Personal interest? Reduction of our quality of life? Doesn’t mean that our objection would win, and if the processes are followed so be it. I’m merely suggesting a free for all do anything is not what the vast majority of people want.
But how does a phone mast reduce your quality of life, how does it impact you beyond giving you a better phone signal?
I am happy to admit - again - that I am a minority in how I think you should be able to build anywhere but surely even you can see that it's madness that in urban areas anything can sensibly be rejected?
Do you find this offensive?
The majority of exactly this design were rejected in London. I do not think councils had any right to reject these but they did, wholesale.
I don’t object to masts and would have no issue with that in the field next to my house. I would be unhappy if the view of the countryside that I spent money on (the extension with balcony) was turned into houses. And yes that’s a NIMBY attitude, and can be called that. We wouldn’t have built what we did if (a) the view wasn’t there and (b) we didn’t believe it would be there for many years to come.
Maybe you should buy the land with the view, then you can keep it as your heart desires?
Otherwise, if its not yours, then don't expect to freeload off others.
Do people freeload off the Lake Dustrict?
Not at all, I pay a fortune to businesses there to enjoy their land they own.
If you want to keep the view of the field next to you, there's a simple solution - buy it.
Otherwise, if someone else does, then they've not done anything wrong.
I have not said they would be doing anything wrong. I’ve said I would object. And then someone, somewhere would make a decision. At the moment the balance is probably too far in the objections winning column, but going to the other extreme is not the answer.
Why isn't it?
It worked just fine in the 1930s. It was a socialist policy implemented by Attlee and its been an unmitigated disaster. We should liberalise and revert back to what we had before then.
If it was such a disaster, why did we not have this problem in the 1990s?
We did, housing constructions were lower in the 90s than they were in the 30s.
Why was that a problem?
Because we need more stuff built. People need places to live, work, etc
There is instead entire cottage industries dedicated to preventing growth. Growth of any kind, it doesn't matter if you mean houses, or masts, or pylons, or factories, or roads, or rails, or airports, or anything else - someone will object to it and drag it out.
Musk: The waste and fraud in entitlement spending— Most of the federal spending is entitlements.. that’s the big one to eliminate… That is also the mechanism by which the Democrats attract and retain illegal immigrants..
He's right that that's where most government spending.
He's wrong about there being lots of fraud there, not least because this has been an area where successive governments have been keen to crack down. (Reagan era "welfare queens" being a classic example.)
The question I want to know is this:
Is Musk just dumb (ie, he doesn't really know about government spending), or is he actively malignant?
Until recently I'd have gone with (1), but am now veering towards (2).
Personal interest? Reduction of our quality of life? Doesn’t mean that our objection would win, and if the processes are followed so be it. I’m merely suggesting a free for all do anything is not what the vast majority of people want.
But how does a phone mast reduce your quality of life, how does it impact you beyond giving you a better phone signal?
I am happy to admit - again - that I am a minority in how I think you should be able to build anywhere but surely even you can see that it's madness that in urban areas anything can sensibly be rejected?
Do you find this offensive?
The majority of exactly this design were rejected in London. I do not think councils had any right to reject these but they did, wholesale.
I don’t object to masts and would have no issue with that in the field next to my house. I would be unhappy if the view of the countryside that I spent money on (the extension with balcony) was turned into houses. And yes that’s a NIMBY attitude, and can be called that. We wouldn’t have built what we did if (a) the view wasn’t there and (b) we didn’t believe it would be there for many years to come.
Maybe you should buy the land with the view, then you can keep it as your heart desires?
Otherwise, if its not yours, then don't expect to freeload off others.
Do people freeload off the Lake Dustrict?
Not at all, I pay a fortune to businesses there to enjoy their land they own.
If you want to keep the view of the field next to you, there's a simple solution - buy it.
Otherwise, if someone else does, then they've not done anything wrong.
I have not said they would be doing anything wrong. I’ve said I would object. And then someone, somewhere would make a decision. At the moment the balance is probably too far in the objections winning column, but going to the other extreme is not the answer.
Why isn't it?
It worked just fine in the 1930s. It was a socialist policy implemented by Attlee and its been an unmitigated disaster. We should liberalise and revert back to what we had before then.
If it was such a disaster, why did we not have this problem in the 1990s?
We did, housing constructions were lower in the 90s than they were in the 30s.
Why was that a problem?
Because we need more stuff built. People need places to live, work, etc
There is instead entire cottage industries dedicated to preventing growth. Growth of any kind, it doesn't matter if you mean houses, or masts, or pylons, or factories, or roads, or rails, or airports, or anything else - someone will object to it and drag it out.
The birth rate has been below replacement for decades. If we allowed the population to decline or just remain static, there would be no problem.
Personal interest? Reduction of our quality of life? Doesn’t mean that our objection would win, and if the processes are followed so be it. I’m merely suggesting a free for all do anything is not what the vast majority of people want.
But how does a phone mast reduce your quality of life, how does it impact you beyond giving you a better phone signal?
I am happy to admit - again - that I am a minority in how I think you should be able to build anywhere but surely even you can see that it's madness that in urban areas anything can sensibly be rejected?
Do you find this offensive?
The majority of exactly this design were rejected in London. I do not think councils had any right to reject these but they did, wholesale.
I don’t object to masts and would have no issue with that in the field next to my house. I would be unhappy if the view of the countryside that I spent money on (the extension with balcony) was turned into houses. And yes that’s a NIMBY attitude, and can be called that. We wouldn’t have built what we did if (a) the view wasn’t there and (b) we didn’t believe it would be there for many years to come.
Maybe you should buy the land with the view, then you can keep it as your heart desires?
Otherwise, if its not yours, then don't expect to freeload off others.
Do people freeload off the Lake Dustrict?
Not at all, I pay a fortune to businesses there to enjoy their land they own.
If you want to keep the view of the field next to you, there's a simple solution - buy it.
Otherwise, if someone else does, then they've not done anything wrong.
I have not said they would be doing anything wrong. I’ve said I would object. And then someone, somewhere would make a decision. At the moment the balance is probably too far in the objections winning column, but going to the other extreme is not the answer.
Why isn't it?
It worked just fine in the 1930s. It was a socialist policy implemented by Attlee and its been an unmitigated disaster. We should liberalise and revert back to what we had before then.
If it was such a disaster, why did we not have this problem in the 1990s?
We did, housing constructions were lower in the 90s than they were in the 30s.
Why was that a problem?
Because it meant that the dream of owning a home became increasingly unaffordable for many people.
Because we need more stuff built. People need places to live, work, etc
There is instead entire cottage industries dedicated to preventing growth. Growth of any kind, it doesn't matter if you mean houses, or masts, or pylons, or factories, or roads, or rails, or airports, or anything else - someone will object to it and drag it out.
There are companies setup that help people gouge network operators for rent. The result is masts get prevented from being upgraded and often removed so people lose coverage.
Personal interest? Reduction of our quality of life? Doesn’t mean that our objection would win, and if the processes are followed so be it. I’m merely suggesting a free for all do anything is not what the vast majority of people want.
But how does a phone mast reduce your quality of life, how does it impact you beyond giving you a better phone signal?
I am happy to admit - again - that I am a minority in how I think you should be able to build anywhere but surely even you can see that it's madness that in urban areas anything can sensibly be rejected?
Do you find this offensive?
The majority of exactly this design were rejected in London. I do not think councils had any right to reject these but they did, wholesale.
I don’t object to masts and would have no issue with that in the field next to my house. I would be unhappy if the view of the countryside that I spent money on (the extension with balcony) was turned into houses. And yes that’s a NIMBY attitude, and can be called that. We wouldn’t have built what we did if (a) the view wasn’t there and (b) we didn’t believe it would be there for many years to come.
Maybe you should buy the land with the view, then you can keep it as your heart desires?
Otherwise, if its not yours, then don't expect to freeload off others.
Do people freeload off the Lake Dustrict?
Not at all, I pay a fortune to businesses there to enjoy their land they own.
If you want to keep the view of the field next to you, there's a simple solution - buy it.
Otherwise, if someone else does, then they've not done anything wrong.
I have not said they would be doing anything wrong. I’ve said I would object. And then someone, somewhere would make a decision. At the moment the balance is probably too far in the objections winning column, but going to the other extreme is not the answer.
Why isn't it?
It worked just fine in the 1930s. It was a socialist policy implemented by Attlee and its been an unmitigated disaster. We should liberalise and revert back to what we had before then.
A time with a population almost half what it is now?
Yeah - and a time when we managed to build more houses then than any time since.
Us having a higher population now is all the more reason why we should be building and removing restrictions, not increasing them.
If someone wants a house, or a factory, or a pylon, or mast, or anything else they should be able to build whatever they damn please on their own damned land and everyone else should be told to mind their own business that its nothing to do with them.
If you want a view of a field, buy a damned field.
To complete the circle, I bought a field which I planted with a vineyard, and there’s a fucking great phone mast directly opposite, next to the pylon. Great mobile reception on site.
To complete the circle, I bought a field which I planted with a vineyard, abc there’s a fucking great phone mast directly opposite, next to the pylon. Great mobile reception on site.
Surely it has already ruined your view of the countryside, so it must be torn down? It's ruined your mental health too right?
Personal interest? Reduction of our quality of life? Doesn’t mean that our objection would win, and if the processes are followed so be it. I’m merely suggesting a free for all do anything is not what the vast majority of people want.
But how does a phone mast reduce your quality of life, how does it impact you beyond giving you a better phone signal?
I am happy to admit - again - that I am a minority in how I think you should be able to build anywhere but surely even you can see that it's madness that in urban areas anything can sensibly be rejected?
Do you find this offensive?
The majority of exactly this design were rejected in London. I do not think councils had any right to reject these but they did, wholesale.
I don’t object to masts and would have no issue with that in the field next to my house. I would be unhappy if the view of the countryside that I spent money on (the extension with balcony) was turned into houses. And yes that’s a NIMBY attitude, and can be called that. We wouldn’t have built what we did if (a) the view wasn’t there and (b) we didn’t believe it would be there for many years to come.
Maybe you should buy the land with the view, then you can keep it as your heart desires?
Otherwise, if its not yours, then don't expect to freeload off others.
Do people freeload off the Lake Dustrict?
Not at all, I pay a fortune to businesses there to enjoy their land they own.
If you want to keep the view of the field next to you, there's a simple solution - buy it.
Otherwise, if someone else does, then they've not done anything wrong.
I have not said they would be doing anything wrong. I’ve said I would object. And then someone, somewhere would make a decision. At the moment the balance is probably too far in the objections winning column, but going to the other extreme is not the answer.
Why isn't it?
It worked just fine in the 1930s. It was a socialist policy implemented by Attlee and its been an unmitigated disaster. We should liberalise and revert back to what we had before then.
A time with a population almost half what it is now?
Yeah - and a time when we managed to build more houses then than any time since.
Us having a higher population now is all the more reason why we should be building and removing restrictions, not increasing them.
If someone wants a house, or a factory, or a pylon, or mast, or anything else they should be able to build whatever they damn please on their own damned land and everyone else should be told to mind their own business that its nothing to do with them.
If you want a view of a field, buy a damned field.
I willingly admit that have no right to a view of the countryside. Do you not think that your absolutism is too much though? Would you be ok with anything next to your house? Anything at all? Sewage works? Chicken farm? All night night club?
Anything at all.
There is a sewage works near me. Other than the United Utilities signs on the frontage, I'd have no idea it was there except that I see those when I drive past.
People complain we don't have enough sewage plants and then say "yeah but what if you get a sewage plant near you". So frigging what if we do? Good, we'll address some of our infrastructure shortages.
I'd rather have a sewage works near me, than an absence of clean water or my shit not flushing away.
Personal interest? Reduction of our quality of life? Doesn’t mean that our objection would win, and if the processes are followed so be it. I’m merely suggesting a free for all do anything is not what the vast majority of people want.
But how does a phone mast reduce your quality of life, how does it impact you beyond giving you a better phone signal?
I am happy to admit - again - that I am a minority in how I think you should be able to build anywhere but surely even you can see that it's madness that in urban areas anything can sensibly be rejected?
Do you find this offensive?
The majority of exactly this design were rejected in London. I do not think councils had any right to reject these but they did, wholesale.
I don’t object to masts and would have no issue with that in the field next to my house. I would be unhappy if the view of the countryside that I spent money on (the extension with balcony) was turned into houses. And yes that’s a NIMBY attitude, and can be called that. We wouldn’t have built what we did if (a) the view wasn’t there and (b) we didn’t believe it would be there for many years to come.
Maybe you should buy the land with the view, then you can keep it as your heart desires?
Otherwise, if its not yours, then don't expect to freeload off others.
Do people freeload off the Lake Dustrict?
Not at all, I pay a fortune to businesses there to enjoy their land they own.
If you want to keep the view of the field next to you, there's a simple solution - buy it.
Otherwise, if someone else does, then they've not done anything wrong.
I have not said they would be doing anything wrong. I’ve said I would object. And then someone, somewhere would make a decision. At the moment the balance is probably too far in the objections winning column, but going to the other extreme is not the answer.
Why isn't it?
It worked just fine in the 1930s. It was a socialist policy implemented by Attlee and its been an unmitigated disaster. We should liberalise and revert back to what we had before then.
If it was such a disaster, why did we not have this problem in the 1990s?
We did, housing constructions were lower in the 90s than they were in the 30s.
Why was that a problem?
Because it meant that the dream of owning a home became increasingly unaffordable for many people.
That was a demand-side problem, not a supply-side problem.
Think of it in terms of your favourite topic of trade imbalances. We were the victim of other countries offloading their demand for housing onto us, both in terms of physical people and in terms of credit. You can't solve that problem by building your way out of it.
Personal interest? Reduction of our quality of life? Doesn’t mean that our objection would win, and if the processes are followed so be it. I’m merely suggesting a free for all do anything is not what the vast majority of people want.
But how does a phone mast reduce your quality of life, how does it impact you beyond giving you a better phone signal?
I am happy to admit - again - that I am a minority in how I think you should be able to build anywhere but surely even you can see that it's madness that in urban areas anything can sensibly be rejected?
Do you find this offensive?
The majority of exactly this design were rejected in London. I do not think councils had any right to reject these but they did, wholesale.
I don’t object to masts and would have no issue with that in the field next to my house. I would be unhappy if the view of the countryside that I spent money on (the extension with balcony) was turned into houses. And yes that’s a NIMBY attitude, and can be called that. We wouldn’t have built what we did if (a) the view wasn’t there and (b) we didn’t believe it would be there for many years to come.
Maybe you should buy the land with the view, then you can keep it as your heart desires?
Otherwise, if its not yours, then don't expect to freeload off others.
Do people freeload off the Lake Dustrict?
Not at all, I pay a fortune to businesses there to enjoy their land they own.
If you want to keep the view of the field next to you, there's a simple solution - buy it.
Otherwise, if someone else does, then they've not done anything wrong.
I have not said they would be doing anything wrong. I’ve said I would object. And then someone, somewhere would make a decision. At the moment the balance is probably too far in the objections winning column, but going to the other extreme is not the answer.
Why isn't it?
It worked just fine in the 1930s. It was a socialist policy implemented by Attlee and its been an unmitigated disaster. We should liberalise and revert back to what we had before then.
If it was such a disaster, why did we not have this problem in the 1990s?
We did, housing constructions were lower in the 90s than they were in the 30s.
Why was that a problem?
Because we need more stuff built. People need places to live, work, etc
There is instead entire cottage industries dedicated to preventing growth. Growth of any kind, it doesn't matter if you mean houses, or masts, or pylons, or factories, or roads, or rails, or airports, or anything else - someone will object to it and drag it out.
The birth rate has been below replacement for decades. If we allowed the population to decline or just remain static, there would be no problem.
But we haven't and besides, life expectancy is rising and that means we need more housing as elderly people living alone take up a house just as much as a family of five living in the same house fifty years ago did.
Personal interest? Reduction of our quality of life? Doesn’t mean that our objection would win, and if the processes are followed so be it. I’m merely suggesting a free for all do anything is not what the vast majority of people want.
But how does a phone mast reduce your quality of life, how does it impact you beyond giving you a better phone signal?
I am happy to admit - again - that I am a minority in how I think you should be able to build anywhere but surely even you can see that it's madness that in urban areas anything can sensibly be rejected?
Do you find this offensive?
The majority of exactly this design were rejected in London. I do not think councils had any right to reject these but they did, wholesale.
I don’t object to masts and would have no issue with that in the field next to my house. I would be unhappy if the view of the countryside that I spent money on (the extension with balcony) was turned into houses. And yes that’s a NIMBY attitude, and can be called that. We wouldn’t have built what we did if (a) the view wasn’t there and (b) we didn’t believe it would be there for many years to come.
Maybe you should buy the land with the view, then you can keep it as your heart desires?
Otherwise, if its not yours, then don't expect to freeload off others.
Do people freeload off the Lake Dustrict?
Not at all, I pay a fortune to businesses there to enjoy their land they own.
If you want to keep the view of the field next to you, there's a simple solution - buy it.
Otherwise, if someone else does, then they've not done anything wrong.
I have not said they would be doing anything wrong. I’ve said I would object. And then someone, somewhere would make a decision. At the moment the balance is probably too far in the objections winning column, but going to the other extreme is not the answer.
Why isn't it?
It worked just fine in the 1930s. It was a socialist policy implemented by Attlee and its been an unmitigated disaster. We should liberalise and revert back to what we had before then.
If it was such a disaster, why did we not have this problem in the 1990s?
We did, housing constructions were lower in the 90s than they were in the 30s.
Why was that a problem?
Because it meant that the dream of owning a home became increasingly unaffordable for many people.
That was a demand-side problem, not a supply-side problem.
Think of it in terms of your favourite topic of trade imbalances. We were the victim of other countries offloading their demand for housing onto us, both in terms of physical people and in terms of credit. You can't solve that problem by building your way out of it.
Of course you can.
If our population doubles but our housing supply trebles then we'll be well out of it.
Personal interest? Reduction of our quality of life? Doesn’t mean that our objection would win, and if the processes are followed so be it. I’m merely suggesting a free for all do anything is not what the vast majority of people want.
But how does a phone mast reduce your quality of life, how does it impact you beyond giving you a better phone signal?
I am happy to admit - again - that I am a minority in how I think you should be able to build anywhere but surely even you can see that it's madness that in urban areas anything can sensibly be rejected?
Do you find this offensive?
The majority of exactly this design were rejected in London. I do not think councils had any right to reject these but they did, wholesale.
I don’t object to masts and would have no issue with that in the field next to my house. I would be unhappy if the view of the countryside that I spent money on (the extension with balcony) was turned into houses. And yes that’s a NIMBY attitude, and can be called that. We wouldn’t have built what we did if (a) the view wasn’t there and (b) we didn’t believe it would be there for many years to come.
Maybe you should buy the land with the view, then you can keep it as your heart desires?
Otherwise, if its not yours, then don't expect to freeload off others.
Do people freeload off the Lake Dustrict?
Not at all, I pay a fortune to businesses there to enjoy their land they own.
If you want to keep the view of the field next to you, there's a simple solution - buy it.
Otherwise, if someone else does, then they've not done anything wrong.
I have not said they would be doing anything wrong. I’ve said I would object. And then someone, somewhere would make a decision. At the moment the balance is probably too far in the objections winning column, but going to the other extreme is not the answer.
Why isn't it?
It worked just fine in the 1930s. It was a socialist policy implemented by Attlee and its been an unmitigated disaster. We should liberalise and revert back to what we had before then.
If it was such a disaster, why did we not have this problem in the 1990s?
We did, housing constructions were lower in the 90s than they were in the 30s.
Why was that a problem?
Because it meant that the dream of owning a home became increasingly unaffordable for many people.
That was a demand-side problem, not a supply-side problem.
Think of it in terms of your favourite topic of trade imbalances. We were the victim of other countries offloading their demand for housing onto us, both in terms of physical people and in terms of credit. You can't solve that problem by building your way out of it.
Of course you can.
If our population doubles but our housing supply trebles then we'll be well out of it.
Yes, and if you ground all the people into a fine dust then you could fit a billion of them in Wolverhampton...
Personal interest? Reduction of our quality of life? Doesn’t mean that our objection would win, and if the processes are followed so be it. I’m merely suggesting a free for all do anything is not what the vast majority of people want.
But how does a phone mast reduce your quality of life, how does it impact you beyond giving you a better phone signal?
I am happy to admit - again - that I am a minority in how I think you should be able to build anywhere but surely even you can see that it's madness that in urban areas anything can sensibly be rejected?
Do you find this offensive?
The majority of exactly this design were rejected in London. I do not think councils had any right to reject these but they did, wholesale.
I don’t object to masts and would have no issue with that in the field next to my house. I would be unhappy if the view of the countryside that I spent money on (the extension with balcony) was turned into houses. And yes that’s a NIMBY attitude, and can be called that. We wouldn’t have built what we did if (a) the view wasn’t there and (b) we didn’t believe it would be there for many years to come.
Maybe you should buy the land with the view, then you can keep it as your heart desires?
Otherwise, if its not yours, then don't expect to freeload off others.
Do people freeload off the Lake Dustrict?
Not at all, I pay a fortune to businesses there to enjoy their land they own.
If you want to keep the view of the field next to you, there's a simple solution - buy it.
Otherwise, if someone else does, then they've not done anything wrong.
I have not said they would be doing anything wrong. I’ve said I would object. And then someone, somewhere would make a decision. At the moment the balance is probably too far in the objections winning column, but going to the other extreme is not the answer.
Why isn't it?
It worked just fine in the 1930s. It was a socialist policy implemented by Attlee and its been an unmitigated disaster. We should liberalise and revert back to what we had before then.
If it was such a disaster, why did we not have this problem in the 1990s?
We did, housing constructions were lower in the 90s than they were in the 30s.
Why was that a problem?
Because it meant that the dream of owning a home became increasingly unaffordable for many people.
That was a demand-side problem, not a supply-side problem.
Think of it in terms of your favourite topic of trade imbalances. We were the victim of other countries offloading their demand for housing onto us, both in terms of physical people and in terms of credit. You can't solve that problem by building your way out of it.
Of course you can.
If our population doubles but our housing supply trebles then we'll be well out of it.
Yes, and if you ground all the people into a fine dust then you could fit a billion of them in Wolverhampton...
Our population has grown exponentially in the past. What's wrong with more?
We're not short of land to build on, only about 5% of our land is developed, double it and its still only 10%. The problem is people standing in the way of doing so.
Personal interest? Reduction of our quality of life? Doesn’t mean that our objection would win, and if the processes are followed so be it. I’m merely suggesting a free for all do anything is not what the vast majority of people want.
But how does a phone mast reduce your quality of life, how does it impact you beyond giving you a better phone signal?
I am happy to admit - again - that I am a minority in how I think you should be able to build anywhere but surely even you can see that it's madness that in urban areas anything can sensibly be rejected?
Do you find this offensive?
The majority of exactly this design were rejected in London. I do not think councils had any right to reject these but they did, wholesale.
I don’t object to masts and would have no issue with that in the field next to my house. I would be unhappy if the view of the countryside that I spent money on (the extension with balcony) was turned into houses. And yes that’s a NIMBY attitude, and can be called that. We wouldn’t have built what we did if (a) the view wasn’t there and (b) we didn’t believe it would be there for many years to come.
Maybe you should buy the land with the view, then you can keep it as your heart desires?
Otherwise, if its not yours, then don't expect to freeload off others.
Do people freeload off the Lake Dustrict?
Not at all, I pay a fortune to businesses there to enjoy their land they own.
If you want to keep the view of the field next to you, there's a simple solution - buy it.
Otherwise, if someone else does, then they've not done anything wrong.
I have not said they would be doing anything wrong. I’ve said I would object. And then someone, somewhere would make a decision. At the moment the balance is probably too far in the objections winning column, but going to the other extreme is not the answer.
Why isn't it?
It worked just fine in the 1930s. It was a socialist policy implemented by Attlee and its been an unmitigated disaster. We should liberalise and revert back to what we had before then.
If it was such a disaster, why did we not have this problem in the 1990s?
We did, housing constructions were lower in the 90s than they were in the 30s.
Why was that a problem?
Because we need more stuff built. People need places to live, work, etc
There is instead entire cottage industries dedicated to preventing growth. Growth of any kind, it doesn't matter if you mean houses, or masts, or pylons, or factories, or roads, or rails, or airports, or anything else - someone will object to it and drag it out.
The birth rate has been below replacement for decades. If we allowed the population to decline or just remain static, there would be no problem.
But we haven't and besides, life expectancy is rising and that means we need more housing as elderly people living alone take up a house just as much as a family of five living in the same house fifty years ago did.
We do need a huge housing program. And yes too many people object without what you might think are not valid reasons. But we need to bring people on board. Personally think we need to look at high density housing done well. Towerblocks can be made decent places to live, but they must have outdoor space.
Personal interest? Reduction of our quality of life? Doesn’t mean that our objection would win, and if the processes are followed so be it. I’m merely suggesting a free for all do anything is not what the vast majority of people want.
But how does a phone mast reduce your quality of life, how does it impact you beyond giving you a better phone signal?
I am happy to admit - again - that I am a minority in how I think you should be able to build anywhere but surely even you can see that it's madness that in urban areas anything can sensibly be rejected?
Do you find this offensive?
The majority of exactly this design were rejected in London. I do not think councils had any right to reject these but they did, wholesale.
I don’t object to masts and would have no issue with that in the field next to my house. I would be unhappy if the view of the countryside that I spent money on (the extension with balcony) was turned into houses. And yes that’s a NIMBY attitude, and can be called that. We wouldn’t have built what we did if (a) the view wasn’t there and (b) we didn’t believe it would be there for many years to come.
Maybe you should buy the land with the view, then you can keep it as your heart desires?
Otherwise, if its not yours, then don't expect to freeload off others.
Do people freeload off the Lake Dustrict?
Not at all, I pay a fortune to businesses there to enjoy their land they own.
If you want to keep the view of the field next to you, there's a simple solution - buy it.
Otherwise, if someone else does, then they've not done anything wrong.
I have not said they would be doing anything wrong. I’ve said I would object. And then someone, somewhere would make a decision. At the moment the balance is probably too far in the objections winning column, but going to the other extreme is not the answer.
Why isn't it?
It worked just fine in the 1930s. It was a socialist policy implemented by Attlee and its been an unmitigated disaster. We should liberalise and revert back to what we had before then.
If it was such a disaster, why did we not have this problem in the 1990s?
We did, housing constructions were lower in the 90s than they were in the 30s.
Why was that a problem?
Because we need more stuff built. People need places to live, work, etc
There is instead entire cottage industries dedicated to preventing growth. Growth of any kind, it doesn't matter if you mean houses, or masts, or pylons, or factories, or roads, or rails, or airports, or anything else - someone will object to it and drag it out.
The birth rate has been below replacement for decades. If we allowed the population to decline or just remain static, there would be no problem.
It's a bit more complicated than that and that can been be seen by the fact that (for example) house prices moved up more quickly before the wave of immigration from eastern Europe began, than afterwards.
For example, back in the 1970s people went straight from living at home to married. The moving back of the age of marriage created a large demand for homes pre-families.
Likewise, the significant increase in the divorce rate in the same period (and single parent families) has also placed enormous demand on housing.
Finally, we have a situation where some parts of the country have declining house prices, while others have acute shortages.
So, sure, with zero immigration, we would have had less of an issue. But it wouldn't be like these other drivers of housing demand didn't exist.
Personal interest? Reduction of our quality of life? Doesn’t mean that our objection would win, and if the processes are followed so be it. I’m merely suggesting a free for all do anything is not what the vast majority of people want.
But how does a phone mast reduce your quality of life, how does it impact you beyond giving you a better phone signal?
I am happy to admit - again - that I am a minority in how I think you should be able to build anywhere but surely even you can see that it's madness that in urban areas anything can sensibly be rejected?
Do you find this offensive?
The majority of exactly this design were rejected in London. I do not think councils had any right to reject these but they did, wholesale.
I don’t object to masts and would have no issue with that in the field next to my house. I would be unhappy if the view of the countryside that I spent money on (the extension with balcony) was turned into houses. And yes that’s a NIMBY attitude, and can be called that. We wouldn’t have built what we did if (a) the view wasn’t there and (b) we didn’t believe it would be there for many years to come.
Maybe you should buy the land with the view, then you can keep it as your heart desires?
Otherwise, if its not yours, then don't expect to freeload off others.
Do people freeload off the Lake Dustrict?
Not at all, I pay a fortune to businesses there to enjoy their land they own.
If you want to keep the view of the field next to you, there's a simple solution - buy it.
Otherwise, if someone else does, then they've not done anything wrong.
I have not said they would be doing anything wrong. I’ve said I would object. And then someone, somewhere would make a decision. At the moment the balance is probably too far in the objections winning column, but going to the other extreme is not the answer.
Why isn't it?
It worked just fine in the 1930s. It was a socialist policy implemented by Attlee and its been an unmitigated disaster. We should liberalise and revert back to what we had before then.
If it was such a disaster, why did we not have this problem in the 1990s?
We did, housing constructions were lower in the 90s than they were in the 30s.
Why was that a problem?
Because it meant that the dream of owning a home became increasingly unaffordable for many people.
That was a demand-side problem, not a supply-side problem.
Think of it in terms of your favourite topic of trade imbalances. We were the victim of other countries offloading their demand for housing onto us, both in terms of physical people and in terms of credit. You can't solve that problem by building your way out of it.
Of course you can.
If our population doubles but our housing supply trebles then we'll be well out of it.
Yes, and if you ground all the people into a fine dust then you could fit a billion of them in Wolverhampton...
Our population has grown exponentially in the past. What's wrong with more?
We're not short of land to build on, only about 5% of our land is developed, double it and its still only 10%. The problem is people standing in the way of doing so.
You'd clearly be happier in a country where people don't get a say. I suggest you move to Moscow.
Personal interest? Reduction of our quality of life? Doesn’t mean that our objection would win, and if the processes are followed so be it. I’m merely suggesting a free for all do anything is not what the vast majority of people want.
But how does a phone mast reduce your quality of life, how does it impact you beyond giving you a better phone signal?
I am happy to admit - again - that I am a minority in how I think you should be able to build anywhere but surely even you can see that it's madness that in urban areas anything can sensibly be rejected?
Do you find this offensive?
The majority of exactly this design were rejected in London. I do not think councils had any right to reject these but they did, wholesale.
I don’t object to masts and would have no issue with that in the field next to my house. I would be unhappy if the view of the countryside that I spent money on (the extension with balcony) was turned into houses. And yes that’s a NIMBY attitude, and can be called that. We wouldn’t have built what we did if (a) the view wasn’t there and (b) we didn’t believe it would be there for many years to come.
Maybe you should buy the land with the view, then you can keep it as your heart desires?
Otherwise, if its not yours, then don't expect to freeload off others.
Do people freeload off the Lake Dustrict?
Not at all, I pay a fortune to businesses there to enjoy their land they own.
If you want to keep the view of the field next to you, there's a simple solution - buy it.
Otherwise, if someone else does, then they've not done anything wrong.
I have not said they would be doing anything wrong. I’ve said I would object. And then someone, somewhere would make a decision. At the moment the balance is probably too far in the objections winning column, but going to the other extreme is not the answer.
Why isn't it?
It worked just fine in the 1930s. It was a socialist policy implemented by Attlee and its been an unmitigated disaster. We should liberalise and revert back to what we had before then.
If it was such a disaster, why did we not have this problem in the 1990s?
We did, housing constructions were lower in the 90s than they were in the 30s.
Why was that a problem?
Because we need more stuff built. People need places to live, work, etc
There is instead entire cottage industries dedicated to preventing growth. Growth of any kind, it doesn't matter if you mean houses, or masts, or pylons, or factories, or roads, or rails, or airports, or anything else - someone will object to it and drag it out.
The birth rate has been below replacement for decades. If we allowed the population to decline or just remain static, there would be no problem.
But we haven't and besides, life expectancy is rising and that means we need more housing as elderly people living alone take up a house just as much as a family of five living in the same house fifty years ago did.
We do need a huge housing program. And yes too many people object without what you might think are not valid reasons. But we need to bring people on board. Personally think we need to look at high density housing done well. Towerblocks can be made decent places to live, but they must have outdoor space.
Or we just need to tell people to mind their own business and move on.
If you own land in Japan and its zone for development you can just build on it, no questions asked. It works.
NIMBYs might not like it. Tough shit.
Until we deal with the root cause of the problem, parasites who want to object will do so.
Personal interest? Reduction of our quality of life? Doesn’t mean that our objection would win, and if the processes are followed so be it. I’m merely suggesting a free for all do anything is not what the vast majority of people want.
But how does a phone mast reduce your quality of life, how does it impact you beyond giving you a better phone signal?
I am happy to admit - again - that I am a minority in how I think you should be able to build anywhere but surely even you can see that it's madness that in urban areas anything can sensibly be rejected?
Do you find this offensive?
The majority of exactly this design were rejected in London. I do not think councils had any right to reject these but they did, wholesale.
I don’t object to masts and would have no issue with that in the field next to my house. I would be unhappy if the view of the countryside that I spent money on (the extension with balcony) was turned into houses. And yes that’s a NIMBY attitude, and can be called that. We wouldn’t have built what we did if (a) the view wasn’t there and (b) we didn’t believe it would be there for many years to come.
Maybe you should buy the land with the view, then you can keep it as your heart desires?
Otherwise, if its not yours, then don't expect to freeload off others.
Do people freeload off the Lake Dustrict?
Not at all, I pay a fortune to businesses there to enjoy their land they own.
If you want to keep the view of the field next to you, there's a simple solution - buy it.
Otherwise, if someone else does, then they've not done anything wrong.
I have not said they would be doing anything wrong. I’ve said I would object. And then someone, somewhere would make a decision. At the moment the balance is probably too far in the objections winning column, but going to the other extreme is not the answer.
Why isn't it?
It worked just fine in the 1930s. It was a socialist policy implemented by Attlee and its been an unmitigated disaster. We should liberalise and revert back to what we had before then.
If it was such a disaster, why did we not have this problem in the 1990s?
We did, housing constructions were lower in the 90s than they were in the 30s.
Why was that a problem?
Because it meant that the dream of owning a home became increasingly unaffordable for many people.
That was a demand-side problem, not a supply-side problem.
Think of it in terms of your favourite topic of trade imbalances. We were the victim of other countries offloading their demand for housing onto us, both in terms of physical people and in terms of credit. You can't solve that problem by building your way out of it.
Of course you can.
If our population doubles but our housing supply trebles then we'll be well out of it.
Yes, and if you ground all the people into a fine dust then you could fit a billion of them in Wolverhampton...
Our population has grown exponentially in the past. What's wrong with more?
We're not short of land to build on, only about 5% of our land is developed, double it and its still only 10%. The problem is people standing in the way of doing so.
You'd clearly be happier in a country where people don't get a say. I suggest you move to Moscow.
No, I'm happier in a country where the person who gets a say is the individual concerned and not anyone else.
That's called liberalism.
Being free from state diktats on what you can and can't do on the privacy of your own land. Not needing to ask the politburo or grease the right palms to get done what you want.
Personal interest? Reduction of our quality of life? Doesn’t mean that our objection would win, and if the processes are followed so be it. I’m merely suggesting a free for all do anything is not what the vast majority of people want.
But how does a phone mast reduce your quality of life, how does it impact you beyond giving you a better phone signal?
I am happy to admit - again - that I am a minority in how I think you should be able to build anywhere but surely even you can see that it's madness that in urban areas anything can sensibly be rejected?
Do you find this offensive?
The majority of exactly this design were rejected in London. I do not think councils had any right to reject these but they did, wholesale.
I don’t object to masts and would have no issue with that in the field next to my house. I would be unhappy if the view of the countryside that I spent money on (the extension with balcony) was turned into houses. And yes that’s a NIMBY attitude, and can be called that. We wouldn’t have built what we did if (a) the view wasn’t there and (b) we didn’t believe it would be there for many years to come.
Maybe you should buy the land with the view, then you can keep it as your heart desires?
Otherwise, if its not yours, then don't expect to freeload off others.
Do people freeload off the Lake Dustrict?
Not at all, I pay a fortune to businesses there to enjoy their land they own.
If you want to keep the view of the field next to you, there's a simple solution - buy it.
Otherwise, if someone else does, then they've not done anything wrong.
I have not said they would be doing anything wrong. I’ve said I would object. And then someone, somewhere would make a decision. At the moment the balance is probably too far in the objections winning column, but going to the other extreme is not the answer.
Why isn't it?
It worked just fine in the 1930s. It was a socialist policy implemented by Attlee and its been an unmitigated disaster. We should liberalise and revert back to what we had before then.
If it was such a disaster, why did we not have this problem in the 1990s?
We did, housing constructions were lower in the 90s than they were in the 30s.
Why was that a problem?
Because we need more stuff built. People need places to live, work, etc
There is instead entire cottage industries dedicated to preventing growth. Growth of any kind, it doesn't matter if you mean houses, or masts, or pylons, or factories, or roads, or rails, or airports, or anything else - someone will object to it and drag it out.
The birth rate has been below replacement for decades. If we allowed the population to decline or just remain static, there would be no problem.
But we haven't and besides, life expectancy is rising and that means we need more housing as elderly people living alone take up a house just as much as a family of five living in the same house fifty years ago did.
We do need a huge housing program. And yes too many people object without what you might think are not valid reasons. But we need to bring people on board. Personally think we need to look at high density housing done well. Towerblocks can be made decent places to live, but they must have outdoor space.
Or we just need to tell people to mind their own business and move on.
If you own land in Japan and its zone for development you can just build on it, no questions asked. It works.
NIMBYs might not like it. Tough shit.
Until we deal with the root cause of the problem, parasites who want to object will do so.
Here’s a question for you - do you think we should have speed limits on roads? Does your absolutism extend to that too?
People are entitled to a say in what happens in their community. I think you are an outlier in the general public on this. I’m not against development - far from it. We had a biogas plant built nearby to extreme objections from locals, but we were supportive. The point is it shouldn’t be that you can just do whatever you want without regard to your community.
People are entitled to a say but that doesn't mean it has to be listened to.
Every mast that gets applications gets dozens of objections from local residents. Should we listen to those and object it? Where exactly do you draw the line?
I'm happy to hear the argument in a rural area - maybe - but masts gets rejected in urban areas for visual obstruction. Frankly I do not see why in an urban area you have the right to complain about visual obstruction. But people do. And it's the most common reasons masts get rejected.
Personally I don't think that is the right approach, do you?
Free for all for everything is a step too far for most people. But I do think you are on to the right idea with masts and the like. You see all the time objections to things like that, or even modest development on frankly ugly or mediocre ground, on the basis that it will harm character etc. Most of those will get approved under delegated authority or on appeal because the pretexts given for rejection are ridiculous, but the system shouldn't be built on the idea that we expect bullcrap decisions and appeals to correct them as a matter of course, it should be more exceptional than that.
It is worth considering why this came about in the first place. Many of our two centres were devestated by the 60s and 70s developments that ruined them, building unsympathetic and down right ugly boxes in tghe middle of historic centres. Indeed often knocking down hostoric centres to do so. Planning laws were much lighter in those days and we see the results blighting towns up and down the country today.
Now I agree with BCH that it has swung too far the other way but the idea that we should simply remove planning entirely ignores the huge damage done to our ruban and rural landscapes in the past because planning law was not enforced, was bypassed or simply did not exist.
It is no joke that in many parts of the country the 'planners' and developers did more damage to our towns than the bombings in WW2.
Of course the other reason why Barts ideas are simply stupid is because what is done on one piece of land has inevitable effects on neighbours. The most obvious examples of this are to do with flooding where concreting over a previously absorbant landscape causes water to flow off onto neighbours land or into rivers causing huge issues further downstream.
Planning is not only, or even predominantly about NIMBYism. It is about makng sure that the right mitigations are put in place so that development does not cause harm to others or even to the poor buggers that have to live in the houses (for example) that are built in an inappropriate place just to make a quick buck.
Or we just need to tell people to mind their own business and move on.
If you own land in Japan and its zone for development you can just build on it, no questions asked. It works.
NIMBYs might not like it. Tough shit.
Until we deal with the root cause of the problem, parasites who want to object will do so.
The way the Japanese do infrastructure is brilliant. They buy up a load of land, build a railway and then re-develop the land around into shopping centres and housing. That's all allowed. Here it would take a decade to have the railway construction start if you are lucky.
Nobody here can say our system works. Italy - Italy! - built something like 20x more railway miles in the last 30 years than we did and most of it was in the last decade.
Why don't you address the point I am making? There is plenty of stuff written here that I don't find interesting that goes on for pages and I don't complain.
Personal interest? Reduction of our quality of life? Doesn’t mean that our objection would win, and if the processes are followed so be it. I’m merely suggesting a free for all do anything is not what the vast majority of people want.
But how does a phone mast reduce your quality of life, how does it impact you beyond giving you a better phone signal?
I am happy to admit - again - that I am a minority in how I think you should be able to build anywhere but surely even you can see that it's madness that in urban areas anything can sensibly be rejected?
Do you find this offensive?
The majority of exactly this design were rejected in London. I do not think councils had any right to reject these but they did, wholesale.
I don’t object to masts and would have no issue with that in the field next to my house. I would be unhappy if the view of the countryside that I spent money on (the extension with balcony) was turned into houses. And yes that’s a NIMBY attitude, and can be called that. We wouldn’t have built what we did if (a) the view wasn’t there and (b) we didn’t believe it would be there for many years to come.
Maybe you should buy the land with the view, then you can keep it as your heart desires?
Otherwise, if its not yours, then don't expect to freeload off others.
Do people freeload off the Lake Dustrict?
Not at all, I pay a fortune to businesses there to enjoy their land they own.
If you want to keep the view of the field next to you, there's a simple solution - buy it.
Otherwise, if someone else does, then they've not done anything wrong.
I have not said they would be doing anything wrong. I’ve said I would object. And then someone, somewhere would make a decision. At the moment the balance is probably too far in the objections winning column, but going to the other extreme is not the answer.
Why isn't it?
It worked just fine in the 1930s. It was a socialist policy implemented by Attlee and its been an unmitigated disaster. We should liberalise and revert back to what we had before then.
If it was such a disaster, why did we not have this problem in the 1990s?
We did, housing constructions were lower in the 90s than they were in the 30s.
Why was that a problem?
Because we need more stuff built. People need places to live, work, etc
There is instead entire cottage industries dedicated to preventing growth. Growth of any kind, it doesn't matter if you mean houses, or masts, or pylons, or factories, or roads, or rails, or airports, or anything else - someone will object to it and drag it out.
The birth rate has been below replacement for decades. If we allowed the population to decline or just remain static, there would be no problem.
But we haven't and besides, life expectancy is rising and that means we need more housing as elderly people living alone take up a house just as much as a family of five living in the same house fifty years ago did.
We do need a huge housing program. And yes too many people object without what you might think are not valid reasons. But we need to bring people on board. Personally think we need to look at high density housing done well. Towerblocks can be made decent places to live, but they must have outdoor space.
Or we just need to tell people to mind their own business and move on.
If you own land in Japan and its zone for development you can just build on it, no questions asked. It works.
NIMBYs might not like it. Tough shit.
Until we deal with the root cause of the problem, parasites who want to object will do so.
Here’s a question for you - do you think we should have speed limits on roads? Does your absolutism extend to that too?
I think the owner of the land should be free to set the limits they feel is appropriate for that land.
If the community owns the land, then they should be free to determine what they want.
If its privately owned and you want a different limit, that should be your prerogative.
Personal interest? Reduction of our quality of life? Doesn’t mean that our objection would win, and if the processes are followed so be it. I’m merely suggesting a free for all do anything is not what the vast majority of people want.
But how does a phone mast reduce your quality of life, how does it impact you beyond giving you a better phone signal?
I am happy to admit - again - that I am a minority in how I think you should be able to build anywhere but surely even you can see that it's madness that in urban areas anything can sensibly be rejected?
Do you find this offensive?
The majority of exactly this design were rejected in London. I do not think councils had any right to reject these but they did, wholesale.
I don’t object to masts and would have no issue with that in the field next to my house. I would be unhappy if the view of the countryside that I spent money on (the extension with balcony) was turned into houses. And yes that’s a NIMBY attitude, and can be called that. We wouldn’t have built what we did if (a) the view wasn’t there and (b) we didn’t believe it would be there for many years to come.
Maybe you should buy the land with the view, then you can keep it as your heart desires?
Otherwise, if its not yours, then don't expect to freeload off others.
Do people freeload off the Lake Dustrict?
Not at all, I pay a fortune to businesses there to enjoy their land they own.
If you want to keep the view of the field next to you, there's a simple solution - buy it.
Otherwise, if someone else does, then they've not done anything wrong.
I have not said they would be doing anything wrong. I’ve said I would object. And then someone, somewhere would make a decision. At the moment the balance is probably too far in the objections winning column, but going to the other extreme is not the answer.
Why isn't it?
It worked just fine in the 1930s. It was a socialist policy implemented by Attlee and its been an unmitigated disaster. We should liberalise and revert back to what we had before then.
If it was such a disaster, why did we not have this problem in the 1990s?
We did, housing constructions were lower in the 90s than they were in the 30s.
Why was that a problem?
Because it meant that the dream of owning a home became increasingly unaffordable for many people.
That was a demand-side problem, not a supply-side problem.
Think of it in terms of your favourite topic of trade imbalances. We were the victim of other countries offloading their demand for housing onto us, both in terms of physical people and in terms of credit. You can't solve that problem by building your way out of it.
Of course you can.
If our population doubles but our housing supply trebles then we'll be well out of it.
Yes, and if you ground all the people into a fine dust then you could fit a billion of them in Wolverhampton...
Our population has grown exponentially in the past. What's wrong with more?
We're not short of land to build on, only about 5% of our land is developed, double it and its still only 10%. The problem is people standing in the way of doing so.
You'd clearly be happier in a country where people don't get a say. I suggest you move to Moscow.
No, I'm happier in a country where the person who gets a say is the individual concerned and not anyone else.
That's called liberalism.
Being free from state diktats on what you can and can't do on the privacy of your own land. Not needing to ask the politburo or grease the right palms to get done what you want.
Musk: The waste and fraud in entitlement spending— Most of the federal spending is entitlements.. that’s the big one to eliminate… That is also the mechanism by which the Democrats attract and retain illegal immigrants..
He's right that that's where most government spending.
He's wrong about there being lots of fraud there, not least because this has been an area where successive governments have been keen to crack down. (Reagan era "welfare queens" being a classic example.)
The question I want to know is this:
Is Musk just dumb (ie, he doesn't really know about government spending), or is he actively malignant?
Until recently I'd have gone with (1), but am now veering towards (2).
Why don't you address the point I am making? There is plenty of stuff written here that I don't find interesting that goes on for pages and I don't complain.
I'm all in favour of masts. There - I've said it. I don't need to say it again.
Personal interest? Reduction of our quality of life? Doesn’t mean that our objection would win, and if the processes are followed so be it. I’m merely suggesting a free for all do anything is not what the vast majority of people want.
But how does a phone mast reduce your quality of life, how does it impact you beyond giving you a better phone signal?
I am happy to admit - again - that I am a minority in how I think you should be able to build anywhere but surely even you can see that it's madness that in urban areas anything can sensibly be rejected?
Do you find this offensive?
The majority of exactly this design were rejected in London. I do not think councils had any right to reject these but they did, wholesale.
I don’t object to masts and would have no issue with that in the field next to my house. I would be unhappy if the view of the countryside that I spent money on (the extension with balcony) was turned into houses. And yes that’s a NIMBY attitude, and can be called that. We wouldn’t have built what we did if (a) the view wasn’t there and (b) we didn’t believe it would be there for many years to come.
Maybe you should buy the land with the view, then you can keep it as your heart desires?
Otherwise, if its not yours, then don't expect to freeload off others.
Do people freeload off the Lake Dustrict?
Not at all, I pay a fortune to businesses there to enjoy their land they own.
If you want to keep the view of the field next to you, there's a simple solution - buy it.
Otherwise, if someone else does, then they've not done anything wrong.
I have not said they would be doing anything wrong. I’ve said I would object. And then someone, somewhere would make a decision. At the moment the balance is probably too far in the objections winning column, but going to the other extreme is not the answer.
Why isn't it?
It worked just fine in the 1930s. It was a socialist policy implemented by Attlee and its been an unmitigated disaster. We should liberalise and revert back to what we had before then.
If it was such a disaster, why did we not have this problem in the 1990s?
We did, housing constructions were lower in the 90s than they were in the 30s.
Why was that a problem?
Because we need more stuff built. People need places to live, work, etc
There is instead entire cottage industries dedicated to preventing growth. Growth of any kind, it doesn't matter if you mean houses, or masts, or pylons, or factories, or roads, or rails, or airports, or anything else - someone will object to it and drag it out.
The birth rate has been below replacement for decades. If we allowed the population to decline or just remain static, there would be no problem.
But we haven't and besides, life expectancy is rising and that means we need more housing as elderly people living alone take up a house just as much as a family of five living in the same house fifty years ago did.
We do need a huge housing program. And yes too many people object without what you might think are not valid reasons. But we need to bring people on board. Personally think we need to look at high density housing done well. Towerblocks can be made decent places to live, but they must have outdoor space.
Or we just need to tell people to mind their own business and move on.
If you own land in Japan and its zone for development you can just build on it, no questions asked. It works.
NIMBYs might not like it. Tough shit.
Until we deal with the root cause of the problem, parasites who want to object will do so.
Here’s a question for you - do you think we should have speed limits on roads? Does your absolutism extend to that too?
I think the owner of the land should be free to set the limits they feel is appropriate for that land.
If the community owns the land, then they should be free to determine what they want.
If its privately owned and you want a different limit, that should be your prerogative.
Personal interest? Reduction of our quality of life? Doesn’t mean that our objection would win, and if the processes are followed so be it. I’m merely suggesting a free for all do anything is not what the vast majority of people want.
But how does a phone mast reduce your quality of life, how does it impact you beyond giving you a better phone signal?
I am happy to admit - again - that I am a minority in how I think you should be able to build anywhere but surely even you can see that it's madness that in urban areas anything can sensibly be rejected?
Do you find this offensive?
The majority of exactly this design were rejected in London. I do not think councils had any right to reject these but they did, wholesale.
I don’t object to masts and would have no issue with that in the field next to my house. I would be unhappy if the view of the countryside that I spent money on (the extension with balcony) was turned into houses. And yes that’s a NIMBY attitude, and can be called that. We wouldn’t have built what we did if (a) the view wasn’t there and (b) we didn’t believe it would be there for many years to come.
Maybe you should buy the land with the view, then you can keep it as your heart desires?
Otherwise, if its not yours, then don't expect to freeload off others.
Do people freeload off the Lake Dustrict?
Not at all, I pay a fortune to businesses there to enjoy their land they own.
If you want to keep the view of the field next to you, there's a simple solution - buy it.
Otherwise, if someone else does, then they've not done anything wrong.
I have not said they would be doing anything wrong. I’ve said I would object. And then someone, somewhere would make a decision. At the moment the balance is probably too far in the objections winning column, but going to the other extreme is not the answer.
Why isn't it?
It worked just fine in the 1930s. It was a socialist policy implemented by Attlee and its been an unmitigated disaster. We should liberalise and revert back to what we had before then.
If it was such a disaster, why did we not have this problem in the 1990s?
We did, housing constructions were lower in the 90s than they were in the 30s.
Why was that a problem?
Because it meant that the dream of owning a home became increasingly unaffordable for many people.
That was a demand-side problem, not a supply-side problem.
Think of it in terms of your favourite topic of trade imbalances. We were the victim of other countries offloading their demand for housing onto us, both in terms of physical people and in terms of credit. You can't solve that problem by building your way out of it.
Of course you can.
If our population doubles but our housing supply trebles then we'll be well out of it.
Yes, and if you ground all the people into a fine dust then you could fit a billion of them in Wolverhampton...
Our population has grown exponentially in the past. What's wrong with more?
We're not short of land to build on, only about 5% of our land is developed, double it and its still only 10%. The problem is people standing in the way of doing so.
You'd clearly be happier in a country where people don't get a say. I suggest you move to Moscow.
No, I'm happier in a country where the person who gets a say is the individual concerned and not anyone else.
That's called liberalism.
Being free from state diktats on what you can and can't do on the privacy of your own land. Not needing to ask the politburo or grease the right palms to get done what you want.
Stand for election and see how far you get.
I know that at the minute illiberal authoritarians win elections.
Doesn't mean I need to accept their principles or support them. I'm happy to fly the flag for liberalisation, even if others don't - and maybe one day the Overton Window will move my way.
Personal interest? Reduction of our quality of life? Doesn’t mean that our objection would win, and if the processes are followed so be it. I’m merely suggesting a free for all do anything is not what the vast majority of people want.
But how does a phone mast reduce your quality of life, how does it impact you beyond giving you a better phone signal?
I am happy to admit - again - that I am a minority in how I think you should be able to build anywhere but surely even you can see that it's madness that in urban areas anything can sensibly be rejected?
Do you find this offensive?
The majority of exactly this design were rejected in London. I do not think councils had any right to reject these but they did, wholesale.
I don’t object to masts and would have no issue with that in the field next to my house. I would be unhappy if the view of the countryside that I spent money on (the extension with balcony) was turned into houses. And yes that’s a NIMBY attitude, and can be called that. We wouldn’t have built what we did if (a) the view wasn’t there and (b) we didn’t believe it would be there for many years to come.
Maybe you should buy the land with the view, then you can keep it as your heart desires?
Otherwise, if its not yours, then don't expect to freeload off others.
Do people freeload off the Lake Dustrict?
Not at all, I pay a fortune to businesses there to enjoy their land they own.
If you want to keep the view of the field next to you, there's a simple solution - buy it.
Otherwise, if someone else does, then they've not done anything wrong.
I have not said they would be doing anything wrong. I’ve said I would object. And then someone, somewhere would make a decision. At the moment the balance is probably too far in the objections winning column, but going to the other extreme is not the answer.
Why isn't it?
It worked just fine in the 1930s. It was a socialist policy implemented by Attlee and its been an unmitigated disaster. We should liberalise and revert back to what we had before then.
If it was such a disaster, why did we not have this problem in the 1990s?
We did, housing constructions were lower in the 90s than they were in the 30s.
Why was that a problem?
Because we need more stuff built. People need places to live, work, etc
There is instead entire cottage industries dedicated to preventing growth. Growth of any kind, it doesn't matter if you mean houses, or masts, or pylons, or factories, or roads, or rails, or airports, or anything else - someone will object to it and drag it out.
The birth rate has been below replacement for decades. If we allowed the population to decline or just remain static, there would be no problem.
But we haven't and besides, life expectancy is rising and that means we need more housing as elderly people living alone take up a house just as much as a family of five living in the same house fifty years ago did.
We do need a huge housing program. And yes too many people object without what you might think are not valid reasons. But we need to bring people on board. Personally think we need to look at high density housing done well. Towerblocks can be made decent places to live, but they must have outdoor space.
Or we just need to tell people to mind their own business and move on.
If you own land in Japan and its zone for development you can just build on it, no questions asked. It works.
NIMBYs might not like it. Tough shit.
Until we deal with the root cause of the problem, parasites who want to object will do so.
Here’s a question for you - do you think we should have speed limits on roads? Does your absolutism extend to that too?
I think the owner of the land should be free to set the limits they feel is appropriate for that land.
If the community owns the land, then they should be free to determine what they want.
If its privately owned and you want a different limit, that should be your prerogative.
I don't drive - so this is purely hypothetical to me - but... are you suggesting that land-plot-by-plot the speed limit could change? 20mph for a mile or two, then, on the whim of a different land-owner, 150mph? Then a mile later, 25mph
Personal interest? Reduction of our quality of life? Doesn’t mean that our objection would win, and if the processes are followed so be it. I’m merely suggesting a free for all do anything is not what the vast majority of people want.
But how does a phone mast reduce your quality of life, how does it impact you beyond giving you a better phone signal?
I am happy to admit - again - that I am a minority in how I think you should be able to build anywhere but surely even you can see that it's madness that in urban areas anything can sensibly be rejected?
Do you find this offensive?
The majority of exactly this design were rejected in London. I do not think councils had any right to reject these but they did, wholesale.
I don’t object to masts and would have no issue with that in the field next to my house. I would be unhappy if the view of the countryside that I spent money on (the extension with balcony) was turned into houses. And yes that’s a NIMBY attitude, and can be called that. We wouldn’t have built what we did if (a) the view wasn’t there and (b) we didn’t believe it would be there for many years to come.
Maybe you should buy the land with the view, then you can keep it as your heart desires?
Otherwise, if its not yours, then don't expect to freeload off others.
Do people freeload off the Lake Dustrict?
Not at all, I pay a fortune to businesses there to enjoy their land they own.
If you want to keep the view of the field next to you, there's a simple solution - buy it.
Otherwise, if someone else does, then they've not done anything wrong.
I have not said they would be doing anything wrong. I’ve said I would object. And then someone, somewhere would make a decision. At the moment the balance is probably too far in the objections winning column, but going to the other extreme is not the answer.
Why isn't it?
It worked just fine in the 1930s. It was a socialist policy implemented by Attlee and its been an unmitigated disaster. We should liberalise and revert back to what we had before then.
If it was such a disaster, why did we not have this problem in the 1990s?
We did, housing constructions were lower in the 90s than they were in the 30s.
Why was that a problem?
Because it meant that the dream of owning a home became increasingly unaffordable for many people.
That was a demand-side problem, not a supply-side problem.
Think of it in terms of your favourite topic of trade imbalances. We were the victim of other countries offloading their demand for housing onto us, both in terms of physical people and in terms of credit. You can't solve that problem by building your way out of it.
Of course you can.
If our population doubles but our housing supply trebles then we'll be well out of it.
Yes, and if you ground all the people into a fine dust then you could fit a billion of them in Wolverhampton...
Our population has grown exponentially in the past. What's wrong with more?
We're not short of land to build on, only about 5% of our land is developed, double it and its still only 10%. The problem is people standing in the way of doing so.
You'd clearly be happier in a country where people don't get a say. I suggest you move to Moscow.
No, I'm happier in a country where the person who gets a say is the individual concerned and not anyone else.
That's called liberalism.
Being free from state diktats on what you can and can't do on the privacy of your own land. Not needing to ask the politburo or grease the right palms to get done what you want.
Stand for election and see how far you get.
I know that at the minute illiberal authoritarians win elections.
Doesn't mean I need to accept their principles or support them. I'm happy to fly the flag for liberalisation, even if others don't - and maybe one day the Overton Window will move my way.
A libertarian position would be more popular if you were prepared to compromise. For example, liberalised planning but contingent on limits to population growth. Instead you just have a fanatical view that entertains no trade offs.
Personal interest? Reduction of our quality of life? Doesn’t mean that our objection would win, and if the processes are followed so be it. I’m merely suggesting a free for all do anything is not what the vast majority of people want.
But how does a phone mast reduce your quality of life, how does it impact you beyond giving you a better phone signal?
I am happy to admit - again - that I am a minority in how I think you should be able to build anywhere but surely even you can see that it's madness that in urban areas anything can sensibly be rejected?
Do you find this offensive?
The majority of exactly this design were rejected in London. I do not think councils had any right to reject these but they did, wholesale.
I don’t object to masts and would have no issue with that in the field next to my house. I would be unhappy if the view of the countryside that I spent money on (the extension with balcony) was turned into houses. And yes that’s a NIMBY attitude, and can be called that. We wouldn’t have built what we did if (a) the view wasn’t there and (b) we didn’t believe it would be there for many years to come.
Maybe you should buy the land with the view, then you can keep it as your heart desires?
Otherwise, if its not yours, then don't expect to freeload off others.
Do people freeload off the Lake Dustrict?
Not at all, I pay a fortune to businesses there to enjoy their land they own.
If you want to keep the view of the field next to you, there's a simple solution - buy it.
Otherwise, if someone else does, then they've not done anything wrong.
I have not said they would be doing anything wrong. I’ve said I would object. And then someone, somewhere would make a decision. At the moment the balance is probably too far in the objections winning column, but going to the other extreme is not the answer.
Why isn't it?
It worked just fine in the 1930s. It was a socialist policy implemented by Attlee and its been an unmitigated disaster. We should liberalise and revert back to what we had before then.
If it was such a disaster, why did we not have this problem in the 1990s?
We did, housing constructions were lower in the 90s than they were in the 30s.
Why was that a problem?
Because we need more stuff built. People need places to live, work, etc
There is instead entire cottage industries dedicated to preventing growth. Growth of any kind, it doesn't matter if you mean houses, or masts, or pylons, or factories, or roads, or rails, or airports, or anything else - someone will object to it and drag it out.
The birth rate has been below replacement for decades. If we allowed the population to decline or just remain static, there would be no problem.
But we haven't and besides, life expectancy is rising and that means we need more housing as elderly people living alone take up a house just as much as a family of five living in the same house fifty years ago did.
We do need a huge housing program. And yes too many people object without what you might think are not valid reasons. But we need to bring people on board. Personally think we need to look at high density housing done well. Towerblocks can be made decent places to live, but they must have outdoor space.
Or we just need to tell people to mind their own business and move on.
If you own land in Japan and its zone for development you can just build on it, no questions asked. It works.
NIMBYs might not like it. Tough shit.
Until we deal with the root cause of the problem, parasites who want to object will do so.
Here’s a question for you - do you think we should have speed limits on roads? Does your absolutism extend to that too?
I think the owner of the land should be free to set the limits they feel is appropriate for that land.
If the community owns the land, then they should be free to determine what they want.
If its privately owned and you want a different limit, that should be your prerogative.
That’s not really the question I was asking😀
Yes, it was, you just don't like it being phrased that way.
You were asking if [publicly-owned] roads should have [publicly-determined] speed limits.
I've said all along the community should be able to determine what it does on community-owned land.
My issue is private land, not communal land. If you're on communal land then you should follow communal rules, if you are on private land, you should be free to determine what you want to do within a liberal legal system.
Personal interest? Reduction of our quality of life? Doesn’t mean that our objection would win, and if the processes are followed so be it. I’m merely suggesting a free for all do anything is not what the vast majority of people want.
But how does a phone mast reduce your quality of life, how does it impact you beyond giving you a better phone signal?
I am happy to admit - again - that I am a minority in how I think you should be able to build anywhere but surely even you can see that it's madness that in urban areas anything can sensibly be rejected?
Do you find this offensive?
The majority of exactly this design were rejected in London. I do not think councils had any right to reject these but they did, wholesale.
I don’t object to masts and would have no issue with that in the field next to my house. I would be unhappy if the view of the countryside that I spent money on (the extension with balcony) was turned into houses. And yes that’s a NIMBY attitude, and can be called that. We wouldn’t have built what we did if (a) the view wasn’t there and (b) we didn’t believe it would be there for many years to come.
Maybe you should buy the land with the view, then you can keep it as your heart desires?
Otherwise, if its not yours, then don't expect to freeload off others.
Do people freeload off the Lake Dustrict?
Not at all, I pay a fortune to businesses there to enjoy their land they own.
If you want to keep the view of the field next to you, there's a simple solution - buy it.
Otherwise, if someone else does, then they've not done anything wrong.
I have not said they would be doing anything wrong. I’ve said I would object. And then someone, somewhere would make a decision. At the moment the balance is probably too far in the objections winning column, but going to the other extreme is not the answer.
Why isn't it?
It worked just fine in the 1930s. It was a socialist policy implemented by Attlee and its been an unmitigated disaster. We should liberalise and revert back to what we had before then.
If it was such a disaster, why did we not have this problem in the 1990s?
We did, housing constructions were lower in the 90s than they were in the 30s.
Why was that a problem?
Because it meant that the dream of owning a home became increasingly unaffordable for many people.
That was a demand-side problem, not a supply-side problem.
Think of it in terms of your favourite topic of trade imbalances. We were the victim of other countries offloading their demand for housing onto us, both in terms of physical people and in terms of credit. You can't solve that problem by building your way out of it.
Of course you can.
If our population doubles but our housing supply trebles then we'll be well out of it.
Yes, and if you ground all the people into a fine dust then you could fit a billion of them in Wolverhampton...
Our population has grown exponentially in the past. What's wrong with more?
We're not short of land to build on, only about 5% of our land is developed, double it and its still only 10%. The problem is people standing in the way of doing so.
You'd clearly be happier in a country where people don't get a say. I suggest you move to Moscow.
No, I'm happier in a country where the person who gets a say is the individual concerned and not anyone else.
That's called liberalism.
Being free from state diktats on what you can and can't do on the privacy of your own land. Not needing to ask the politburo or grease the right palms to get done what you want.
Stand for election and see how far you get.
I know that at the minute illiberal authoritarians win elections.
Doesn't mean I need to accept their principles or support them. I'm happy to fly the flag for liberalisation, even if others don't - and maybe one day the Overton Window will move my way.
No. There will be multiple objections made to the placing of the Overton Window and it won't get built.
Name the author, book, and rate the advisability of committing such a remark to print on a scale of 0 (not at all advisable) to 10 (positively to be encouraged).
You do realise TESLA is a key component of many peoples investment portfolios as well as index trackers and it falling just simply goes to the detriment of many people around the world.
You probably don’t give a shit about others, to be fair, as long as the libs own Musk.
I don't agree with the beating up of Rochdale over his YouTube channel but anything we can do to punish MAGA adjacent corporations is OK by me. Quietly cancelling my Amazon Prime membership however useful might be one small pain in Bezos's side. If enough cancel it will be a massive pain in his arse, and he might think twice about turning WaPo into the National Enquirer.
Forty years ago the Eliza Tinsley company broke South African sanctions and provided the Apartheid Government with chains and manacles to shackle Nelson Mandela to his cell wall in Roben Island. I have never subsequently bought any of their products. Bastards!
I agree, and IMV the bullying of Rochdale this morning was unseemly.
I took out a 30 day prime membership to get the Dr Who season 7 Blu-ray next day. I’ll cancel it. Also find it far cheaper to order directly for the sort of stuff I buy.
Thanks, but remember that bullying takes two. There was some attempted bullying, but it didn't succeed in bullying me.
People get het up in the middle of scandals crises and issues. I don't think anything was meant personally and it wasn't taken as such.
I did mean it personally.
You can argue that there's no difference between promoting Teslas and buying an iphone if you want to be merely stupid.
But misrepresenting others by claiming they said if you don't sell your Tesla you're supporting the butchering of Ukraine, means you're dishonest so far as I am concerned. Which means I don't believe you sincerely believe any of the bollocks you write in support of Musk. Free speech absolutist my arse.
Sorry, but you are full of shit.
What makes me giggle is the line in bold. I don't write anything in support of Musk - unless you think me calling him a dick repeatedly is me supporting him. And I defined "free speech absolutist" - what I believe Musk's position to be - as "bloody stupid". Again, not in support.
Does make me giggle though so you've done that for me.
Yeah it's all a fucking hilarious game to you.
The game? No. You and the people like you going puce with rage when you realise that The Whole World Doesn't Agree With You? Yes.
And again, you're posting things that you think I have said and you think I have done and you think I think. Because That Fits Your Anger. But it's imagined.
You claim to believe that Musk supports the AfD because he believes they have been censored. At least someone using your username said that in the last thread.
Has someone hacked your PB account or are you in fact full of shit?
Personal interest? Reduction of our quality of life? Doesn’t mean that our objection would win, and if the processes are followed so be it. I’m merely suggesting a free for all do anything is not what the vast majority of people want.
But how does a phone mast reduce your quality of life, how does it impact you beyond giving you a better phone signal?
I am happy to admit - again - that I am a minority in how I think you should be able to build anywhere but surely even you can see that it's madness that in urban areas anything can sensibly be rejected?
Do you find this offensive?
The majority of exactly this design were rejected in London. I do not think councils had any right to reject these but they did, wholesale.
I don’t object to masts and would have no issue with that in the field next to my house. I would be unhappy if the view of the countryside that I spent money on (the extension with balcony) was turned into houses. And yes that’s a NIMBY attitude, and can be called that. We wouldn’t have built what we did if (a) the view wasn’t there and (b) we didn’t believe it would be there for many years to come.
Maybe you should buy the land with the view, then you can keep it as your heart desires?
Otherwise, if its not yours, then don't expect to freeload off others.
Do people freeload off the Lake Dustrict?
Not at all, I pay a fortune to businesses there to enjoy their land they own.
If you want to keep the view of the field next to you, there's a simple solution - buy it.
Otherwise, if someone else does, then they've not done anything wrong.
I have not said they would be doing anything wrong. I’ve said I would object. And then someone, somewhere would make a decision. At the moment the balance is probably too far in the objections winning column, but going to the other extreme is not the answer.
Why isn't it?
It worked just fine in the 1930s. It was a socialist policy implemented by Attlee and its been an unmitigated disaster. We should liberalise and revert back to what we had before then.
If it was such a disaster, why did we not have this problem in the 1990s?
We did, housing constructions were lower in the 90s than they were in the 30s.
Why was that a problem?
Because we need more stuff built. People need places to live, work, etc
There is instead entire cottage industries dedicated to preventing growth. Growth of any kind, it doesn't matter if you mean houses, or masts, or pylons, or factories, or roads, or rails, or airports, or anything else - someone will object to it and drag it out.
The birth rate has been below replacement for decades. If we allowed the population to decline or just remain static, there would be no problem.
But we haven't and besides, life expectancy is rising and that means we need more housing as elderly people living alone take up a house just as much as a family of five living in the same house fifty years ago did.
We do need a huge housing program. And yes too many people object without what you might think are not valid reasons. But we need to bring people on board. Personally think we need to look at high density housing done well. Towerblocks can be made decent places to live, but they must have outdoor space.
Or we just need to tell people to mind their own business and move on.
If you own land in Japan and its zone for development you can just build on it, no questions asked. It works.
NIMBYs might not like it. Tough shit.
Until we deal with the root cause of the problem, parasites who want to object will do so.
Here’s a question for you - do you think we should have speed limits on roads? Does your absolutism extend to that too?
I think the owner of the land should be free to set the limits they feel is appropriate for that land.
If the community owns the land, then they should be free to determine what they want.
If its privately owned and you want a different limit, that should be your prerogative.
I don't drive - so this is purely hypothetical to me - but... are you suggesting that land-plot-by-plot the speed limit could change? 20mph for a mile or two, then, on the whim of a different land-owner, 150mph? Then a mile later, 25mph
If they are privately-owned plots of road, then yes, it should be free to the owner to decide what they want for their plot.
However I don't know of anywhere with contiguous, private roads like that. If it does exist though, then yes, why not?
Personal interest? Reduction of our quality of life? Doesn’t mean that our objection would win, and if the processes are followed so be it. I’m merely suggesting a free for all do anything is not what the vast majority of people want.
But how does a phone mast reduce your quality of life, how does it impact you beyond giving you a better phone signal?
I am happy to admit - again - that I am a minority in how I think you should be able to build anywhere but surely even you can see that it's madness that in urban areas anything can sensibly be rejected?
Do you find this offensive?
The majority of exactly this design were rejected in London. I do not think councils had any right to reject these but they did, wholesale.
I don’t object to masts and would have no issue with that in the field next to my house. I would be unhappy if the view of the countryside that I spent money on (the extension with balcony) was turned into houses. And yes that’s a NIMBY attitude, and can be called that. We wouldn’t have built what we did if (a) the view wasn’t there and (b) we didn’t believe it would be there for many years to come.
Maybe you should buy the land with the view, then you can keep it as your heart desires?
Otherwise, if its not yours, then don't expect to freeload off others.
Do people freeload off the Lake Dustrict?
Not at all, I pay a fortune to businesses there to enjoy their land they own.
If you want to keep the view of the field next to you, there's a simple solution - buy it.
Otherwise, if someone else does, then they've not done anything wrong.
I have not said they would be doing anything wrong. I’ve said I would object. And then someone, somewhere would make a decision. At the moment the balance is probably too far in the objections winning column, but going to the other extreme is not the answer.
Why isn't it?
It worked just fine in the 1930s. It was a socialist policy implemented by Attlee and its been an unmitigated disaster. We should liberalise and revert back to what we had before then.
If it was such a disaster, why did we not have this problem in the 1990s?
We did, housing constructions were lower in the 90s than they were in the 30s.
Why was that a problem?
Because we need more stuff built. People need places to live, work, etc
There is instead entire cottage industries dedicated to preventing growth. Growth of any kind, it doesn't matter if you mean houses, or masts, or pylons, or factories, or roads, or rails, or airports, or anything else - someone will object to it and drag it out.
The birth rate has been below replacement for decades. If we allowed the population to decline or just remain static, there would be no problem.
But we haven't and besides, life expectancy is rising and that means we need more housing as elderly people living alone take up a house just as much as a family of five living in the same house fifty years ago did.
We do need a huge housing program. And yes too many people object without what you might think are not valid reasons. But we need to bring people on board. Personally think we need to look at high density housing done well. Towerblocks can be made decent places to live, but they must have outdoor space.
Or we just need to tell people to mind their own business and move on.
If you own land in Japan and its zone for development you can just build on it, no questions asked. It works.
NIMBYs might not like it. Tough shit.
Until we deal with the root cause of the problem, parasites who want to object will do so.
Here’s a question for you - do you think we should have speed limits on roads? Does your absolutism extend to that too?
I think the owner of the land should be free to set the limits they feel is appropriate for that land.
If the community owns the land, then they should be free to determine what they want.
If its privately owned and you want a different limit, that should be your prerogative.
Isn't that what happens, in the sense that there are no speed limits applied to privately owned racing tracks, but all public highways are, well, public, and so subject to laws on speed limits passed by the democratic legislature.
Personal interest? Reduction of our quality of life? Doesn’t mean that our objection would win, and if the processes are followed so be it. I’m merely suggesting a free for all do anything is not what the vast majority of people want.
But how does a phone mast reduce your quality of life, how does it impact you beyond giving you a better phone signal?
I am happy to admit - again - that I am a minority in how I think you should be able to build anywhere but surely even you can see that it's madness that in urban areas anything can sensibly be rejected?
Do you find this offensive?
The majority of exactly this design were rejected in London. I do not think councils had any right to reject these but they did, wholesale.
I don’t object to masts and would have no issue with that in the field next to my house. I would be unhappy if the view of the countryside that I spent money on (the extension with balcony) was turned into houses. And yes that’s a NIMBY attitude, and can be called that. We wouldn’t have built what we did if (a) the view wasn’t there and (b) we didn’t believe it would be there for many years to come.
Maybe you should buy the land with the view, then you can keep it as your heart desires?
Otherwise, if its not yours, then don't expect to freeload off others.
Do people freeload off the Lake Dustrict?
Not at all, I pay a fortune to businesses there to enjoy their land they own.
If you want to keep the view of the field next to you, there's a simple solution - buy it.
Otherwise, if someone else does, then they've not done anything wrong.
I have not said they would be doing anything wrong. I’ve said I would object. And then someone, somewhere would make a decision. At the moment the balance is probably too far in the objections winning column, but going to the other extreme is not the answer.
Why isn't it?
It worked just fine in the 1930s. It was a socialist policy implemented by Attlee and its been an unmitigated disaster. We should liberalise and revert back to what we had before then.
If it was such a disaster, why did we not have this problem in the 1990s?
We did, housing constructions were lower in the 90s than they were in the 30s.
Why was that a problem?
Because we need more stuff built. People need places to live, work, etc
There is instead entire cottage industries dedicated to preventing growth. Growth of any kind, it doesn't matter if you mean houses, or masts, or pylons, or factories, or roads, or rails, or airports, or anything else - someone will object to it and drag it out.
The birth rate has been below replacement for decades. If we allowed the population to decline or just remain static, there would be no problem.
But we haven't and besides, life expectancy is rising and that means we need more housing as elderly people living alone take up a house just as much as a family of five living in the same house fifty years ago did.
We do need a huge housing program. And yes too many people object without what you might think are not valid reasons. But we need to bring people on board. Personally think we need to look at high density housing done well. Towerblocks can be made decent places to live, but they must have outdoor space.
Or we just need to tell people to mind their own business and move on.
If you own land in Japan and its zone for development you can just build on it, no questions asked. It works.
NIMBYs might not like it. Tough shit.
Until we deal with the root cause of the problem, parasites who want to object will do so.
Here’s a question for you - do you think we should have speed limits on roads? Does your absolutism extend to that too?
I think the owner of the land should be free to set the limits they feel is appropriate for that land.
If the community owns the land, then they should be free to determine what they want.
If its privately owned and you want a different limit, that should be your prerogative.
Isn't that what happens, I'm the sense that there are no speed limits applied to privately owned racing tracks, but all public highways are, well, public, and so subject to laws on speed limits passed by the democratic legislature.
Precisely my point!
And it ought to be the same with construction.
If you want to have the equivalent of a privately owned racing track getting lots built, then if its your land you should be able to get on with it.
If you want a communal space, the community should be responsible for it, but don't expect someone else to do so on your behalf or to take anyone else's rights away from their land.
Name the author, book, and rate the advisability of committing such a remark to print on a scale of 0 (not at all advisable) to 10 (positively to be encouraged).
BREAKING: U.S. stocks tumbled on Monday, with concerns about the effects of President Trump’s tariffs on economic growth spooking investors. The Dow fell 890.01 points, while the Nasdaq and S&P 500 slid 4% and 2.69%, respectively.
Name the author, book, and rate the advisability of committing such a remark to print on a scale of 0 (not at all advisable) to 10 (positively to be encouraged).
Alan Clark is my guess, which book - not sure. The 'Donkeys' one? He wrote similarly about Vietnam as I remember from my eager teenage years. Advisability - depends if you are chums with the PM or commissioning editors.
The Mail is claiming that Trump is about to lift the intelligence sharing ban with Ukraine, after a conversation with Starmer on the matter.
That's what I speculated about last week.
Trump has surrounded himself with mushrooms and divots, so there was a possibility that Mr Starmer could penetrate the ignorance bubble with some reality.
If Mr Chump then does his normal "follow the last person you talked to who said something that lets you get a perceived win and some self-image" (that I think was from Bolton or Scaramucci), a change could happen before he forgot it all one day later.
There's also been some reports today that the British are "training" Zelensky in how to handle Trump, which would make sense. No wonder the Russians would be furious, and ranting about Britain, like this morning's info, if so.
The story of how Churchill played a very weak hand with the USA Govt in WW2 (and perhaps WW1 if it was him) may help there.
Musk: The waste and fraud in entitlement spending— Most of the federal spending is entitlements.. that’s the big one to eliminate… That is also the mechanism by which the Democrats attract and retain illegal immigrants..
He's right that that's where most government spending.
He's wrong about there being lots of fraud there, not least because this has been an area where successive governments have been keen to crack down. (Reagan era "welfare queens" being a classic example.)
The question I want to know is this:
Is Musk just dumb (ie, he doesn't really know about government spending), or is he actively malignant?
Until recently I'd have gone with (1), but am now veering towards (2).
2
He’s not that stupid.
"Yarvin has argued that a new president should “Retire All Government Employees” — fire them all — and rebuild the government anew. (He also supports toppling American democracy and replacing it with a monarchy.)
Vance cited Yarvin approvingly during that podcast appearance in which he discussed how Trump should fire “every civil servant.” He said: “There’s this guy, Curtis Yarvin, who has written about some of these things.”
Musk: The waste and fraud in entitlement spending— Most of the federal spending is entitlements.. that’s the big one to eliminate… That is also the mechanism by which the Democrats attract and retain illegal immigrants..
He's right that that's where most government spending.
He's wrong about there being lots of fraud there, not least because this has been an area where successive governments have been keen to crack down. (Reagan era "welfare queens" being a classic example.)
The question I want to know is this:
Is Musk just dumb (ie, he doesn't really know about government spending), or is he actively malignant?
Until recently I'd have gone with (1), but am now veering towards (2).
2
He’s not that stupid.
"Yarvin has argued that a new president should “Retire All Government Employees” — fire them all — and rebuild the government anew. (He also supports toppling American democracy and replacing it with a monarchy.)
Vance cited Yarvin approvingly during that podcast appearance in which he discussed how Trump should fire “every civil servant.” He said: “There’s this guy, Curtis Yarvin, who has written about some of these things.”
"supports toppling American democracy and replacing it with a monarchy"
Well, that plan is certainly working well thanks to the supine GOP party.
Personal interest? Reduction of our quality of life? Doesn’t mean that our objection would win, and if the processes are followed so be it. I’m merely suggesting a free for all do anything is not what the vast majority of people want.
But how does a phone mast reduce your quality of life, how does it impact you beyond giving you a better phone signal?
I am happy to admit - again - that I am a minority in how I think you should be able to build anywhere but surely even you can see that it's madness that in urban areas anything can sensibly be rejected?
Do you find this offensive?
The majority of exactly this design were rejected in London. I do not think councils had any right to reject these but they did, wholesale.
I don’t object to masts and would have no issue with that in the field next to my house. I would be unhappy if the view of the countryside that I spent money on (the extension with balcony) was turned into houses. And yes that’s a NIMBY attitude, and can be called that. We wouldn’t have built what we did if (a) the view wasn’t there and (b) we didn’t believe it would be there for many years to come.
Maybe you should buy the land with the view, then you can keep it as your heart desires?
Otherwise, if its not yours, then don't expect to freeload off others.
Do people freeload off the Lake Dustrict?
Not at all, I pay a fortune to businesses there to enjoy their land they own.
If you want to keep the view of the field next to you, there's a simple solution - buy it.
Otherwise, if someone else does, then they've not done anything wrong.
I have not said they would be doing anything wrong. I’ve said I would object. And then someone, somewhere would make a decision. At the moment the balance is probably too far in the objections winning column, but going to the other extreme is not the answer.
Why isn't it?
It worked just fine in the 1930s. It was a socialist policy implemented by Attlee and its been an unmitigated disaster. We should liberalise and revert back to what we had before then.
If it was such a disaster, why did we not have this problem in the 1990s?
We did, housing constructions were lower in the 90s than they were in the 30s.
Why was that a problem?
Because we need more stuff built. People need places to live, work, etc
There is instead entire cottage industries dedicated to preventing growth. Growth of any kind, it doesn't matter if you mean houses, or masts, or pylons, or factories, or roads, or rails, or airports, or anything else - someone will object to it and drag it out.
The birth rate has been below replacement for decades. If we allowed the population to decline or just remain static, there would be no problem.
But we haven't and besides, life expectancy is rising and that means we need more housing as elderly people living alone take up a house just as much as a family of five living in the same house fifty years ago did.
We do need a huge housing program. And yes too many people object without what you might think are not valid reasons. But we need to bring people on board. Personally think we need to look at high density housing done well. Towerblocks can be made decent places to live, but they must have outdoor space.
Or we just need to tell people to mind their own business and move on.
If you own land in Japan and its zone for development you can just build on it, no questions asked. It works.
NIMBYs might not like it. Tough shit.
Until we deal with the root cause of the problem, parasites who want to object will do so.
Here’s a question for you - do you think we should have speed limits on roads? Does your absolutism extend to that too?
I think the owner of the land should be free to set the limits they feel is appropriate for that land.
If the community owns the land, then they should be free to determine what they want.
If its privately owned and you want a different limit, that should be your prerogative.
I don't drive - so this is purely hypothetical to me - but... are you suggesting that land-plot-by-plot the speed limit could change? 20mph for a mile or two, then, on the whim of a different land-owner, 150mph? Then a mile later, 25mph
If they are privately-owned plots of road, then yes, it should be free to the owner to decide what they want for their plot.
However I don't know of anywhere with contiguous, private roads like that. If it does exist though, then yes, why not?
Forestry Commission and Great Estates, including National Trust - but nothing more than a few square miles except perhaps for military or Scotland.
But motoring law applies to any highway "normally accessible to the public", so if the public can get at it, you have limitations.
There are plenty of "privately owned" public roads, where ownership of the land extends to the middle of the highway, but there are supervening rights for users.
There is also the concept of Highways Land for future provision of wider roads etc. Records of that are held fairly deep within Local Highways Authorities and maps are available, but you need to know how to ask for them.
I had some real stick from neighbours to my former house when I proposed developing a junction, and I knew that the bits of verge outside their fences and off the pavement were Highway Land reserved for road widening because it used to be the A38 up until 30 years ago, and they didn't know. They thought they were part of their gardens outside their fences.
Name the author, book, and rate the advisability of committing such a remark to print on a scale of 0 (not at all advisable) to 10 (positively to be encouraged).
Name the author, book, and rate the advisability of committing such a remark to print on a scale of 0 (not at all advisable) to 10 (positively to be encouraged).
Alan Clark is my guess, which book - not sure. The 'Donkeys' one? He wrote similarly about Vietnam as I remember from my eager teenage years. Advisability - depends if you are chums with the PM or commissioning editors.
I agree that it is reminiscent of Alan Clark's style, but the book was published some years after Clark's death.
Name the author, book, and rate the advisability of committing such a remark to print on a scale of 0 (not at all advisable) to 10 (positively to be encouraged).
Name the author, book, and rate the advisability of committing such a remark to print on a scale of 0 (not at all advisable) to 10 (positively to be encouraged).
Not sure about the author, or Boris the Bulgars wife, but they are wrong about the Salonika campaign. In September the offensive there knocked first Bulgaria, then the Ottomans, then Austria-Hungary out of the war, leaving Germany alone and exposed. Indeed it is possible to argue that this was the decisive campaign of 1918 in finishing the war.
As I said to many others here, I am happy to admit that I am an extremist or whatever on planning but there should be some acknowledgement that the system we currently have is extremist the other way.
Yes and no. Broadly a lot of stuff gets approved. Trowbridge, a town near where I live, has probably doubled in size over the last 30 years. Warminster is getting in on the act now. There are vast amounts of plausible building plots and in general approval to build is gained.
Broadly nowhere near enough stuff gets approved though.
Individual towns may have doubled in size, but our population has increased by millions. Maybe without restrictions the town would have needed to treble, quadruple or go up orders of magnitude in size?
Maybe villages might need to become towns, and towns become cities.
In general approval takes far too long to gain and is gained by far too few people.
Only via immigration, which tighter visa requirements and the minimum wage needed for new migrants of £38k is starting to reduce.
The birthrate in the UK is well below replacement level now
Anonymous @YourAnonCentral Trump ordered the dismantling of the landing platform at Rzeszow airbase in Poland, the US has broken down warehouses and torn apart slabs of concrete on the runway to prevent further aid transports to Ukraine. Trump has no intention of resuming US aid to Ukraine. #StandWithUkraine
He's a Russian asset. The evidence is there for all to see. He's hiding in plain site. Anyone who believes to the contrary after the events of the last fortnight is deluding themselves.
Starmer needs to stop pussying around and grow a pair. There is a military alignment between the US and Russia, NATO as we knew it is dead. We need to be at 5% of GDP on defence spending by the end of 2025, and so do all of our allies. Russia with Trump's backing is an existential threat to Continental Europe.
If Trump and Milei go for the Falklands as a staging post for the mineral wealth of the South Atlantic region, so be it. Trump is in no hurry. Greenland first, then the Suez Canal, then Canada, then Mexico, so the Falklands can wait.
And what of Trump's proposed meeting with Xi and Putin. This is the stuff of James Bond , or rather Austin Powers.
Anonymous @YourAnonCentral Trump ordered the dismantling of the landing platform at Rzeszow airbase in Poland, the US has broken down warehouses and torn apart slabs of concrete on the runway to prevent further aid transports to Ukraine. Trump has no intention of resuming US aid to Ukraine. #StandWithUkraine
He's a Russian asset. The evidence is there for all to see. He's hiding in plain site. Anyone who believes to the contrary after the events of the last fortnight is deluding themselves.
Starmer needs to stop pussying around and grow a pair. There is a military alignment between the US and Russia, NATO as we knew it is dead. We need to be at 5% of GDP on defence spending by the end of 2025, and so do all of our allies. Russia with Trump's backing is an existential threat to Continental Europe.
If Trump and Milei go for the Falklands as a staging post for the mineral wealth of the South Atlantic region, so be it. Trump is in no hurry. Greenland first, then the Suez Canal, then Canada, then Mexico, so the Falklands can wait.
And what of Trump's proposed meeting with Xi and Putin. This is the stuff of James Bond , or rather Austin Powers.
Not so fast...
On the principle of cui bono, there is another possibility.
Which European leader has courted Trump since his first term? Which country has always dreamed of a Europe without American influence? Which country is eager to get other European countries to pay for its nuclear shield and buy its weapons?
If he were compromised by French intelligence, blaming the Russians would be a very convenient scapegoat for them.
Anonymous @YourAnonCentral Trump ordered the dismantling of the landing platform at Rzeszow airbase in Poland, the US has broken down warehouses and torn apart slabs of concrete on the runway to prevent further aid transports to Ukraine. Trump has no intention of resuming US aid to Ukraine. #StandWithUkraine
He's a Russian asset. The evidence is there for all to see. He's hiding in plain site. Anyone who believes to the contrary after the events of the last fortnight is deluding themselves.
Starmer needs to stop pussying around and grow a pair. There is a military alignment between the US and Russia, NATO as we knew it is dead. We need to be at 5% of GDP on defence spending by the end of 2025, and so do all of our allies. Russia with Trump's backing is an existential threat to Continental Europe.
If Trump and Milei go for the Falklands as a staging post for the mineral wealth of the South Atlantic region, so be it. Trump is in no hurry. Greenland first, then the Suez Canal, then Canada, then Mexico, so the Falklands can wait.
And what of Trump's proposed meeting with Xi and Putin. This is the stuff of James Bond , or rather Austin Powers.
He's not a Russian asset, he just enjoys being as awkward, obnoxious and unpredictable as possible.
Anonymous @YourAnonCentral Trump ordered the dismantling of the landing platform at Rzeszow airbase in Poland, the US has broken down warehouses and torn apart slabs of concrete on the runway to prevent further aid transports to Ukraine. Trump has no intention of resuming US aid to Ukraine. #StandWithUkraine
He's a Russian asset. The evidence is there for all to see. He's hiding in plain site. Anyone who believes to the contrary after the events of the last fortnight is deluding themselves.
Starmer needs to stop pussying around and grow a pair. There is a military alignment between the US and Russia, NATO as we knew it is dead. We need to be at 5% of GDP on defence spending by the end of 2025, and so do all of our allies. Russia with Trump's backing is an existential threat to Continental Europe.
If Trump and Milei go for the Falklands as a staging post for the mineral wealth of the South Atlantic region, so be it. Trump is in no hurry. Greenland first, then the Suez Canal, then Canada, then Mexico, so the Falklands can wait.
And what of Trump's proposed meeting with Xi and Putin. This is the stuff of James Bond , or rather Austin Powers.
He's not a Russian asset, he just enjoys being as awkward, obnoxious and unpredictable as possible.
Anonymous @YourAnonCentral Trump ordered the dismantling of the landing platform at Rzeszow airbase in Poland, the US has broken down warehouses and torn apart slabs of concrete on the runway to prevent further aid transports to Ukraine. Trump has no intention of resuming US aid to Ukraine. #StandWithUkraine
He's a Russian asset. The evidence is there for all to see. He's hiding in plain site. Anyone who believes to the contrary after the events of the last fortnight is deluding themselves.
Starmer needs to stop pussying around and grow a pair. There is a military alignment between the US and Russia, NATO as we knew it is dead. We need to be at 5% of GDP on defence spending by the end of 2025, and so do all of our allies. Russia with Trump's backing is an existential threat to Continental Europe.
If Trump and Milei go for the Falklands as a staging post for the mineral wealth of the South Atlantic region, so be it. Trump is in no hurry. Greenland first, then the Suez Canal, then Canada, then Mexico, so the Falklands can wait.
And what of Trump's proposed meeting with Xi and Putin. This is the stuff of James Bond , or rather Austin Powers.
He's not a Russian asset, he just enjoys being as awkward, obnoxious and unpredictable as possible.
He may not be a Russian asset, but he certainly behaves as if he is.
Anonymous @YourAnonCentral Trump ordered the dismantling of the landing platform at Rzeszow airbase in Poland, the US has broken down warehouses and torn apart slabs of concrete on the runway to prevent further aid transports to Ukraine. Trump has no intention of resuming US aid to Ukraine. #StandWithUkraine
He's a Russian asset. The evidence is there for all to see. He's hiding in plain site. Anyone who believes to the contrary after the events of the last fortnight is deluding themselves.
Starmer needs to stop pussying around and grow a pair. There is a military alignment between the US and Russia, NATO as we knew it is dead. We need to be at 5% of GDP on defence spending by the end of 2025, and so do all of our allies. Russia with Trump's backing is an existential threat to Continental Europe.
If Trump and Milei go for the Falklands as a staging post for the mineral wealth of the South Atlantic region, so be it. Trump is in no hurry. Greenland first, then the Suez Canal, then Canada, then Mexico, so the Falklands can wait.
And what of Trump's proposed meeting with Xi and Putin. This is the stuff of James Bond , or rather Austin Powers.
He's not a Russian asset, he just enjoys being as awkward, obnoxious and unpredictable as possible.
All of the above. He's an awkward, obnoxious and unpredictable russian asset.
Anonymous @YourAnonCentral Trump ordered the dismantling of the landing platform at Rzeszow airbase in Poland, the US has broken down warehouses and torn apart slabs of concrete on the runway to prevent further aid transports to Ukraine. Trump has no intention of resuming US aid to Ukraine. #StandWithUkraine
He's a Russian asset. The evidence is there for all to see. He's hiding in plain site. Anyone who believes to the contrary after the events of the last fortnight is deluding themselves.
Starmer needs to stop pussying around and grow a pair. There is a military alignment between the US and Russia, NATO as we knew it is dead. We need to be at 5% of GDP on defence spending by the end of 2025, and so do all of our allies. Russia with Trump's backing is an existential threat to Continental Europe.
If Trump and Milei go for the Falklands as a staging post for the mineral wealth of the South Atlantic region, so be it. Trump is in no hurry. Greenland first, then the Suez Canal, then Canada, then Mexico, so the Falklands can wait.
And what of Trump's proposed meeting with Xi and Putin. This is the stuff of James Bond , or rather Austin Powers.
He's not a Russian asset, he just enjoys being as awkward, obnoxious and unpredictable as possible.
All of the above. He's an awkward, obnoxious and unpredictable russian asset.
He's awkward and obnoxious but sadly his actions have been all too predictable.
He told us what he wanted to do before he was elected, just many didn't believe him.
It's just not realistic to think spending cuts are going to pay for a big increase in defence spending. Labour should of course do what they can that is sensible on benefits, but realistically we need to borrow a lot of money if we want to rearm. The Germans I think announced 500bn euro of borrowing?
Only one council is named in the article AFAICS - Surrey, which has an extremely high proportion of children in private education (I think it's third in the country behind London and Bristol).
Some thoughts to ponder:
1) Admissions in Year 7 are not the only or possibly even the best metric to judge private school admissions on. There's always a lot of churn at that time both ways as fees increase in private schools from Year 6 to Year 7. We want to see more on those in years 8 and 9 leaving to try and get in elsewhere.
2) That being said, the statistics presented appear prima facie to contradict the article. A rise from 608 to 664 is a rise of 9.2%. That's hardly 'insignificant.'
3) This should also be set against the changing demographics of Surrey. Birth rates have dropped by around 30% across the county since 2010. Although precise figures would take time I don't have to assemble, the ones on a district/borough basis are here. A rough computation would suggest you should expect a fall of around 2-3% from last year, not an increase of just over 9%.
4) This demographic change in itself undermines the basic premise of the article, for the simple reason that if there are fewer children to go round (which there are across the country, as @Stuartinromford has wisely reminded us) you would *expect* it to be easier to get into the first choice of school. Oversupply of places makes things easier.
All in all, I would say the Guardian may be guilty of Telegraph style false reporting there. At the very least, they're guilty of laziness for not interrogating the data properly.
From a personal point of view I didn't expect VAT to have a major impact at once because of its being introduced mid year (and if I were feeling malicious I would suggest that's why it was introduced in that way, which required some quite novel and rather unethical rewrites on retrospective taxation). I always thought next year and particularly the year after would be pinch time. That is especially the case if smaller schools on tight margins go under, which seems likely if their rolls keep falling.
Key data to look out for:
The ISC census: due in May. https://www.isc.co.uk/research/annual-census/ If this first one shows a drop that's more than noise, that's suggestive. The 2026 one will however be the first really meaningful one.
The numbers of private schools closing at the end of June - there are always some, but if there's a major rise regardless of what the dimwits at the IFS and Treasury think we should expect a fairly large bump in state school admissions for 2025-26.
(Of course, birth rates are not the only metric for numbers on roll, especially in Surrey which will see significant influx of families with slightly older children as their parents get better jobs and want bigger houses. But it's suggestive that London appears to seeing even steeper rates of decline in birth rate, so there still are not lots of children to go round.)
It's just not realistic to think spending cuts are going to pay for a big increase in defence spending. Labour should of course do what they can that is sensible on benefits, but realistically we need to borrow a lot of money if we want to rearm. The Germans I think announced 500bn euro of borrowing?
We could take the Russian approach: rather than build expensive kit, just send those who are a burden on the state forward to the front as meat waves.
It's just not realistic to think spending cuts are going to pay for a big increase in defence spending. Labour should of course do what they can that is sensible on benefits, but realistically we need to borrow a lot of money if we want to rearm. The Germans I think announced 500bn euro of borrowing?
We could take the Russian approach: rather than build expensive kit, just send those who are a burden on the state forward to the front as meat waves.
Problem solved.
Sending Liz Truss, Massive Johnson and Rees-Mogg forward as offensive weapons.?
Well, the buggers are pretty damn offensive. Seeing them approach would make me run for it.
It's just not realistic to think spending cuts are going to pay for a big increase in defence spending. Labour should of course do what they can that is sensible on benefits, but realistically we need to borrow a lot of money if we want to rearm. The Germans I think announced 500bn euro of borrowing?
We could take the Russian approach: rather than build expensive kit, just send those who are a burden on the state forward to the front as meat waves.
Problem solved.
We can't even cut the triple lock but you expect a grey front line?
Does this apply to all old pylons, coal tips, substations, power stations (thermal, solar, wind or whatever) and other general power infrastructure, or just new pylons in the south of England?
New infrastructure which needs to be built. And no, it won't just be in the south of England.
Like it if not, it makes sense.
Why only new infrastructure?
Nobody paid compensation for this stuff in the past (other than the wayleave to the immediate landowner).
Because that's what had we need and we don't have unlimited funds. Unfair ? Sure.
But fairer than not building anything.
Its pretty insane to keep a metric shitton of red tape then think you can cut through the red tape by bribing people not to object.
You've not noticed that this is being proposed in conjunction with streamlining planning rules ?
If we streamline planning rules, why is this necessary?
And if we don't streamline planning rules, then its not fixing the problem.
Either way, tackle the root cause. The reason we don't have growth is people feel entitled to prevent it. We need some liberalism so that anyone who wants to build a pylon, or any other industry or housing or anything else, can just do it, and not be begging for permission first.
I got comprehensively shouted down for saying much the same thing. But on this you are absolutely right.
It’s possible to change the emphasis on where the line is re allowing nothing ->allowing everything. Most people would not accept a complete wild west free-for-all, which I think is what you favour re 5G etc. But it’s also true that all too often objections get in they way of raesonable development. It’s tricky. Our house is adjacent to a field, owned by neighbours, who keep horses there. It’s idyllic. We have built an extension with a balcony overlooking. Yet it would be possible for someone to build houses or other developments there, to which we would clearly object.
Its not your land.
You should be free to object all you like, free speech and all.
However if your neighbour wants to build on their land they should be able to do so, even if you object, without anyone else having a say. Their land, their choice - your land, your choice.
People are entitled to a say in what happens in their community. I think you are an outlier in the general public on this. I’m not against development - far from it. We had a biogas plant built nearby to extreme objections from locals, but we were supportive. The point is it shouldn’t be that you can just do whatever you want without regard to your community.
Why are they entitled to a say?
They should be entitled to a say on community-owned land, on privately-held land it should be for the owners to determine what they want to do.
Your neighbours land belongs to your neighbour, not your community. The community should mind its own bloody business.
Then I think you fail to understand what a community is.
I don't agree with how far his position goes, but I do think he has a point that, as a broad principle, the community does not extend to, say, me wanting to put in the kind of windows I like. I remember this argument on here about people painting their house a garish colour or something - I might not like it, but I can and should have to live with it.
I’d agree with that. It’s not about creating Stepford Wives towns etc. It’s more about communities having a say about how that community should develop (as in community plans etc). But there ought to be some measure of control. Arguably in this country weve allowed the objection industry to get too powerful.
Absolutely the community should have a say on community-owned land to develop community plans.
Private land belongs to the private owner, not a socialised state though.
As always your argument is that you don’t recognise the concept of externalities.
Actions by one individual have consequences - costs and benefits - for others.
For example driving a polluting car can cause respiratory issues in others. Society creates a framework of regulation which allows for a mechanism to peacefully resolve these conflicts of rights (health vs freedom to drive the car you want)
Arguing the detail of whether the line is drawn in one place is fine. “Build baby build” like you advocate is not a conflict resolution mechanism. It’s positively Trumpian in its disregard for the valid interests of others.
(Of course, birth rates are not the only metric for numbers on roll, especially in Surrey which will see significant influx of families with slightly older children as their parents get better jobs and want bigger houses. But it's suggestive that London appears to seeing even steeper rates of decline in birth rate, so there still are not lots of children to go round.)
Secondary schools are only at the very start of the falling birth rate trend in any case. Births in England and Wales have fallen by 15% since 2015. Primary schools are already starting to have certain schools switch from three form to two form entry given the significant fall in demand. Elsewhere catchment areas have increased dramatically (to the benefit of my son who started in September).
This is, of course, an independent factor to the VAT changes. But it does mean I expect a lot of schools to close within the next 20 years.
It's just not realistic to think spending cuts are going to pay for a big increase in defence spending. Labour should of course do what they can that is sensible on benefits, but realistically we need to borrow a lot of money if we want to rearm. The Germans I think announced 500bn euro of borrowing?
We shouldn’t borrow a lot more. We should raise taxes.
(Of course, birth rates are not the only metric for numbers on roll, especially in Surrey which will see significant influx of families with slightly older children as their parents get better jobs and want bigger houses. But it's suggestive that London appears to seeing even steeper rates of decline in birth rate, so there still are not lots of children to go round.)
Secondary schools are only at the very start of the falling birth rate trend in any case. Births in England and Wales have fallen by 15% since 2015. Primary schools are already starting to have certain schools switch from three form to two form entry given the significant fall in demand. Elsewhere catchment areas have increased dramatically (to the benefit of my son who started in September).
This is, of course, an independent factor to the VAT changes. But it does mean I expect a lot of schools to close within the next 20 years.
The decline started about 15-16 years ago, so there have been effects even at secondary level.
It has been hidden to some extent by the bulge beforehand, and by immigration, both of which are now being worked out of the system.
[I'll probably repost this once later in the morning when the other platforms have it up, and then leave it there].
Predictions I'm planning to make standard are pole (Norris), win (Norris), podium (Hamilton and Leclerc), and Midfield Points (Sainz and Gasly on this occasions), plus some extra predictions as I feel like it (lap 1 pileup = 3+ DNFs).
On the betting front, my plan is to stick with the schedule I've had, more or less, since 2009 and post (sometimes) pre-qualifying and pre-race tips shortly before said events.
Does this apply to all old pylons, coal tips, substations, power stations (thermal, solar, wind or whatever) and other general power infrastructure, or just new pylons in the south of England?
New infrastructure which needs to be built. And no, it won't just be in the south of England.
Like it if not, it makes sense.
Why only new infrastructure?
Nobody paid compensation for this stuff in the past (other than the wayleave to the immediate landowner).
Because that's what had we need and we don't have unlimited funds. Unfair ? Sure.
But fairer than not building anything.
Its pretty insane to keep a metric shitton of red tape then think you can cut through the red tape by bribing people not to object.
You've not noticed that this is being proposed in conjunction with streamlining planning rules ?
If we streamline planning rules, why is this necessary?
And if we don't streamline planning rules, then its not fixing the problem.
Either way, tackle the root cause. The reason we don't have growth is people feel entitled to prevent it. We need some liberalism so that anyone who wants to build a pylon, or any other industry or housing or anything else, can just do it, and not be begging for permission first.
I got comprehensively shouted down for saying much the same thing. But on this you are absolutely right.
It’s possible to change the emphasis on where the line is re allowing nothing ->allowing everything. Most people would not accept a complete wild west free-for-all, which I think is what you favour re 5G etc. But it’s also true that all too often objections get in they way of raesonable development. It’s tricky. Our house is adjacent to a field, owned by neighbours, who keep horses there. It’s idyllic. We have built an extension with a balcony overlooking. Yet it would be possible for someone to build houses or other developments there, to which we would clearly object.
Its not your land.
You should be free to object all you like, free speech and all.
However if your neighbour wants to build on their land they should be able to do so, even if you object, without anyone else having a say. Their land, their choice - your land, your choice.
People are entitled to a say in what happens in their community. I think you are an outlier in the general public on this. I’m not against development - far from it. We had a biogas plant built nearby to extreme objections from locals, but we were supportive. The point is it shouldn’t be that you can just do whatever you want without regard to your community.
Why are they entitled to a say?
They should be entitled to a say on community-owned land, on privately-held land it should be for the owners to determine what they want to do.
Your neighbours land belongs to your neighbour, not your community. The community should mind its own bloody business.
Then I think you fail to understand what a community is.
I don't agree with how far his position goes, but I do think he has a point that, as a broad principle, the community does not extend to, say, me wanting to put in the kind of windows I like. I remember this argument on here about people painting their house a garish colour or something - I might not like it, but I can and should have to live with it.
I’d agree with that. It’s not about creating Stepford Wives towns etc. It’s more about communities having a say about how that community should develop (as in community plans etc). But there ought to be some measure of control. Arguably in this country weve allowed the objection industry to get too powerful.
Absolutely the community should have a say on community-owned land to develop community plans.
Private land belongs to the private owner, not a socialised state though.
As always your argument is that you don’t recognise the concept of externalities.
Actions by one individual have consequences - costs and benefits - for others.
For example driving a polluting car can cause respiratory issues in others. Society creates a framework of regulation which allows for a mechanism to peacefully resolve these conflicts of rights (health vs freedom to drive the car you want)
Arguing the detail of whether the line is drawn in one place is fine. “Build baby build” like you advocate is not a conflict resolution mechanism. It’s positively Trumpian in its disregard for the valid interests of others.
You're right, i don't recognise it because the overwhelming majority of so called externalities people bring up have sod all to do with the quantity of construction and instead are to do with the quantity of people.
Schools, hospitals, sewerage and almost all the other stuff people use as excuses/externalities are because of the people who live in the country, not the amount of buildings. A vacant building doesn't affect any of those. And we have the people living in the country.
Heck we keep getting sewerage brought up as an excuse to block construction on this site, then get told to block construction or we might get "sewerage plants" built near us. It is circular shit and not legitimate.
The only valid externalities are those caused by the building itself, without people, and there's not many of those.
And those externalities can be dealt with like fuel duty. Set a tax, preferably small, to cover any average externalities then let the community spend that on whatever remediation are deemed appropriate.
It's just not realistic to think spending cuts are going to pay for a big increase in defence spending. Labour should of course do what they can that is sensible on benefits, but realistically we need to borrow a lot of money if we want to rearm. The Germans I think announced 500bn euro of borrowing?
We could take the Russian approach: rather than build expensive kit, just send those who are a burden on the state forward to the front as meat waves.
Problem solved.
Sending Liz Truss, Massive Johnson and Rees-Mogg forward as offensive weapons.?
Well, the buggers are pretty damn offensive. Seeing them approach would make me run for it.
I wouldn't have that reaction at all... I'd just reload.
Anonymous @YourAnonCentral Trump ordered the dismantling of the landing platform at Rzeszow airbase in Poland, the US has broken down warehouses and torn apart slabs of concrete on the runway to prevent further aid transports to Ukraine. Trump has no intention of resuming US aid to Ukraine. #StandWithUkraine
He's a Russian asset. The evidence is there for all to see. He's hiding in plain site. Anyone who believes to the contrary after the events of the last fortnight is deluding themselves.
Starmer needs to stop pussying around and grow a pair. There is a military alignment between the US and Russia, NATO as we knew it is dead. We need to be at 5% of GDP on defence spending by the end of 2025, and so do all of our allies. Russia with Trump's backing is an existential threat to Continental Europe.
If Trump and Milei go for the Falklands as a staging post for the mineral wealth of the South Atlantic region, so be it. Trump is in no hurry. Greenland first, then the Suez Canal, then Canada, then Mexico, so the Falklands can wait.
And what of Trump's proposed meeting with Xi and Putin. This is the stuff of James Bond , or rather Austin Powers.
Not so fast...
On the principle of cui bono, there is another possibility.
Which European leader has courted Trump since his first term? Which country has always dreamed of a Europe without American influence? Which country is eager to get other European countries to pay for its nuclear shield and buy its weapons?
If he were compromised by French intelligence, blaming the Russians would be a very convenient scapegoat for them.
I see little evidence for your thesis and plenty for mine.
It's just not realistic to think spending cuts are going to pay for a big increase in defence spending. Labour should of course do what they can that is sensible on benefits, but realistically we need to borrow a lot of money if we want to rearm. The Germans I think announced 500bn euro of borrowing?
We shouldn’t borrow a lot more. We should raise taxes.
There should and in the end, will be both. The current government like most Labour governments can only square economic reality with policy by shifting right.. Has happened so many times in the past. Massive borrowing is not the solution.
First it was a video of Russians smoking in a large pipe to Sudzha, now a Ukrainian soldier hitching a ride on the windscreen, smoking. Both Ukrainian and Russian soldiers seem to be unaware of the risks they're taking with their health by smoking 🚬
Musk: The waste and fraud in entitlement spending— Most of the federal spending is entitlements.. that’s the big one to eliminate… That is also the mechanism by which the Democrats attract and retain illegal immigrants..
He's right that that's where most government spending.
He's wrong about there being lots of fraud there, not least because this has been an area where successive governments have been keen to crack down. (Reagan era "welfare queens" being a classic example.)
The question I want to know is this:
Is Musk just dumb (ie, he doesn't really know about government spending), or is he actively malignant?
Until recently I'd have gone with (1), but am now veering towards (2).
It’s 2 although he and his supporters see it is necessary rather than malignant.
Bessent and Trump also want to reduce the debt and the deficit.
The way they are going about it, break everything and see what happens, seems bizarre.
Anonymous @YourAnonCentral Trump ordered the dismantling of the landing platform at Rzeszow airbase in Poland, the US has broken down warehouses and torn apart slabs of concrete on the runway to prevent further aid transports to Ukraine. Trump has no intention of resuming US aid to Ukraine. #StandWithUkraine
He's a Russian asset. The evidence is there for all to see. He's hiding in plain site. Anyone who believes to the contrary after the events of the last fortnight is deluding themselves.
Starmer needs to stop pussying around and grow a pair. There is a military alignment between the US and Russia, NATO as we knew it is dead. We need to be at 5% of GDP on defence spending by the end of 2025, and so do all of our allies. Russia with Trump's backing is an existential threat to Continental Europe.
If Trump and Milei go for the Falklands as a staging post for the mineral wealth of the South Atlantic region, so be it. Trump is in no hurry. Greenland first, then the Suez Canal, then Canada, then Mexico, so the Falklands can wait.
And what of Trump's proposed meeting with Xi and Putin. This is the stuff of James Bond , or rather Austin Powers.
He's not a Russian asset, he just enjoys being as awkward, obnoxious and unpredictable as possible.
There are clarion voices from the intelligence community who have reluctantly reached the opinion that he has been in the control of the Soviet Union and Russia since 1987.
Personal interest? Reduction of our quality of life? Doesn’t mean that our objection would win, and if the processes are followed so be it. I’m merely suggesting a free for all do anything is not what the vast majority of people want.
But how does a phone mast reduce your quality of life, how does it impact you beyond giving you a better phone signal?
I am happy to admit - again - that I am a minority in how I think you should be able to build anywhere but surely even you can see that it's madness that in urban areas anything can sensibly be rejected?
Do you find this offensive?
The majority of exactly this design were rejected in London. I do not think councils had any right to reject these but they did, wholesale.
I don’t object to masts and would have no issue with that in the field next to my house. I would be unhappy if the view of the countryside that I spent money on (the extension with balcony) was turned into houses. And yes that’s a NIMBY attitude, and can be called that. We wouldn’t have built what we did if (a) the view wasn’t there and (b) we didn’t believe it would be there for many years to come.
Maybe you should buy the land with the view, then you can keep it as your heart desires?
Otherwise, if its not yours, then don't expect to freeload off others.
Do people freeload off the Lake Dustrict?
Not at all, I pay a fortune to businesses there to enjoy their land they own.
If you want to keep the view of the field next to you, there's a simple solution - buy it.
Otherwise, if someone else does, then they've not done anything wrong.
I have not said they would be doing anything wrong. I’ve said I would object. And then someone, somewhere would make a decision. At the moment the balance is probably too far in the objections winning column, but going to the other extreme is not the answer.
Why isn't it?
It worked just fine in the 1930s. It was a socialist policy implemented by Attlee and its been an unmitigated disaster. We should liberalise and revert back to what we had before then.
If it was such a disaster, why did we not have this problem in the 1990s?
We did, housing constructions were lower in the 90s than they were in the 30s.
Why was that a problem?
Because it meant that the dream of owning a home became increasingly unaffordable for many people.
That was a demand-side problem, not a supply-side problem.
Think of it in terms of your favourite topic of trade imbalances. We were the victim of other countries offloading their demand for housing onto us, both in terms of physical people and in terms of credit. You can't solve that problem by building your way out of it.
Of course you can.
If our population doubles but our housing supply trebles then we'll be well out of it.
Yes, and if you ground all the people into a fine dust then you could fit a billion of them in Wolverhampton...
Wolverhampton. Terrible place. Poor sods.
I once went out with a police woman from Wolverhampton. She never once wore her uniform for me. Sad.
Musk: The waste and fraud in entitlement spending— Most of the federal spending is entitlements.. that’s the big one to eliminate… That is also the mechanism by which the Democrats attract and retain illegal immigrants..
He's right that that's where most government spending.
He's wrong about there being lots of fraud there, not least because this has been an area where successive governments have been keen to crack down. (Reagan era "welfare queens" being a classic example.)
The question I want to know is this:
Is Musk just dumb (ie, he doesn't really know about government spending), or is he actively malignant?
Until recently I'd have gone with (1), but am now veering towards (2).
It’s 2 although he and his supporters see it is necessary rather than malignant.
Bessent and Trump also want to reduce the debt and the deficit.
The way they are going about it, break everything and see what happens, seems bizarre.
Trump is America's Pol Pot. Taking Government back to Year Zero.
Anonymous @YourAnonCentral Trump ordered the dismantling of the landing platform at Rzeszow airbase in Poland, the US has broken down warehouses and torn apart slabs of concrete on the runway to prevent further aid transports to Ukraine. Trump has no intention of resuming US aid to Ukraine. #StandWithUkraine
He's a Russian asset. The evidence is there for all to see. He's hiding in plain site. Anyone who believes to the contrary after the events of the last fortnight is deluding themselves.
Starmer needs to stop pussying around and grow a pair. There is a military alignment between the US and Russia, NATO as we knew it is dead. We need to be at 5% of GDP on defence spending by the end of 2025, and so do all of our allies. Russia with Trump's backing is an existential threat to Continental Europe.
If Trump and Milei go for the Falklands as a staging post for the mineral wealth of the South Atlantic region, so be it. Trump is in no hurry. Greenland first, then the Suez Canal, then Canada, then Mexico, so the Falklands can wait.
And what of Trump's proposed meeting with Xi and Putin. This is the stuff of James Bond , or rather Austin Powers.
He's not a Russian asset, he just enjoys being as awkward, obnoxious and unpredictable as possible.
There are clarion voices from the intelligence community who have reluctantly reached the opinion that he has been in the control of the Soviet Union and Russia since 1987.
Funny you say that.
A backbench Tory MP, Graham Stuart, tweeted along similar lines a week or so ago.
I thought it conspiracy stuff to start but how do you reconcile his positioning on Ukraine rationally assuming he isn’t. Putin is the aggressor. At the start of the war the Russians offered safe corridors for the Ukrainians to leave and bombed them. They abducted children.
Comments
There is instead entire cottage industries dedicated to preventing growth. Growth of any kind, it doesn't matter if you mean houses, or masts, or pylons, or factories, or roads, or rails, or airports, or anything else - someone will object to it and drag it out.
Is Musk just dumb (ie, he doesn't really know about government spending), or is he actively malignant?
Until recently I'd have gone with (1), but am now veering towards (2).
It's slim-line and has one cabinet. It supports two operators (that's 2/3 of them post merger!).
https://www.vodafone.co.uk/newscentre/app/uploads/2024/10/quadstack-mast-1920x1920.jpg
There is a sewage works near me. Other than the United Utilities signs on the frontage, I'd have no idea it was there except that I see those when I drive past.
People complain we don't have enough sewage plants and then say "yeah but what if you get a sewage plant near you". So frigging what if we do? Good, we'll address some of our infrastructure shortages.
I'd rather have a sewage works near me, than an absence of clean water or my shit not flushing away.
Think of it in terms of your favourite topic of trade imbalances. We were the victim of other countries offloading their demand for housing onto us, both in terms of physical people and in terms of credit. You can't solve that problem by building your way out of it.
It's noisy at times and a bit annoying but people need somewhere to live. Stick a mast on site too.
Job done.
If our population doubles but our housing supply trebles then we'll be well out of it.
We're not short of land to build on, only about 5% of our land is developed, double it and its still only 10%. The problem is people standing in the way of doing so.
For example, back in the 1970s people went straight from living at home to married. The moving back of the age of marriage created a large demand for homes pre-families.
Likewise, the significant increase in the divorce rate in the same period (and single parent families) has also placed enormous demand on housing.
Finally, we have a situation where some parts of the country have declining house prices, while others have acute shortages.
So, sure, with zero immigration, we would have had less of an issue. But it wouldn't be like these other drivers of housing demand didn't exist.
If you own land in Japan and its zone for development you can just build on it, no questions asked. It works.
NIMBYs might not like it. Tough shit.
Until we deal with the root cause of the problem, parasites who want to object will do so.
That's called liberalism.
Being free from state diktats on what you can and can't do on the privacy of your own land. Not needing to ask the politburo or grease the right palms to get done what you want.
Now I agree with BCH that it has swung too far the other way but the idea that we should simply remove planning entirely ignores the huge damage done to our ruban and rural landscapes in the past because planning law was not enforced, was bypassed or simply did not exist.
It is no joke that in many parts of the country the 'planners' and developers did more damage to our towns than the bombings in WW2.
Of course the other reason why Barts ideas are simply stupid is because what is done on one piece of land has inevitable effects on neighbours. The most obvious examples of this are to do with flooding where concreting over a previously absorbant landscape causes water to flow off onto neighbours land or into rivers causing huge issues further downstream.
Planning is not only, or even predominantly about NIMBYism. It is about makng sure that the right mitigations are put in place so that development does not cause harm to others or even to the poor buggers that have to live in the houses (for example) that are built in an inappropriate place just to make a quick buck.
Nobody here can say our system works. Italy - Italy! - built something like 20x more railway miles in the last 30 years than we did and most of it was in the last decade.
Mike Engleman🇺🇲
@RealHickory
I don't want to hear anything about the midterms until election integrity is fixed.
The 2018 midterms, 2020 general, 2022 midterms, and a lot of down ballot races in 2024 were rigged.
Where's the investigations of the election fraud we were promised?
Gunther Eagleman™
@GuntherEagleman
If we don't fix elections while we have the House, Senate, and Presidency... We deserve to lose.
Elon Musk
@elonmusk
1000%
https://x.com/elonmusk/status/1899080064429429166
If the community owns the land, then they should be free to determine what they want.
If its privately owned and you want a different limit, that should be your prerogative.
He’s not that stupid.
Doesn't mean I need to accept their principles or support them. I'm happy to fly the flag for liberalisation, even if others don't - and maybe one day the Overton Window will move my way.
You were asking if [publicly-owned] roads should have [publicly-determined] speed limits.
I've said all along the community should be able to determine what it does on community-owned land.
My issue is private land, not communal land. If you're on communal land then you should follow communal rules, if you are on private land, you should be free to determine what you want to do within a liberal legal system.
Name the author, book, and rate the advisability of committing such a remark to print on a scale of 0 (not at all advisable) to 10 (positively to be encouraged).
Reporter: There was just another plane crash…
Trump: That has nothing to do with the department. That was a small plane. That would’ve happened if you had big department or a small department
Has someone hacked your PB account or are you in fact full of shit?
However I don't know of anywhere with contiguous, private roads like that. If it does exist though, then yes, why not?
https://x.com/RepDonBacon/status/1899169109977276787
And it ought to be the same with construction.
If you want to have the equivalent of a privately owned racing track getting lots built, then if its your land you should be able to get on with it.
If you want a communal space, the community should be responsible for it, but don't expect someone else to do so on your behalf or to take anyone else's rights away from their land.
Fox News
@FoxNews
BREAKING: U.S. stocks tumbled on Monday, with concerns about the effects of President Trump’s tariffs on economic growth spooking investors. The Dow fell 890.01 points, while the Nasdaq and S&P 500 slid 4% and 2.69%, respectively.
It really is a piece of shit.
Trump has surrounded himself with mushrooms and divots, so there was a possibility that Mr Starmer could penetrate the ignorance bubble with some reality.
If Mr Chump then does his normal "follow the last person you talked to who said something that lets you get a perceived win and some self-image" (that I think was from Bolton or Scaramucci), a change could happen before he forgot it all one day later.
Vance cited Yarvin approvingly during that podcast appearance in which he discussed how Trump should fire “every civil servant.” He said: “There’s this guy, Curtis Yarvin, who has written about some of these things.”
Well, that plan is certainly working well thanks to the supine GOP party.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X7v0dFCWH7k
" Peter Cat Recording Co. - We're Getting Married "
But motoring law applies to any highway "normally accessible to the public", so if the public can get at it, you have limitations.
There are plenty of "privately owned" public roads, where ownership of the land extends to the middle of the highway, but there are supervening rights for users.
There is also the concept of Highways Land for future provision of wider roads etc. Records of that are held fairly deep within Local Highways Authorities and maps are available, but you need to know how to ask for them.
I had some real stick from neighbours to my former house when I proposed developing a junction, and I knew that the bits of verge outside their fences and off the pavement were Highway Land reserved for road widening because it used to be the A38 up until 30 years ago, and they didn't know. They thought they were part of their gardens outside their fences.
The birthrate in the UK is well below replacement level now
Starmer needs to stop pussying around and grow a pair. There is a military alignment between the US and Russia, NATO as we knew it is dead. We need to be at 5% of GDP on defence spending by the end of 2025, and so do all of our allies. Russia with Trump's backing is an existential threat to Continental Europe.
If Trump and Milei go for the Falklands as a staging post for the mineral wealth of the South Atlantic region, so be it. Trump is in no hurry. Greenland first, then the Suez Canal, then Canada, then Mexico, so the Falklands can wait.
And what of Trump's proposed meeting with Xi and Putin. This is the stuff of James Bond , or rather Austin Powers.
On the principle of cui bono, there is another possibility.
Which European leader has courted Trump since his first term? Which country has always dreamed of a Europe without American influence? Which country is eager to get other European countries to pay for its nuclear shield and buy its weapons?
If he were compromised by French intelligence, blaming the Russians would be a very convenient scapegoat for them.
He told us what he wanted to do before he was elected, just many didn't believe him.
Starmer decries ‘worst of all worlds’ benefits system ahead of deep cuts
PM expected to announce billions in savings from personal independence payment, the main disability benefit
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2025/mar/10/starmer-decries-worst-of-all-worlds-benefits-systems-ahead-of-deep-cuts
Labour should of course do what they can that is sensible on benefits, but realistically we need to borrow a lot of money if we want to rearm. The Germans I think announced 500bn euro of borrowing?
I was asked yesterday for my views on this Guardian article about school admissions:
https://www.theguardian.com/education/2025/mar/10/no-exodus-to-state-sector-after-vat-added-to-private-school-fees-say-english-councils
Only one council is named in the article AFAICS - Surrey, which has an extremely high proportion of children in private education (I think it's third in the country behind London and Bristol).
Some thoughts to ponder:
1) Admissions in Year 7 are not the only or possibly even the best metric to judge private school admissions on. There's always a lot of churn at that time both ways as fees increase in private schools from Year 6 to Year 7. We want to see more on those in years 8 and 9 leaving to try and get in elsewhere.
2) That being said, the statistics presented appear prima facie to contradict the article. A rise from 608 to 664 is a rise of 9.2%. That's hardly 'insignificant.'
3) This should also be set against the changing demographics of Surrey. Birth rates have dropped by around 30% across the county since 2010. Although precise figures would take time I don't have to assemble, the ones on a district/borough basis are here. A rough computation would suggest you should expect a fall of around 2-3% from last year, not an increase of just over 9%.
4) This demographic change in itself undermines the basic premise of the article, for the simple reason that if there are fewer children to go round (which there are across the country, as @Stuartinromford has wisely reminded us) you would *expect* it to be easier to get into the first choice of school. Oversupply of places makes things easier.
All in all, I would say the Guardian may be guilty of Telegraph style false reporting there. At the very least, they're guilty of laziness for not interrogating the data properly.
From a personal point of view I didn't expect VAT to have a major impact at once because of its being introduced mid year (and if I were feeling malicious I would suggest that's why it was introduced in that way, which required some quite novel and rather unethical rewrites on retrospective taxation). I always thought next year and particularly the year after would be pinch time. That is especially the case if smaller schools on tight margins go under, which seems likely if their rolls keep falling.
Key data to look out for:
The ISC census: due in May. https://www.isc.co.uk/research/annual-census/ If this first one shows a drop that's more than noise, that's suggestive. The 2026 one will however be the first really meaningful one.
The numbers of private schools closing at the end of June - there are always some, but if there's a major rise regardless of what the dimwits at the IFS and Treasury think we should expect a fairly large bump in state school admissions for 2025-26.
@StillWaters hope that answers your question.
(Of course, birth rates are not the only metric for numbers on roll, especially in Surrey which will see significant influx of families with slightly older children as their parents get better jobs and want bigger houses. But it's suggestive that London appears to seeing even steeper rates of decline in birth rate, so there still are not lots of children to go round.)
Problem solved.
Well, the buggers are pretty damn offensive. Seeing them approach would make me run for it.
Actions by one individual have consequences - costs and benefits - for others.
For example driving a polluting car can cause respiratory issues in others. Society creates a framework of regulation which allows for a mechanism to peacefully resolve these conflicts of rights (health vs freedom to drive the car you want)
Arguing the detail of whether the line is drawn in one place is fine. “Build baby build” like you advocate is not a conflict resolution mechanism. It’s positively Trumpian in its disregard for the valid interests of others.
This is, of course, an independent factor to the VAT changes. But it does mean I expect a lot of schools to close within the next 20 years.
It has been hidden to some extent by the bulge beforehand, and by immigration, both of which are now being worked out of the system.
I agree with your main point though.
F1: just published the first race preview for the F1 2025 season. Was slightly under the weather when recording hopefully doesn't come across too much:
https://undercutters.podbean.com/e/f1-2025-australian-grand-prix-preview-and-predictions/
[I'll probably repost this once later in the morning when the other platforms have it up, and then leave it there].
Predictions I'm planning to make standard are pole (Norris), win (Norris), podium (Hamilton and Leclerc), and Midfield Points (Sainz and Gasly on this occasions), plus some extra predictions as I feel like it (lap 1 pileup = 3+ DNFs).
On the betting front, my plan is to stick with the schedule I've had, more or less, since 2009 and post (sometimes) pre-qualifying and pre-race tips shortly before said events.
/endramble
Schools, hospitals, sewerage and almost all the other stuff people use as excuses/externalities are because of the people who live in the country, not the amount of buildings. A vacant building doesn't affect any of those. And we have the people living in the country.
Heck we keep getting sewerage brought up as an excuse to block construction on this site, then get told to block construction or we might get "sewerage plants" built near us. It is circular shit and not legitimate.
The only valid externalities are those caused by the building itself, without people, and there's not many of those.
And those externalities can be dealt with like fuel duty. Set a tax, preferably small, to cover any average externalities then let the community spend that on whatever remediation are deemed appropriate.
Both Ukrainian and Russian soldiers seem to be unaware of the risks they're taking with their health by smoking 🚬
Wasn't it 49.8%?
Bessent and Trump also want to reduce the debt and the deficit.
The way they are going about it, break everything and see what happens, seems bizarre.
I once went out with a police woman from Wolverhampton. She never once wore her uniform for me. Sad.
A backbench Tory MP, Graham Stuart, tweeted along similar lines a week or so ago.
I thought it conspiracy stuff to start but how do you reconcile his positioning on Ukraine rationally assuming he isn’t. Putin is the aggressor. At the start of the war the Russians offered safe corridors for the Ukrainians to leave and bombed them. They abducted children.