll benefit from?
Not so. The existing population does not benefit if new infrastructure is built to accomodate an increased population on new estates. GPs and schools operate on specific catchment areas and if you are not in those areas - ie not in the new estates - then you don't get to use the new infrastructure.
The population has already increased in this country Richard. You and I have both supported that.
There is nowhere in this country with a surplus of housing that is being emptied to relocate towards somewhere with a shortage of homes, there is a shortage of homes everywhere.
There are people living in overcrowded homes, that need a home of their own everywhere.
There isn't a school in the country that I know of that has a catchment area of one estate alone, that's a ridiculous suggestion.
This is on a par with the sort of things that happened in Ireland in 1921.
"France’s train network sabotaged in ‘massive arson attack’ hours ahead of Olympics opening ceremony Services on several routes cancelled after TGV facilities damaged, country’s rail operator says
“SNCF was the victim of several simultaneous malicious acts overnight,” the national train operator said, adding that the attacks affected its Atlantic, northern and eastern lines."
Actually it happened in France before, on the 5th/6th of June 1944.
It was the only language they understood
The Russians are cruising for a hell of a kicking. This more or less open sabotage will lead to blow back. I came back from France yesterday and the mood towards Russia is increasingly hostile. If there is a successful sabotage, I think the DGSE will really go after the organisers as well as the perpetrators.
What makes you think it is the Russians?
Because the French government warned of a direct threat a couple of days ago when they arrested a sleeper agent.
This is on a par with the sort of things that happened in Ireland in 1921.
"France’s train network sabotaged in ‘massive arson attack’ hours ahead of Olympics opening ceremony Services on several routes cancelled after TGV facilities damaged, country’s rail operator says
“SNCF was the victim of several simultaneous malicious acts overnight,” the national train operator said, adding that the attacks affected its Atlantic, northern and eastern lines."
Actually it happened in France before, on the 5th/6th of June 1944.
It was the only language they understood
The Russians are cruising for a hell of a kicking. This more or less open sabotage will lead to blow back. I came back from France yesterday and the mood towards Russia is increasingly hostile. If there is a successful sabotage, I think the DGSE will really go after the organisers as well as the perpetrators.
What makes you think it is the Russians?
Because the French government warned of a direct threat a couple of days ago when they arrested a sleeper agent.
Re Black Hole...as Paul Johnson from the IFS has said now with the OBR and more data than ever available there is no unknown surprise of a black hole. Excluding some rounding around the edge, all the numbers that are required are available to all. Its all theatre to claim you have only just discovered it.
No - it won't be a surprise to them because they were telling the truth during the election campaign and before. Meanwhile, Hunt was telling us that everything was wonderful - a delusion he carried forward to the King's Speech debate earlier this week.
Actually both Labour and the Tories were extremely reticent about addressing the implied 'black hole' in the finances which every financial commentator recognised was implied by Hunt's existing tax & spending plans.
Reeves is now fessing up to what everyone paying attention already knew.
Which makes her as least as much of a lying scumbag as the previous government.
My big gripe is with all the "Broken Britain" memes. I live in a small town that's rapidly being wrecked by excessive housebuilding without the construction of matching infrastructure ...
Sorry but there is no such thing as "excessive housebuilding".
We have a chronic housing shortage and there is nowhere in the country with a surplus of housing, so there is no "excessive" anywhere.
You may have a problem of a lack of infrastructure, many places do, but that is a reason to demand more infrastructure not fewer homes when we have a chronic housing shortage.
At last there seems to be a recognition of the importance of infrastructure in the housing/housebuilding crisis rather than the meaningless "build, build, build" mantra.
I'm more than happy to see hundreds of thousands of new homes built as long as the supporting infrastructure is in place and that's not just utilities or transport. It's making sure the existing community infrastructure of schools, libraries, health facilities, refuse collection and all the rest of the areas the pro-building lobby doesn't seem to either consider or think important are also in place or planned (I've used the "P" word, I'll be in trouble for that).
House builders and developers already contribute to this via Section 106 payments but these need to be ramped up as a development is far more than just the bricks, mortar and pipework. As an aside, there needs to be much rigorous inspection of newbuilds given the horror stories coming out about the poor quality of construction.
Sorry, but no "as long as".
Build, build, build is the only solution.
Yes we need other investments too, but they need to happen on top of (not before or instead of, or conditional upon or vice-versa) more housing.
Section 106 should be totally abolished in my view. All taxpayers equally should pay for new public infrastructure not just new home buyers. Private new infrastructure should be owned by the buyer privately, that's all they should be paying for.
So you want to build huge estates with no facilities and no compulsion to provide them in the hope that they get built some time in the future. You are mad.
Thatcher had this right 40 years ago. Those who profit should pay. Developers make vast sums from housing and they should be the ones to contribute to the services that help them make those profits. Section 106 should be reformed but mostly to make the compulsion on builders stronger. They should be the ones carrying the burden not the tax payer.
The taxpayer will already be carrying the increased burden going forward for the actual staffing and running of those facilities. They should not be paying out for the actual infrastructure as well.
No you are the mad one.
Thatcher was governing in a time of stable population, not rampant population growth and chronic housing shortages.
And completely agreed those who profit (benefit) from new infrastructure should pay for it . . . those who benefit from new public infrastructure is everyone, not new builds alone. Why shouldn't existing residents pay for new public infrastructure they'll benefit from?
Not so. The existing population does not benefit if new infrastructure is built to accomodate an increased population on new estates. GPs and schools operate on specific catchment areas and if you are not in those areas - ie not in the new estates - then you don't get to use the new infrastructure.
You are presuming that those catchment areas only cover the new estates. That isn't necessarily the case. Indeed, it seems unlikely to be most of the time.
Re Black Hole...as Paul Johnson from the IFS has said now with the OBR and more data than ever available there is no unknown surprise of a black hole. Excluding some rounding around the edge, all the numbers that are required are available to all. Its all theatre to claim you have only just discovered it.
No - it won't be a surprise to them because they were telling the truth during the election campaign and before. Meanwhile, Hunt was telling us that everything was wonderful - a delusion he carried forward to the King's Speech debate earlier this week.
Actually both Labour and the Tories were extremely reticent about addressing the implied 'black hole' in the finances which every financial commentator recognised was implied by Hunt's existing tax & spending plans.
Reeves is now fessing up to what everyone paying attention already knew.
Which makes her as least as much of a lying scumbag as the previous government.
My big gripe is with all the "Broken Britain" memes. I live in a small town that's rapidly being wrecked by excessive housebuilding without the construction of matching infrastructure ...
Sorry but there is no such thing as "excessive housebuilding".
We have a chronic housing shortage and there is nowhere in the country with a surplus of housing, so there is no "excessive" anywhere.
You may have a problem of a lack of infrastructure, many places do, but that is a reason to demand more infrastructure not fewer homes when we have a chronic housing shortage.
At last there seems to be a recognition of the importance of infrastructure in the housing/housebuilding crisis rather than the meaningless "build, build, build" mantra.
I'm more than happy to see hundreds of thousands of new homes built as long as the supporting infrastructure is in place and that's not just utilities or transport. It's making sure the existing community infrastructure of schools, libraries, health facilities, refuse collection and all the rest of the areas the pro-building lobby doesn't seem to either consider or think important are also in place or planned (I've used the "P" word, I'll be in trouble for that).
House builders and developers already contribute to this via Section 106 payments but these need to be ramped up as a development is far more than just the bricks, mortar and pipework. As an aside, there needs to be much rigorous inspection of newbuilds given the horror stories coming out about the poor quality of construction.
Sorry, but no "as long as".
Build, build, build is the only solution.
Yes we need other investments too, but they need to happen on top of (not before or instead of, or conditional upon or vice-versa) more housing.
Section 106 should be totally abolished in my view. All taxpayers equally should pay for new public infrastructure not just new home buyers. Private new infrastructure should be owned by the buyer privately, that's all they should be paying for.
So you want to build huge estates with no facilities and no compulsion to provide them in the hope that they get built some time in the future. You are mad.
Thatcher had this right 40 years ago. Those who profit should pay. Developers make vast sums from housing and they should be the ones to contribute to the services that help them make those profits. Section 106 should be reformed but mostly to make the compulsion on builders stronger. They should be the ones carrying the burden not the tax payer.
The taxpayer will already be carrying the increased burden going forward for the actual staffing and running of those facilities. They should not be paying out for the actual infrastructure as well.
No you are the mad one.
Thatcher was governing in a time of stable population, not rampant population growth and chronic housing shortages.
And completely agreed those who profit (benefit) from new infrastructure should pay for it . . . those who benefit from new public infrastructure is everyone, not new builds alone. Why shouldn't existing residents pay for new public infrastructure they'll benefit from?
Not so. The existing population does not benefit if new infrastructure is built to accomodate an increased population on new estates. GPs and schools operate on specific catchment areas and if you are not in those areas - ie not in the new estates - then you don't get to use the new infrastructure.
Instead of building a huge estate of 500 houses on the edge of town, why not try to build or convert 25 lots of 20 houses nearer the centre of town? Let’s encourage small builders and self builders instead of the big 7.
Off topic. Has the 1922 made a mess of the Conservative party leadership election? with more and more MPs putting their names forward It is quite possible that only one or two candidates will reach the threshold of 10 backers. One would be a disaster but less than 4 would mean that stretching the campaign to November would be silly and make the conference irrelevant. Members would not be impressed if they didn't have an effective say in the choice.
I expect Jenrick, Tugendhat, Cleverly, Badenoch and Patel to all get the required backers to stand and members get the final say from the last two chosen by Tory MPs
This is on a par with the sort of things that happened in Ireland in 1921.
"France’s train network sabotaged in ‘massive arson attack’ hours ahead of Olympics opening ceremony Services on several routes cancelled after TGV facilities damaged, country’s rail operator says
“SNCF was the victim of several simultaneous malicious acts overnight,” the national train operator said, adding that the attacks affected its Atlantic, northern and eastern lines."
Actually it happened in France before, on the 5th/6th of June 1944.
It was the only language they understood
The Russians are cruising for a hell of a kicking. This more or less open sabotage will lead to blow back. I came back from France yesterday and the mood towards Russia is increasingly hostile. If there is a successful sabotage, I think the DGSE will really go after the organisers as well as the perpetrators.
What makes you think it is the Russians?
Because the French government warned of a direct threat a couple of days ago when they arrested a sleeper agent.
Quite the story.
@InsiderEng and its partners @lemondefr and @derspiegel have identified the French chef arrested on suspicion of working for Russian intelligence to disrupt the Paris Olympics. Meet Kirill Griaznov, a Cordon Bleu-trained chef, reality TV star and FSB officer. We have his emails. Oh, and he's been to New York too! .. https://x.com/michaeldweiss/status/1816431763834462626
Re Black Hole...as Paul Johnson from the IFS has said now with the OBR and more data than ever available there is no unknown surprise of a black hole. Excluding some rounding around the edge, all the numbers that are required are available to all. Its all theatre to claim you have only just discovered it.
No - it won't be a surprise to them because they were telling the truth during the election campaign and before. Meanwhile, Hunt was telling us that everything was wonderful - a delusion he carried forward to the King's Speech debate earlier this week.
Actually both Labour and the Tories were extremely reticent about addressing the implied 'black hole' in the finances which every financial commentator recognised was implied by Hunt's existing tax & spending plans.
Reeves is now fessing up to what everyone paying attention already knew.
Which makes her as least as much of a lying scumbag as the previous government.
My big gripe is with all the "Broken Britain" memes. I live in a small town that's rapidly being wrecked by excessive housebuilding without the construction of matching infrastructure ...
Sorry but there is no such thing as "excessive housebuilding".
We have a chronic housing shortage and there is nowhere in the country with a surplus of housing, so there is no "excessive" anywhere.
You may have a problem of a lack of infrastructure, many places do, but that is a reason to demand more infrastructure not fewer homes when we have a chronic housing shortage.
At last there seems to be a recognition of the importance of infrastructure in the housing/housebuilding crisis rather than the meaningless "build, build, build" mantra.
I'm more than happy to see hundreds of thousands of new homes built as long as the supporting infrastructure is in place and that's not just utilities or transport. It's making sure the existing community infrastructure of schools, libraries, health facilities, refuse collection and all the rest of the areas the pro-building lobby doesn't seem to either consider or think important are also in place or planned (I've used the "P" word, I'll be in trouble for that).
House builders and developers already contribute to this via Section 106 payments but these need to be ramped up as a development is far more than just the bricks, mortar and pipework. As an aside, there needs to be much rigorous inspection of newbuilds given the horror stories coming out about the poor quality of construction.
Sorry, but no "as long as".
Build, build, build is the only solution.
Yes we need other investments too, but they need to happen on top of (not before or instead of, or conditional upon or vice-versa) more housing.
Section 106 should be totally abolished in my view. All taxpayers equally should pay for new public infrastructure not just new home buyers. Private new infrastructure should be owned by the buyer privately, that's all they should be paying for.
So you want to build huge estates with no facilities and no compulsion to provide them in the hope that they get built some time in the future. You are mad.
Thatcher had this right 40 years ago. Those who profit should pay. Developers make vast sums from housing and they should be the ones to contribute to the services that help them make those profits. Section 106 should be reformed but mostly to make the compulsion on builders stronger. They should be the ones carrying the burden not the tax payer.
The taxpayer will already be carrying the increased burden going forward for the actual staffing and running of those facilities. They should not be paying out for the actual infrastructure as well.
Barty ignores the externalities of his build, build, build vision. He says build anywhere in the middle of the field down the road, not understanding that to supply water and power and whatnot to the middle of that field will require amendment to the existing infrastructure of existing residents and I am sure he is enough of a democrat to appreciate that those locals should have a say in the development of that existing infrastructure.
There are no externalities is why.
People require housing and services. The people are already in this country.
Building houses doesn't increase the demand for services, it just lowers the shortage of supply of housing. The demand for services remains the same, since the population remains the same.
You said you wanted to build anywhere. That involves externalities. Not in the middle of cities, but some of the places you have said you want to build, build, build.
Re Black Hole...as Paul Johnson from the IFS has said now with the OBR and more data than ever available there is no unknown surprise of a black hole. Excluding some rounding around the edge, all the numbers that are required are available to all. Its all theatre to claim you have only just discovered it.
No - it won't be a surprise to them because they were telling the truth during the election campaign and before. Meanwhile, Hunt was telling us that everything was wonderful - a delusion he carried forward to the King's Speech debate earlier this week.
Actually both Labour and the Tories were extremely reticent about addressing the implied 'black hole' in the finances which every financial commentator recognised was implied by Hunt's existing tax & spending plans.
Reeves is now fessing up to what everyone paying attention already knew.
Which makes her as least as much of a lying scumbag as the previous government.
My big gripe is with all the "Broken Britain" memes. I live in a small town that's rapidly being wrecked by excessive housebuilding without the construction of matching infrastructure ...
Sorry but there is no such thing as "excessive housebuilding".
We have a chronic housing shortage and there is nowhere in the country with a surplus of housing, so there is no "excessive" anywhere.
You may have a problem of a lack of infrastructure, many places do, but that is a reason to demand more infrastructure not fewer homes when we have a chronic housing shortage.
At last there seems to be a recognition of the importance of infrastructure in the housing/housebuilding crisis rather than the meaningless "build, build, build" mantra.
I'm more than happy to see hundreds of thousands of new homes built as long as the supporting infrastructure is in place and that's not just utilities or transport. It's making sure the existing community infrastructure of schools, libraries, health facilities, refuse collection and all the rest of the areas the pro-building lobby doesn't seem to either consider or think important are also in place or planned (I've used the "P" word, I'll be in trouble for that).
House builders and developers already contribute to this via Section 106 payments but these need to be ramped up as a development is far more than just the bricks, mortar and pipework. As an aside, there needs to be much rigorous inspection of newbuilds given the horror stories coming out about the poor quality of construction.
Sorry, but no "as long as".
Build, build, build is the only solution.
Yes we need other investments too, but they need to happen on top of (not before or instead of, or conditional upon or vice-versa) more housing.
Section 106 should be totally abolished in my view. All taxpayers equally should pay for new public infrastructure not just new home buyers. Private new infrastructure should be owned by the buyer privately, that's all they should be paying for.
So you want to build huge estates with no facilities and no compulsion to provide them in the hope that they get built some time in the future. You are mad.
Thatcher had this right 40 years ago. Those who profit should pay. Developers make vast sums from housing and they should be the ones to contribute to the services that help them make those profits. Section 106 should be reformed but mostly to make the compulsion on builders stronger. They should be the ones carrying the burden not the tax payer.
The taxpayer will already be carrying the increased burden going forward for the actual staffing and running of those facilities. They should not be paying out for the actual infrastructure as well.
No you are the mad one.
Thatcher was governing in a time of stable population, not rampant population growth and chronic housing shortages.
And completely agreed those who profit (benefit) from new infrastructure should pay for it . . . those who benefit from new public infrastructure is everyone, not new builds alone. Why shouldn't existing residents pay for new public infrastructure they'll benefit from?
Not so. The existing population does not benefit if new infrastructure is built to accomodate an increased population on new estates. GPs and schools operate on specific catchment areas and if you are not in those areas - ie not in the new estates - then you don't get to use the new infrastructure.
Instead of building a huge estate of 500 houses on the edge of town, why not try to build or convert 25 lots of 20 houses nearer the centre of town? Let’s encourage small builders and self builders instead of the big 7.
Abolish our planning consent system that the new developers can game and small developers can't and that'd be more easily done.
Getting consent isn't a problem if the cost of the lawyers to go with it can be divided across hundreds of homes. Its a deal-breaker if the cost to go with it only goes on one home or a small number of homes.
Re Black Hole...as Paul Johnson from the IFS has said now with the OBR and more data than ever available there is no unknown surprise of a black hole. Excluding some rounding around the edge, all the numbers that are required are available to all. Its all theatre to claim you have only just discovered it.
No - it won't be a surprise to them because they were telling the truth during the election campaign and before. Meanwhile, Hunt was telling us that everything was wonderful - a delusion he carried forward to the King's Speech debate earlier this week.
Actually both Labour and the Tories were extremely reticent about addressing the implied 'black hole' in the finances which every financial commentator recognised was implied by Hunt's existing tax & spending plans.
Reeves is now fessing up to what everyone paying attention already knew.
Which makes her as least as much of a lying scumbag as the previous government.
My big gripe is with all the "Broken Britain" memes. I live in a small town that's rapidly being wrecked by excessive housebuilding without the construction of matching infrastructure ...
Sorry but there is no such thing as "excessive housebuilding".
We have a chronic housing shortage and there is nowhere in the country with a surplus of housing, so there is no "excessive" anywhere.
You may have a problem of a lack of infrastructure, many places do, but that is a reason to demand more infrastructure not fewer homes when we have a chronic housing shortage.
At last there seems to be a recognition of the importance of infrastructure in the housing/housebuilding crisis rather than the meaningless "build, build, build" mantra.
I'm more than happy to see hundreds of thousands of new homes built as long as the supporting infrastructure is in place and that's not just utilities or transport. It's making sure the existing community infrastructure of schools, libraries, health facilities, refuse collection and all the rest of the areas the pro-building lobby doesn't seem to either consider or think important are also in place or planned (I've used the "P" word, I'll be in trouble for that).
House builders and developers already contribute to this via Section 106 payments but these need to be ramped up as a development is far more than just the bricks, mortar and pipework. As an aside, there needs to be much rigorous inspection of newbuilds given the horror stories coming out about the poor quality of construction.
Sorry, but no "as long as".
Build, build, build is the only solution.
Yes we need other investments too, but they need to happen on top of (not before or instead of, or conditional upon or vice-versa) more housing.
Section 106 should be totally abolished in my view. All taxpayers equally should pay for new public infrastructure not just new home buyers. Private new infrastructure should be owned by the buyer privately, that's all they should be paying for.
So you want to build huge estates with no facilities and no compulsion to provide them in the hope that they get built some time in the future. You are mad.
Thatcher had this right 40 years ago. Those who profit should pay. Developers make vast sums from housing and they should be the ones to contribute to the services that help them make those profits. Section 106 should be reformed but mostly to make the compulsion on builders stronger. They should be the ones carrying the burden not the tax payer.
The taxpayer will already be carrying the increased burden going forward for the actual staffing and running of those facilities. They should not be paying out for the actual infrastructure as well.
Barty ignores the externalities of his build, build, build vision. He says build anywhere in the middle of the field down the road, not understanding that to supply water and power and whatnot to the middle of that field will require amendment to the existing infrastructure of existing residents and I am sure he is enough of a democrat to appreciate that those locals should have a say in the development of that existing infrastructure.
There are no externalities is why.
People require housing and services. The people are already in this country.
Building houses doesn't increase the demand for services, it just lowers the shortage of supply of housing. The demand for services remains the same, since the population remains the same.
You said you wanted to build anywhere. That involves externalities. Not in the middle of cities, but some of the places you have said you want to build, build, build.
No it doesn't. Since demand for services comes from people, not houses, and there isn't anywhere in the country that has a surplus of homes currently, so everywhere would benefit from more construction currently, there are no externalities.
All taxpayers should pay taxes equally. All taxpayers should pay equally for public services, not only those who live in a new home paying for them.
This is on a par with the sort of things that happened in Ireland in 1921.
"France’s train network sabotaged in ‘massive arson attack’ hours ahead of Olympics opening ceremony Services on several routes cancelled after TGV facilities damaged, country’s rail operator says
“SNCF was the victim of several simultaneous malicious acts overnight,” the national train operator said, adding that the attacks affected its Atlantic, northern and eastern lines."
Actually it happened in France before, on the 5th/6th of June 1944.
It was the only language they understood
The Russians are cruising for a hell of a kicking. This more or less open sabotage will lead to blow back. I came back from France yesterday and the mood towards Russia is increasingly hostile. If there is a successful sabotage, I think the DGSE will really go after the organisers as well as the perpetrators.
What makes you think it is the Russians?
Because the French government warned of a direct threat a couple of days ago when they arrested a sleeper agent.
Given what we are seeing in Ukraine, doing something like this is incredible stupid.
Priestman removed as Olympic boss over drone incident https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/articles/c2x0y786rv0o Canada women's football manager Beverly Priestman has been removed as Olympic head coach and suspended by the country's football federation as the fall out continued after a drone was flown over New Zealand's training session on Monday. Canada Soccer said it took the action because "over the past 24 hours, additional information has come to our attention regarding previous drone use against opponents, predating the Paris 2024 Olympic Games". English-born Priestman, 38, had "voluntarily" withdrawn from her side's opening 2-0 victory over the Kiwis on Thursday, while Jasmine Mander, Priestman's assistant, was sent home along with "unaccredited analyst" Joseph Lombardi. On Thursday a French court said Lombardi had been handed an eight-month suspended jail sentence after pleading guilty to flying a drone in an urban area without a licence...
The prospect of weaponised drones at mass public events is now a pretty scary one. And there aren't, for now, any good answers to the problem.
License them very strictly.
They already are; that doesn't really address the problem of someone wanting to use them for disruption, or worse.
Looks like I can buy them off Amazon delivered tomorrow. Why? Essentially I am suggesting ban them as a leisure/hobby item.
After the Balkan wars there was a very large supply of AK47s etc around the whole of Europe which thankfully never really took off here. The participants in the Ukraine war are now producing hundreds of thousands of drones specifically designed to deliver explosive charges each a year. It is extremely optimistic to assume that criminals and terrorists are not going to get some of these.
Police and security forces need to learn how to knock these out, whether by lasers, ABMs, EMP pulses or whatever. If they don't events like the Olympics may become an unacceptable risk.
We do a very good job of keeping out unlicensed firearms which are produced in even greater numbers worldwide. Drones should be treated like weapons. Drone hobbyists is as niche an activity as gun clubs and closing it down as a hobby item is clearly justified. They should not be available to consumers on the likes of amazon.
The global drone market is considerably larger than that for firearms. And it's a lot easier to build your own.
It's far from a niche activity - there are at least half a million registered users in the UK. And probably a lot more unregistered.
If the security situation wrt Ukraine starts coming to other countries, which I think we can expect if Russia is not soundly defeated, I think we can rightly expect more severe regulation.
In Ukraine they are using drones which carry a couple of kilos of explosives.
He didn't listen to the message, and thought (like Trump) that he could ignore the law, so he got 5 years for the attack on the M25. He now gets to see if his "gum up the prisons" strategy works.
I see the Liverpool-supporting Mayor of London is lobbying for Premier League games to be played in the USA. Didn't see that in his manifesto this year.
He’s talking shite and has been roundly condemned by the fans.
I see the Liverpool-supporting Mayor of London is lobbying for Premier League games to be played in the USA. Didn't see that in his manifesto this year.
He’s talking shite and has been roundly condemned by the fans.
Re Black Hole...as Paul Johnson from the IFS has said now with the OBR and more data than ever available there is no unknown surprise of a black hole. Excluding some rounding around the edge, all the numbers that are required are available to all. Its all theatre to claim you have only just discovered it.
No - it won't be a surprise to them because they were telling the truth during the election campaign and before. Meanwhile, Hunt was telling us that everything was wonderful - a delusion he carried forward to the King's Speech debate earlier this week.
Actually both Labour and the Tories were extremely reticent about addressing the implied 'black hole' in the finances which every financial commentator recognised was implied by Hunt's existing tax & spending plans.
Reeves is now fessing up to what everyone paying attention already knew.
Which makes her as least as much of a lying scumbag as the previous government.
My big gripe is with all the "Broken Britain" memes. I live in a small town that's rapidly being wrecked by excessive housebuilding without the construction of matching infrastructure, but even so last few times I've needed to see a doctor I've had appointments done on the same day. My wife had a baby a couple of weeks ago - whilst I've a few issues with some of the post birth care, none of that was anything to do with resources, and more to do with staff who didn't listen to what they were told (and I found out subsequently in a couple of cases wrote the exact opposite of what they were told on the notes). (Snip)
". I live in a small town that's rapidly being wrecked by excessive housebuilding without the construction of matching infrastructure, "
This is where I think politicians have got it all wrong. They're concentrating on housebuilding, when we need to be concentrating on building communities.
The first is relatively easy. The second is much harder and more expensive, but vital.
As an example, the new town I live in is being massively expanded. Yet the overworked GP surgery is not being expanded to suit. Neither is the library. We still don't have a High Street, and the rental costs of the few shop units available are astronomical.
Oh, and congrats on the new addition to your family. Hope you're all well.
Investment follows demand, it doesn't precede it.
If a second GP surgery is needed, then invest in it.
If enough customers are there to make a High Street viable, then firms will (privately) invest in it.
If investment in the library is needed, then invest in it.
But none of that is an excuse to block housing.
I'm not looking for an excuse to block housing. But at the moment we're getting housing but not enough supporting infrastructure - and this really matters. I fear your vision for housing would just be sink estates in a couple of decades' time.
The bit of Cambridgeshire I know is St Ives, which I think is a similar population to your gaff, but as a historic town has way more infrastructure.
It's all very well saying that more infrastructure should be provided, but right now it clearly isn't. So something, maybe beefing up state provision, maybe nudging the invisible hand of the market, needs to change. Either that, or we need benevolent nobility to manage the process, as at Poundbury.
I agree. As it happens, my gaff was 'designed' in such a ways as to have infrastructure, and tbf it isn't too bad. The core Masterplan of 30 years ago wasn't bad. There are, for instance, five children's playgrounds; two cricket pitches/pavilions, a country park, lakes, a library, police station (mostly unmanned...), fire station, two Co-Ops and a large supermarket.
As an aside, I'm bemused to see the bus accessway to Broadway (*), which has only just had the land cleared for it to be built, despite it being rather important...
But that's what we need for any new settlement of any size: a masterplan. And if it is extended with new housing, the new masterplan has to take into account the existing settlement, as well as the new.
(*) A local road.
"Masterplan" is just an excuse to do nothing, when there is a chronic shortage today.
What's wrong with just investing in services wherever they are needed?
You guys acting like "excessive housing" is the issue are ignoring the chronic housing shortage. Being short on housing and infrastructure is two problems, fixing one problem is better than fixing neither - and once people are there then investing in infrastructure is more viable than before they are there where there's no guarantee that customers/employees will be available.
"What's wrong with just investing in services wherever they are needed?"
Because 'services' are almost everything you need. For instance, one excuse why we have not yet got a High Street is because the builders laid the services for the street not along the road, but along the space the shops were meant to be on. Meaning they need to be moved at massive expense if the land above is built on. Because of a balls-up in the plan. Without a plan, it would have happened much more.
Also if you have crammed houses into an area, where can the services go? How can you build a library in an area of dense housing? You need a plan to allow everything to function well. Water supply, sewage, power, Internet/comms, transport... these are all important, and utterly fail without a centralised plan.
"How can you build a library in an area of dense housing?"
Very easily.
Indeed just as you can convert shops to houses (its being done in much of the country, you can do the other way around too if need be.
If town is expanding outwards, then there's no reason you can't invest in a new library on the new edge of town either, if that's where the demand is. Which as town continues to expand it will not remain the edge either.
The builders for houses should only be building houses, not shops. The shops should have their own builders and fitters to lay down whatever they require, to their own specifications.
If you're talking about knocking down existing houses to build a library (or GP surgery, or whatever...) then that'd be massively more expensive that just building it in the first place.
"The shops should have their own builders and fitters to lay down whatever they require, to their own specifications."
I'd hate to see how many times the road would need to be dug up, and where all the sh*t goes...
"... then there's no reason you can't invest in a new library on the new edge of town either, if that's where the demand is."
You can, but that assumes that that's where the demand all is. It also means you need transport links to the new library, and that requires... yes, you've guessed it:
PLANNING.
Everything requires planning if it is to be done well.
On a minor point, my Mum was a GP. Her surgery was in an adapted house. Nothing needed to be knocked down. The practice she'd been with before she went solo was the same. The practice she'd trained in was the same. The practice she continued to work at part-time after partial retirement was the same.
Now, governments have pushed GPs away from small practices to big multi-GP clinics in purpose built facilities, but that's not a necessity.
I think there's a whole book of reasons why that doesn't hold, starting with variety of services now delivered (and best delivered at community level), making them sufficiently available, and governance problems around micro-practices.
This is on a par with the sort of things that happened in Ireland in 1921.
"France’s train network sabotaged in ‘massive arson attack’ hours ahead of Olympics opening ceremony Services on several routes cancelled after TGV facilities damaged, country’s rail operator says
“SNCF was the victim of several simultaneous malicious acts overnight,” the national train operator said, adding that the attacks affected its Atlantic, northern and eastern lines."
Actually it happened in France before, on the 5th/6th of June 1944.
It was the only language they understood
The Russians are cruising for a hell of a kicking. This more or less open sabotage will lead to blow back. I came back from France yesterday and the mood towards Russia is increasingly hostile. If there is a successful sabotage, I think the DGSE will really go after the organisers as well as the perpetrators.
What makes you think it is the Russians?
Because the French government warned of a direct threat a couple of days ago when they arrested a sleeper agent.
On topic, I’ll only truly believe that Kamala can do it when the more deranged sections of the GOP (which includes their candidate for POTUS) start preemptively talking about the election being stolen and whipping up the gun toters.
Yep, look out for that. It has to be coming.
"No way Crooked Lyin Cacklin Demented Radical Left Loony Shambola Hasbeen Diversity Hire Harris beats your favourite President in a free and fair vote."
This is on a par with the sort of things that happened in Ireland in 1921.
"France’s train network sabotaged in ‘massive arson attack’ hours ahead of Olympics opening ceremony Services on several routes cancelled after TGV facilities damaged, country’s rail operator says
“SNCF was the victim of several simultaneous malicious acts overnight,” the national train operator said, adding that the attacks affected its Atlantic, northern and eastern lines."
Actually it happened in France before, on the 5th/6th of June 1944.
It was the only language they understood
The Russians are cruising for a hell of a kicking. This more or less open sabotage will lead to blow back. I came back from France yesterday and the mood towards Russia is increasingly hostile. If there is a successful sabotage, I think the DGSE will really go after the organisers as well as the perpetrators.
What makes you think it is the Russians?
Because the French government warned of a direct threat a couple of days ago when they arrested a sleeper agent.
Obviously signalling what might happen.
Good points
You all have one-track minds.
That's hard to gauge.
No need to get cross.
No raillery from me.
Why? Not your station in life?
I branched out.
Like the Russians.
They've gone from people in spired by religious architecture to using sleeper agents.
Texas is going through a demographic change that is somewhat analogous to the English South coast. It's becoming more like California, not least because lots of Californians are moving there. It won't switch to the Dems for this election but feasible over the next ten years I think.
Except most of the Californians moving to Texas are conservatives seeking lower taxes, cheaper homes and less woke not liberals
This is on a par with the sort of things that happened in Ireland in 1921.
"France’s train network sabotaged in ‘massive arson attack’ hours ahead of Olympics opening ceremony Services on several routes cancelled after TGV facilities damaged, country’s rail operator says
“SNCF was the victim of several simultaneous malicious acts overnight,” the national train operator said, adding that the attacks affected its Atlantic, northern and eastern lines."
Actually it happened in France before, on the 5th/6th of June 1944.
It was the only language they understood
The Russians are cruising for a hell of a kicking. This more or less open sabotage will lead to blow back. I came back from France yesterday and the mood towards Russia is increasingly hostile. If there is a successful sabotage, I think the DGSE will really go after the organisers as well as the perpetrators.
What makes you think it is the Russians?
Because the French government warned of a direct threat a couple of days ago when they arrested a sleeper agent.
Quite the story.
@InsiderEng and its partners @lemondefr and @derspiegel have identified the French chef arrested on suspicion of working for Russian intelligence to disrupt the Paris Olympics. Meet Kirill Griaznov, a Cordon Bleu-trained chef, reality TV star and FSB officer. We have his emails. Oh, and he's been to New York too! .. https://x.com/michaeldweiss/status/1816431763834462626
"Griaznov cooled his heels in St. Vlas, dined with the friend, got hammered again, and boasted of his special operation to disrupt the Olympic opening ceremonies in Paris on April 26. The friend was incredulous. So did what any deep-cover chekist would do: he whipped out his FSB ID."
Sounds a touch embellished, but... comical if true.
Not even sure the Russian state is paying him too much, more likely it's a fantasy of sorts to act out against the west like the baddy in a Le Carre novel made reality.
I see the Liverpool-supporting Mayor of London is lobbying for Premier League games to be played in the USA. Didn't see that in his manifesto this year.
He’s talking shite and has been roundly condemned by the fans.
Someone needs to ask the PM whether he supports the Mayor's efforts.
Given what we are seeing in Ukraine, doing something like this is incredible stupid.
Priestman removed as Olympic boss over drone incident https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/articles/c2x0y786rv0o Canada women's football manager Beverly Priestman has been removed as Olympic head coach and suspended by the country's football federation as the fall out continued after a drone was flown over New Zealand's training session on Monday. Canada Soccer said it took the action because "over the past 24 hours, additional information has come to our attention regarding previous drone use against opponents, predating the Paris 2024 Olympic Games". English-born Priestman, 38, had "voluntarily" withdrawn from her side's opening 2-0 victory over the Kiwis on Thursday, while Jasmine Mander, Priestman's assistant, was sent home along with "unaccredited analyst" Joseph Lombardi. On Thursday a French court said Lombardi had been handed an eight-month suspended jail sentence after pleading guilty to flying a drone in an urban area without a licence...
The prospect of weaponised drones at mass public events is now a pretty scary one. And there aren't, for now, any good answers to the problem.
License them very strictly.
They already are; that doesn't really address the problem of someone wanting to use them for disruption, or worse.
Looks like I can buy them off Amazon delivered tomorrow. Why? Essentially I am suggesting ban them as a leisure/hobby item.
After the Balkan wars there was a very large supply of AK47s etc around the whole of Europe which thankfully never really took off here. The participants in the Ukraine war are now producing hundreds of thousands of drones specifically designed to deliver explosive charges each a year. It is extremely optimistic to assume that criminals and terrorists are not going to get some of these.
Police and security forces need to learn how to knock these out, whether by lasers, ABMs, EMP pulses or whatever. If they don't events like the Olympics may become an unacceptable risk.
We do a very good job of keeping out unlicensed firearms which are produced in even greater numbers worldwide. Drones should be treated like weapons. Drone hobbyists is as niche an activity as gun clubs and closing it down as a hobby item is clearly justified. They should not be available to consumers on the likes of amazon.
The global drone market is considerably larger than that for firearms. And it's a lot easier to build your own.
It's far from a niche activity - there are at least half a million registered users in the UK. And probably a lot more unregistered.
If the security situation wrt Ukraine starts coming to other countries, which I think we can expect if Russia is not soundly defeated, I think we can rightly expect more severe regulation.
In Ukraine they are using drones which carry a couple of kilos of explosives.
He didn't listen to the message, and thought (like Trump) that he could ignore the law, so he got 5 years for the attack on the M25. He now gets to see if his "gum up the prisons" strategy works.
Stopping the production and use of drones would be difficult.
But we're quite 'lucky' in that we already have fairly strong regulations in place to prevent possible payloads; namely guns and explosives. A drone hitting you might be nasty, especially given the size of some of the quad- and octo-copters, but it's hard for it to do widespread damage without explosives. And if you can make explosives, there might be easier ways of getting to the targets you need to fulfil your aims.
Re Black Hole...as Paul Johnson from the IFS has said now with the OBR and more data than ever available there is no unknown surprise of a black hole. Excluding some rounding around the edge, all the numbers that are required are available to all. Its all theatre to claim you have only just discovered it.
No - it won't be a surprise to them because they were telling the truth during the election campaign and before. Meanwhile, Hunt was telling us that everything was wonderful - a delusion he carried forward to the King's Speech debate earlier this week.
Actually both Labour and the Tories were extremely reticent about addressing the implied 'black hole' in the finances which every financial commentator recognised was implied by Hunt's existing tax & spending plans.
Reeves is now fessing up to what everyone paying attention already knew.
Which makes her as least as much of a lying scumbag as the previous government.
My big gripe is with all the "Broken Britain" memes. I live in a small town that's rapidly being wrecked by excessive housebuilding without the construction of matching infrastructure, but even so last few times I've needed to see a doctor I've had appointments done on the same day. My wife had a baby a couple of weeks ago - whilst I've a few issues with some of the post birth care, none of that was anything to do with resources, and more to do with staff who didn't listen to what they were told (and I found out subsequently in a couple of cases wrote the exact opposite of what they were told on the notes). (Snip)
". I live in a small town that's rapidly being wrecked by excessive housebuilding without the construction of matching infrastructure, "
This is where I think politicians have got it all wrong. They're concentrating on housebuilding, when we need to be concentrating on building communities.
The first is relatively easy. The second is much harder and more expensive, but vital.
As an example, the new town I live in is being massively expanded. Yet the overworked GP surgery is not being expanded to suit. Neither is the library. We still don't have a High Street, and the rental costs of the few shop units available are astronomical.
Oh, and congrats on the new addition to your family. Hope you're all well.
Investment follows demand, it doesn't precede it.
If a second GP surgery is needed, then invest in it.
If enough customers are there to make a High Street viable, then firms will (privately) invest in it.
If investment in the library is needed, then invest in it.
But none of that is an excuse to block housing.
I'm not looking for an excuse to block housing. But at the moment we're getting housing but not enough supporting infrastructure - and this really matters. I fear your vision for housing would just be sink estates in a couple of decades' time.
The bit of Cambridgeshire I know is St Ives, which I think is a similar population to your gaff, but as a historic town has way more infrastructure.
It's all very well saying that more infrastructure should be provided, but right now it clearly isn't. So something, maybe beefing up state provision, maybe nudging the invisible hand of the market, needs to change. Either that, or we need benevolent nobility to manage the process, as at Poundbury.
I agree. As it happens, my gaff was 'designed' in such a ways as to have infrastructure, and tbf it isn't too bad. The core Masterplan of 30 years ago wasn't bad. There are, for instance, five children's playgrounds; two cricket pitches/pavilions, a country park, lakes, a library, police station (mostly unmanned...), fire station, two Co-Ops and a large supermarket.
As an aside, I'm bemused to see the bus accessway to Broadway (*), which has only just had the land cleared for it to be built, despite it being rather important...
But that's what we need for any new settlement of any size: a masterplan. And if it is extended with new housing, the new masterplan has to take into account the existing settlement, as well as the new.
(*) A local road.
"Masterplan" is just an excuse to do nothing, when there is a chronic shortage today.
What's wrong with just investing in services wherever they are needed?
You guys acting like "excessive housing" is the issue are ignoring the chronic housing shortage. Being short on housing and infrastructure is two problems, fixing one problem is better than fixing neither - and once people are there then investing in infrastructure is more viable than before they are there where there's no guarantee that customers/employees will be available.
"What's wrong with just investing in services wherever they are needed?"
Because 'services' are almost everything you need. For instance, one excuse why we have not yet got a High Street is because the builders laid the services for the street not along the road, but along the space the shops were meant to be on. Meaning they need to be moved at massive expense if the land above is built on. Because of a balls-up in the plan. Without a plan, it would have happened much more.
Also if you have crammed houses into an area, where can the services go? How can you build a library in an area of dense housing? You need a plan to allow everything to function well. Water supply, sewage, power, Internet/comms, transport... these are all important, and utterly fail without a centralised plan.
"How can you build a library in an area of dense housing?"
Very easily.
Indeed just as you can convert shops to houses (its being done in much of the country, you can do the other way around too if need be.
If town is expanding outwards, then there's no reason you can't invest in a new library on the new edge of town either, if that's where the demand is. Which as town continues to expand it will not remain the edge either.
The builders for houses should only be building houses, not shops. The shops should have their own builders and fitters to lay down whatever they require, to their own specifications.
If you're talking about knocking down existing houses to build a library (or GP surgery, or whatever...) then that'd be massively more expensive that just building it in the first place.
"The shops should have their own builders and fitters to lay down whatever they require, to their own specifications."
I'd hate to see how many times the road would need to be dug up, and where all the sh*t goes...
"... then there's no reason you can't invest in a new library on the new edge of town either, if that's where the demand is."
You can, but that assumes that that's where the demand all is. It also means you need transport links to the new library, and that requires... yes, you've guessed it:
PLANNING.
Everything requires planning if it is to be done well.
On a minor point, my Mum was a GP. Her surgery was in an adapted house. Nothing needed to be knocked down. The practice she'd been with before she went solo was the same. The practice she'd trained in was the same. The practice she continued to work at part-time after partial retirement was the same.
Now, governments have pushed GPs away from small practices to big multi-GP clinics in purpose built facilities, but that's not a necessity.
I was once told that this was to avoid a repeat of Harold Shipman single man practices.
The locations. All around paris but around 30 miles out on each mean a high degree of organisation with at least four teams operating simultaneously.
The position of the attacks on the map in a cross shape looks suspicious to me.
That is what the 7/7 attackers tried to do in London (but failed due to a line being disrupted so one got on a bus instead).
It also means that whoever did it had likely inside knowledge of the SNCF signalling installations and where to attack to cause most chaos and avoid getting caught
Re Black Hole...as Paul Johnson from the IFS has said now with the OBR and more data than ever available there is no unknown surprise of a black hole. Excluding some rounding around the edge, all the numbers that are required are available to all. Its all theatre to claim you have only just discovered it.
No - it won't be a surprise to them because they were telling the truth during the election campaign and before. Meanwhile, Hunt was telling us that everything was wonderful - a delusion he carried forward to the King's Speech debate earlier this week.
Actually both Labour and the Tories were extremely reticent about addressing the implied 'black hole' in the finances which every financial commentator recognised was implied by Hunt's existing tax & spending plans.
Reeves is now fessing up to what everyone paying attention already knew.
Which makes her as least as much of a lying scumbag as the previous government.
My big gripe is with all the "Broken Britain" memes. I live in a small town that's rapidly being wrecked by excessive housebuilding without the construction of matching infrastructure, but even so last few times I've needed to see a doctor I've had appointments done on the same day. My wife had a baby a couple of weeks ago - whilst I've a few issues with some of the post birth care, none of that was anything to do with resources, and more to do with staff who didn't listen to what they were told (and I found out subsequently in a couple of cases wrote the exact opposite of what they were told on the notes). (Snip)
". I live in a small town that's rapidly being wrecked by excessive housebuilding without the construction of matching infrastructure, "
This is where I think politicians have got it all wrong. They're concentrating on housebuilding, when we need to be concentrating on building communities.
The first is relatively easy. The second is much harder and more expensive, but vital.
As an example, the new town I live in is being massively expanded. Yet the overworked GP surgery is not being expanded to suit. Neither is the library. We still don't have a High Street, and the rental costs of the few shop units available are astronomical.
Oh, and congrats on the new addition to your family. Hope you're all well.
Investment follows demand, it doesn't precede it.
If a second GP surgery is needed, then invest in it.
If enough customers are there to make a High Street viable, then firms will (privately) invest in it.
If investment in the library is needed, then invest in it.
But none of that is an excuse to block housing.
I'm not looking for an excuse to block housing. But at the moment we're getting housing but not enough supporting infrastructure - and this really matters. I fear your vision for housing would just be sink estates in a couple of decades' time.
The bit of Cambridgeshire I know is St Ives, which I think is a similar population to your gaff, but as a historic town has way more infrastructure.
It's all very well saying that more infrastructure should be provided, but right now it clearly isn't. So something, maybe beefing up state provision, maybe nudging the invisible hand of the market, needs to change. Either that, or we need benevolent nobility to manage the process, as at Poundbury.
I agree. As it happens, my gaff was 'designed' in such a ways as to have infrastructure, and tbf it isn't too bad. The core Masterplan of 30 years ago wasn't bad. There are, for instance, five children's playgrounds; two cricket pitches/pavilions, a country park, lakes, a library, police station (mostly unmanned...), fire station, two Co-Ops and a large supermarket.
As an aside, I'm bemused to see the bus accessway to Broadway (*), which has only just had the land cleared for it to be built, despite it being rather important...
But that's what we need for any new settlement of any size: a masterplan. And if it is extended with new housing, the new masterplan has to take into account the existing settlement, as well as the new.
(*) A local road.
"Masterplan" is just an excuse to do nothing, when there is a chronic shortage today.
What's wrong with just investing in services wherever they are needed?
You guys acting like "excessive housing" is the issue are ignoring the chronic housing shortage. Being short on housing and infrastructure is two problems, fixing one problem is better than fixing neither - and once people are there then investing in infrastructure is more viable than before they are there where there's no guarantee that customers/employees will be available.
"What's wrong with just investing in services wherever they are needed?"
Because 'services' are almost everything you need. For instance, one excuse why we have not yet got a High Street is because the builders laid the services for the street not along the road, but along the space the shops were meant to be on. Meaning they need to be moved at massive expense if the land above is built on. Because of a balls-up in the plan. Without a plan, it would have happened much more.
Also if you have crammed houses into an area, where can the services go? How can you build a library in an area of dense housing? You need a plan to allow everything to function well. Water supply, sewage, power, Internet/comms, transport... these are all important, and utterly fail without a centralised plan.
"How can you build a library in an area of dense housing?"
Very easily.
Indeed just as you can convert shops to houses (its being done in much of the country, you can do the other way around too if need be.
If town is expanding outwards, then there's no reason you can't invest in a new library on the new edge of town either, if that's where the demand is. Which as town continues to expand it will not remain the edge either.
The builders for houses should only be building houses, not shops. The shops should have their own builders and fitters to lay down whatever they require, to their own specifications.
If you're talking about knocking down existing houses to build a library (or GP surgery, or whatever...) then that'd be massively more expensive that just building it in the first place.
"The shops should have their own builders and fitters to lay down whatever they require, to their own specifications."
I'd hate to see how many times the road would need to be dug up, and where all the sh*t goes...
"... then there's no reason you can't invest in a new library on the new edge of town either, if that's where the demand is."
You can, but that assumes that that's where the demand all is. It also means you need transport links to the new library, and that requires... yes, you've guessed it:
PLANNING.
Everything requires planning if it is to be done well.
In central London, most GP surgeries are just regular houses.
I see the Liverpool-supporting Mayor of London is lobbying for Premier League games to be played in the USA. Didn't see that in his manifesto this year.
He’s talking shite and has been roundly condemned by the fans.
Someone needs to ask the PM whether he supports the Mayor's efforts.
Why is a guy that grew up in South London to parents from Pakistan a Liverpool supporter? God, I hate glory-supporting plastics. That is why they support bonkers ideas like this. They don't understand the game because they didn't grow up actually going to the stadium and imbibing the culture.
Re Black Hole...as Paul Johnson from the IFS has said now with the OBR and more data than ever available there is no unknown surprise of a black hole. Excluding some rounding around the edge, all the numbers that are required are available to all. Its all theatre to claim you have only just discovered it.
No - it won't be a surprise to them because they were telling the truth during the election campaign and before. Meanwhile, Hunt was telling us that everything was wonderful - a delusion he carried forward to the King's Speech debate earlier this week.
Actually both Labour and the Tories were extremely reticent about addressing the implied 'black hole' in the finances which every financial commentator recognised was implied by Hunt's existing tax & spending plans.
Reeves is now fessing up to what everyone paying attention already knew.
Which makes her as least as much of a lying scumbag as the previous government.
My big gripe is with all the "Broken Britain" memes. I live in a small town that's rapidly being wrecked by excessive housebuilding without the construction of matching infrastructure ...
Sorry but there is no such thing as "excessive housebuilding".
We have a chronic housing shortage and there is nowhere in the country with a surplus of housing, so there is no "excessive" anywhere.
You may have a problem of a lack of infrastructure, many places do, but that is a reason to demand more infrastructure not fewer homes when we have a chronic housing shortage.
At last there seems to be a recognition of the importance of infrastructure in the housing/housebuilding crisis rather than the meaningless "build, build, build" mantra.
I'm more than happy to see hundreds of thousands of new homes built as long as the supporting infrastructure is in place and that's not just utilities or transport. It's making sure the existing community infrastructure of schools, libraries, health facilities, refuse collection and all the rest of the areas the pro-building lobby doesn't seem to either consider or think important are also in place or planned (I've used the "P" word, I'll be in trouble for that).
House builders and developers already contribute to this via Section 106 payments but these need to be ramped up as a development is far more than just the bricks, mortar and pipework. As an aside, there needs to be much rigorous inspection of newbuilds given the horror stories coming out about the poor quality of construction.
Sorry, but no "as long as".
Build, build, build is the only solution.
Yes we need other investments too, but they need to happen on top of (not before or instead of, or conditional upon or vice-versa) more housing.
Section 106 should be totally abolished in my view. All taxpayers equally should pay for new public infrastructure not just new home buyers. Private new infrastructure should be owned by the buyer privately, that's all they should be paying for.
So you want to build huge estates with no facilities and no compulsion to provide them in the hope that they get built some time in the future. You are mad.
Thatcher had this right 40 years ago. Those who profit should pay. Developers make vast sums from housing and they should be the ones to contribute to the services that help them make those profits. Section 106 should be reformed but mostly to make the compulsion on builders stronger. They should be the ones carrying the burden not the tax payer.
The taxpayer will already be carrying the increased burden going forward for the actual staffing and running of those facilities. They should not be paying out for the actual infrastructure as well.
No you are the mad one.
Thatcher was governing in a time of stable population, not rampant population growth and chronic housing shortages.
And completely agreed those who profit (benefit) from new infrastructure should pay for it . . . those who benefit from new public infrastructure is everyone, not new builds alone. Why shouldn't existing residents pay for new public infrastructure they'll benefit from?
Not so. The existing population does not benefit if new infrastructure is built to accomodate an increased population on new estates. GPs and schools operate on specific catchment areas and if you are not in those areas - ie not in the new estates - then you don't get to use the new infrastructure.
Instead of building a huge estate of 500 houses on the edge of town, why not try to build or convert 25 lots of 20 houses nearer the centre of town? Let’s encourage small builders and self builders instead of the big 7.
Indeed. And yet again Bart is wrong in claiming this can't be done due to planning. Of course it can and is being done in many places. But developers don't like it because there is some marginal additional cost and because they are generally forced to build smaller houses (the sorts people actually need) rather than 4 and 5 bedroom houses that they stick in all their estates.
Town developments are extremely popular with many new home owners and get snapped up a lot more quickly than the big estates because of the conveinence, particularly for younger buyers.
Re Black Hole...as Paul Johnson from the IFS has said now with the OBR and more data than ever available there is no unknown surprise of a black hole. Excluding some rounding around the edge, all the numbers that are required are available to all. Its all theatre to claim you have only just discovered it.
No - it won't be a surprise to them because they were telling the truth during the election campaign and before. Meanwhile, Hunt was telling us that everything was wonderful - a delusion he carried forward to the King's Speech debate earlier this week.
Actually both Labour and the Tories were extremely reticent about addressing the implied 'black hole' in the finances which every financial commentator recognised was implied by Hunt's existing tax & spending plans.
Reeves is now fessing up to what everyone paying attention already knew.
Which makes her as least as much of a lying scumbag as the previous government.
My big gripe is with all the "Broken Britain" memes. I live in a small town that's rapidly being wrecked by excessive housebuilding without the construction of matching infrastructure, but even so last few times I've needed to see a doctor I've had appointments done on the same day. My wife had a baby a couple of weeks ago - whilst I've a few issues with some of the post birth care, none of that was anything to do with resources, and more to do with staff who didn't listen to what they were told (and I found out subsequently in a couple of cases wrote the exact opposite of what they were told on the notes). (Snip)
". I live in a small town that's rapidly being wrecked by excessive housebuilding without the construction of matching infrastructure, "
This is where I think politicians have got it all wrong. They're concentrating on housebuilding, when we need to be concentrating on building communities.
The first is relatively easy. The second is much harder and more expensive, but vital.
As an example, the new town I live in is being massively expanded. Yet the overworked GP surgery is not being expanded to suit. Neither is the library. We still don't have a High Street, and the rental costs of the few shop units available are astronomical.
Oh, and congrats on the new addition to your family. Hope you're all well.
Investment follows demand, it doesn't precede it.
If a second GP surgery is needed, then invest in it.
If enough customers are there to make a High Street viable, then firms will (privately) invest in it.
If investment in the library is needed, then invest in it.
But none of that is an excuse to block housing.
I'm not looking for an excuse to block housing. But at the moment we're getting housing but not enough supporting infrastructure - and this really matters. I fear your vision for housing would just be sink estates in a couple of decades' time.
The bit of Cambridgeshire I know is St Ives, which I think is a similar population to your gaff, but as a historic town has way more infrastructure.
It's all very well saying that more infrastructure should be provided, but right now it clearly isn't. So something, maybe beefing up state provision, maybe nudging the invisible hand of the market, needs to change. Either that, or we need benevolent nobility to manage the process, as at Poundbury.
I agree. As it happens, my gaff was 'designed' in such a ways as to have infrastructure, and tbf it isn't too bad. The core Masterplan of 30 years ago wasn't bad. There are, for instance, five children's playgrounds; two cricket pitches/pavilions, a country park, lakes, a library, police station (mostly unmanned...), fire station, two Co-Ops and a large supermarket.
As an aside, I'm bemused to see the bus accessway to Broadway (*), which has only just had the land cleared for it to be built, despite it being rather important...
But that's what we need for any new settlement of any size: a masterplan. And if it is extended with new housing, the new masterplan has to take into account the existing settlement, as well as the new.
(*) A local road.
"Masterplan" is just an excuse to do nothing, when there is a chronic shortage today.
What's wrong with just investing in services wherever they are needed?
You guys acting like "excessive housing" is the issue are ignoring the chronic housing shortage. Being short on housing and infrastructure is two problems, fixing one problem is better than fixing neither - and once people are there then investing in infrastructure is more viable than before they are there where there's no guarantee that customers/employees will be available.
"What's wrong with just investing in services wherever they are needed?"
Because 'services' are almost everything you need. For instance, one excuse why we have not yet got a High Street is because the builders laid the services for the street not along the road, but along the space the shops were meant to be on. Meaning they need to be moved at massive expense if the land above is built on. Because of a balls-up in the plan. Without a plan, it would have happened much more.
Also if you have crammed houses into an area, where can the services go? How can you build a library in an area of dense housing? You need a plan to allow everything to function well. Water supply, sewage, power, Internet/comms, transport... these are all important, and utterly fail without a centralised plan.
"How can you build a library in an area of dense housing?"
Very easily.
Indeed just as you can convert shops to houses (its being done in much of the country, you can do the other way around too if need be.
If town is expanding outwards, then there's no reason you can't invest in a new library on the new edge of town either, if that's where the demand is. Which as town continues to expand it will not remain the edge either.
The builders for houses should only be building houses, not shops. The shops should have their own builders and fitters to lay down whatever they require, to their own specifications.
If you're talking about knocking down existing houses to build a library (or GP surgery, or whatever...) then that'd be massively more expensive that just building it in the first place.
"The shops should have their own builders and fitters to lay down whatever they require, to their own specifications."
I'd hate to see how many times the road would need to be dug up, and where all the sh*t goes...
"... then there's no reason you can't invest in a new library on the new edge of town either, if that's where the demand is."
You can, but that assumes that that's where the demand all is. It also means you need transport links to the new library, and that requires... yes, you've guessed it:
PLANNING.
Everything requires planning if it is to be done well.
In central London, most GP surgeries are just regular houses.
Re Black Hole...as Paul Johnson from the IFS has said now with the OBR and more data than ever available there is no unknown surprise of a black hole. Excluding some rounding around the edge, all the numbers that are required are available to all. Its all theatre to claim you have only just discovered it.
No - it won't be a surprise to them because they were telling the truth during the election campaign and before. Meanwhile, Hunt was telling us that everything was wonderful - a delusion he carried forward to the King's Speech debate earlier this week.
Actually both Labour and the Tories were extremely reticent about addressing the implied 'black hole' in the finances which every financial commentator recognised was implied by Hunt's existing tax & spending plans.
Reeves is now fessing up to what everyone paying attention already knew.
Which makes her as least as much of a lying scumbag as the previous government.
My big gripe is with all the "Broken Britain" memes. I live in a small town that's rapidly being wrecked by excessive housebuilding without the construction of matching infrastructure, but even so last few times I've needed to see a doctor I've had appointments done on the same day. My wife had a baby a couple of weeks ago - whilst I've a few issues with some of the post birth care, none of that was anything to do with resources, and more to do with staff who didn't listen to what they were told (and I found out subsequently in a couple of cases wrote the exact opposite of what they were told on the notes). (Snip)
". I live in a small town that's rapidly being wrecked by excessive housebuilding without the construction of matching infrastructure, "
This is where I think politicians have got it all wrong. They're concentrating on housebuilding, when we need to be concentrating on building communities.
The first is relatively easy. The second is much harder and more expensive, but vital.
As an example, the new town I live in is being massively expanded. Yet the overworked GP surgery is not being expanded to suit. Neither is the library. We still don't have a High Street, and the rental costs of the few shop units available are astronomical.
Oh, and congrats on the new addition to your family. Hope you're all well.
Investment follows demand, it doesn't precede it.
If a second GP surgery is needed, then invest in it.
If enough customers are there to make a High Street viable, then firms will (privately) invest in it.
If investment in the library is needed, then invest in it.
But none of that is an excuse to block housing.
I'm not looking for an excuse to block housing. But at the moment we're getting housing but not enough supporting infrastructure - and this really matters. I fear your vision for housing would just be sink estates in a couple of decades' time.
The bit of Cambridgeshire I know is St Ives, which I think is a similar population to your gaff, but as a historic town has way more infrastructure.
It's all very well saying that more infrastructure should be provided, but right now it clearly isn't. So something, maybe beefing up state provision, maybe nudging the invisible hand of the market, needs to change. Either that, or we need benevolent nobility to manage the process, as at Poundbury.
I agree. As it happens, my gaff was 'designed' in such a ways as to have infrastructure, and tbf it isn't too bad. The core Masterplan of 30 years ago wasn't bad. There are, for instance, five children's playgrounds; two cricket pitches/pavilions, a country park, lakes, a library, police station (mostly unmanned...), fire station, two Co-Ops and a large supermarket.
As an aside, I'm bemused to see the bus accessway to Broadway (*), which has only just had the land cleared for it to be built, despite it being rather important...
But that's what we need for any new settlement of any size: a masterplan. And if it is extended with new housing, the new masterplan has to take into account the existing settlement, as well as the new.
(*) A local road.
"Masterplan" is just an excuse to do nothing, when there is a chronic shortage today.
What's wrong with just investing in services wherever they are needed?
You guys acting like "excessive housing" is the issue are ignoring the chronic housing shortage. Being short on housing and infrastructure is two problems, fixing one problem is better than fixing neither - and once people are there then investing in infrastructure is more viable than before they are there where there's no guarantee that customers/employees will be available.
"What's wrong with just investing in services wherever they are needed?"
Because 'services' are almost everything you need. For instance, one excuse why we have not yet got a High Street is because the builders laid the services for the street not along the road, but along the space the shops were meant to be on. Meaning they need to be moved at massive expense if the land above is built on. Because of a balls-up in the plan. Without a plan, it would have happened much more.
Also if you have crammed houses into an area, where can the services go? How can you build a library in an area of dense housing? You need a plan to allow everything to function well. Water supply, sewage, power, Internet/comms, transport... these are all important, and utterly fail without a centralised plan.
"How can you build a library in an area of dense housing?"
Very easily.
Indeed just as you can convert shops to houses (its being done in much of the country, you can do the other way around too if need be.
If town is expanding outwards, then there's no reason you can't invest in a new library on the new edge of town either, if that's where the demand is. Which as town continues to expand it will not remain the edge either.
The builders for houses should only be building houses, not shops. The shops should have their own builders and fitters to lay down whatever they require, to their own specifications.
If you're talking about knocking down existing houses to build a library (or GP surgery, or whatever...) then that'd be massively more expensive that just building it in the first place.
"The shops should have their own builders and fitters to lay down whatever they require, to their own specifications."
I'd hate to see how many times the road would need to be dug up, and where all the sh*t goes...
"... then there's no reason you can't invest in a new library on the new edge of town either, if that's where the demand is."
You can, but that assumes that that's where the demand all is. It also means you need transport links to the new library, and that requires... yes, you've guessed it:
PLANNING.
Everything requires planning if it is to be done well.
On a minor point, my Mum was a GP. Her surgery was in an adapted house. Nothing needed to be knocked down. The practice she'd been with before she went solo was the same. The practice she'd trained in was the same. The practice she continued to work at part-time after partial retirement was the same.
Now, governments have pushed GPs away from small practices to big multi-GP clinics in purpose built facilities, but that's not a necessity.
I was once told that this was to avoid a repeat of Harold Shipman single man practices.
There's that, and there's the little matter of day-to-day professional support. Can be lonely, being a single handed GP. Or any other health professional, for that matter.
Re Black Hole...as Paul Johnson from the IFS has said now with the OBR and more data than ever available there is no unknown surprise of a black hole. Excluding some rounding around the edge, all the numbers that are required are available to all. Its all theatre to claim you have only just discovered it.
No - it won't be a surprise to them because they were telling the truth during the election campaign and before. Meanwhile, Hunt was telling us that everything was wonderful - a delusion he carried forward to the King's Speech debate earlier this week.
Actually both Labour and the Tories were extremely reticent about addressing the implied 'black hole' in the finances which every financial commentator recognised was implied by Hunt's existing tax & spending plans.
Reeves is now fessing up to what everyone paying attention already knew.
Which makes her as least as much of a lying scumbag as the previous government.
My big gripe is with all the "Broken Britain" memes. I live in a small town that's rapidly being wrecked by excessive housebuilding without the construction of matching infrastructure, but even so last few times I've needed to see a doctor I've had appointments done on the same day. My wife had a baby a couple of weeks ago - whilst I've a few issues with some of the post birth care, none of that was anything to do with resources, and more to do with staff who didn't listen to what they were told (and I found out subsequently in a couple of cases wrote the exact opposite of what they were told on the notes). (Snip)
". I live in a small town that's rapidly being wrecked by excessive housebuilding without the construction of matching infrastructure, "
This is where I think politicians have got it all wrong. They're concentrating on housebuilding, when we need to be concentrating on building communities.
The first is relatively easy. The second is much harder and more expensive, but vital.
As an example, the new town I live in is being massively expanded. Yet the overworked GP surgery is not being expanded to suit. Neither is the library. We still don't have a High Street, and the rental costs of the few shop units available are astronomical.
Oh, and congrats on the new addition to your family. Hope you're all well.
Investment follows demand, it doesn't precede it.
If a second GP surgery is needed, then invest in it.
If enough customers are there to make a High Street viable, then firms will (privately) invest in it.
If investment in the library is needed, then invest in it.
But none of that is an excuse to block housing.
I'm not looking for an excuse to block housing. But at the moment we're getting housing but not enough supporting infrastructure - and this really matters. I fear your vision for housing would just be sink estates in a couple of decades' time.
The bit of Cambridgeshire I know is St Ives, which I think is a similar population to your gaff, but as a historic town has way more infrastructure.
It's all very well saying that more infrastructure should be provided, but right now it clearly isn't. So something, maybe beefing up state provision, maybe nudging the invisible hand of the market, needs to change. Either that, or we need benevolent nobility to manage the process, as at Poundbury.
I agree. As it happens, my gaff was 'designed' in such a ways as to have infrastructure, and tbf it isn't too bad. The core Masterplan of 30 years ago wasn't bad. There are, for instance, five children's playgrounds; two cricket pitches/pavilions, a country park, lakes, a library, police station (mostly unmanned...), fire station, two Co-Ops and a large supermarket.
As an aside, I'm bemused to see the bus accessway to Broadway (*), which has only just had the land cleared for it to be built, despite it being rather important...
But that's what we need for any new settlement of any size: a masterplan. And if it is extended with new housing, the new masterplan has to take into account the existing settlement, as well as the new.
(*) A local road.
"Masterplan" is just an excuse to do nothing, when there is a chronic shortage today.
What's wrong with just investing in services wherever they are needed?
You guys acting like "excessive housing" is the issue are ignoring the chronic housing shortage. Being short on housing and infrastructure is two problems, fixing one problem is better than fixing neither - and once people are there then investing in infrastructure is more viable than before they are there where there's no guarantee that customers/employees will be available.
"What's wrong with just investing in services wherever they are needed?"
Because 'services' are almost everything you need. For instance, one excuse why we have not yet got a High Street is because the builders laid the services for the street not along the road, but along the space the shops were meant to be on. Meaning they need to be moved at massive expense if the land above is built on. Because of a balls-up in the plan. Without a plan, it would have happened much more.
Also if you have crammed houses into an area, where can the services go? How can you build a library in an area of dense housing? You need a plan to allow everything to function well. Water supply, sewage, power, Internet/comms, transport... these are all important, and utterly fail without a centralised plan.
"How can you build a library in an area of dense housing?"
Very easily.
Indeed just as you can convert shops to houses (its being done in much of the country, you can do the other way around too if need be.
If town is expanding outwards, then there's no reason you can't invest in a new library on the new edge of town either, if that's where the demand is. Which as town continues to expand it will not remain the edge either.
The builders for houses should only be building houses, not shops. The shops should have their own builders and fitters to lay down whatever they require, to their own specifications.
If you're talking about knocking down existing houses to build a library (or GP surgery, or whatever...) then that'd be massively more expensive that just building it in the first place.
"The shops should have their own builders and fitters to lay down whatever they require, to their own specifications."
I'd hate to see how many times the road would need to be dug up, and where all the sh*t goes...
"... then there's no reason you can't invest in a new library on the new edge of town either, if that's where the demand is."
You can, but that assumes that that's where the demand all is. It also means you need transport links to the new library, and that requires... yes, you've guessed it:
PLANNING.
Everything requires planning if it is to be done well.
In central London, most GP surgeries are just regular houses.
And completely shite.
My experience of the Fitzroy Square practice was always excellent. But mileages will obviously vary.
Re Black Hole...as Paul Johnson from the IFS has said now with the OBR and more data than ever available there is no unknown surprise of a black hole. Excluding some rounding around the edge, all the numbers that are required are available to all. Its all theatre to claim you have only just discovered it.
No - it won't be a surprise to them because they were telling the truth during the election campaign and before. Meanwhile, Hunt was telling us that everything was wonderful - a delusion he carried forward to the King's Speech debate earlier this week.
Actually both Labour and the Tories were extremely reticent about addressing the implied 'black hole' in the finances which every financial commentator recognised was implied by Hunt's existing tax & spending plans.
Reeves is now fessing up to what everyone paying attention already knew.
Which makes her as least as much of a lying scumbag as the previous government.
My big gripe is with all the "Broken Britain" memes. I live in a small town that's rapidly being wrecked by excessive housebuilding without the construction of matching infrastructure ...
Sorry but there is no such thing as "excessive housebuilding".
We have a chronic housing shortage and there is nowhere in the country with a surplus of housing, so there is no "excessive" anywhere.
You may have a problem of a lack of infrastructure, many places do, but that is a reason to demand more infrastructure not fewer homes when we have a chronic housing shortage.
At last there seems to be a recognition of the importance of infrastructure in the housing/housebuilding crisis rather than the meaningless "build, build, build" mantra.
I'm more than happy to see hundreds of thousands of new homes built as long as the supporting infrastructure is in place and that's not just utilities or transport. It's making sure the existing community infrastructure of schools, libraries, health facilities, refuse collection and all the rest of the areas the pro-building lobby doesn't seem to either consider or think important are also in place or planned (I've used the "P" word, I'll be in trouble for that).
House builders and developers already contribute to this via Section 106 payments but these need to be ramped up as a development is far more than just the bricks, mortar and pipework. As an aside, there needs to be much rigorous inspection of newbuilds given the horror stories coming out about the poor quality of construction.
Sorry, but no "as long as".
Build, build, build is the only solution.
Yes we need other investments too, but they need to happen on top of (not before or instead of, or conditional upon or vice-versa) more housing.
Section 106 should be totally abolished in my view. All taxpayers equally should pay for new public infrastructure not just new home buyers. Private new infrastructure should be owned by the buyer privately, that's all they should be paying for.
So you want to build huge estates with no facilities and no compulsion to provide them in the hope that they get built some time in the future. You are mad.
Thatcher had this right 40 years ago. Those who profit should pay. Developers make vast sums from housing and they should be the ones to contribute to the services that help them make those profits. Section 106 should be reformed but mostly to make the compulsion on builders stronger. They should be the ones carrying the burden not the tax payer.
The taxpayer will already be carrying the increased burden going forward for the actual staffing and running of those facilities. They should not be paying out for the actual infrastructure as well.
Barty ignores the externalities of his build, build, build vision. He says build anywhere in the middle of the field down the road, not understanding that to supply water and power and whatnot to the middle of that field will require amendment to the existing infrastructure of existing residents and I am sure he is enough of a democrat to appreciate that those locals should have a say in the development of that existing infrastructure.
There are no externalities is why.
People require housing and services. The people are already in this country.
Building houses doesn't increase the demand for services, it just lowers the shortage of supply of housing. The demand for services remains the same, since the population remains the same.
You said you wanted to build anywhere. That involves externalities. Not in the middle of cities, but some of the places you have said you want to build, build, build.
No it doesn't. Since demand for services comes from people, not houses, and there isn't anywhere in the country that has a surplus of homes currently, so everywhere would benefit from more construction currently, there are no externalities.
All taxpayers should pay taxes equally. All taxpayers should pay equally for public services, not only those who live in a new home paying for them.
You can't build a house without an outlet to the sewerage system, unless you want to go backj to the good old pre-Bazalgette days.
So it's houses not people that demand the capital cost of services. Ditto power, water, broadband. All need to be installed collectiveluy before people come in.
Later runnign cost is another matter, sure. But that is not what we are talking about when it comes to house *building*.
Given what we are seeing in Ukraine, doing something like this is incredible stupid.
Priestman removed as Olympic boss over drone incident https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/articles/c2x0y786rv0o Canada women's football manager Beverly Priestman has been removed as Olympic head coach and suspended by the country's football federation as the fall out continued after a drone was flown over New Zealand's training session on Monday. Canada Soccer said it took the action because "over the past 24 hours, additional information has come to our attention regarding previous drone use against opponents, predating the Paris 2024 Olympic Games". English-born Priestman, 38, had "voluntarily" withdrawn from her side's opening 2-0 victory over the Kiwis on Thursday, while Jasmine Mander, Priestman's assistant, was sent home along with "unaccredited analyst" Joseph Lombardi. On Thursday a French court said Lombardi had been handed an eight-month suspended jail sentence after pleading guilty to flying a drone in an urban area without a licence...
The prospect of weaponised drones at mass public events is now a pretty scary one. And there aren't, for now, any good answers to the problem.
License them very strictly.
They already are; that doesn't really address the problem of someone wanting to use them for disruption, or worse.
Looks like I can buy them off Amazon delivered tomorrow. Why? Essentially I am suggesting ban them as a leisure/hobby item.
After the Balkan wars there was a very large supply of AK47s etc around the whole of Europe which thankfully never really took off here. The participants in the Ukraine war are now producing hundreds of thousands of drones specifically designed to deliver explosive charges each a year. It is extremely optimistic to assume that criminals and terrorists are not going to get some of these.
Police and security forces need to learn how to knock these out, whether by lasers, ABMs, EMP pulses or whatever. If they don't events like the Olympics may become an unacceptable risk.
We do a very good job of keeping out unlicensed firearms which are produced in even greater numbers worldwide. Drones should be treated like weapons. Drone hobbyists is as niche an activity as gun clubs and closing it down as a hobby item is clearly justified. They should not be available to consumers on the likes of amazon.
The global drone market is considerably larger than that for firearms. And it's a lot easier to build your own.
It's far from a niche activity - there are at least half a million registered users in the UK. And probably a lot more unregistered.
If the security situation wrt Ukraine starts coming to other countries, which I think we can expect if Russia is not soundly defeated, I think we can rightly expect more severe regulation.
In Ukraine they are using drones which carry a couple of kilos of explosives.
He didn't listen to the message, and thought (like Trump) that he could ignore the law, so he got 5 years for the attack on the M25. He now gets to see if his "gum up the prisons" strategy works.
Stopping the production and use of drones would be difficult.
But we're quite 'lucky' in that we already have fairly strong regulations in place to prevent possible payloads; namely guns and explosives. A drone hitting you might be nasty, especially given the size of some of the quad- and octo-copters, but it's hard for it to do widespread damage without explosives. And if you can make explosives, there might be easier ways of getting to the targets you need to fulfil your aims.
The targets being civilians...
IMO it's like anything else - we make a decision how far to not regulate / regulate / ban / acr / not act on the basis of risk, technicalities, ease of 'doing something', and a balance of each possible measure. And the impact, and whether it will help in distinguishing "threats" from casual use.
In drones, I can see the free-for-all at the lower end for lighter drones being tightened, plus technical measures being put in around some sites, and "right to fly over private land" restricted somewhat.
The same principles imo apply all over. Consider something as mundane as our insecure number plates on vehicles, and the 1-2 million false plates we have. A range of measures are available, with associated costs (eg crime is made easier, extra regulation of supply chain, maybe extra policing) and benefits (casual crime is made more difficult, more careful policing helps intelligence and detection of other crime).
Re Black Hole...as Paul Johnson from the IFS has said now with the OBR and more data than ever available there is no unknown surprise of a black hole. Excluding some rounding around the edge, all the numbers that are required are available to all. Its all theatre to claim you have only just discovered it.
No - it won't be a surprise to them because they were telling the truth during the election campaign and before. Meanwhile, Hunt was telling us that everything was wonderful - a delusion he carried forward to the King's Speech debate earlier this week.
Actually both Labour and the Tories were extremely reticent about addressing the implied 'black hole' in the finances which every financial commentator recognised was implied by Hunt's existing tax & spending plans.
Reeves is now fessing up to what everyone paying attention already knew.
Which makes her as least as much of a lying scumbag as the previous government.
My big gripe is with all the "Broken Britain" memes. I live in a small town that's rapidly being wrecked by excessive housebuilding without the construction of matching infrastructure ...
Sorry but there is no such thing as "excessive housebuilding".
We have a chronic housing shortage and there is nowhere in the country with a surplus of housing, so there is no "excessive" anywhere.
You may have a problem of a lack of infrastructure, many places do, but that is a reason to demand more infrastructure not fewer homes when we have a chronic housing shortage.
At last there seems to be a recognition of the importance of infrastructure in the housing/housebuilding crisis rather than the meaningless "build, build, build" mantra.
I'm more than happy to see hundreds of thousands of new homes built as long as the supporting infrastructure is in place and that's not just utilities or transport. It's making sure the existing community infrastructure of schools, libraries, health facilities, refuse collection and all the rest of the areas the pro-building lobby doesn't seem to either consider or think important are also in place or planned (I've used the "P" word, I'll be in trouble for that).
House builders and developers already contribute to this via Section 106 payments but these need to be ramped up as a development is far more than just the bricks, mortar and pipework. As an aside, there needs to be much rigorous inspection of newbuilds given the horror stories coming out about the poor quality of construction.
Sorry, but no "as long as".
Build, build, build is the only solution.
Yes we need other investments too, but they need to happen on top of (not before or instead of, or conditional upon or vice-versa) more housing.
Section 106 should be totally abolished in my view. All taxpayers equally should pay for new public infrastructure not just new home buyers. Private new infrastructure should be owned by the buyer privately, that's all they should be paying for.
So you want to build huge estates with no facilities and no compulsion to provide them in the hope that they get built some time in the future. You are mad.
Thatcher had this right 40 years ago. Those who profit should pay. Developers make vast sums from housing and they should be the ones to contribute to the services that help them make those profits. Section 106 should be reformed but mostly to make the compulsion on builders stronger. They should be the ones carrying the burden not the tax payer.
The taxpayer will already be carrying the increased burden going forward for the actual staffing and running of those facilities. They should not be paying out for the actual infrastructure as well.
No you are the mad one.
Thatcher was governing in a time of stable population, not rampant population growth and chronic housing shortages.
And completely agreed those who profit (benefit) from new infrastructure should pay for it . . . those who benefit from new public infrastructure is everyone, not new builds alone. Why shouldn't existing residents pay for new public infrastructure they'll benefit from?
Not so. The existing population does not benefit if new infrastructure is built to accomodate an increased population on new estates. GPs and schools operate on specific catchment areas and if you are not in those areas - ie not in the new estates - then you don't get to use the new infrastructure.
The population has already increased in this country Richard. You and I have both supported that.
There is nowhere in this country with a surplus of housing that is being emptied to relocate towards somewhere with a shortage of homes, there is a shortage of homes everywhere.
There are people living in overcrowded homes, that need a home of their own everywhere.
There isn't a school in the country that I know of that has a catchment area of one estate alone, that's a ridiculous suggestion.
The difference being I want to build new houses by actually addressing the issues, not by casting away all the planning regs because you are too ignorant to understand what they do.
I have advocated for building new towns and for more building generally. But you have this perverse unfounded idea that it is planning that stops new houses being built. It isn't. No matter how much the developers and their political shills might claim it is. Planning makes sure the houses that are built are fit to live in and don't cause yet more problems for the whole community further down the line. They also ensure that the people who profit - the developers - pay for the infrastructure which supports the new developments that provide their profits.
Planning does not stop houses being built. Developers do that.
This is on a par with the sort of things that happened in Ireland in 1921.
"France’s train network sabotaged in ‘massive arson attack’ hours ahead of Olympics opening ceremony Services on several routes cancelled after TGV facilities damaged, country’s rail operator says
“SNCF was the victim of several simultaneous malicious acts overnight,” the national train operator said, adding that the attacks affected its Atlantic, northern and eastern lines."
Actually it happened in France before, on the 5th/6th of June 1944.
It was the only language they understood
The Russians are cruising for a hell of a kicking. This more or less open sabotage will lead to blow back. I came back from France yesterday and the mood towards Russia is increasingly hostile. If there is a successful sabotage, I think the DGSE will really go after the organisers as well as the perpetrators.
What makes you think it is the Russians?
Because the French government warned of a direct threat a couple of days ago when they arrested a sleeper agent.
Obviously signalling what might happen.
Good points
You all have one-track minds.
That's hard to gauge.
No need to get cross.
No raillery from me.
Why? Not your station in life?
I branched out.
Like the Russians.
They've gone from people in spired by religious architecture to using sleeper agents.
Do they have miles to go before they sleep by any chance?
This is on a par with the sort of things that happened in Ireland in 1921.
"France’s train network sabotaged in ‘massive arson attack’ hours ahead of Olympics opening ceremony Services on several routes cancelled after TGV facilities damaged, country’s rail operator says
“SNCF was the victim of several simultaneous malicious acts overnight,” the national train operator said, adding that the attacks affected its Atlantic, northern and eastern lines."
Actually it happened in France before, on the 5th/6th of June 1944.
It was the only language they understood
The Russians are cruising for a hell of a kicking. This more or less open sabotage will lead to blow back. I came back from France yesterday and the mood towards Russia is increasingly hostile. If there is a successful sabotage, I think the DGSE will really go after the organisers as well as the perpetrators.
What makes you think it is the Russians?
Because the French government warned of a direct threat a couple of days ago when they arrested a sleeper agent.
Obviously signalling what might happen.
Good points
You all have one-track minds.
That's hard to gauge.
No need to get cross.
No raillery from me.
Why? Not your station in life?
I branched out.
Like the Russians.
They've gone from people in spired by religious architecture to using sleeper agents.
Do they have miles to go before they sleep by any chance?
Texas is going through a demographic change that is somewhat analogous to the English South coast. It's becoming more like California, not least because lots of Californians are moving there. It won't switch to the Dems for this election but feasible over the next ten years I think.
Except most of the Californians moving to Texas are conservatives seeking lower taxes, cheaper homes and less woke not liberals
Re Black Hole...as Paul Johnson from the IFS has said now with the OBR and more data than ever available there is no unknown surprise of a black hole. Excluding some rounding around the edge, all the numbers that are required are available to all. Its all theatre to claim you have only just discovered it.
No - it won't be a surprise to them because they were telling the truth during the election campaign and before. Meanwhile, Hunt was telling us that everything was wonderful - a delusion he carried forward to the King's Speech debate earlier this week.
Actually both Labour and the Tories were extremely reticent about addressing the implied 'black hole' in the finances which every financial commentator recognised was implied by Hunt's existing tax & spending plans.
Reeves is now fessing up to what everyone paying attention already knew.
Which makes her as least as much of a lying scumbag as the previous government.
My big gripe is with all the "Broken Britain" memes. I live in a small town that's rapidly being wrecked by excessive housebuilding without the construction of matching infrastructure ...
Sorry but there is no such thing as "excessive housebuilding".
We have a chronic housing shortage and there is nowhere in the country with a surplus of housing, so there is no "excessive" anywhere.
You may have a problem of a lack of infrastructure, many places do, but that is a reason to demand more infrastructure not fewer homes when we have a chronic housing shortage.
At last there seems to be a recognition of the importance of infrastructure in the housing/housebuilding crisis rather than the meaningless "build, build, build" mantra.
I'm more than happy to see hundreds of thousands of new homes built as long as the supporting infrastructure is in place and that's not just utilities or transport. It's making sure the existing community infrastructure of schools, libraries, health facilities, refuse collection and all the rest of the areas the pro-building lobby doesn't seem to either consider or think important are also in place or planned (I've used the "P" word, I'll be in trouble for that).
House builders and developers already contribute to this via Section 106 payments but these need to be ramped up as a development is far more than just the bricks, mortar and pipework. As an aside, there needs to be much rigorous inspection of newbuilds given the horror stories coming out about the poor quality of construction.
Sorry, but no "as long as".
Build, build, build is the only solution.
Yes we need other investments too, but they need to happen on top of (not before or instead of, or conditional upon or vice-versa) more housing.
Section 106 should be totally abolished in my view. All taxpayers equally should pay for new public infrastructure not just new home buyers. Private new infrastructure should be owned by the buyer privately, that's all they should be paying for.
So you want to build huge estates with no facilities and no compulsion to provide them in the hope that they get built some time in the future. You are mad.
Thatcher had this right 40 years ago. Those who profit should pay. Developers make vast sums from housing and they should be the ones to contribute to the services that help them make those profits. Section 106 should be reformed but mostly to make the compulsion on builders stronger. They should be the ones carrying the burden not the tax payer.
The taxpayer will already be carrying the increased burden going forward for the actual staffing and running of those facilities. They should not be paying out for the actual infrastructure as well.
No you are the mad one.
Thatcher was governing in a time of stable population, not rampant population growth and chronic housing shortages.
And completely agreed those who profit (benefit) from new infrastructure should pay for it . . . those who benefit from new public infrastructure is everyone, not new builds alone. Why shouldn't existing residents pay for new public infrastructure they'll benefit from?
Not so. The existing population does not benefit if new infrastructure is built to accomodate an increased population on new estates. GPs and schools operate on specific catchment areas and if you are not in those areas - ie not in the new estates - then you don't get to use the new infrastructure.
The population has already increased in this country Richard. You and I have both supported that.
There is nowhere in this country with a surplus of housing that is being emptied to relocate towards somewhere with a shortage of homes, there is a shortage of homes everywhere.
There are people living in overcrowded homes, that need a home of their own everywhere.
There isn't a school in the country that I know of that has a catchment area of one estate alone, that's a ridiculous suggestion.
The difference being I want to build new houses by actually addressing the issues, not by casting away all the planning regs because you are too ignorant to understand what they do.
I have advocated for building new towns and for more building generally. But you have this perverse unfounded idea that it is planning that stops new houses being built. It isn't. No matter how much the developers and their political shills might claim it is. Planning makes sure the houses that are built are fit to live in and don't cause yet more problems for the whole community further down the line. They also ensure that the people who profit - the developers - pay for the infrastructure which supports the new developments that provide their profits.
Planning does not stop houses being built. Developers do that.
It is the planning system that hands powers to the developers by blocking competition.
Anyone who wants to should be able to build a home. They can't, as they need permission first.
It's not the developers who profit from public infrastructure, it's the entire public.
Name a single school or GP surgery in the entire country that has only one estate as its catchment area. It's patent bullshit.
Texas is going through a demographic change that is somewhat analogous to the English South coast. It's becoming more like California, not least because lots of Californians are moving there. It won't switch to the Dems for this election but feasible over the next ten years I think.
Except most of the Californians moving to Texas are conservatives seeking lower taxes, cheaper homes and less woke not liberals
How do you explain Arizona turning purple?
Arizona voted for Clinton in 1996, Texas voted for Dole. Arizona has long been a lean Republican swing state
Re Black Hole...as Paul Johnson from the IFS has said now with the OBR and more data than ever available there is no unknown surprise of a black hole. Excluding some rounding around the edge, all the numbers that are required are available to all. Its all theatre to claim you have only just discovered it.
No - it won't be a surprise to them because they were telling the truth during the election campaign and before. Meanwhile, Hunt was telling us that everything was wonderful - a delusion he carried forward to the King's Speech debate earlier this week.
Actually both Labour and the Tories were extremely reticent about addressing the implied 'black hole' in the finances which every financial commentator recognised was implied by Hunt's existing tax & spending plans.
Reeves is now fessing up to what everyone paying attention already knew.
Which makes her as least as much of a lying scumbag as the previous government.
My big gripe is with all the "Broken Britain" memes. I live in a small town that's rapidly being wrecked by excessive housebuilding without the construction of matching infrastructure ...
Sorry but there is no such thing as "excessive housebuilding".
We have a chronic housing shortage and there is nowhere in the country with a surplus of housing, so there is no "excessive" anywhere.
You may have a problem of a lack of infrastructure, many places do, but that is a reason to demand more infrastructure not fewer homes when we have a chronic housing shortage.
At last there seems to be a recognition of the importance of infrastructure in the housing/housebuilding crisis rather than the meaningless "build, build, build" mantra.
I'm more than happy to see hundreds of thousands of new homes built as long as the supporting infrastructure is in place and that's not just utilities or transport. It's making sure the existing community infrastructure of schools, libraries, health facilities, refuse collection and all the rest of the areas the pro-building lobby doesn't seem to either consider or think important are also in place or planned (I've used the "P" word, I'll be in trouble for that).
House builders and developers already contribute to this via Section 106 payments but these need to be ramped up as a development is far more than just the bricks, mortar and pipework. As an aside, there needs to be much rigorous inspection of newbuilds given the horror stories coming out about the poor quality of construction.
Sorry, but no "as long as".
Build, build, build is the only solution.
Yes we need other investments too, but they need to happen on top of (not before or instead of, or conditional upon or vice-versa) more housing.
Section 106 should be totally abolished in my view. All taxpayers equally should pay for new public infrastructure not just new home buyers. Private new infrastructure should be owned by the buyer privately, that's all they should be paying for.
So you want to build huge estates with no facilities and no compulsion to provide them in the hope that they get built some time in the future. You are mad.
Thatcher had this right 40 years ago. Those who profit should pay. Developers make vast sums from housing and they should be the ones to contribute to the services that help them make those profits. Section 106 should be reformed but mostly to make the compulsion on builders stronger. They should be the ones carrying the burden not the tax payer.
The taxpayer will already be carrying the increased burden going forward for the actual staffing and running of those facilities. They should not be paying out for the actual infrastructure as well.
Barty ignores the externalities of his build, build, build vision. He says build anywhere in the middle of the field down the road, not understanding that to supply water and power and whatnot to the middle of that field will require amendment to the existing infrastructure of existing residents and I am sure he is enough of a democrat to appreciate that those locals should have a say in the development of that existing infrastructure.
There are no externalities is why.
People require housing and services. The people are already in this country.
Building houses doesn't increase the demand for services, it just lowers the shortage of supply of housing. The demand for services remains the same, since the population remains the same.
You said you wanted to build anywhere. That involves externalities. Not in the middle of cities, but some of the places you have said you want to build, build, build.
No it doesn't. Since demand for services comes from people, not houses, and there isn't anywhere in the country that has a surplus of homes currently, so everywhere would benefit from more construction currently, there are no externalities.
All taxpayers should pay taxes equally. All taxpayers should pay equally for public services, not only those who live in a new home paying for them.
You can't build a house without an outlet to the sewerage system, unless you want to go backj to the good old pre-Bazalgette days.
So it's houses not people that demand the capital cost of services. Ditto power, water, broadband. All need to be installed collectiveluy before people come in.
Later runnign cost is another matter, sure. But that is not what we are talking about when it comes to house *building*.
That's the balance though. The cost-to-me focussed developer will balance a capital cost for himself vs a more expensive to run cost later on for the purchaser - as he is only exposed to one part of the lifecycle cost and wants others to pay out of the bits they are exposed to.
For regulation we need to consider both and what are our objectives as a country / society. I don't believe NOW and FUTURE they can be split.
The same factors apply to "infra" on and around the schemes. A good indicator is if the developer wants the Council to "adopt" eg the roads including the lamp posts - the charge ("commuted sum" iirc) for doing so will include an amount for maintenance and replacement for N decades for each lamp post.
Various Councils have their charging structures online.
So that type of factor may drive the developer back to individual treatment plants and a company with one share per dwelling to manage the development, to avoid costs of adoption.
Texas is going through a demographic change that is somewhat analogous to the English South coast. It's becoming more like California, not least because lots of Californians are moving there. It won't switch to the Dems for this election but feasible over the next ten years I think.
Except most of the Californians moving to Texas are conservatives seeking lower taxes, cheaper homes and less woke not liberals
How do you explain Arizona turning purple?
Arizona voted for Clinton in 1996, Texas voted for Dole. Arizona has long been a lean Republican swing state
Nevertheless, as Californians have moved to Arizona, it has become increasingly Democrat.
That means the GOP operatives are worried about Kelly, and prefer Shapiro.
They’re both great picks for Harris, but Kelly in particular has one hell of a back story as a test pilot and astronaut.
They may be torn. Shapiro might help pull in the mighty ECV Penn state. But Kelly has the all-action back story that would nicely balance Harris West Cost liberally lawyer look.
Texas is going through a demographic change that is somewhat analogous to the English South coast. It's becoming more like California, not least because lots of Californians are moving there. It won't switch to the Dems for this election but feasible over the next ten years I think.
Except most of the Californians moving to Texas are conservatives seeking lower taxes, cheaper homes and less woke not liberals
How do you explain Arizona turning purple?
Arizona voted for Clinton in 1996, Texas voted for Dole. Arizona has long been a lean Republican swing state
That means the GOP operatives are worried about Kelly, and prefer Shapiro.
They’re both great picks for Harris, but Kelly in particular has one hell of a back story as a test pilot and astronaut.
I think Arizona is lost to the Democrats, irrespective of who the Democratic VP candidate is. By contrast, Pennsylvania is much larger and more in play. If the Democrats win Pennsylvania, it's very hard for Trump to win be presidency. Not impossible,obv, but hard
OT. Another angle on French cooking....A female chef with two 3 star Michelin restaurants. One at the Connaught in London the other in Paris. Anyone who doesn't fall in love with her accent is tone deaf......
OT. Another angle on French cooking....A female chef with two 3 star Michelin restaurants. One at the Connaught in London the other in Paris. Anyone who doesn't fall in love with her accent is tone deaf......
When Pundits Play Both Sides: A Tale of Two Kamala Harris Columns
https://www.readtpa.com/p/when-pundits-play-both-sides-a-tale On Tuesday, July 9, Wall Street Journal opinion columnist Jason L. Riley published a piece urging Democrats to dump President Joe Biden from the top of the presidential ticket and replace him with Vice President Kamala Harris. Aptly titled “Kamala Harris Would Be the Best Democratic Choice,” the article made a fairly straightforward argument that Biden was a “problem that need[ed] to be solved,” and that Harris was the party’s best option at this stage of the campaign.
Fast forward just two weeks, and Riley's tune has changed so dramatically it would give even the most nimble political gymnast whiplash. On July 23, Riley penned a new column with the telling title: "Kamala Harris Isn't the Change Democrats Need." This stunning reversal in such a short span of time raises serious questions about the nature of political punditry and the cynicism that often underlies it...
No PB commenter would ever do so shameful a thing.
The whole of the American MSM (bar Fox News) has spent the last week totally gaslighting the electorate. Hundreds of articles critical of Harris have been deleted or amended, and they’re all full bore behind the new candidate they were roasting only a few weeks ago.
OT. Another angle on French cooking....A female chef with two 3 star Michelin restaurants. One at the Connaught in London the other in Paris. Anyone who doesn't fall in love with her accent is tone deaf......
A meeting with top chef Hélène Darroze at Mayfair's Connaught Hotel leads Sheila Dillon to ask the question, why aren't there more female Michelin starred chefs? https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/m0021bgn
Go home and turn the telly on. PB needs someone to evaluate any innovations in television coverage of the Olympics.
Re Black Hole...as Paul Johnson from the IFS has said now with the OBR and more data than ever available there is no unknown surprise of a black hole. Excluding some rounding around the edge, all the numbers that are required are available to all. Its all theatre to claim you have only just discovered it.
No - it won't be a surprise to them because they were telling the truth during the election campaign and before. Meanwhile, Hunt was telling us that everything was wonderful - a delusion he carried forward to the King's Speech debate earlier this week.
Actually both Labour and the Tories were extremely reticent about addressing the implied 'black hole' in the finances which every financial commentator recognised was implied by Hunt's existing tax & spending plans.
Reeves is now fessing up to what everyone paying attention already knew.
Which makes her as least as much of a lying scumbag as the previous government.
My big gripe is with all the "Broken Britain" memes. I live in a small town that's rapidly being wrecked by excessive housebuilding without the construction of matching infrastructure ...
Sorry but there is no such thing as "excessive housebuilding".
We have a chronic housing shortage and there is nowhere in the country with a surplus of housing, so there is no "excessive" anywhere.
You may have a problem of a lack of infrastructure, many places do, but that is a reason to demand more infrastructure not fewer homes when we have a chronic housing shortage.
At last there seems to be a recognition of the importance of infrastructure in the housing/housebuilding crisis rather than the meaningless "build, build, build" mantra.
I'm more than happy to see hundreds of thousands of new homes built as long as the supporting infrastructure is in place and that's not just utilities or transport. It's making sure the existing community infrastructure of schools, libraries, health facilities, refuse collection and all the rest of the areas the pro-building lobby doesn't seem to either consider or think important are also in place or planned (I've used the "P" word, I'll be in trouble for that).
House builders and developers already contribute to this via Section 106 payments but these need to be ramped up as a development is far more than just the bricks, mortar and pipework. As an aside, there needs to be much rigorous inspection of newbuilds given the horror stories coming out about the poor quality of construction.
Sorry, but no "as long as".
Build, build, build is the only solution.
Yes we need other investments too, but they need to happen on top of (not before or instead of, or conditional upon or vice-versa) more housing.
Section 106 should be totally abolished in my view. All taxpayers equally should pay for new public infrastructure not just new home buyers. Private new infrastructure should be owned by the buyer privately, that's all they should be paying for.
So you want to build huge estates with no facilities and no compulsion to provide them in the hope that they get built some time in the future. You are mad.
Thatcher had this right 40 years ago. Those who profit should pay. Developers make vast sums from housing and they should be the ones to contribute to the services that help them make those profits. Section 106 should be reformed but mostly to make the compulsion on builders stronger. They should be the ones carrying the burden not the tax payer.
The taxpayer will already be carrying the increased burden going forward for the actual staffing and running of those facilities. They should not be paying out for the actual infrastructure as well.
Barty ignores the externalities of his build, build, build vision. He says build anywhere in the middle of the field down the road, not understanding that to supply water and power and whatnot to the middle of that field will require amendment to the existing infrastructure of existing residents and I am sure he is enough of a democrat to appreciate that those locals should have a say in the development of that existing infrastructure.
There are no externalities is why.
People require housing and services. The people are already in this country.
Building houses doesn't increase the demand for services, it just lowers the shortage of supply of housing. The demand for services remains the same, since the population remains the same.
You said you wanted to build anywhere. That involves externalities. Not in the middle of cities, but some of the places you have said you want to build, build, build.
No it doesn't. Since demand for services comes from people, not houses, and there isn't anywhere in the country that has a surplus of homes currently, so everywhere would benefit from more construction currently, there are no externalities.
All taxpayers should pay taxes equally. All taxpayers should pay equally for public services, not only those who live in a new home paying for them.
You can't build a house without an outlet to the sewerage system, unless you want to go backj to the good old pre-Bazalgette days.
So it's houses not people that demand the capital cost of services. Ditto power, water, broadband. All need to be installed collectiveluy before people come in.
Later runnign cost is another matter, sure. But that is not what we are talking about when it comes to house *building*.
Ditto libraries, schools, surgeries. Furthermore, they are all tied to a location, and that location is relatively small. Having public services five miles away is way less useful than having them within walking distance.
(The answer is probably that everywhere needs more capital spending than it gets at the moment, but that's down to a political choice that has been endorsed at multiple elections.)
Why have England retired James Anderson only to replace him with Chris Woakes?
He's 5 or 6 years younger than Jimmy but not a developing talent. On a decent wicket the English attack looks a little toothless. I saw Jofra Archer mucking about in the 100 this week. I would much rather have given him a go.
When Pundits Play Both Sides: A Tale of Two Kamala Harris Columns
https://www.readtpa.com/p/when-pundits-play-both-sides-a-tale On Tuesday, July 9, Wall Street Journal opinion columnist Jason L. Riley published a piece urging Democrats to dump President Joe Biden from the top of the presidential ticket and replace him with Vice President Kamala Harris. Aptly titled “Kamala Harris Would Be the Best Democratic Choice,” the article made a fairly straightforward argument that Biden was a “problem that need[ed] to be solved,” and that Harris was the party’s best option at this stage of the campaign.
Fast forward just two weeks, and Riley's tune has changed so dramatically it would give even the most nimble political gymnast whiplash. On July 23, Riley penned a new column with the telling title: "Kamala Harris Isn't the Change Democrats Need." This stunning reversal in such a short span of time raises serious questions about the nature of political punditry and the cynicism that often underlies it...
No PB commenter would ever do so shameful a thing.
The whole of the American MSM (bar Fox News) has spent the last week totally gaslighting the electorate. Hundreds of articles critical of Harris have been deleted or amended, and they’re all full bore behind the new candidate they were roasting only a few weeks ago.
Yebbut... the alternative is Trump. Is that what you want?
Texas is going through a demographic change that is somewhat analogous to the English South coast. It's becoming more like California, not least because lots of Californians are moving there. It won't switch to the Dems for this election but feasible over the next ten years I think.
Except most of the Californians moving to Texas are conservatives seeking lower taxes, cheaper homes and less woke not liberals
How do you explain Arizona turning purple?
Arizona voted for Clinton in 1996, Texas voted for Dole. Arizona has long been a lean Republican swing state
Nevertheless, as Californians have moved to Arizona, it has become increasingly Democrat.
Trump got a higher voteshare in Arizona in 2020 than Dole got in Arizona in 1996
Texas is going through a demographic change that is somewhat analogous to the English South coast. It's becoming more like California, not least because lots of Californians are moving there. It won't switch to the Dems for this election but feasible over the next ten years I think.
Except most of the Californians moving to Texas are conservatives seeking lower taxes, cheaper homes and less woke not liberals
How do you explain Arizona turning purple?
Arizona voted for Clinton in 1996, Texas voted for Dole. Arizona has long been a lean Republican swing state
Comments
Thatcher was governing in a time of stable population, not rampant population growth and chronic housing shortages.
And completely agreed those who profit (benefit) from new infrastructure should pay for it . . . those who benefit from new public infrastructure is everyone, not new builds alone. Why shouldn't existing residents pay for new public infrastructure they'll benefit from?
For someone who likes to comment so much on housebuilding and planning topics, Bart seems to be remarkably ignorant of what actually goes into a development.
I come back to the Dutch system which cuts out the developers entirely. Local authorities lay out the infrastructure for new developments and then recoup that cost from the buyer when the buy a plot for self build.
She repeatedly says she has no interest whatsoever in running and won't run. Then a vacancy arises, and she doesn't run, and warmly endorses the person who is.
This is so textbook Micky O that I'm more convinced than ever that she's running - put your house on it.
People require housing and services. The people are already in this country.
Building houses doesn't increase the demand for services, it just lowers the shortage of supply of housing. The demand for services remains the same, since the population remains the same.
Re your post on where you are in France. I went there and loved it and not a tourist in sight, but that was 25 years ago, so now probably pretty meaningless, but glad you seem to have found it similar.
https://foreignpolicy.com/2024/07/06/ukraine-drone-industry-russia-war-regulation/
Now, governments have pushed GPs away from small practices to big multi-GP clinics in purpose built facilities, but that's not a necessity.
There are many young people in this country with kids who live in their childhood bedroom with their own children because they can't afford a home of their own. If a new home is built and they can move into their own home that doesn't increase demand for schools, since the pupils were already there.
We have a chronic housing shortage everywhere in this country. There is absolutely nowhere in the entire country with a surplus of housing that people are moving from, to an area with a shortage of housing.
Its a dick waving contest to host.
I'd imagine all the oil & gas middle east states are absolutely desperate to hold it.
Probably think they could host the winter olympics as well.
There is nowhere in this country with a surplus of housing that is being emptied to relocate towards somewhere with a shortage of homes, there is a shortage of homes everywhere.
There are people living in overcrowded homes, that need a home of their own everywhere.
There isn't a school in the country that I know of that has a catchment area of one estate alone, that's a ridiculous suggestion.
@InsiderEng and its partners @lemondefr and @derspiegel have identified the French chef arrested on suspicion of working for Russian intelligence to disrupt the Paris Olympics. Meet Kirill Griaznov, a Cordon Bleu-trained chef, reality TV star and FSB officer. We have his emails. Oh, and he's been to New York too! ..
https://x.com/michaeldweiss/status/1816431763834462626
Getting consent isn't a problem if the cost of the lawyers to go with it can be divided across hundreds of homes. Its a deal-breaker if the cost to go with it only goes on one home or a small number of homes.
All taxpayers should pay taxes equally. All taxpayers should pay equally for public services, not only those who live in a new home paying for them.
In Ukraine they are using drones which carry a couple of kilos of explosives.
The domestic extremist "attack on infrastructure" types such JSO and XR have deliberately sought to eg disrupt airports with drones whilst passing themselves off as harmless. Roger Hallam received a suspended prison sentence in 2019 for planning a drone attack on Heathrow.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2024/apr/05/extinction-rebellion-co-founder-avoids-jail-term-for-drone-action-near-heathrow
He didn't listen to the message, and thought (like Trump) that he could ignore the law, so he got 5 years for the attack on the M25. He now gets to see if his "gum up the prisons" strategy works.
It will be a matter of national security and public safety. Wibbling wazzocks such as Chris Packham and the rest will find themselves slapped down so fast they will leave their hats behind.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/article/2024/jul/19/just-stop-oil-tactics-prison-chris-packham
"No way Crooked Lyin Cacklin Demented Radical Left Loony Shambola Hasbeen Diversity Hire Harris beats your favourite President in a free and fair vote."
They've gone from people in spired by religious architecture to using sleeper agents.
A lesson there. I think.
Sounds a touch embellished, but... comical if true.
Not even sure the Russian state is paying him too much, more likely it's a fantasy of sorts to act out against the west like the baddy in a Le Carre novel made reality.
Snag is, would anyone actually notice the difference?
But we're quite 'lucky' in that we already have fairly strong regulations in place to prevent possible payloads; namely guns and explosives. A drone hitting you might be nasty, especially given the size of some of the quad- and octo-copters, but it's hard for it to do widespread damage without explosives. And if you can make explosives, there might be easier ways of getting to the targets you need to fulfil your aims.
The targets being civilians...
We now know why, and should give them credit.
Slightly awkward for them this time.
‘An extremely bad man’: news of Kamala Harris’s Irish slave-owning ancestor raises opprobrium and intrigue in Co Antrim
One woman with links to Co Antrim-born slaver Hamilton Brown says it will be a difficult history to package
https://www.irishtimes.com/ireland/2024/07/27/an-extremely-bad-man-news-of-kamala-harriss-slave-owning-ancestor-raises-opprobrium-and-intrigue-in-ballymoney/
The position of the attacks on the map in a cross shape looks suspicious to me.
That is what the 7/7 attackers tried to do in London (but failed due to a line being disrupted so one got on a bus instead).
It also means that whoever did it had likely inside knowledge of the SNCF signalling installations and where to attack to cause most chaos and avoid getting caught
This involves a major, planned, conspiracy.
As an example, I won't shop at the French company Decathlon any more because of this sort of sh*t:
https://disclose.ngo/en/article/decathlons-secret-project-to-keep-doing-business-in-russia
Also, more work to stop the shadow tanker fleet Russia's using would be in order.
Town developments are extremely popular with many new home owners and get snapped up a lot more quickly than the big estates because of the conveinence, particularly for younger buyers.
Or any other health professional, for that matter.
https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/12650774.ira-rail-bomb-causes-chaos-for-commuters/
So it's houses not people that demand the capital cost of services. Ditto power, water, broadband. All need to be installed collectiveluy before people come in.
Later runnign cost is another matter, sure. But that is not what we are talking about when it comes to house *building*.
In drones, I can see the free-for-all at the lower end for lighter drones being tightened, plus technical measures being put in around some sites, and "right to fly over private land" restricted somewhat.
The same principles imo apply all over. Consider something as mundane as our insecure number plates on vehicles, and the 1-2 million false plates we have. A range of measures are available, with associated costs (eg crime is made easier, extra regulation of supply chain, maybe extra policing) and benefits (casual crime is made more difficult, more careful policing helps intelligence and detection of other crime).
I have advocated for building new towns and for more building generally. But you have this perverse unfounded idea that it is planning that stops new houses being built. It isn't. No matter how much the developers and their political shills might claim it is. Planning makes sure the houses that are built are fit to live in and don't cause yet more problems for the whole community further down the line. They also ensure that the people who profit - the developers - pay for the infrastructure which supports the new developments that provide their profits.
Planning does not stop houses being built. Developers do that.
https://inews.co.uk/news/politics/starmers-chosen-ones-backbenchers-cry-favouritism-as-select-few-promoted-3189880
As predicted.
Newcomers used to running things are not happy about being ignored. MPs with more experience resent plum jobs going to Blairite nepo babies.
Closing ceremony, I think.
Why have England retired James Anderson only to replace him with Chris Woakes?
Anyone who wants to should be able to build a home. They can't, as they need permission first.
It's not the developers who profit from public infrastructure, it's the entire public.
Name a single school or GP surgery in the entire country that has only one estate as its catchment area. It's patent bullshit.
They’re both great picks for Harris, but Kelly in particular has one hell of a back story as a test pilot and astronaut.
For regulation we need to consider both and what are our objectives as a country
/ society. I don't believe NOW and FUTURE they can be split.
The same factors apply to "infra" on and around the schemes. A good indicator is if the developer wants the Council to "adopt" eg the roads including the lamp posts - the charge ("commuted sum" iirc) for doing so will include an amount for maintenance and replacement for N decades for each lamp post.
Various Councils have their charging structures online.
So that type of factor may drive the developer back to individual treatment plants and a company with one share per dwelling to manage the development, to avoid costs of adoption.
But not as much as I see between Trump's ears.'
It might make all the difference if he has to manage a majority of say 20 in a few years time…
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/m0021bgn
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/m0021bgn
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/m0021bgn
Go home and turn the telly on. PB needs someone to evaluate any innovations in television coverage of the Olympics.
(The answer is probably that everywhere needs more capital spending than it gets at the moment, but that's down to a political choice that has been endorsed at multiple elections.)
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/07/25/world/americas/mexico-cartel-ismael-zambada-garcia-joaquin-guzman-lopez.html