So one year on the horizon and no sign of 1.5 million new houses
You should see the rate they are going up on the South Coast. There's a lot going on - except where the local council has got into the building game (2-3 years late)
We build abour 200,000 houses in a normal year, but were not building 400,000 houses which is what we need.
We have quite major developments starting here in Ashfield, including a continuation of building more Council Houses that have been a thing for several years. They are trying to build on several areas of open land on older housing estates, where dogwalkers go etc, which is getting some blowback.
Looking at the numbers, they are massively lumpy, and come out 4 months behind - so 2024 Q4 is due out in the next week. Starts by quarter from 2022 Q1 look weirdly lumpy as Covid worked out - no conclusions are possible. But this is one, like NHS waiting lists, where the Govt have to deliver significant improvement towards their 1.5 million: target
I can only put it down to marketing shenanigans that the Cons indulged in before the Election to stroke Nimbies as they were circling the drain - eg the abolition of Housing Targets by Council, which they had never touched before.
My surmise would be that the number of housing starts fell as the economy slowed from the roaring economic boom of 2021-2 and as the pent up approvals from the pandemic ran out.
Whatever, it's a dismal record, especially as most if not all will be tiny, shoddy new builds a third of the size of their American counterparts, rather than the large family homes we need if our birthrate is to rise.
We need 8 million new houses to match France, which has a similar population. Allowing for population increase and demolition that's at least 500,000/year for 20 years. It really is the challenge of our generation, one that we're failing totally and spectacularly, and they need to be in exactly the kind of places that don't want them. The Economist highlighted recently that booming Oxford has built fewer new homes than shitheap Doncaster. Mad.
We won't match France - they have 2.7x as much land area, and it's still around 2.5x as much when we take out the unbuildable areas.
Has anyone been watching the US version of Have I Got News For You? The second season is my early morning watch and it's brilliant. It is ferociously partisan and right on but it has so much bite and wit that it makes the tired UK version look even more embarrassing.
Nah, I've been watching this new interactive US political drama. It's a bit too far fetched but some great comedic actors, and they fall into the usual trap of cramming all the action into too short a space of time to make it believable. Best of all they have made it immersive so you can catch it on any of your favourite news channels or print media, 24 hrs a day.
*gravelly bass voice* Previously on Trumpland: Chaos Next time on Trumpland: Chaos
Has anyone been watching the US version of Have I Got News For You? The second season is my early morning watch and it's brilliant. It is ferociously partisan and right on but it has so much bite and wit that it makes the tired UK version look even more embarrassing.
If the BBC truly wants to revive HIGNFY they should make it openly partisan - one week left, the next right, with different regulars for each strand. That would be fun and provocative and might get people watching. Which means they won't do it
Workless youths who are “on the internet 24-hours a day” won’t get out of bed for less than £40,000, Lords have been told.
Graham Cowley, who works with young people who are not in employment, education or training (Neets) in Blackpool, said a colleague this week told him there were “kids on the internet 24-hours a day, and they don’t want to work for anything less than 40 grand”.
Some on the Lords’ social mobility policy committee gasped in response, prompting Mr Crowley to say: “I know, I had that reaction. You may laugh, but that is the reality.”
They don't want to work for £40k they want to be employed for £40k.
No employer would be able to get them to put down their mobiles in the few weeks before they were sacked.
What mortgage can you get on £40,000 a year? What about the minimum wage of £20,000 a year? As one of Leon's mates pointed out some years back, in London, even quite ordinary homes originally built for single-income, working class households now fetch around £1 million. Even in the frozen north or a left-behind seaside town like Clacton, you'd be looking at £200,000 which brings us back to a mortgage of 5 times £40k.
Another run-down seaside resort. Are there many well-paid, non-seasonal jobs there?
That depends on what you consider well paid.
But generally pay is linked to skillsets.
Those who want more opportunities for better pay need to improve their skillsets.
Something which isn't going to be done by spending time in bed and on tiktok.
The other side of the tug-of-war is those who look at that option- doing the boring training to get the better job- and decide that it's more hassle than it's worth. Not quite the same thinking as trustafarians, but something similar in the logic. And there are prominent political voices saying "nah, don't bother with university". OK, they say in the second sentence "get a trade skill instead", but who reads the second sentence these days?
Now, I agree with those who think that will be bad for the people involved, and an utter disaster for society if everyone who can do it does it. But on some level, it's rational.
Workless youths who are “on the internet 24-hours a day” won’t get out of bed for less than £40,000, Lords have been told.
Graham Cowley, who works with young people who are not in employment, education or training (Neets) in Blackpool, said a colleague this week told him there were “kids on the internet 24-hours a day, and they don’t want to work for anything less than 40 grand”.
Some on the Lords’ social mobility policy committee gasped in response, prompting Mr Crowley to say: “I know, I had that reaction. You may laugh, but that is the reality.”
They don't want to work for £40k they want to be employed for £40k.
No employer would be able to get them to put down their mobiles in the few weeks before they were sacked.
What mortgage can you get on £40,000 a year? What about the minimum wage of £20,000 a year? As one of Leon's mates pointed out some years back, in London, even quite ordinary homes originally built for single-income, working class households now fetch around £1 million. Even in the frozen north or a left-behind seaside town like Clacton, you'd be looking at £200,000 which brings us back to a mortgage of 5 times £40k.
Another run-down seaside resort. Are there many well-paid, non-seasonal jobs there?
There are trains to Manchester and Liverpool. And WFH.
Way, way back, the well-healed businessmen (and they were all men) commuting from Blackpool to Manchester had their own "club train" where the select few could travel in comfort and figure out the best way to exploit the proletariat.
One of the club carriages is preserved at the Keighley & Worth Valley Railway, and you can sometimes take a ride in it.
So one year on the horizon and no sign of 1.5 million new houses
You should see the rate they are going up on the South Coast. There's a lot going on - except where the local council has got into the building game (2-3 years late)
We build abour 200,000 houses in a normal year, but were not building 400,000 houses which is what we need.
We have quite major developments starting here in Ashfield, including a continuation of building more Council Houses that have been a thing for several years. They are trying to build on several areas of open land on older housing estates, where dogwalkers go etc, which is getting some blowback.
Looking at the numbers, they are massively lumpy, and come out 4 months behind - so 2024 Q4 is due out in the next week. Starts by quarter from 2022 Q1 look weirdly lumpy as Covid worked out - no conclusions are possible. But this is one, like NHS waiting lists, where the Govt have to deliver significant improvement towards their 1.5 million: target
I can only put it down to marketing shenanigans that the Cons indulged in before the Election to stroke Nimbies as they were circling the drain - eg the abolition of Housing Targets by Council, which they had never touched before.
My surmise would be that the number of housing starts fell as the economy slowed from the roaring economic boom of 2021-2 and as the pent up approvals from the pandemic ran out.
Whatever, it's a dismal record, especially as most if not all will be tiny, shoddy new builds a third of the size of their American counterparts, rather than the large family homes we need if our birthrate is to rise.
We need 8 million new houses to match France, which has a similar population. Allowing for population increase and demolition that's at least 500,000/year for 20 years. It really is the challenge of our generation, one that we're failing totally and spectacularly, and they need to be in exactly the kind of places that don't want them. The Economist highlighted recently that booming Oxford has built fewer new homes than shitheap Doncaster. Mad.
We won't match France - they have 2.7x as much land area, and it's still around 2.5x as much when we take out the unbuildable areas.
The amount of land that is actually built on with houses, is a small percentage in both countries.
1.3% of England is homes, with an additional 4.9% classified as gardens.
So one year on the horizon and no sign of 1.5 million new houses
You should see the rate they are going up on the South Coast. There's a lot going on - except where the local council has got into the building game (2-3 years late)
We build abour 200,000 houses in a normal year, but were not building 400,000 houses which is what we need.
We have quite major developments starting here in Ashfield, including a continuation of building more Council Houses that have been a thing for several years. They are trying to build on several areas of open land on older housing estates, where dogwalkers go etc, which is getting some blowback.
Looking at the numbers, they are massively lumpy, and come out 4 months behind - so 2024 Q4 is due out in the next week. Starts by quarter from 2022 Q1 look weirdly lumpy as Covid worked out - no conclusions are possible. But this is one, like NHS waiting lists, where the Govt have to deliver significant improvement towards their 1.5 million: target
I can only put it down to marketing shenanigans that the Cons indulged in before the Election to stroke Nimbies as they were circling the drain - eg the abolition of Housing Targets by Council, which they had never touched before.
Labour has no chance of hitting its target, theyre as useless as the Conservatives. LDs are not much better nationally they proclaim the need for housing and then locally oppose everything.
Supporting the 'right houses in the right place' which all parties say, is one of those things which is technically reasonable in isolation but in practice used as cover to say no to everything.
People object to building in the open countryside, on the edges of towns, and also in the centre of towns, they object to building on green belt, green fields, but also brownfield. They'll fight to preserve high quality agricultural land, useless scrubland, and derelict buildings and former car parks. They'll complain the infrastructure is not built first then object if infrastructure is built first. They'll bemoan they and their children cannot afford to live where they grew up but object to any affordable housing being built there.
It never ends and its infuriating. The system we have is at war with itself as it incentivises pandering to Nimbys whilst also having little teeth on developers. I do believe the government is now trying, but it may need more and look how they act in their own back yards.
You and I both know that's not how it really works.
There are local plans which define what kind of residential or industrial development can take place (in terms of density or height) and where it can take place.
Developers can see from these plans what they would be allowed to build and where but some (not all) try to challenge these pre-existing and locally agreed plans with over-dense or over-height developments or with flats where the local authority wants houses and they do this, let's be fair, to maximise their profit on the land.
More sensible developers engage with the local community in advance often using third party communications companies. They hold public meetings, engage with the locals and work to achieve a compromise application which is acceptable to all. That's submitted and often gets approved.
Yes, there are those who don't want any development on a site but they are usually a minority and only become a majority when an insensitive developer puts up an application without local engagement and reference to the local plan which is completely unsuitable for the site. That's when you get public galleries full of angry people at planning sub-committee meetings and that's when you get councillors refusing applications.
The developer can seek to get that overturned but that takes time and costs money and the thoughtful developer recognises for a little bit of pre-application consultation, a lot of that stress can be removed.
That's how the process works - consultation, engagement, offering a little something to the local community whether out of the Section 106 payment or as part of the plan itself and usually that oiling of the wheels gets the application removed and the development underway and makes the public consultation (a legal requirement currently) a tick box exercise.
The actual problem is or are the chokepoints in the development process - availability of materials, of specialist sub contractors and trades at key points in the process. There's also the question of pricing - there's what the developer would like for each property and what the local market will stand and that's before the issue of affordable housing rears its head. In East London, a lot of developments have either part ownership or, more often, a big proportion is for rental.
I don’t suppose this would work, but: The local authority decides where it wants a housing development. It decides the mix of housing, large houses, small houses, flats, etc.. It decides what infrastructure is needed to support the development. It arranges planning permission. It issues a tender document and asks the property developers to bid for the development. The successful bidder builds the development.
Workless youths who are “on the internet 24-hours a day” won’t get out of bed for less than £40,000, Lords have been told.
Graham Cowley, who works with young people who are not in employment, education or training (Neets) in Blackpool, said a colleague this week told him there were “kids on the internet 24-hours a day, and they don’t want to work for anything less than 40 grand”.
Some on the Lords’ social mobility policy committee gasped in response, prompting Mr Crowley to say: “I know, I had that reaction. You may laugh, but that is the reality.”
They don't want to work for £40k they want to be employed for £40k.
No employer would be able to get them to put down their mobiles in the few weeks before they were sacked.
What mortgage can you get on £40,000 a year? What about the minimum wage of £20,000 a year? As one of Leon's mates pointed out some years back, in London, even quite ordinary homes originally built for single-income, working class households now fetch around £1 million. Even in the frozen north or a left-behind seaside town like Clacton, you'd be looking at £200,000 which brings us back to a mortgage of 5 times £40k.
Another run-down seaside resort. Are there many well-paid, non-seasonal jobs there?
There are trains to Manchester and Liverpool. And WFH.
Way, way back, the well-healed businessmen (and they were all men) commuting from Blackpool to Manchester had their own "club train" where the select few could travel in comfort and figure out the best way to exploit the proletariat.
One of the club carriages is preserved at the Keighley & Worth Valley Railway, and you can sometimes take a ride in it.
So one year on the horizon and no sign of 1.5 million new houses
You should see the rate they are going up on the South Coast. There's a lot going on - except where the local council has got into the building game (2-3 years late)
We build abour 200,000 houses in a normal year, but were not building 400,000 houses which is what we need.
We have quite major developments starting here in Ashfield, including a continuation of building more Council Houses that have been a thing for several years. They are trying to build on several areas of open land on older housing estates, where dogwalkers go etc, which is getting some blowback.
Looking at the numbers, they are massively lumpy, and come out 4 months behind - so 2024 Q4 is due out in the next week. Starts by quarter from 2022 Q1 look weirdly lumpy as Covid worked out - no conclusions are possible. But this is one, like NHS waiting lists, where the Govt have to deliver significant improvement towards their 1.5 million: target
I can only put it down to marketing shenanigans that the Cons indulged in before the Election to stroke Nimbies as they were circling the drain - eg the abolition of Housing Targets by Council, which they had never touched before.
Labour has no chance of hitting its target, theyre as useless as the Conservatives. LDs are not much better nationally they proclaim the need for housing and then locally oppose everything.
Supporting the 'right houses in the right place' which all parties say, is one of those things which is technically reasonable in isolation but in practice used as cover to say no to everything.
People object to building in the open countryside, on the edges of towns, and also in the centre of towns, they object to building on green belt, green fields, but also brownfield. They'll fight to preserve high quality agricultural land, useless scrubland, and derelict buildings and former car parks. They'll complain the infrastructure is not built first then object if infrastructure is built first. They'll bemoan they and their children cannot afford to live where they grew up but object to any affordable housing being built there.
It never ends and its infuriating. The system we have is at war with itself as it incentivises pandering to Nimbys whilst also having little teeth on developers. I do believe the government is now trying, but it may need more and look how they act in their own back yards.
You and I both know that's not how it really works.
There are local plans which define what kind of residential or industrial development can take place (in terms of density or height) and where it can take place.
Developers can see from these plans what they would be allowed to build and where but some (not all) try to challenge these pre-existing and locally agreed plans with over-dense or over-height developments or with flats where the local authority wants houses and they do this, let's be fair, to maximise their profit on the land.
More sensible developers engage with the local community in advance often using third party communications companies. They hold public meetings, engage with the locals and work to achieve a compromise application which is acceptable to all. That's submitted and often gets approved.
Yes, there are those who don't want any development on a site but they are usually a minority and only become a majority when an insensitive developer puts up an application without local engagement and reference to the local plan which is completely unsuitable for the site. That's when you get public galleries full of angry people at planning sub-committee meetings and that's when you get councillors refusing applications.
The developer can seek to get that overturned but that takes time and costs money and the thoughtful developer recognises for a little bit of pre-application consultation, a lot of that stress can be removed.
That's how the process works - consultation, engagement, offering a little something to the local community whether out of the Section 106 payment or as part of the plan itself and usually that oiling of the wheels gets the application removed and the development underway and makes the public consultation (a legal requirement currently) a tick box exercise.
The actual problem is or are the chokepoints in the development process - availability of materials, of specialist sub contractors and trades at key points in the process. There's also the question of pricing - there's what the developer would like for each property and what the local market will stand and that's before the issue of affordable housing rears its head. In East London, a lot of developments have either part ownership or, more often, a big proportion is for rental.
I don’t suppose this would work, but: The local authority decides where it wants a housing development. It decides the mix of housing, large houses, small houses, flats, etc.. It decides what infrastructure is needed to support the development. It arranges planning permission. It issues a tender document and asks the property developers to bid for the development. The successful bidder builds the development.
Maybe that would work well.
Life has made me skeptical of bidding systems. They seem to always end up favouring the companies who are good at writing bids more than anything else.
So one year on the horizon and no sign of 1.5 million new houses
You should see the rate they are going up on the South Coast. There's a lot going on - except where the local council has got into the building game (2-3 years late)
We build abour 200,000 houses in a normal year, but were not building 400,000 houses which is what we need.
We have quite major developments starting here in Ashfield, including a continuation of building more Council Houses that have been a thing for several years. They are trying to build on several areas of open land on older housing estates, where dogwalkers go etc, which is getting some blowback.
Looking at the numbers, they are massively lumpy, and come out 4 months behind - so 2024 Q4 is due out in the next week. Starts by quarter from 2022 Q1 look weirdly lumpy as Covid worked out - no conclusions are possible. But this is one, like NHS waiting lists, where the Govt have to deliver significant improvement towards their 1.5 million: target
I can only put it down to marketing shenanigans that the Cons indulged in before the Election to stroke Nimbies as they were circling the drain - eg the abolition of Housing Targets by Council, which they had never touched before.
Labour has no chance of hitting its target, theyre as useless as the Conservatives. LDs are not much better nationally they proclaim the need for housing and then locally oppose everything.
Supporting the 'right houses in the right place' which all parties say, is one of those things which is technically reasonable in isolation but in practice used as cover to say no to everything.
People object to building in the open countryside, on the edges of towns, and also in the centre of towns, they object to building on green belt, green fields, but also brownfield. They'll fight to preserve high quality agricultural land, useless scrubland, and derelict buildings and former car parks. They'll complain the infrastructure is not built first then object if infrastructure is built first. They'll bemoan they and their children cannot afford to live where they grew up but object to any affordable housing being built there.
It never ends and its infuriating. The system we have is at war with itself as it incentivises pandering to Nimbys whilst also having little teeth on developers. I do believe the government is now trying, but it may need more and look how they act in their own back yards.
You and I both know that's not how it really works.
There are local plans which define what kind of residential or industrial development can take place (in terms of density or height) and where it can take place.
Developers can see from these plans what they would be allowed to build and where but some (not all) try to challenge these pre-existing and locally agreed plans with over-dense or over-height developments or with flats where the local authority wants houses and they do this, let's be fair, to maximise their profit on the land.
More sensible developers engage with the local community in advance often using third party communications companies. They hold public meetings, engage with the locals and work to achieve a compromise application which is acceptable to all. That's submitted and often gets approved.
Yes, there are those who don't want any development on a site but they are usually a minority and only become a majority when an insensitive developer puts up an application without local engagement and reference to the local plan which is completely unsuitable for the site. That's when you get public galleries full of angry people at planning sub-committee meetings and that's when you get councillors refusing applications.
The developer can seek to get that overturned but that takes time and costs money and the thoughtful developer recognises for a little bit of pre-application consultation, a lot of that stress can be removed.
That's how the process works - consultation, engagement, offering a little something to the local community whether out of the Section 106 payment or as part of the plan itself and usually that oiling of the wheels gets the application removed and the development underway and makes the public consultation (a legal requirement currently) a tick box exercise.
The actual problem is or are the chokepoints in the development process - availability of materials, of specialist sub contractors and trades at key points in the process. There's also the question of pricing - there's what the developer would like for each property and what the local market will stand and that's before the issue of affordable housing rears its head. In East London, a lot of developments have either part ownership or, more often, a big proportion is for rental.
I don’t suppose this would work, but: The local authority decides where it wants a housing development. It decides the mix of housing, large houses, small houses, flats, etc.. It decides what infrastructure is needed to support the development. It arranges planning permission. It issues a tender document and asks the property developers to bid for the development. The successful bidder builds the development.
What worked, very successfully, in the past, was
1) Layout a plan for an area. 2) Build the roads, utilities, schools etc. 3) Sell a "roads" (or one side of a road) of plots to different developers, with rules about the style of housing.
The main issue with your idea is that the developer will try and control the rate of construction to get the highest possible prices. Competition is better.
Workless youths who are “on the internet 24-hours a day” won’t get out of bed for less than £40,000, Lords have been told.
Graham Cowley, who works with young people who are not in employment, education or training (Neets) in Blackpool, said a colleague this week told him there were “kids on the internet 24-hours a day, and they don’t want to work for anything less than 40 grand”.
Some on the Lords’ social mobility policy committee gasped in response, prompting Mr Crowley to say: “I know, I had that reaction. You may laugh, but that is the reality.”
They don't want to work for £40k they want to be employed for £40k.
No employer would be able to get them to put down their mobiles in the few weeks before they were sacked.
What mortgage can you get on £40,000 a year? What about the minimum wage of £20,000 a year? As one of Leon's mates pointed out some years back, in London, even quite ordinary homes originally built for single-income, working class households now fetch around £1 million. Even in the frozen north or a left-behind seaside town like Clacton, you'd be looking at £200,000 which brings us back to a mortgage of 5 times £40k.
Another run-down seaside resort. Are there many well-paid, non-seasonal jobs there?
There are trains to Manchester and Liverpool. And WFH.
Way, way back, the well-healed businessmen (and they were all men) commuting from Blackpool to Manchester had their own "club train" where the select few could travel in comfort and figure out the best way to exploit the proletariat.
One of the club carriages is preserved at the Keighley & Worth Valley Railway, and you can sometimes take a ride in it.
So one year on the horizon and no sign of 1.5 million new houses
You should see the rate they are going up on the South Coast. There's a lot going on - except where the local council has got into the building game (2-3 years late)
We build abour 200,000 houses in a normal year, but were not building 400,000 houses which is what we need.
We have quite major developments starting here in Ashfield, including a continuation of building more Council Houses that have been a thing for several years. They are trying to build on several areas of open land on older housing estates, where dogwalkers go etc, which is getting some blowback.
Looking at the numbers, they are massively lumpy, and come out 4 months behind - so 2024 Q4 is due out in the next week. Starts by quarter from 2022 Q1 look weirdly lumpy as Covid worked out - no conclusions are possible. But this is one, like NHS waiting lists, where the Govt have to deliver significant improvement towards their 1.5 million: target
I can only put it down to marketing shenanigans that the Cons indulged in before the Election to stroke Nimbies as they were circling the drain - eg the abolition of Housing Targets by Council, which they had never touched before.
Labour has no chance of hitting its target, theyre as useless as the Conservatives. LDs are not much better nationally they proclaim the need for housing and then locally oppose everything.
Supporting the 'right houses in the right place' which all parties say, is one of those things which is technically reasonable in isolation but in practice used as cover to say no to everything.
People object to building in the open countryside, on the edges of towns, and also in the centre of towns, they object to building on green belt, green fields, but also brownfield. They'll fight to preserve high quality agricultural land, useless scrubland, and derelict buildings and former car parks. They'll complain the infrastructure is not built first then object if infrastructure is built first. They'll bemoan they and their children cannot afford to live where they grew up but object to any affordable housing being built there.
It never ends and its infuriating. The system we have is at war with itself as it incentivises pandering to Nimbys whilst also having little teeth on developers. I do believe the government is now trying, but it may need more and look how they act in their own back yards.
You and I both know that's not how it really works.
There are local plans which define what kind of residential or industrial development can take place (in terms of density or height) and where it can take place.
Developers can see from these plans what they would be allowed to build and where but some (not all) try to challenge these pre-existing and locally agreed plans with over-dense or over-height developments or with flats where the local authority wants houses and they do this, let's be fair, to maximise their profit on the land.
More sensible developers engage with the local community in advance often using third party communications companies. They hold public meetings, engage with the locals and work to achieve a compromise application which is acceptable to all. That's submitted and often gets approved.
Yes, there are those who don't want any development on a site but they are usually a minority and only become a majority when an insensitive developer puts up an application without local engagement and reference to the local plan which is completely unsuitable for the site. That's when you get public galleries full of angry people at planning sub-committee meetings and that's when you get councillors refusing applications.
The developer can seek to get that overturned but that takes time and costs money and the thoughtful developer recognises for a little bit of pre-application consultation, a lot of that stress can be removed.
That's how the process works - consultation, engagement, offering a little something to the local community whether out of the Section 106 payment or as part of the plan itself and usually that oiling of the wheels gets the application removed and the development underway and makes the public consultation (a legal requirement currently) a tick box exercise.
The actual problem is or are the chokepoints in the development process - availability of materials, of specialist sub contractors and trades at key points in the process. There's also the question of pricing - there's what the developer would like for each property and what the local market will stand and that's before the issue of affordable housing rears its head. In East London, a lot of developments have either part ownership or, more often, a big proportion is for rental.
I don’t suppose this would work, but: The local authority decides where it wants a housing development. It decides the mix of housing, large houses, small houses, flats, etc.. It decides what infrastructure is needed to support the development. It arranges planning permission. It issues a tender document and asks the property developers to bid for the development. The successful bidder builds the development.
Workless youths who are “on the internet 24-hours a day” won’t get out of bed for less than £40,000, Lords have been told.
Graham Cowley, who works with young people who are not in employment, education or training (Neets) in Blackpool, said a colleague this week told him there were “kids on the internet 24-hours a day, and they don’t want to work for anything less than 40 grand”.
Some on the Lords’ social mobility policy committee gasped in response, prompting Mr Crowley to say: “I know, I had that reaction. You may laugh, but that is the reality.”
They don't want to work for £40k they want to be employed for £40k.
No employer would be able to get them to put down their mobiles in the few weeks before they were sacked.
What mortgage can you get on £40,000 a year? What about the minimum wage of £20,000 a year? As one of Leon's mates pointed out some years back, in London, even quite ordinary homes originally built for single-income, working class households now fetch around £1 million. Even in the frozen north or a left-behind seaside town like Clacton, you'd be looking at £200,000 which brings us back to a mortgage of 5 times £40k.
Another run-down seaside resort. Are there many well-paid, non-seasonal jobs there?
There are trains to Manchester and Liverpool. And WFH.
Way, way back, the well-healed businessmen (and they were all men) commuting from Blackpool to Manchester had their own "club train" where the select few could travel in comfort and figure out the best way to exploit the proletariat.
One of the club carriages is preserved at the Keighley & Worth Valley Railway, and you can sometimes take a ride in it.
So one year on the horizon and no sign of 1.5 million new houses
You should see the rate they are going up on the South Coast. There's a lot going on - except where the local council has got into the building game (2-3 years late)
We build abour 200,000 houses in a normal year, but were not building 400,000 houses which is what we need.
We have quite major developments starting here in Ashfield, including a continuation of building more Council Houses that have been a thing for several years. They are trying to build on several areas of open land on older housing estates, where dogwalkers go etc, which is getting some blowback.
Looking at the numbers, they are massively lumpy, and come out 4 months behind - so 2024 Q4 is due out in the next week. Starts by quarter from 2022 Q1 look weirdly lumpy as Covid worked out - no conclusions are possible. But this is one, like NHS waiting lists, where the Govt have to deliver significant improvement towards their 1.5 million: target
I can only put it down to marketing shenanigans that the Cons indulged in before the Election to stroke Nimbies as they were circling the drain - eg the abolition of Housing Targets by Council, which they had never touched before.
Labour has no chance of hitting its target, theyre as useless as the Conservatives. LDs are not much better nationally they proclaim the need for housing and then locally oppose everything.
Supporting the 'right houses in the right place' which all parties say, is one of those things which is technically reasonable in isolation but in practice used as cover to say no to everything.
People object to building in the open countryside, on the edges of towns, and also in the centre of towns, they object to building on green belt, green fields, but also brownfield. They'll fight to preserve high quality agricultural land, useless scrubland, and derelict buildings and former car parks. They'll complain the infrastructure is not built first then object if infrastructure is built first. They'll bemoan they and their children cannot afford to live where they grew up but object to any affordable housing being built there.
It never ends and its infuriating. The system we have is at war with itself as it incentivises pandering to Nimbys whilst also having little teeth on developers. I do believe the government is now trying, but it may need more and look how they act in their own back yards.
You and I both know that's not how it really works.
There are local plans which define what kind of residential or industrial development can take place (in terms of density or height) and where it can take place.
Developers can see from these plans what they would be allowed to build and where but some (not all) try to challenge these pre-existing and locally agreed plans with over-dense or over-height developments or with flats where the local authority wants houses and they do this, let's be fair, to maximise their profit on the land.
More sensible developers engage with the local community in advance often using third party communications companies. They hold public meetings, engage with the locals and work to achieve a compromise application which is acceptable to all. That's submitted and often gets approved.
Yes, there are those who don't want any development on a site but they are usually a minority and only become a majority when an insensitive developer puts up an application without local engagement and reference to the local plan which is completely unsuitable for the site. That's when you get public galleries full of angry people at planning sub-committee meetings and that's when you get councillors refusing applications.
The developer can seek to get that overturned but that takes time and costs money and the thoughtful developer recognises for a little bit of pre-application consultation, a lot of that stress can be removed.
That's how the process works - consultation, engagement, offering a little something to the local community whether out of the Section 106 payment or as part of the plan itself and usually that oiling of the wheels gets the application removed and the development underway and makes the public consultation (a legal requirement currently) a tick box exercise.
The actual problem is or are the chokepoints in the development process - availability of materials, of specialist sub contractors and trades at key points in the process. There's also the question of pricing - there's what the developer would like for each property and what the local market will stand and that's before the issue of affordable housing rears its head. In East London, a lot of developments have either part ownership or, more often, a big proportion is for rental.
I don’t suppose this would work, but: The local authority decides where it wants a housing development. It decides the mix of housing, large houses, small houses, flats, etc.. It decides what infrastructure is needed to support the development. It arranges planning permission. It issues a tender document and asks the property developers to bid for the development. The successful bidder builds the development.
What worked, very successfully, in the past, was
1) Layout a plan for an area. 2) Build the roads, utilities, schools etc. 3) Sell a "roads" (or one side of a road) of plots to different developers, with rules about the style of housing.
The main issue with your idea is that the developer will try and control the rate of construction to get the highest possible prices. Competition is better.
Agreed. The local authority tender could also include timings.
If the Republicans are unpopular, he'll be tainted. That includes if he has become President, which is fairly likely given Trump's age and state of decay. This means either he will be primaried out, or he will lose.
For me, the likelier Republican candidate is Ramaswamy. If they double down on whatever they're smoking, he's the obvious contender - younger, more plausible, more coherent and even more batshit than Trump and Musk.
But what it really shows is how broken the American political system is if they can elect somebody to carry out policies that will blow up their lives, and then be surprised or disapproving about it.
I still don't understand why we can't back the likely 2028 winner on Betfair. If people think he won't run or be allowed to stand they can just lay him bigly.
Are Betfair refusing to list Trump? They've listed numerous celebs, though, as far as I can tell, no one ineligible such as Musk or Schwarzenegger. Is that why Trump isn't listed, currently ineligible?
Don’t laugh… but presumably there are some ethical guidelines applied.
If one side of a bet *can’t* win according to the rules then a bookie shouldn’t take a bet on it
The next President? Depends on whether King Donald falls out with his chosen heirs. So often the successor to the tyrant is not the expected one, so I agree that it's unlikely to be Vance.
Trump is moaning about the Supreme Court blocking him. HIS judges. They have already got around the court once, surely it seems likely that the next move will be to simply bypass it.
Remember folks - they are already laying the ground for this. Activist judges, woke liberal lawyers, traitors of the American people - the abuse is already lined up. To sue the US government you need lawyers - and the government are busy smashing them. To stop the US government you need a legislature willing to speak out. Trump got impeached twice and wasn't stopped. And congress as currently elected is submissive. To stop the US government you need an independent media willing to speak truth to power. That has gone.
I'm very serious when I float questions about midterms and future elections. Trump is rapidly moving to squash the constitution and all opposition. He can sit there in the Oval Office with chinese-made MAGA hats on his desk signing endless executive orders and nobody is going to stop him.
The only question is how far will he go?
My current assessment is that there is a “non zero probability” of there being no elections in 2026
Workless youths who are “on the internet 24-hours a day” won’t get out of bed for less than £40,000, Lords have been told.
Graham Cowley, who works with young people who are not in employment, education or training (Neets) in Blackpool, said a colleague this week told him there were “kids on the internet 24-hours a day, and they don’t want to work for anything less than 40 grand”.
Some on the Lords’ social mobility policy committee gasped in response, prompting Mr Crowley to say: “I know, I had that reaction. You may laugh, but that is the reality.”
If the Republicans are unpopular, he'll be tainted. That includes if he has become President, which is fairly likely given Trump's age and state of decay. This means either he will be primaried out, or he will lose.
For me, the likelier Republican candidate is Ramaswamy. If they double down on whatever they're smoking, he's the obvious contender - younger, more plausible, more coherent and even more batshit than Trump and Musk.
But what it really shows is how broken the American political system is if they can elect somebody to carry out policies that will blow up their lives, and then be surprised or disapproving about it.
I still don't understand why we can't back the likely 2028 winner on Betfair. If people think he won't run or be allowed to stand they can just lay him bigly.
Are Betfair refusing to list Trump? They've listed numerous celebs, though, as far as I can tell, no one ineligible such as Musk or Schwarzenegger. Is that why Trump isn't listed, currently ineligible?
Don’t laugh… but presumably there are some ethical guidelines applied.
If one side of a bet *can’t* win according to the rules then a bookie shouldn’t take a bet on it
Musk and Trump *could* be made eligible by either constitutional amendment or self-coup though - which is a non zero probability between now and 2029 though, so I think Betfair should list them if people want to either back or lay them.
If the Republicans are unpopular, he'll be tainted. That includes if he has become President, which is fairly likely given Trump's age and state of decay. This means either he will be primaried out, or he will lose.
For me, the likelier Republican candidate is Ramaswamy. If they double down on whatever they're smoking, he's the obvious contender - younger, more plausible, more coherent and even more batshit than Trump and Musk.
But what it really shows is how broken the American political system is if they can elect somebody to carry out policies that will blow up their lives, and then be surprised or disapproving about it.
I still don't understand why we can't back the likely 2028 winner on Betfair. If people think he won't run or be allowed to stand they can just lay him bigly.
Are Betfair refusing to list Trump? They've listed numerous celebs, though, as far as I can tell, no one ineligible such as Musk or Schwarzenegger. Is that why Trump isn't listed, currently ineligible?
Don’t laugh… but presumably there are some ethical guidelines applied.
If one side of a bet *can’t* win according to the rules then a bookie shouldn’t take a bet on it
How about a bet on the end of the world. It can happen, but cashing in the betting slip might be a bit problematic. I would be happy to give anyone odds on that one.
If the Republicans are unpopular, he'll be tainted. That includes if he has become President, which is fairly likely given Trump's age and state of decay. This means either he will be primaried out, or he will lose.
For me, the likelier Republican candidate is Ramaswamy. If they double down on whatever they're smoking, he's the obvious contender - younger, more plausible, more coherent and even more batshit than Trump and Musk.
But what it really shows is how broken the American political system is if they can elect somebody to carry out policies that will blow up their lives, and then be surprised or disapproving about it.
I still don't understand why we can't back the likely 2028 winner on Betfair. If people think he won't run or be allowed to stand they can just lay him bigly.
Are Betfair refusing to list Trump? They've listed numerous celebs, though, as far as I can tell, no one ineligible such as Musk or Schwarzenegger. Is that why Trump isn't listed, currently ineligible?
Don’t laugh… but presumably there are some ethical guidelines applied.
If one side of a bet *can’t* win according to the rules then a bookie shouldn’t take a bet on it
Musk and Trump *could* be made eligible by either constitutional amendment or self-coup though - which is a non zero probability between now and 2029 though, so I think Betfair should list them if people want to either back or lay them.
If the Republicans are unpopular, he'll be tainted. That includes if he has become President, which is fairly likely given Trump's age and state of decay. This means either he will be primaried out, or he will lose.
For me, the likelier Republican candidate is Ramaswamy. If they double down on whatever they're smoking, he's the obvious contender - younger, more plausible, more coherent and even more batshit than Trump and Musk.
But what it really shows is how broken the American political system is if they can elect somebody to carry out policies that will blow up their lives, and then be surprised or disapproving about it.
I still don't understand why we can't back the likely 2028 winner on Betfair. If people think he won't run or be allowed to stand they can just lay him bigly.
Are Betfair refusing to list Trump? They've listed numerous celebs, though, as far as I can tell, no one ineligible such as Musk or Schwarzenegger. Is that why Trump isn't listed, currently ineligible?
Don’t laugh… but presumably there are some ethical guidelines applied.
If one side of a bet *can’t* win according to the rules then a bookie shouldn’t take a bet on it
What I'd like to see is an "In what year will Donald Trump cease to be president?" market. Each year listed up to say 2033 then '2034 or later' to finish. Depending on the price (obvs) but I'd be looking to buy the short dates and sell the long ones. Why? Because I think there is considerably more chance he doesn't complete his 2nd term than that he manages to stay beyond it.
So one year on the horizon and no sign of 1.5 million new houses
You should see the rate they are going up on the South Coast. There's a lot going on - except where the local council has got into the building game (2-3 years late)
We build abour 200,000 houses in a normal year, but were not building 400,000 houses which is what we need.
We have quite major developments starting here in Ashfield, including a continuation of building more Council Houses that have been a thing for several years. They are trying to build on several areas of open land on older housing estates, where dogwalkers go etc, which is getting some blowback.
Looking at the numbers, they are massively lumpy, and come out 4 months behind - so 2024 Q4 is due out in the next week. Starts by quarter from 2022 Q1 look weirdly lumpy as Covid worked out - no conclusions are possible. But this is one, like NHS waiting lists, where the Govt have to deliver significant improvement towards their 1.5 million: target
I can only put it down to marketing shenanigans that the Cons indulged in before the Election to stroke Nimbies as they were circling the drain - eg the abolition of Housing Targets by Council, which they had never touched before.
My surmise would be that the number of housing starts fell as the economy slowed from the roaring economic boom of 2021-2 and as the pent up approvals from the pandemic ran out.
Whatever, it's a dismal record, especially as most if not all will be tiny, shoddy new builds a third of the size of their American counterparts, rather than the large family homes we need if our birthrate is to rise.
We need 8 million new houses to match France, which has a similar population. Allowing for population increase and demolition that's at least 500,000/year for 20 years. It really is the challenge of our generation, one that we're failing totally and spectacularly, and they need to be in exactly the kind of places that don't want them. The Economist highlighted recently that booming Oxford has built fewer new homes than shitheap Doncaster. Mad.
We won't match France - they have 2.7x as much land area, and it's still around 2.5x as much when we take out the unbuildable areas.
The amount of land that is actually built on with houses, is a small percentage in both countries.
1.3% of England is homes, with an additional 4.9% classified as gardens.
We still won't match France - a far larger area is required for amenities etc as you know, we have the same populations, and a very high percentage of (especially amongst the home countries) England is countryside protected in one way or another.
And that's without getting into contrasting inheritance systems.
If the Republicans are unpopular, he'll be tainted. That includes if he has become President, which is fairly likely given Trump's age and state of decay. This means either he will be primaried out, or he will lose.
For me, the likelier Republican candidate is Ramaswamy. If they double down on whatever they're smoking, he's the obvious contender - younger, more plausible, more coherent and even more batshit than Trump and Musk.
But what it really shows is how broken the American political system is if they can elect somebody to carry out policies that will blow up their lives, and then be surprised or disapproving about it.
I still don't understand why we can't back the likely 2028 winner on Betfair. If people think he won't run or be allowed to stand they can just lay him bigly.
Are Betfair refusing to list Trump? They've listed numerous celebs, though, as far as I can tell, no one ineligible such as Musk or Schwarzenegger. Is that why Trump isn't listed, currently ineligible?
Don’t laugh… but presumably there are some ethical guidelines applied.
If one side of a bet *can’t* win according to the rules then a bookie shouldn’t take a bet on it
Musk and Trump *could* be made eligible by either constitutional amendment or self-coup though - which is a non zero probability between now and 2029 though, so I think Betfair should list them if people want to either back or lay them.
So one year on the horizon and no sign of 1.5 million new houses
You should see the rate they are going up on the South Coast. There's a lot going on - except where the local council has got into the building game (2-3 years late)
We build abour 200,000 houses in a normal year, but were not building 400,000 houses which is what we need.
We have quite major developments starting here in Ashfield, including a continuation of building more Council Houses that have been a thing for several years. They are trying to build on several areas of open land on older housing estates, where dogwalkers go etc, which is getting some blowback.
Looking at the numbers, they are massively lumpy, and come out 4 months behind - so 2024 Q4 is due out in the next week. Starts by quarter from 2022 Q1 look weirdly lumpy as Covid worked out - no conclusions are possible. But this is one, like NHS waiting lists, where the Govt have to deliver significant improvement towards their 1.5 million: target
I can only put it down to marketing shenanigans that the Cons indulged in before the Election to stroke Nimbies as they were circling the drain - eg the abolition of Housing Targets by Council, which they had never touched before.
My surmise would be that the number of housing starts fell as the economy slowed from the roaring economic boom of 2021-2 and as the pent up approvals from the pandemic ran out.
Whatever, it's a dismal record, especially as most if not all will be tiny, shoddy new builds a third of the size of their American counterparts, rather than the large family homes we need if our birthrate is to rise.
We need 8 million new houses to match France, which has a similar population. Allowing for population increase and demolition that's at least 500,000/year for 20 years. It really is the challenge of our generation, one that we're failing totally and spectacularly, and they need to be in exactly the kind of places that don't want them. The Economist highlighted recently that booming Oxford has built fewer new homes than shitheap Doncaster. Mad.
We won't match France - they have 2.7x as much land area, and it's still around 2.5x as much when we take out the unbuildable areas.
The amount of land that is actually built on with houses, is a small percentage in both countries.
1.3% of England is homes, with an additional 4.9% classified as gardens.
We still won't match France - a far larger area is required for amenities etc as you know, we have the same populations, and a very high percentage of (especially amongst the home countries) England is countryside protected in one way or another.
And that's without getting into contrasting inheritance systems.
We have the people. Already. And not the houses.
At some point, the FuckTheCountrysideEspeciallyHard party will get in. And build all over the Lake District.
My advice is to get there first and control the process
So one year on the horizon and no sign of 1.5 million new houses
You should see the rate they are going up on the South Coast. There's a lot going on - except where the local council has got into the building game (2-3 years late)
We build abour 200,000 houses in a normal year, but were not building 400,000 houses which is what we need.
We have quite major developments starting here in Ashfield, including a continuation of building more Council Houses that have been a thing for several years. They are trying to build on several areas of open land on older housing estates, where dogwalkers go etc, which is getting some blowback.
Looking at the numbers, they are massively lumpy, and come out 4 months behind - so 2024 Q4 is due out in the next week. Starts by quarter from 2022 Q1 look weirdly lumpy as Covid worked out - no conclusions are possible. But this is one, like NHS waiting lists, where the Govt have to deliver significant improvement towards their 1.5 million: target
I can only put it down to marketing shenanigans that the Cons indulged in before the Election to stroke Nimbies as they were circling the drain - eg the abolition of Housing Targets by Council, which they had never touched before.
Labour has no chance of hitting its target, theyre as useless as the Conservatives. LDs are not much better nationally they proclaim the need for housing and then locally oppose everything.
Supporting the 'right houses in the right place' which all parties say, is one of those things which is technically reasonable in isolation but in practice used as cover to say no to everything.
People object to building in the open countryside, on the edges of towns, and also in the centre of towns, they object to building on green belt, green fields, but also brownfield. They'll fight to preserve high quality agricultural land, useless scrubland, and derelict buildings and former car parks. They'll complain the infrastructure is not built first then object if infrastructure is built first. They'll bemoan they and their children cannot afford to live where they grew up but object to any affordable housing being built there.
It never ends and its infuriating. The system we have is at war with itself as it incentivises pandering to Nimbys whilst also having little teeth on developers. I do believe the government is now trying, but it may need more and look how they act in their own back yards.
You and I both know that's not how it really works.
There are local plans which define what kind of residential or industrial development can take place (in terms of density or height) and where it can take place.
Developers can see from these plans what they would be allowed to build and where but some (not all) try to challenge these pre-existing and locally agreed plans with over-dense or over-height developments or with flats where the local authority wants houses and they do this, let's be fair, to maximise their profit on the land.
More sensible developers engage with the local community in advance often using third party communications companies. They hold public meetings, engage with the locals and work to achieve a compromise application which is acceptable to all. That's submitted and often gets approved.
Yes, there are those who don't want any development on a site but they are usually a minority and only become a majority when an insensitive developer puts up an application without local engagement and reference to the local plan which is completely unsuitable for the site. That's when you get public galleries full of angry people at planning sub-committee meetings and that's when you get councillors refusing applications.
The developer can seek to get that overturned but that takes time and costs money and the thoughtful developer recognises for a little bit of pre-application consultation, a lot of that stress can be removed.
That's how the process works - consultation, engagement, offering a little something to the local community whether out of the Section 106 payment or as part of the plan itself and usually that oiling of the wheels gets the application removed and the development underway and makes the public consultation (a legal requirement currently) a tick box exercise.
The actual problem is or are the chokepoints in the development process - availability of materials, of specialist sub contractors and trades at key points in the process. There's also the question of pricing - there's what the developer would like for each property and what the local market will stand and that's before the issue of affordable housing rears its head. In East London, a lot of developments have either part ownership or, more often, a big proportion is for rental.
I don’t suppose this would work, but: The local authority decides where it wants a housing development. It decides the mix of housing, large houses, small houses, flats, etc.. It decides what infrastructure is needed to support the development. It arranges planning permission. It issues a tender document and asks the property developers to bid for the development. The successful bidder builds the development.
What worked, very successfully, in the past, was
1) Layout a plan for an area. 2) Build the roads, utilities, schools etc. 3) Sell a "roads" (or one side of a road) of plots to different developers, with rules about the style of housing.
The main issue with your idea is that the developer will try and control the rate of construction to get the highest possible prices. Competition is better.
There are various problems with that. One is that Local Authorities, perhaps with a few exceptions, do not have the capacity to manage it. And giving more responsibilities without the ability to meet them will result in a ginormous mess.
For example consider the powers given to LAs to make different investment some years ago whilst they were being gutted as organisations, piled up with statutory responsibilities, and having their resource-bases destroyed.
Result: a number going "bankrupt".
That's not viable until we have a stronger, appropriately resourced, base of local government, with at least a significantly shared political vision as to the idea that it should exist.
So one year on the horizon and no sign of 1.5 million new houses
You should see the rate they are going up on the South Coast. There's a lot going on - except where the local council has got into the building game (2-3 years late)
We build abour 200,000 houses in a normal year, but were not building 400,000 houses which is what we need.
We have quite major developments starting here in Ashfield, including a continuation of building more Council Houses that have been a thing for several years. They are trying to build on several areas of open land on older housing estates, where dogwalkers go etc, which is getting some blowback.
Looking at the numbers, they are massively lumpy, and come out 4 months behind - so 2024 Q4 is due out in the next week. Starts by quarter from 2022 Q1 look weirdly lumpy as Covid worked out - no conclusions are possible. But this is one, like NHS waiting lists, where the Govt have to deliver significant improvement towards their 1.5 million: target
I can only put it down to marketing shenanigans that the Cons indulged in before the Election to stroke Nimbies as they were circling the drain - eg the abolition of Housing Targets by Council, which they had never touched before.
My surmise would be that the number of housing starts fell as the economy slowed from the roaring economic boom of 2021-2 and as the pent up approvals from the pandemic ran out.
Whatever, it's a dismal record, especially as most if not all will be tiny, shoddy new builds a third of the size of their American counterparts, rather than the large family homes we need if our birthrate is to rise.
We need 8 million new houses to match France, which has a similar population. Allowing for population increase and demolition that's at least 500,000/year for 20 years. It really is the challenge of our generation, one that we're failing totally and spectacularly, and they need to be in exactly the kind of places that don't want them. The Economist highlighted recently that booming Oxford has built fewer new homes than shitheap Doncaster. Mad.
Given that Doncaster is far bigger, far more rural and has far more brownfield sites why is that remotely surprising ?
Most of the building is not on brownfield sites - although there are a couple of projects on old colliery heaps. A lot is on greenfield to the east of the "city" where there is no greenbelt - in fill on the M18 link road.
Also, Doncaster isn't entirely a shitheap. And Oxford isn't entirely dreaming spires, either, is it?
Most of the new housing, including entire new suburbs such as Lakeside and Woodfield, in Doncaster over the last generation has been on empty land - abandoned mining land, abandoned railway land, abandoned military land, abandoned agricultural land.
Empty land along communication routes is an attractive prospect for developers.
Agricultural land abandoned for development!
Lakeside is an old airfield, although it had developed into an interesting mosaic of habitats.
But all the M18 link road developments are green field.
The mayor said she didn't like seeing sheep there (as was) because it made us look like a 'hick town'.
Anyway, 3 common cranes just flew over and I hear trumpeting in the distance, so I'm off out to investigate.
Workless youths who are “on the internet 24-hours a day” won’t get out of bed for less than £40,000, Lords have been told.
Graham Cowley, who works with young people who are not in employment, education or training (Neets) in Blackpool, said a colleague this week told him there were “kids on the internet 24-hours a day, and they don’t want to work for anything less than 40 grand”.
Some on the Lords’ social mobility policy committee gasped in response, prompting Mr Crowley to say: “I know, I had that reaction. You may laugh, but that is the reality.”
So one year on the horizon and no sign of 1.5 million new houses
You should see the rate they are going up on the South Coast. There's a lot going on - except where the local council has got into the building game (2-3 years late)
We build abour 200,000 houses in a normal year, but were not building 400,000 houses which is what we need.
We have quite major developments starting here in Ashfield, including a continuation of building more Council Houses that have been a thing for several years. They are trying to build on several areas of open land on older housing estates, where dogwalkers go etc, which is getting some blowback.
Looking at the numbers, they are massively lumpy, and come out 4 months behind - so 2024 Q4 is due out in the next week. Starts by quarter from 2022 Q1 look weirdly lumpy as Covid worked out - no conclusions are possible. But this is one, like NHS waiting lists, where the Govt have to deliver significant improvement towards their 1.5 million: target
I can only put it down to marketing shenanigans that the Cons indulged in before the Election to stroke Nimbies as they were circling the drain - eg the abolition of Housing Targets by Council, which they had never touched before.
Labour has no chance of hitting its target, theyre as useless as the Conservatives. LDs are not much better nationally they proclaim the need for housing and then locally oppose everything.
Supporting the 'right houses in the right place' which all parties say, is one of those things which is technically reasonable in isolation but in practice used as cover to say no to everything.
People object to building in the open countryside, on the edges of towns, and also in the centre of towns, they object to building on green belt, green fields, but also brownfield. They'll fight to preserve high quality agricultural land, useless scrubland, and derelict buildings and former car parks. They'll complain the infrastructure is not built first then object if infrastructure is built first. They'll bemoan they and their children cannot afford to live where they grew up but object to any affordable housing being built there.
It never ends and its infuriating. The system we have is at war with itself as it incentivises pandering to Nimbys whilst also having little teeth on developers. I do believe the government is now trying, but it may need more and look how they act in their own back yards.
You and I both know that's not how it really works.
There are local plans which define what kind of residential or industrial development can take place (in terms of density or height) and where it can take place.
Developers can see from these plans what they would be allowed to build and where but some (not all) try to challenge these pre-existing and locally agreed plans with over-dense or over-height developments or with flats where the local authority wants houses and they do this, let's be fair, to maximise their profit on the land.
More sensible developers engage with the local community in advance often using third party communications companies. They hold public meetings, engage with the locals and work to achieve a compromise application which is acceptable to all. That's submitted and often gets approved.
Yes, there are those who don't want any development on a site but they are usually a minority and only become a majority when an insensitive developer puts up an application without local engagement and reference to the local plan which is completely unsuitable for the site. That's when you get public galleries full of angry people at planning sub-committee meetings and that's when you get councillors refusing applications.
The developer can seek to get that overturned but that takes time and costs money and the thoughtful developer recognises for a little bit of pre-application consultation, a lot of that stress can be removed.
That's how the process works - consultation, engagement, offering a little something to the local community whether out of the Section 106 payment or as part of the plan itself and usually that oiling of the wheels gets the application removed and the development underway and makes the public consultation (a legal requirement currently) a tick box exercise.
The actual problem is or are the chokepoints in the development process - availability of materials, of specialist sub contractors and trades at key points in the process. There's also the question of pricing - there's what the developer would like for each property and what the local market will stand and that's before the issue of affordable housing rears its head. In East London, a lot of developments have either part ownership or, more often, a big proportion is for rental.
I don’t suppose this would work, but: The local authority decides where it wants a housing development. It decides the mix of housing, large houses, small houses, flats, etc.. It decides what infrastructure is needed to support the development. It arranges planning permission. It issues a tender document and asks the property developers to bid for the development. The successful bidder builds the development.
What worked, very successfully, in the past, was
1) Layout a plan for an area. 2) Build the roads, utilities, schools etc. 3) Sell a "roads" (or one side of a road) of plots to different developers, with rules about the style of housing.
The main issue with your idea is that the developer will try and control the rate of construction to get the highest possible prices. Competition is better.
There are various problems with that. One is that Local Authorities, perhaps with a few exceptions, do not have the capacity to manage it. And giving more responsibilities without the ability to meet them will result in a ginormous mess.
For example consider the powers given to LAs to make different investment some years ago whilst they were being gutted as organisations, piled up with statutory responsibilities, and having their resource-bases destroyed.
Result: a number going "bankrupt".
That's not viable until we have a stronger, appropriately resourced, base of local government, with at least a significantly shared political vision as to the idea that it should exist.
It all comes back to the complete separation of taxation, responsibility and powers for Local Authorities.
In France, the taxation aligns with the locality (mostly). So more people = more revenue. Visibly and simply. So growing towns are awesome for local politicians, in many places.
So one year on the horizon and no sign of 1.5 million new houses
You should see the rate they are going up on the South Coast. There's a lot going on - except where the local council has got into the building game (2-3 years late)
We build abour 200,000 houses in a normal year, but were not building 400,000 houses which is what we need.
We have quite major developments starting here in Ashfield, including a continuation of building more Council Houses that have been a thing for several years. They are trying to build on several areas of open land on older housing estates, where dogwalkers go etc, which is getting some blowback.
Looking at the numbers, they are massively lumpy, and come out 4 months behind - so 2024 Q4 is due out in the next week. Starts by quarter from 2022 Q1 look weirdly lumpy as Covid worked out - no conclusions are possible. But this is one, like NHS waiting lists, where the Govt have to deliver significant improvement towards their 1.5 million: target
I can only put it down to marketing shenanigans that the Cons indulged in before the Election to stroke Nimbies as they were circling the drain - eg the abolition of Housing Targets by Council, which they had never touched before.
Labour has no chance of hitting its target, theyre as useless as the Conservatives. LDs are not much better nationally they proclaim the need for housing and then locally oppose everything.
Supporting the 'right houses in the right place' which all parties say, is one of those things which is technically reasonable in isolation but in practice used as cover to say no to everything.
People object to building in the open countryside, on the edges of towns, and also in the centre of towns, they object to building on green belt, green fields, but also brownfield. They'll fight to preserve high quality agricultural land, useless scrubland, and derelict buildings and former car parks. They'll complain the infrastructure is not built first then object if infrastructure is built first. They'll bemoan they and their children cannot afford to live where they grew up but object to any affordable housing being built there.
It never ends and its infuriating. The system we have is at war with itself as it incentivises pandering to Nimbys whilst also having little teeth on developers. I do believe the government is now trying, but it may need more and look how they act in their own back yards.
You and I both know that's not how it really works.
There are local plans which define what kind of residential or industrial development can take place (in terms of density or height) and where it can take place.
Developers can see from these plans what they would be allowed to build and where but some (not all) try to challenge these pre-existing and locally agreed plans with over-dense or over-height developments or with flats where the local authority wants houses and they do this, let's be fair, to maximise their profit on the land.
More sensible developers engage with the local community in advance often using third party communications companies. They hold public meetings, engage with the locals and work to achieve a compromise application which is acceptable to all. That's submitted and often gets approved.
Yes, there are those who don't want any development on a site but they are usually a minority and only become a majority when an insensitive developer puts up an application without local engagement and reference to the local plan which is completely unsuitable for the site. That's when you get public galleries full of angry people at planning sub-committee meetings and that's when you get councillors refusing applications.
The developer can seek to get that overturned but that takes time and costs money and the thoughtful developer recognises for a little bit of pre-application consultation, a lot of that stress can be removed.
That's how the process works - consultation, engagement, offering a little something to the local community whether out of the Section 106 payment or as part of the plan itself and usually that oiling of the wheels gets the application removed and the development underway and makes the public consultation (a legal requirement currently) a tick box exercise.
The actual problem is or are the chokepoints in the development process - availability of materials, of specialist sub contractors and trades at key points in the process. There's also the question of pricing - there's what the developer would like for each property and what the local market will stand and that's before the issue of affordable housing rears its head. In East London, a lot of developments have either part ownership or, more often, a big proportion is for rental.
I don’t suppose this would work, but: The local authority decides where it wants a housing development. It decides the mix of housing, large houses, small houses, flats, etc.. It decides what infrastructure is needed to support the development. It arranges planning permission. It issues a tender document and asks the property developers to bid for the development. The successful bidder builds the development.
What worked, very successfully, in the past, was
1) Layout a plan for an area. 2) Build the roads, utilities, schools etc. 3) Sell a "roads" (or one side of a road) of plots to different developers, with rules about the style of housing.
The main issue with your idea is that the developer will try and control the rate of construction to get the highest possible prices. Competition is better.
Agreed. The local authority tender could also include timings.
You could also sell small numbers of plots, in penny packets, to local building firms or even individuals wanting to have a house built.
However I still don't see how you would stop firms land banking. Maybe there should be a clause that if the plot isn't developed within a certain period, it is forfeit back to the council.
Per Russian media, a car exploded in the Moscow suburbs, killing Major General Yaroslav Moskalik, deputy chief of the Russian General Staff’s Main Operational Directorate. The bomb detonated as he passed the vehicle.
If the Republicans are unpopular, he'll be tainted. That includes if he has become President, which is fairly likely given Trump's age and state of decay. This means either he will be primaried out, or he will lose.
For me, the likelier Republican candidate is Ramaswamy. If they double down on whatever they're smoking, he's the obvious contender - younger, more plausible, more coherent and even more batshit than Trump and Musk.
But what it really shows is how broken the American political system is if they can elect somebody to carry out policies that will blow up their lives, and then be surprised or disapproving about it.
I still don't understand why we can't back the likely 2028 winner on Betfair. If people think he won't run or be allowed to stand they can just lay him bigly.
Are Betfair refusing to list Trump? They've listed numerous celebs, though, as far as I can tell, no one ineligible such as Musk or Schwarzenegger. Is that why Trump isn't listed, currently ineligible?
Don’t laugh… but presumably there are some ethical guidelines applied.
If one side of a bet *can’t* win according to the rules then a bookie shouldn’t take a bet on it
What I'd like to see is an "In what year will Donald Trump cease to be president?" market. Each year listed up to say 2033 then '2034 or later' to finish. Depending on the price (obvs) but I'd be looking to buy the short dates and sell the long ones. Why? Because I think there is considerably more chance he doesn't complete his 2nd term than that he manages to stay beyond it.
Trump is 78 years old, so it becomes a when will The Donald die market which is in bad taste, especially since he has already been shot at.
Per Russian media, a car exploded in the Moscow suburbs, killing Major General Yaroslav Moskalik, deputy chief of the Russian General Staff’s Main Operational Directorate. The bomb detonated as he passed the vehicle.
A KGB false flag operation seems more likely than Ukrainian bombers travelling all the way to Moscow.
Has anyone been watching the US version of Have I Got News For You? The second season is my early morning watch and it's brilliant. It is ferociously partisan and right on but it has so much bite and wit that it makes the tired UK version look even more embarrassing.
Nah, I've been watching this new interactive US political drama. It's a bit too far fetched but some great comedic actors, and they fall into the usual trap of cramming all the action into too short a space of time to make it believable. Best of all they have made it immersive so you can catch it on any of your favourite news channels or print media, 24 hrs a day.
*gravelly bass voice* Previously on Trumpland: Chaos Next time on Trumpland: Chaos
If the Republicans are unpopular, he'll be tainted. That includes if he has become President, which is fairly likely given Trump's age and state of decay. This means either he will be primaried out, or he will lose.
For me, the likelier Republican candidate is Ramaswamy. If they double down on whatever they're smoking, he's the obvious contender - younger, more plausible, more coherent and even more batshit than Trump and Musk.
But what it really shows is how broken the American political system is if they can elect somebody to carry out policies that will blow up their lives, and then be surprised or disapproving about it.
I still don't understand why we can't back the likely 2028 winner on Betfair. If people think he won't run or be allowed to stand they can just lay him bigly.
Are Betfair refusing to list Trump? They've listed numerous celebs, though, as far as I can tell, no one ineligible such as Musk or Schwarzenegger. Is that why Trump isn't listed, currently ineligible?
Don’t laugh… but presumably there are some ethical guidelines applied.
If one side of a bet *can’t* win according to the rules then a bookie shouldn’t take a bet on it
What I'd like to see is an "In what year will Donald Trump cease to be president?" market. Each year listed up to say 2033 then '2034 or later' to finish. Depending on the price (obvs) but I'd be looking to buy the short dates and sell the long ones. Why? Because I think there is considerably more chance he doesn't complete his 2nd term than that he manages to stay beyond it.
Trump is 78 years old, so it becomes a when will The Donald die market which is in bad taste, especially since he has already been shot at.
Yes, that's a point. There are other ways he could go but it could be viewed like that. ISTR they suspended the "year of Boris Johnson PM exit" market while he was hospitalised with Covid for that 'bad taste' reason.
So one year on the horizon and no sign of 1.5 million new houses
You should see the rate they are going up on the South Coast. There's a lot going on - except where the local council has got into the building game (2-3 years late)
We build abour 200,000 houses in a normal year, but were not building 400,000 houses which is what we need.
We have quite major developments starting here in Ashfield, including a continuation of building more Council Houses that have been a thing for several years. They are trying to build on several areas of open land on older housing estates, where dogwalkers go etc, which is getting some blowback.
Looking at the numbers, they are massively lumpy, and come out 4 months behind - so 2024 Q4 is due out in the next week. Starts by quarter from 2022 Q1 look weirdly lumpy as Covid worked out - no conclusions are possible. But this is one, like NHS waiting lists, where the Govt have to deliver significant improvement towards their 1.5 million: target
I can only put it down to marketing shenanigans that the Cons indulged in before the Election to stroke Nimbies as they were circling the drain - eg the abolition of Housing Targets by Council, which they had never touched before.
Labour has no chance of hitting its target, theyre as useless as the Conservatives. LDs are not much better nationally they proclaim the need for housing and then locally oppose everything.
Supporting the 'right houses in the right place' which all parties say, is one of those things which is technically reasonable in isolation but in practice used as cover to say no to everything.
People object to building in the open countryside, on the edges of towns, and also in the centre of towns, they object to building on green belt, green fields, but also brownfield. They'll fight to preserve high quality agricultural land, useless scrubland, and derelict buildings and former car parks. They'll complain the infrastructure is not built first then object if infrastructure is built first. They'll bemoan they and their children cannot afford to live where they grew up but object to any affordable housing being built there.
It never ends and its infuriating. The system we have is at war with itself as it incentivises pandering to Nimbys whilst also having little teeth on developers. I do believe the government is now trying, but it may need more and look how they act in their own back yards.
You and I both know that's not how it really works.
There are local plans which define what kind of residential or industrial development can take place (in terms of density or height) and where it can take place.
Developers can see from these plans what they would be allowed to build and where but some (not all) try to challenge these pre-existing and locally agreed plans with over-dense or over-height developments or with flats where the local authority wants houses and they do this, let's be fair, to maximise their profit on the land.
More sensible developers engage with the local community in advance often using third party communications companies. They hold public meetings, engage with the locals and work to achieve a compromise application which is acceptable to all. That's submitted and often gets approved.
Yes, there are those who don't want any development on a site but they are usually a minority and only become a majority when an insensitive developer puts up an application without local engagement and reference to the local plan which is completely unsuitable for the site. That's when you get public galleries full of angry people at planning sub-committee meetings and that's when you get councillors refusing applications.
The developer can seek to get that overturned but that takes time and costs money and the thoughtful developer recognises for a little bit of pre-application consultation, a lot of that stress can be removed.
That's how the process works - consultation, engagement, offering a little something to the local community whether out of the Section 106 payment or as part of the plan itself and usually that oiling of the wheels gets the application removed and the development underway and makes the public consultation (a legal requirement currently) a tick box exercise.
The actual problem is or are the chokepoints in the development process - availability of materials, of specialist sub contractors and trades at key points in the process. There's also the question of pricing - there's what the developer would like for each property and what the local market will stand and that's before the issue of affordable housing rears its head. In East London, a lot of developments have either part ownership or, more often, a big proportion is for rental.
I don’t suppose this would work, but: The local authority decides where it wants a housing development. It decides the mix of housing, large houses, small houses, flats, etc.. It decides what infrastructure is needed to support the development. It arranges planning permission. It issues a tender document and asks the property developers to bid for the development. The successful bidder builds the development.
What worked, very successfully, in the past, was
1) Layout a plan for an area. 2) Build the roads, utilities, schools etc. 3) Sell a "roads" (or one side of a road) of plots to different developers, with rules about the style of housing.
The main issue with your idea is that the developer will try and control the rate of construction to get the highest possible prices. Competition is better.
Agreed. The local authority tender could also include timings.
You could also sell small numbers of plots, in penny packets, to local building firms or even individuals wanting to have a house built.
However I still don't see how you would stop firms land banking. Maybe there should be a clause that if the plot isn't developed within a certain period, it is forfeit back to the council.
Local authorities have been required to maintain a register of self-builders looking for plots for a number of years.
But I question who who sell small numbers of plots - I'm not aware that LAs own significant amounts of land. Requirements could in theory be imposed on developers, but the profit delta would have to be met from somewhere.
I just don't think LAs have these capabilities on the whole, or the skills to use them. There may be bits of law that can be used, since our planning etc law is stuffed with attempted ideas that never quite made it that are useful once we remember them.
(I think there's one about planned communities somewhere, for a start. Is it called "something something Development Orders" ?)
Just realised that in the past month I crossed a time zone without realising - at least once. Maybe more
How did I not notice???
Been there, done that.
I have a little pet idea that the whole world just stays on the same time zone. I always despair at farmers or people complaining about kids walking to school in the dark so have arguments on when the clocks should change. It is bonkers. Adjust the time the school starts twice a year (or more if you want) or the time you get up to milk the cows. After all if we change the clock like we do now that is all you are really doing anyway. Why do you need someone to artificially make it the same time as it was before when it isn't. Cows don't care and schools can adapt to the light conditions applicable to them (eg Aberdeen compared to Portsmouth)
It would stop confusion (how many times have people missed cross continent conference calls because times changed on different days in different places).
I believe aircraft use GMT regardless of where they are, so why not the rest of us.
So one year on the horizon and no sign of 1.5 million new houses
You should see the rate they are going up on the South Coast. There's a lot going on - except where the local council has got into the building game (2-3 years late)
We build abour 200,000 houses in a normal year, but were not building 400,000 houses which is what we need.
We have quite major developments starting here in Ashfield, including a continuation of building more Council Houses that have been a thing for several years. They are trying to build on several areas of open land on older housing estates, where dogwalkers go etc, which is getting some blowback.
Looking at the numbers, they are massively lumpy, and come out 4 months behind - so 2024 Q4 is due out in the next week. Starts by quarter from 2022 Q1 look weirdly lumpy as Covid worked out - no conclusions are possible. But this is one, like NHS waiting lists, where the Govt have to deliver significant improvement towards their 1.5 million: target
I can only put it down to marketing shenanigans that the Cons indulged in before the Election to stroke Nimbies as they were circling the drain - eg the abolition of Housing Targets by Council, which they had never touched before.
My surmise would be that the number of housing starts fell as the economy slowed from the roaring economic boom of 2021-2 and as the pent up approvals from the pandemic ran out.
Whatever, it's a dismal record, especially as most if not all will be tiny, shoddy new builds a third of the size of their American counterparts, rather than the large family homes we need if our birthrate is to rise.
We need 8 million new houses to match France, which has a similar population. Allowing for population increase and demolition that's at least 500,000/year for 20 years. It really is the challenge of our generation, one that we're failing totally and spectacularly, and they need to be in exactly the kind of places that don't want them. The Economist highlighted recently that booming Oxford has built fewer new homes than shitheap Doncaster. Mad.
Given that Doncaster is far bigger, far more rural and has far more brownfield sites why is that remotely surprising ?
Most of the building is not on brownfield sites - although there are a couple of projects on old colliery heaps. A lot is on greenfield to the east of the "city" where there is no greenbelt - in fill on the M18 link road.
Also, Doncaster isn't entirely a shitheap. And Oxford isn't entirely dreaming spires, either, is it?
Most of the new housing, including entire new suburbs such as Lakeside and Woodfield, in Doncaster over the last generation has been on empty land - abandoned mining land, abandoned railway land, abandoned military land, abandoned agricultural land.
Empty land along communication routes is an attractive prospect for developers.
Agricultural land abandoned for development!
Lakeside is an old airfield, although it had developed into an interesting mosaic of habitats.
But all the M18 link road developments are green field.
The mayor said she didn't like seeing sheep there (as was) because it made us look like a 'hick town'.
Anyway, 3 common cranes just flew over and I hear trumpeting in the distance, so I'm off out to investigate.
As opposed to 3 construction cranes and NIMBYS trumpeting in the distance.
Just realised that in the past month I crossed a time zone without realising - at least once. Maybe more
How did I not notice???
Been there, done that.
I have a little pet idea that the whole world just stays on the same time zone. I always despair at farmers or people complaining about kids walking to school in the dark so have arguments on when the clocks should change. It is bonkers. Adjust the time the school starts twice a year (or more if you want) or the time you get up to milk the cows. After all if we change the clock like we do now that is all you are really doing anyway. Why do you need someone to artificially make it the same time as it was before when it isn't. Cows don't care and schools can adapt to the light conditions applicable to them (eg Aberdeen compared to Portsmouth)
It would stop confusion (how many times have people missed cross continent conference calls because times changed on different days in different places).
I believe aircraft use GMT regardless of where they are, so why not the rest of us.
An acquaintance of mine, with whom I was involved in running an Internet forum for older people, used to opine that the world would soon be divided by time zone, rather than language. We haven't yet reached the stage of instant translation into any language, but we're not far away. The forum is based in UK and is in English, so those Americans..... and we have a few every so often ..... have to get up early, and the Australians ...... again a few ...... stay up late.
So one year on the horizon and no sign of 1.5 million new houses
You should see the rate they are going up on the South Coast. There's a lot going on - except where the local council has got into the building game (2-3 years late)
We build abour 200,000 houses in a normal year, but were not building 400,000 houses which is what we need.
We have quite major developments starting here in Ashfield, including a continuation of building more Council Houses that have been a thing for several years. They are trying to build on several areas of open land on older housing estates, where dogwalkers go etc, which is getting some blowback.
Looking at the numbers, they are massively lumpy, and come out 4 months behind - so 2024 Q4 is due out in the next week. Starts by quarter from 2022 Q1 look weirdly lumpy as Covid worked out - no conclusions are possible. But this is one, like NHS waiting lists, where the Govt have to deliver significant improvement towards their 1.5 million: target
I can only put it down to marketing shenanigans that the Cons indulged in before the Election to stroke Nimbies as they were circling the drain - eg the abolition of Housing Targets by Council, which they had never touched before.
Labour has no chance of hitting its target, theyre as useless as the Conservatives. LDs are not much better nationally they proclaim the need for housing and then locally oppose everything.
Supporting the 'right houses in the right place' which all parties say, is one of those things which is technically reasonable in isolation but in practice used as cover to say no to everything.
People object to building in the open countryside, on the edges of towns, and also in the centre of towns, they object to building on green belt, green fields, but also brownfield. They'll fight to preserve high quality agricultural land, useless scrubland, and derelict buildings and former car parks. They'll complain the infrastructure is not built first then object if infrastructure is built first. They'll bemoan they and their children cannot afford to live where they grew up but object to any affordable housing being built there.
It never ends and its infuriating. The system we have is at war with itself as it incentivises pandering to Nimbys whilst also having little teeth on developers. I do believe the government is now trying, but it may need more and look how they act in their own back yards.
You and I both know that's not how it really works.
There are local plans which define what kind of residential or industrial development can take place (in terms of density or height) and where it can take place.
Developers can see from these plans what they would be allowed to build and where but some (not all) try to challenge these pre-existing and locally agreed plans with over-dense or over-height developments or with flats where the local authority wants houses and they do this, let's be fair, to maximise their profit on the land.
More sensible developers engage with the local community in advance often using third party communications companies. They hold public meetings, engage with the locals and work to achieve a compromise application which is acceptable to all. That's submitted and often gets approved.
Yes, there are those who don't want any development on a site but they are usually a minority and only become a majority when an insensitive developer puts up an application without local engagement and reference to the local plan which is completely unsuitable for the site. That's when you get public galleries full of angry people at planning sub-committee meetings and that's when you get councillors refusing applications.
The developer can seek to get that overturned but that takes time and costs money and the thoughtful developer recognises for a little bit of pre-application consultation, a lot of that stress can be removed.
That's how the process works - consultation, engagement, offering a little something to the local community whether out of the Section 106 payment or as part of the plan itself and usually that oiling of the wheels gets the application removed and the development underway and makes the public consultation (a legal requirement currently) a tick box exercise.
The actual problem is or are the chokepoints in the development process - availability of materials, of specialist sub contractors and trades at key points in the process. There's also the question of pricing - there's what the developer would like for each property and what the local market will stand and that's before the issue of affordable housing rears its head. In East London, a lot of developments have either part ownership or, more often, a big proportion is for rental.
I don’t suppose this would work, but: The local authority decides where it wants a housing development. It decides the mix of housing, large houses, small houses, flats, etc.. It decides what infrastructure is needed to support the development. It arranges planning permission. It issues a tender document and asks the property developers to bid for the development. The successful bidder builds the development.
What worked, very successfully, in the past, was
1) Layout a plan for an area. 2) Build the roads, utilities, schools etc. 3) Sell a "roads" (or one side of a road) of plots to different developers, with rules about the style of housing.
The main issue with your idea is that the developer will try and control the rate of construction to get the highest possible prices. Competition is better.
Agreed. The local authority tender could also include timings.
You could also sell small numbers of plots, in penny packets, to local building firms or even individuals wanting to have a house built.
However I still don't see how you would stop firms land banking. Maybe there should be a clause that if the plot isn't developed within a certain period, it is forfeit back to the council.
In the Victorian/Edwardian period I was talking about, the selling of land plots to different companies/individuals was done precisely so as to prevent local monopolies.
You were free to not build on your half of a road - while your competitor got to market first.
Per Russian media, a car exploded in the Moscow suburbs, killing Major General Yaroslav Moskalik, deputy chief of the Russian General Staff’s Main Operational Directorate. The bomb detonated as he passed the vehicle.
A KGB false flag operation seems more likely than Ukrainian bombers travelling all the way to Moscow.
Per Russian media, a car exploded in the Moscow suburbs, killing Major General Yaroslav Moskalik, deputy chief of the Russian General Staff’s Main Operational Directorate. The bomb detonated as he passed the vehicle.
I would never be one to celebrate anyone's death (although I would cheer if it were Putin), but at least this will hopefully make the war criminals more fearful
Per Russian media, a car exploded in the Moscow suburbs, killing Major General Yaroslav Moskalik, deputy chief of the Russian General Staff’s Main Operational Directorate. The bomb detonated as he passed the vehicle.
A KGB false flag operation seems more likely than Ukrainian bombers travelling all the way to Moscow.
Have you read Red Storm Rising?
That's the book where the Americans come to the recue of the Europeans after an invasion by Russia? Yes, I like historical fiction too.
Just realised that in the past month I crossed a time zone without realising - at least once. Maybe more
How did I not notice???
Been there, done that.
I have a little pet idea that the whole world just stays on the same time zone. I always despair at farmers or people complaining about kids walking to school in the dark so have arguments on when the clocks should change. It is bonkers. Adjust the time the school starts twice a year (or more if you want) or the time you get up to milk the cows. After all if we change the clock like we do now that is all you are really doing anyway. Why do you need someone to artificially make it the same time as it was before when it isn't. Cows don't care and schools can adapt to the light conditions applicable to them (eg Aberdeen compared to Portsmouth)
It would stop confusion (how many times have people missed cross continent conference calls because times changed on different days in different places).
I believe aircraft use GMT regardless of where they are, so why not the rest of us.
An acquaintance of mine, with whom I was involved in running an Internet forum for older people, used to opine that the world would soon be divided by time zone, rather than language. We haven't yet reached the stage of instant translation into any language, but we're not far away. The forum is based in UK and is in English, so those Americans..... and we have a few every so often ..... have to get up early, and the Australians ...... again a few ...... stay up late.
A simpler solution for the UK at least, would be to keep England on GMT and let the Scottish parliament change their clocks as they wish, or at least change their working day.
Per Russian media, a car exploded in the Moscow suburbs, killing Major General Yaroslav Moskalik, deputy chief of the Russian General Staff’s Main Operational Directorate. The bomb detonated as he passed the vehicle.
A KGB false flag operation seems more likely than Ukrainian bombers travelling all the way to Moscow.
Either are entirely possible, but my guess would be Ukrainian intelligence. Fairly precise.
https://x.com/bayraktar_1love/status/1915706124419878991 Russian media “The improvised explosive device (IED) was constructed using VOG-type grenades, originally designed for under-barrel grenade launchers. The VOGs were distributed throughout the vehicle, with the highest concentration located in the left section of the trunk.”
Just realised that in the past month I crossed a time zone without realising - at least once. Maybe more
How did I not notice???
Been there, done that.
I have a little pet idea that the whole world just stays on the same time zone. I always despair at farmers or people complaining about kids walking to school in the dark so have arguments on when the clocks should change. It is bonkers. Adjust the time the school starts twice a year (or more if you want) or the time you get up to milk the cows. After all if we change the clock like we do now that is all you are really doing anyway. Why do you need someone to artificially make it the same time as it was before when it isn't. Cows don't care and schools can adapt to the light conditions applicable to them (eg Aberdeen compared to Portsmouth)
It would stop confusion (how many times have people missed cross continent conference calls because times changed on different days in different places).
I believe aircraft use GMT regardless of where they are, so why not the rest of us.
An acquaintance of mine, with whom I was involved in running an Internet forum for older people, used to opine that the world would soon be divided by time zone, rather than language. We haven't yet reached the stage of instant translation into any language, but we're not far away. The forum is based in UK and is in English, so those Americans..... and we have a few every so often ..... have to get up early, and the Australians ...... again a few ...... stay up late.
A simpler solution for the UK at least, would be to keep England on GMT and let the Scottish parliament change their clocks as they wish, or at least change their working day.
Neither the UK parliament nor the Scottish parliament need get involved in schools in Invernessshire starting their day a bit later in winter, or when farmers get up.
Just realised that in the past month I crossed a time zone without realising - at least once. Maybe more
How did I not notice???
Been there, done that.
I have a little pet idea that the whole world just stays on the same time zone. I always despair at farmers or people complaining about kids walking to school in the dark so have arguments on when the clocks should change. It is bonkers. Adjust the time the school starts twice a year (or more if you want) or the time you get up to milk the cows. After all if we change the clock like we do now that is all you are really doing anyway. Why do you need someone to artificially make it the same time as it was before when it isn't. Cows don't care and schools can adapt to the light conditions applicable to them (eg Aberdeen compared to Portsmouth)
It would stop confusion (how many times have people missed cross continent conference calls because times changed on different days in different places).
I believe aircraft use GMT regardless of where they are, so why not the rest of us.
An acquaintance of mine, with whom I was involved in running an Internet forum for older people, used to opine that the world would soon be divided by time zone, rather than language. We haven't yet reached the stage of instant translation into any language, but we're not far away. The forum is based in UK and is in English, so those Americans..... and we have a few every so often ..... have to get up early, and the Australians ...... again a few ...... stay up late.
A simpler solution for the UK at least, would be to keep England on GMT and let the Scottish parliament change their clocks as they wish, or at least change their working day.
Per Russian media, a car exploded in the Moscow suburbs, killing Major General Yaroslav Moskalik, deputy chief of the Russian General Staff’s Main Operational Directorate. The bomb detonated as he passed the vehicle.
A KGB false flag operation seems more likely than Ukrainian bombers travelling all the way to Moscow.
There's hundreds of thousands of Ukrainians in Moscow (more since the start of the SMO). Some of them will be (or can be bribed/coerced into being) GUR assets.
Per Russian media, a car exploded in the Moscow suburbs, killing Major General Yaroslav Moskalik, deputy chief of the Russian General Staff’s Main Operational Directorate. The bomb detonated as he passed the vehicle.
A KGB false flag operation seems more likely than Ukrainian bombers travelling all the way to Moscow.
Either are entirely possible, but my guess would be Ukrainian intelligence. Fairly precise.
https://x.com/bayraktar_1love/status/1915706124419878991 Russian media “The improvised explosive device (IED) was constructed using VOG-type grenades, originally designed for under-barrel grenade launchers. The VOGs were distributed throughout the vehicle, with the highest concentration located in the left section of the trunk.”
Yes but Moscow is a thousand miles from Kyiv, and quite close to the Lubyanka.
Just realised that in the past month I crossed a time zone without realising - at least once. Maybe more
How did I not notice???
Been there, done that.
I have a little pet idea that the whole world just stays on the same time zone. I always despair at farmers or people complaining about kids walking to school in the dark so have arguments on when the clocks should change. It is bonkers. Adjust the time the school starts twice a year (or more if you want) or the time you get up to milk the cows. After all if we change the clock like we do now that is all you are really doing anyway. Why do you need someone to artificially make it the same time as it was before when it isn't. Cows don't care and schools can adapt to the light conditions applicable to them (eg Aberdeen compared to Portsmouth)
It would stop confusion (how many times have people missed cross continent conference calls because times changed on different days in different places).
I believe aircraft use GMT regardless of where they are, so why not the rest of us.
An acquaintance of mine, with whom I was involved in running an Internet forum for older people, used to opine that the world would soon be divided by time zone, rather than language. We haven't yet reached the stage of instant translation into any language, but we're not far away. The forum is based in UK and is in English, so those Americans..... and we have a few every so often ..... have to get up early, and the Australians ...... again a few ...... stay up late.
A simpler solution for the UK at least, would be to keep England on GMT and let the Scottish parliament change their clocks as they wish, or at least change their working day.
Neither the UK parliament nor the Scottish parliament need get involved in schools in Invernessshire starting their day a bit later in winter, or when farmers get up.
The confusion arises when school A runs on one time and school B, which second child attends, on a different time. And what time does the milk lorry arrive on a farm. Some sort of 'organisation' is necessary.
So one year on the horizon and no sign of 1.5 million new houses
You should see the rate they are going up on the South Coast. There's a lot going on - except where the local council has got into the building game (2-3 years late)
We build abour 200,000 houses in a normal year, but were not building 400,000 houses which is what we need.
We have quite major developments starting here in Ashfield, including a continuation of building more Council Houses that have been a thing for several years. They are trying to build on several areas of open land on older housing estates, where dogwalkers go etc, which is getting some blowback.
Looking at the numbers, they are massively lumpy, and come out 4 months behind - so 2024 Q4 is due out in the next week. Starts by quarter from 2022 Q1 look weirdly lumpy as Covid worked out - no conclusions are possible. But this is one, like NHS waiting lists, where the Govt have to deliver significant improvement towards their 1.5 million: target
I can only put it down to marketing shenanigans that the Cons indulged in before the Election to stroke Nimbies as they were circling the drain - eg the abolition of Housing Targets by Council, which they had never touched before.
Labour has no chance of hitting its target, theyre as useless as the Conservatives. LDs are not much better nationally they proclaim the need for housing and then locally oppose everything.
Supporting the 'right houses in the right place' which all parties say, is one of those things which is technically reasonable in isolation but in practice used as cover to say no to everything.
People object to building in the open countryside, on the edges of towns, and also in the centre of towns, they object to building on green belt, green fields, but also brownfield. They'll fight to preserve high quality agricultural land, useless scrubland, and derelict buildings and former car parks. They'll complain the infrastructure is not built first then object if infrastructure is built first. They'll bemoan they and their children cannot afford to live where they grew up but object to any affordable housing being built there.
It never ends and its infuriating. The system we have is at war with itself as it incentivises pandering to Nimbys whilst also having little teeth on developers. I do believe the government is now trying, but it may need more and look how they act in their own back yards.
You and I both know that's not how it really works.
There are local plans which define what kind of residential or industrial development can take place (in terms of density or height) and where it can take place.
Developers can see from these plans what they would be allowed to build and where but some (not all) try to challenge these pre-existing and locally agreed plans with over-dense or over-height developments or with flats where the local authority wants houses and they do this, let's be fair, to maximise their profit on the land.
More sensible developers engage with the local community in advance often using third party communications companies. They hold public meetings, engage with the locals and work to achieve a compromise application which is acceptable to all. That's submitted and often gets approved.
Yes, there are those who don't want any development on a site but they are usually a minority and only become a majority when an insensitive developer puts up an application without local engagement and reference to the local plan which is completely unsuitable for the site. That's when you get public galleries full of angry people at planning sub-committee meetings and that's when you get councillors refusing applications.
The developer can seek to get that overturned but that takes time and costs money and the thoughtful developer recognises for a little bit of pre-application consultation, a lot of that stress can be removed.
That's how the process works - consultation, engagement, offering a little something to the local community whether out of the Section 106 payment or as part of the plan itself and usually that oiling of the wheels gets the application removed and the development underway and makes the public consultation (a legal requirement currently) a tick box exercise.
The actual problem is or are the chokepoints in the development process - availability of materials, of specialist sub contractors and trades at key points in the process. There's also the question of pricing - there's what the developer would like for each property and what the local market will stand and that's before the issue of affordable housing rears its head. In East London, a lot of developments have either part ownership or, more often, a big proportion is for rental.
I don’t suppose this would work, but: The local authority decides where it wants a housing development. It decides the mix of housing, large houses, small houses, flats, etc.. It decides what infrastructure is needed to support the development. It arranges planning permission. It issues a tender document and asks the property developers to bid for the development. The successful bidder builds the development.
What worked, very successfully, in the past, was
1) Layout a plan for an area. 2) Build the roads, utilities, schools etc. 3) Sell a "roads" (or one side of a road) of plots to different developers, with rules about the style of housing.
The main issue with your idea is that the developer will try and control the rate of construction to get the highest possible prices. Competition is better.
Agreed. The local authority tender could also include timings.
You could also sell small numbers of plots, in penny packets, to local building firms or even individuals wanting to have a house built.
However I still don't see how you would stop firms land banking. Maybe there should be a clause that if the plot isn't developed within a certain period, it is forfeit back to the council.
In the Victorian/Edwardian period I was talking about, the selling of land plots to different companies/individuals was done precisely so as to prevent local monopolies.
You were free to not build on your half of a road - while your competitor got to market first.
That happened in our village - three (*) large building companies signed on, but instead of being given an area, they were given parts of streets. Which means that many of the 'older' parts of the place have a variety of housing styles per street. Hence people ask whether your house is a Bovis or a Taylor Wimpey house, each builder having their own particular quirks.
Sadly, it appears that in the new west development, each builder has been given an area. They've started a heck of a lot of new houses there in the last few months; it feels like they've really sped up. A fair few seem finished and ready for sale as well.
So Russia gets to keep all the territory it currently has or Trump walks away completely from Ukraine and so it wins either way .
Sad that after so much death and destruction Ukraine is being totally betrayed .
Let's hope that the parties over here who lauded Trump don't do well in the forthcoming elections... although I suspect they will.
Farage seems to be escaping Trump taint so far. I think because he's such a strong brand in his own right here. Indeed he is 'his own right' if you see what I mean.
Per Russian media, a car exploded in the Moscow suburbs, killing Major General Yaroslav Moskalik, deputy chief of the Russian General Staff’s Main Operational Directorate. The bomb detonated as he passed the vehicle.
A KGB false flag operation seems more likely than Ukrainian bombers travelling all the way to Moscow.
There's hundreds of thousands of Ukrainians in Moscow (more since the start of the SMO). Some of them will be (or can be bribed/coerced into being) GUR assets.
And an awful lot of Ukrainians have been unwillingly transported into Russia as well...
My instant take from that story: whoever put them in wheelie bins intended them to be 'forgotten' about. They will appear on the underground art market soon enough.
Just realised that in the past month I crossed a time zone without realising - at least once. Maybe more
How did I not notice???
Been there, done that.
I have a little pet idea that the whole world just stays on the same time zone. I always despair at farmers or people complaining about kids walking to school in the dark so have arguments on when the clocks should change. It is bonkers. Adjust the time the school starts twice a year (or more if you want) or the time you get up to milk the cows. After all if we change the clock like we do now that is all you are really doing anyway. Why do you need someone to artificially make it the same time as it was before when it isn't. Cows don't care and schools can adapt to the light conditions applicable to them (eg Aberdeen compared to Portsmouth)
It would stop confusion (how many times have people missed cross continent conference calls because times changed on different days in different places).
I believe aircraft use GMT regardless of where they are, so why not the rest of us.
An acquaintance of mine, with whom I was involved in running an Internet forum for older people, used to opine that the world would soon be divided by time zone, rather than language. We haven't yet reached the stage of instant translation into any language, but we're not far away. The forum is based in UK and is in English, so those Americans..... and we have a few every so often ..... have to get up early, and the Australians ...... again a few ...... stay up late.
A simpler solution for the UK at least, would be to keep England on GMT and let the Scottish parliament change their clocks as they wish, or at least change their working day.
Neither the UK parliament nor the Scottish parliament need get involved in schools in Invernessshire starting their day a bit later in winter, or when farmers get up.
The confusion arises when school A runs on one time and school B, which second child attends, on a different time. And what time does the milk lorry arrive on a farm. Some sort of 'organisation' is necessary.
I which case Scotland could legislate for all its schools to start later in winter (although actually they should start earlier, I believe there are more accidents on dark evenings so kids should go home in daylight)
So one year on the horizon and no sign of 1.5 million new houses
You should see the rate they are going up on the South Coast. There's a lot going on - except where the local council has got into the building game (2-3 years late)
We build abour 200,000 houses in a normal year, but were not building 400,000 houses which is what we need.
We have quite major developments starting here in Ashfield, including a continuation of building more Council Houses that have been a thing for several years. They are trying to build on several areas of open land on older housing estates, where dogwalkers go etc, which is getting some blowback.
Looking at the numbers, they are massively lumpy, and come out 4 months behind - so 2024 Q4 is due out in the next week. Starts by quarter from 2022 Q1 look weirdly lumpy as Covid worked out - no conclusions are possible. But this is one, like NHS waiting lists, where the Govt have to deliver significant improvement towards their 1.5 million: target
I can only put it down to marketing shenanigans that the Cons indulged in before the Election to stroke Nimbies as they were circling the drain - eg the abolition of Housing Targets by Council, which they had never touched before.
Labour has no chance of hitting its target, theyre as useless as the Conservatives. LDs are not much better nationally they proclaim the need for housing and then locally oppose everything.
Supporting the 'right houses in the right place' which all parties say, is one of those things which is technically reasonable in isolation but in practice used as cover to say no to everything.
People object to building in the open countryside, on the edges of towns, and also in the centre of towns, they object to building on green belt, green fields, but also brownfield. They'll fight to preserve high quality agricultural land, useless scrubland, and derelict buildings and former car parks. They'll complain the infrastructure is not built first then object if infrastructure is built first. They'll bemoan they and their children cannot afford to live where they grew up but object to any affordable housing being built there.
It never ends and its infuriating. The system we have is at war with itself as it incentivises pandering to Nimbys whilst also having little teeth on developers. I do believe the government is now trying, but it may need more and look how they act in their own back yards.
You and I both know that's not how it really works.
There are local plans which define what kind of residential or industrial development can take place (in terms of density or height) and where it can take place.
Developers can see from these plans what they would be allowed to build and where but some (not all) try to challenge these pre-existing and locally agreed plans with over-dense or over-height developments or with flats where the local authority wants houses and they do this, let's be fair, to maximise their profit on the land.
More sensible developers engage with the local community in advance often using third party communications companies. They hold public meetings, engage with the locals and work to achieve a compromise application which is acceptable to all. That's submitted and often gets approved.
Yes, there are those who don't want any development on a site but they are usually a minority and only become a majority when an insensitive developer puts up an application without local engagement and reference to the local plan which is completely unsuitable for the site. That's when you get public galleries full of angry people at planning sub-committee meetings and that's when you get councillors refusing applications.
The developer can seek to get that overturned but that takes time and costs money and the thoughtful developer recognises for a little bit of pre-application consultation, a lot of that stress can be removed.
That's how the process works - consultation, engagement, offering a little something to the local community whether out of the Section 106 payment or as part of the plan itself and usually that oiling of the wheels gets the application removed and the development underway and makes the public consultation (a legal requirement currently) a tick box exercise.
The actual problem is or are the chokepoints in the development process - availability of materials, of specialist sub contractors and trades at key points in the process. There's also the question of pricing - there's what the developer would like for each property and what the local market will stand and that's before the issue of affordable housing rears its head. In East London, a lot of developments have either part ownership or, more often, a big proportion is for rental.
I don’t suppose this would work, but: The local authority decides where it wants a housing development. It decides the mix of housing, large houses, small houses, flats, etc.. It decides what infrastructure is needed to support the development. It arranges planning permission. It issues a tender document and asks the property developers to bid for the development. The successful bidder builds the development.
What worked, very successfully, in the past, was
1) Layout a plan for an area. 2) Build the roads, utilities, schools etc. 3) Sell a "roads" (or one side of a road) of plots to different developers, with rules about the style of housing.
The main issue with your idea is that the developer will try and control the rate of construction to get the highest possible prices. Competition is better.
That's exactly how it works in Germany, or at least the bit of Germany that I'm familiar with. Every now and then, the town will assign some patch of land for development, divide it into plots, set up the required infrastructure and sell off the plots to small developers or individuals. It's how my late wife's parents got their place. They bought a plot from the town council, then hired builders, etc. to build the house. They were only allowed to build one storey high, but compensated by including a full-size basement floor.
People would generally be quite amenable to new development because it brought in more cash for the area and meant that new schools, etc. would be built. This is in stark contrast to the UK, where people will often fight tooth and nail and against new development for fear of overcrowding.
So one year on the horizon and no sign of 1.5 million new houses
You should see the rate they are going up on the South Coast. There's a lot going on - except where the local council has got into the building game (2-3 years late)
We build abour 200,000 houses in a normal year, but were not building 400,000 houses which is what we need.
We have quite major developments starting here in Ashfield, including a continuation of building more Council Houses that have been a thing for several years. They are trying to build on several areas of open land on older housing estates, where dogwalkers go etc, which is getting some blowback.
Looking at the numbers, they are massively lumpy, and come out 4 months behind - so 2024 Q4 is due out in the next week. Starts by quarter from 2022 Q1 look weirdly lumpy as Covid worked out - no conclusions are possible. But this is one, like NHS waiting lists, where the Govt have to deliver significant improvement towards their 1.5 million: target
I can only put it down to marketing shenanigans that the Cons indulged in before the Election to stroke Nimbies as they were circling the drain - eg the abolition of Housing Targets by Council, which they had never touched before.
Labour has no chance of hitting its target, theyre as useless as the Conservatives. LDs are not much better nationally they proclaim the need for housing and then locally oppose everything.
Supporting the 'right houses in the right place' which all parties say, is one of those things which is technically reasonable in isolation but in practice used as cover to say no to everything.
People object to building in the open countryside, on the edges of towns, and also in the centre of towns, they object to building on green belt, green fields, but also brownfield. They'll fight to preserve high quality agricultural land, useless scrubland, and derelict buildings and former car parks. They'll complain the infrastructure is not built first then object if infrastructure is built first. They'll bemoan they and their children cannot afford to live where they grew up but object to any affordable housing being built there.
It never ends and its infuriating. The system we have is at war with itself as it incentivises pandering to Nimbys whilst also having little teeth on developers. I do believe the government is now trying, but it may need more and look how they act in their own back yards.
You and I both know that's not how it really works.
There are local plans which define what kind of residential or industrial development can take place (in terms of density or height) and where it can take place.
Developers can see from these plans what they would be allowed to build and where but some (not all) try to challenge these pre-existing and locally agreed plans with over-dense or over-height developments or with flats where the local authority wants houses and they do this, let's be fair, to maximise their profit on the land.
More sensible developers engage with the local community in advance often using third party communications companies. They hold public meetings, engage with the locals and work to achieve a compromise application which is acceptable to all. That's submitted and often gets approved.
Yes, there are those who don't want any development on a site but they are usually a minority and only become a majority when an insensitive developer puts up an application without local engagement and reference to the local plan which is completely unsuitable for the site. That's when you get public galleries full of angry people at planning sub-committee meetings and that's when you get councillors refusing applications.
The developer can seek to get that overturned but that takes time and costs money and the thoughtful developer recognises for a little bit of pre-application consultation, a lot of that stress can be removed.
That's how the process works - consultation, engagement, offering a little something to the local community whether out of the Section 106 payment or as part of the plan itself and usually that oiling of the wheels gets the application removed and the development underway and makes the public consultation (a legal requirement currently) a tick box exercise.
The actual problem is or are the chokepoints in the development process - availability of materials, of specialist sub contractors and trades at key points in the process. There's also the question of pricing - there's what the developer would like for each property and what the local market will stand and that's before the issue of affordable housing rears its head. In East London, a lot of developments have either part ownership or, more often, a big proportion is for rental.
I don’t suppose this would work, but: The local authority decides where it wants a housing development. It decides the mix of housing, large houses, small houses, flats, etc.. It decides what infrastructure is needed to support the development. It arranges planning permission. It issues a tender document and asks the property developers to bid for the development. The successful bidder builds the development.
What worked, very successfully, in the past, was
1) Layout a plan for an area. 2) Build the roads, utilities, schools etc. 3) Sell a "roads" (or one side of a road) of plots to different developers, with rules about the style of housing.
The main issue with your idea is that the developer will try and control the rate of construction to get the highest possible prices. Competition is better.
Agreed. The local authority tender could also include timings.
You could also sell small numbers of plots, in penny packets, to local building firms or even individuals wanting to have a house built.
However I still don't see how you would stop firms land banking. Maybe there should be a clause that if the plot isn't developed within a certain period, it is forfeit back to the council.
In the Victorian/Edwardian period I was talking about, the selling of land plots to different companies/individuals was done precisely so as to prevent local monopolies.
You were free to not build on your half of a road - while your competitor got to market first.
That happened in our village - three (*) large building companies signed on, but instead of being given an area, they were given parts of streets. Which means that many of the 'older' parts of the place have a variety of housing styles per street. Hence people ask whether your house is a Bovis or a Taylor Wimpey house, each builder having their own particular quirks.
Sadly, it appears that in the new west development, each builder has been given an area. They've started a heck of a lot of new houses there in the last few months; it feels like they've really sped up. A fair few seem finished and ready for sale as well.
(*) I think a fourth joined later
Similar here - sometimes.
One issue is that the selling rate of a development is fairly standard, regardless of the size of a development, and each developer needs a minimum size of development to optimise overhead costs eg a sales office.
When I was researching this a few years ago by talking to all the national developers, they were not really very interested unless a development was more than 80-100 dwellings.
There are differences (eg in a city), but it is about the size of available market which sets the limit - which is mainly about relatively local people buying most of the stock to meet changed life circumstances, rather than say people moving 200 miles for a job.
My instant take from that story: whoever put them in wheelie bins intended them to be 'forgotten' about. They will appear on the underground art market soon enough.
That was my thought too, but then art prints these days are £25 each in any high street so who is to tell what's a reproduction and what's an original reproduction?
Just realised that in the past month I crossed a time zone without realising - at least once. Maybe more
How did I not notice???
Been there, done that.
I have a little pet idea that the whole world just stays on the same time zone. I always despair at farmers or people complaining about kids walking to school in the dark so have arguments on when the clocks should change. It is bonkers. Adjust the time the school starts twice a year (or more if you want) or the time you get up to milk the cows. After all if we change the clock like we do now that is all you are really doing anyway. Why do you need someone to artificially make it the same time as it was before when it isn't. Cows don't care and schools can adapt to the light conditions applicable to them (eg Aberdeen compared to Portsmouth)
It would stop confusion (how many times have people missed cross continent conference calls because times changed on different days in different places).
I believe aircraft use GMT regardless of where they are, so why not the rest of us.
An acquaintance of mine, with whom I was involved in running an Internet forum for older people, used to opine that the world would soon be divided by time zone, rather than language. We haven't yet reached the stage of instant translation into any language, but we're not far away. The forum is based in UK and is in English, so those Americans..... and we have a few every so often ..... have to get up early, and the Australians ...... again a few ...... stay up late.
A simpler solution for the UK at least, would be to keep England on GMT and let the Scottish parliament change their clocks as they wish, or at least change their working day.
Neither the UK parliament nor the Scottish parliament need get involved in schools in Invernessshire starting their day a bit later in winter, or when farmers get up.
The confusion arises when school A runs on one time and school B, which second child attends, on a different time. And what time does the milk lorry arrive on a farm. Some sort of 'organisation' is necessary.
I which case Scotland could legislate for all its schools to start later in winter (although actually they should start earlier, I believe there are more accidents on dark evenings so kids should go home in daylight)
I believe there’s some evidence to suggest that later school start times lead to a minor increase in academic performance.
My instant take from that story: whoever put them in wheelie bins intended them to be 'forgotten' about. They will appear on the underground art market soon enough.
It’s a copy and pasta plot used by Hollywood - thieves put their loot in the bins. Which are then collected by their tame bin men later.
There's not a lot of building going on in this part of East London. Lots of stalled plans, some of them a decade old. One massive plot was cleared for a Council-backed scheme including a lot of affordable houses, then because of Grenfell the plans have been put on hold. Presumably the developer doesn't fancy the additional cost of building homes with safe cladding.
Having said that, over the last couple of weeks I've been out around Chelmsford and Colchester for the first time for a couple of years and there is a lot of development going on on the edges of both towns. (Sorry, can't get used to the concept of both of them being Cities).
Just realised that in the past month I crossed a time zone without realising - at least once. Maybe more
How did I not notice???
Been there, done that.
I have a little pet idea that the whole world just stays on the same time zone. I always despair at farmers or people complaining about kids walking to school in the dark so have arguments on when the clocks should change. It is bonkers. Adjust the time the school starts twice a year (or more if you want) or the time you get up to milk the cows. After all if we change the clock like we do now that is all you are really doing anyway. Why do you need someone to artificially make it the same time as it was before when it isn't. Cows don't care and schools can adapt to the light conditions applicable to them (eg Aberdeen compared to Portsmouth)
It would stop confusion (how many times have people missed cross continent conference calls because times changed on different days in different places).
I believe aircraft use GMT regardless of where they are, so why not the rest of us.
An acquaintance of mine, with whom I was involved in running an Internet forum for older people, used to opine that the world would soon be divided by time zone, rather than language. We haven't yet reached the stage of instant translation into any language, but we're not far away. The forum is based in UK and is in English, so those Americans..... and we have a few every so often ..... have to get up early, and the Australians ...... again a few ...... stay up late.
A simpler solution for the UK at least, would be to keep England on GMT and let the Scottish parliament change their clocks as they wish, or at least change their working day.
Neither the UK parliament nor the Scottish parliament need get involved in schools in Invernessshire starting their day a bit later in winter, or when farmers get up.
The confusion arises when school A runs on one time and school B, which second child attends, on a different time. And what time does the milk lorry arrive on a farm. Some sort of 'organisation' is necessary.
Why? Much easier if we have a universal time. Less confusion.
If two schools open at different times that is not an issue of the timing system but an issue of the schools. It arises whether you use a universal time or some made up time like we currently do.
Again same for milk lorries and as far as cows are concerned they have no idea what the time is anyway (or at least I am led to believe).
Workless youths who are “on the internet 24-hours a day” won’t get out of bed for less than £40,000, Lords have been told.
Graham Cowley, who works with young people who are not in employment, education or training (Neets) in Blackpool, said a colleague this week told him there were “kids on the internet 24-hours a day, and they don’t want to work for anything less than 40 grand”.
Some on the Lords’ social mobility policy committee gasped in response, prompting Mr Crowley to say: “I know, I had that reaction. You may laugh, but that is the reality.”
They don't want to work for £40k they want to be employed for £40k.
No employer would be able to get them to put down their mobiles in the few weeks before they were sacked.
What mortgage can you get on £40,000 a year? What about the minimum wage of £20,000 a year? As one of Leon's mates pointed out some years back, in London, even quite ordinary homes originally built for single-income, working class households now fetch around £1 million. Even in the frozen north or a left-behind seaside town like Clacton, you'd be looking at £200,000 which brings us back to a mortgage of 5 times £40k.
One of the awkward realities of now.
If your housing costs are zero, for whatever reason, life is really quite easy. The pressure to work to survive isn't really there, and not doing a minimum wage job is pretty rational from the point of view of homo economicus. You would have to be paid a blooming fortune to generate enough happiness.
If you are paying current market rents, life is a flipping nightmare. Hence the tales of young barristers in a flatshare in Watford.
One of the mysteries of the last decade has been the homeowners in depressed areas. They have been key to the success of Farage and Johnson. Objectively, they are comfortably off, but it's in a house price so it's not visible. And yet the areas around them are dismal. On one hand, that mismatch explains the appeal of national populism, but it doesn't make it a better idea.
Hence why so many on benefits, free house, free council tax and money in your pocket, alternative is work your butt off trying to survive paying all your own bills.
Just realised that in the past month I crossed a time zone without realising - at least once. Maybe more
How did I not notice???
Been there, done that.
I have a little pet idea that the whole world just stays on the same time zone. I always despair at farmers or people complaining about kids walking to school in the dark so have arguments on when the clocks should change. It is bonkers. Adjust the time the school starts twice a year (or more if you want) or the time you get up to milk the cows. After all if we change the clock like we do now that is all you are really doing anyway. Why do you need someone to artificially make it the same time as it was before when it isn't. Cows don't care and schools can adapt to the light conditions applicable to them (eg Aberdeen compared to Portsmouth)
It would stop confusion (how many times have people missed cross continent conference calls because times changed on different days in different places).
I believe aircraft use GMT regardless of where they are, so why not the rest of us.
An acquaintance of mine, with whom I was involved in running an Internet forum for older people, used to opine that the world would soon be divided by time zone, rather than language. We haven't yet reached the stage of instant translation into any language, but we're not far away. The forum is based in UK and is in English, so those Americans..... and we have a few every so often ..... have to get up early, and the Australians ...... again a few ...... stay up late.
A simpler solution for the UK at least, would be to keep England on GMT and let the Scottish parliament change their clocks as they wish, or at least change their working day.
Neither the UK parliament nor the Scottish parliament need get involved in schools in Invernessshire starting their day a bit later in winter, or when farmers get up.
The confusion arises when school A runs on one time and school B, which second child attends, on a different time. And what time does the milk lorry arrive on a farm. Some sort of 'organisation' is necessary.
Why? Much easier if we have a universal time. Less confusion.
If two schools open at different times that is not an issue of the timing system but an issue of the schools. It arises whether you use a universal time or some made up time like we currently do.
Again same for milk lorries and as far as cows are concerned they have no idea what the time is anyway (or at least I am led to believe).
Cows tell the time the same way we used to. 12 noon is when the sun is directly overhead.
Workless youths who are “on the internet 24-hours a day” won’t get out of bed for less than £40,000, Lords have been told.
Graham Cowley, who works with young people who are not in employment, education or training (Neets) in Blackpool, said a colleague this week told him there were “kids on the internet 24-hours a day, and they don’t want to work for anything less than 40 grand”.
Some on the Lords’ social mobility policy committee gasped in response, prompting Mr Crowley to say: “I know, I had that reaction. You may laugh, but that is the reality.”
They don't want to work for £40k they want to be employed for £40k.
No employer would be able to get them to put down their mobiles in the few weeks before they were sacked.
What mortgage can you get on £40,000 a year? What about the minimum wage of £20,000 a year? As one of Leon's mates pointed out some years back, in London, even quite ordinary homes originally built for single-income, working class households now fetch around £1 million. Even in the frozen north or a left-behind seaside town like Clacton, you'd be looking at £200,000 which brings us back to a mortgage of 5 times £40k.
Another run-down seaside resort. Are there many well-paid, non-seasonal jobs there?
There are trains to Manchester and Liverpool. And WFH.
Way, way back, the well-healed businessmen (and they were all men) commuting from Blackpool to Manchester had their own "club train" where the select few could travel in comfort and figure out the best way to exploit the proletariat.
One of the club carriages is preserved at the Keighley & Worth Valley Railway, and you can sometimes take a ride in it.
My instant take from that story: whoever put them in wheelie bins intended them to be 'forgotten' about. They will appear on the underground art market soon enough.
It’s a copy and pasta plot used by Hollywood - thieves put their loot in the bins. Which are then collected by their tame bin men later.
See we are doing it now. We are discussing what time systems we use to cater for different scenarios. Stop. Set all times to GMT (or whatever) and schools or Education Authorities can say what time the school starts or ends. Simple.
The milk lorry turns up at the time he says.
The farmer gets up when he needs to get up, not set by a fictitious clock
And when you organise a conference call between the US, UK and Australia you don't need to get your spreadsheet out and work out what time it will be in each place due to the time difference and worse still because the clocks are changing between now and when the meeting starts.
So one year on the horizon and no sign of 1.5 million new houses
You should see the rate they are going up on the South Coast. There's a lot going on - except where the local council has got into the building game (2-3 years late)
We build abour 200,000 houses in a normal year, but were not building 400,000 houses which is what we need.
We have quite major developments starting here in Ashfield, including a continuation of building more Council Houses that have been a thing for several years. They are trying to build on several areas of open land on older housing estates, where dogwalkers go etc, which is getting some blowback.
Looking at the numbers, they are massively lumpy, and come out 4 months behind - so 2024 Q4 is due out in the next week. Starts by quarter from 2022 Q1 look weirdly lumpy as Covid worked out - no conclusions are possible. But this is one, like NHS waiting lists, where the Govt have to deliver significant improvement towards their 1.5 million: target
I can only put it down to marketing shenanigans that the Cons indulged in before the Election to stroke Nimbies as they were circling the drain - eg the abolition of Housing Targets by Council, which they had never touched before.
Labour has no chance of hitting its target, theyre as useless as the Conservatives. LDs are not much better nationally they proclaim the need for housing and then locally oppose everything.
Supporting the 'right houses in the right place' which all parties say, is one of those things which is technically reasonable in isolation but in practice used as cover to say no to everything.
People object to building in the open countryside, on the edges of towns, and also in the centre of towns, they object to building on green belt, green fields, but also brownfield. They'll fight to preserve high quality agricultural land, useless scrubland, and derelict buildings and former car parks. They'll complain the infrastructure is not built first then object if infrastructure is built first. They'll bemoan they and their children cannot afford to live where they grew up but object to any affordable housing being built there.
It never ends and its infuriating. The system we have is at war with itself as it incentivises pandering to Nimbys whilst also having little teeth on developers. I do believe the government is now trying, but it may need more and look how they act in their own back yards.
You and I both know that's not how it really works.
There are local plans which define what kind of residential or industrial development can take place (in terms of density or height) and where it can take place.
Developers can see from these plans what they would be allowed to build and where but some (not all) try to challenge these pre-existing and locally agreed plans with over-dense or over-height developments or with flats where the local authority wants houses and they do this, let's be fair, to maximise their profit on the land.
More sensible developers engage with the local community in advance often using third party communications companies. They hold public meetings, engage with the locals and work to achieve a compromise application which is acceptable to all. That's submitted and often gets approved.
Yes, there are those who don't want any development on a site but they are usually a minority and only become a majority when an insensitive developer puts up an application without local engagement and reference to the local plan which is completely unsuitable for the site. That's when you get public galleries full of angry people at planning sub-committee meetings and that's when you get councillors refusing applications.
The developer can seek to get that overturned but that takes time and costs money and the thoughtful developer recognises for a little bit of pre-application consultation, a lot of that stress can be removed.
That's how the process works - consultation, engagement, offering a little something to the local community whether out of the Section 106 payment or as part of the plan itself and usually that oiling of the wheels gets the application removed and the development underway and makes the public consultation (a legal requirement currently) a tick box exercise.
The actual problem is or are the chokepoints in the development process - availability of materials, of specialist sub contractors and trades at key points in the process. There's also the question of pricing - there's what the developer would like for each property and what the local market will stand and that's before the issue of affordable housing rears its head. In East London, a lot of developments have either part ownership or, more often, a big proportion is for rental.
I don’t suppose this would work, but: The local authority decides where it wants a housing development. It decides the mix of housing, large houses, small houses, flats, etc.. It decides what infrastructure is needed to support the development. It arranges planning permission. It issues a tender document and asks the property developers to bid for the development. The successful bidder builds the development.
What worked, very successfully, in the past, was
1) Layout a plan for an area. 2) Build the roads, utilities, schools etc. 3) Sell a "roads" (or one side of a road) of plots to different developers, with rules about the style of housing.
The main issue with your idea is that the developer will try and control the rate of construction to get the highest possible prices. Competition is better.
That's exactly how it works in Germany, or at least the bit of Germany that I'm familiar with. Every now and then, the town will assign some patch of land for development, divide it into plots, set up the required infrastructure and sell off the plots to small developers or individuals. It's how my late wife's parents got their place. They bought a plot from the town council, then hired builders, etc. to build the house. They were only allowed to build one storey high, but compensated by including a full-size basement floor.
People would generally be quite amenable to new development because it brought in more cash for the area and meant that new schools, etc. would be built. This is in stark contrast to the UK, where people will often fight tooth and nail and against new development for fear of overcrowding.
That's Germany's zonal planning system, with local variation built in.
It has its own set of complications and inefficiencies - in Germany one in particular is that the householder can get caught out very badly if they change a requirement without understanding. That happens especially when they are not familiar with the process end-to-end. It is called Sonderwunsch.
In part 4 of our ongoing series on buying and building a house in Germany, we take you on a tour to show you how the construction process is going and talk about all of the surprises that were in store when it came to customizing the house with "special requests" or "Sonderwunsch".
From changing the hardwood floors, upgrading the tile flooring, electrical changes, and new interior doors - it is safe to say that we were shocked at the final price tag for our home in Germany.
We hope you enjoy our latest home building update on our dream house in the Black Forest!
Workless youths who are “on the internet 24-hours a day” won’t get out of bed for less than £40,000, Lords have been told.
Graham Cowley, who works with young people who are not in employment, education or training (Neets) in Blackpool, said a colleague this week told him there were “kids on the internet 24-hours a day, and they don’t want to work for anything less than 40 grand”.
Some on the Lords’ social mobility policy committee gasped in response, prompting Mr Crowley to say: “I know, I had that reaction. You may laugh, but that is the reality.”
Just realised that in the past month I crossed a time zone without realising - at least once. Maybe more
How did I not notice???
Been there, done that.
I have a little pet idea that the whole world just stays on the same time zone. I always despair at farmers or people complaining about kids walking to school in the dark so have arguments on when the clocks should change. It is bonkers. Adjust the time the school starts twice a year (or more if you want) or the time you get up to milk the cows. After all if we change the clock like we do now that is all you are really doing anyway. Why do you need someone to artificially make it the same time as it was before when it isn't. Cows don't care and schools can adapt to the light conditions applicable to them (eg Aberdeen compared to Portsmouth)
It would stop confusion (how many times have people missed cross continent conference calls because times changed on different days in different places).
I believe aircraft use GMT regardless of where they are, so why not the rest of us.
An acquaintance of mine, with whom I was involved in running an Internet forum for older people, used to opine that the world would soon be divided by time zone, rather than language. We haven't yet reached the stage of instant translation into any language, but we're not far away. The forum is based in UK and is in English, so those Americans..... and we have a few every so often ..... have to get up early, and the Australians ...... again a few ...... stay up late.
A simpler solution for the UK at least, would be to keep England on GMT and let the Scottish parliament change their clocks as they wish, or at least change their working day.
Neither the UK parliament nor the Scottish parliament need get involved in schools in Invernessshire starting their day a bit later in winter, or when farmers get up.
The confusion arises when school A runs on one time and school B, which second child attends, on a different time. And what time does the milk lorry arrive on a farm. Some sort of 'organisation' is necessary.
Why? Much easier if we have a universal time. Less confusion.
If two schools open at different times that is not an issue of the timing system but an issue of the schools. It arises whether you use a universal time or some made up time like we currently do.
Again same for milk lorries and as far as cows are concerned they have no idea what the time is anyway (or at least I am led to believe).
Cows tell the time the same way we used to. 12 noon is when the sun is directly overhead.
Might not be depending upon what time systems we use eg GMT, double summer time, etc
Not seen a cow have a nervous breakdown as a consequence though.
See we are doing it now. We are discussing what time systems we use to cater for different scenarios. Stop. Set all times to GMT (or whatever) and schools or Education Authorities can say what time the school starts or ends. Simple.
The milk lorry turns up at the time he says.
The farmer gets up when he needs to get up, not set by a fictitious clock
And when you organise a conference call between the US, UK and Australia you don't need to get your spreadsheet out and work out what time it will be in each place due to the time difference and worse still because the clocks are changing between now and when the meeting starts.
Why should the rest of the world changes for the convenience of those making international conference calls?
There's not a lot of building going on in this part of East London. Lots of stalled plans, some of them a decade old. One massive plot was cleared for a Council-backed scheme including a lot of affordable houses, then because of Grenfell the plans have been put on hold. Presumably the developer doesn't fancy the additional cost of building homes with safe cladding.
Having said that, over the last couple of weeks I've been out around Chelmsford and Colchester for the first time for a couple of years and there is a lot of development going on on the edges of both towns. (Sorry, can't get used to the concept of both of them being Cities).
If you are in the same bit of East London as me (I think you might be?), then the sticking point is staircases. Pre-Grenfell, one staircase was allowed, now it ought to be two. The current plan is to put 18 prefabs on part of the site for about 5 years while the powers that be work out what to do.
The boundary between built-up and grimly undeveloped here is pretty arbitary; it's just where the builders of the 1930s had got to when Herr Hitler intervened. But thoughts and prayers to anyone who even thinks of adjusting that line, or even densifying the 1930s sprawl. (Would it really be bad if those two storey terraces became 3 or 4?). So you get mega high buildings on the few spots where you can, even though they are a pain to engineer.
And away from the railway line, there's quite a lot going up in central Romford, including a site that has been in limbo for at least fifteen years.
Oblivion remake looks pretty good and it seems they've improved the godawful levelling system, which was my only major gripe about the original (still got it).
Might pick up the new version when it's on sale. And I have a thousand hours.
F1: probably because I posted it earlier, last podcast slightly fell off a cliff so in case anyone missed it, here are the links:
Essentially, it could be winter for Ferrari and Red Bull next season. Prospects for Aston Martin and Williams seem set to improve, with McLaren/Mercedes staying at the sharp end in what is being widely dubbed an 'engine formula'. Questions over the electrical power being so high, though.
I'm desperate to play the Oblivion remake. I played the original during my University exams (yeah bad timing) and adored it. I'm not keen to pay full price for a digital only title though I'll probably succumb.
Sorry for the slow reply, almost immediately had sudden Things To Do after posting.
The Dark Brotherhood quest is what stuck with me. It was very, very well done.
Mark Allen just got a 147. I think that's the first time I've seen one all the way through. You know the phrase 'Never in doubt?' It was the opposite of that.
There's not a lot of building going on in this part of East London. Lots of stalled plans, some of them a decade old. One massive plot was cleared for a Council-backed scheme including a lot of affordable houses, then because of Grenfell the plans have been put on hold. Presumably the developer doesn't fancy the additional cost of building homes with safe cladding.
Having said that, over the last couple of weeks I've been out around Chelmsford and Colchester for the first time for a couple of years and there is a lot of development going on on the edges of both towns. (Sorry, can't get used to the concept of both of them being Cities).
If you are in the same bit of East London as me (I think you might be?), then the sticking point is staircases. Pre-Grenfell, one staircase was allowed, now it ought to be two. The current plan is to put 18 prefabs on part of the site for about 5 years while the powers that be work out what to do.
The boundary between built-up and grimly undeveloped here is pretty arbitary; it's just where the builders of the 1930s had got to when Herr Hitler intervened. But thoughts and prayers to anyone who even thinks of adjusting that line, or even densifying the 1930s sprawl. (Would it really be bad if those two storey terraces became 3 or 4?). So you get mega high buildings on the few spots where you can, even though they are a pain to engineer.
Coming soon to a street near you
An extra storey or two is now (in principle) permitted development (Class AA). 1930s sprawl not included. AI:
The new permitted development right allowing for the addition of up to two extra storeys to existing houses, known as Class AA, was introduced on August 31, 2020. This change specifically allows for extensions to existing houses, such as detached or terraced houses, and the creation of new homes, like a flat above the existing house. This PDR applies to dwelling houses, excluding those constructed before 1 July 1948 or after 28 October 2018, and those in conservation areas, National Parks, or Sites of Special Scientific Interest.
(One might say excluding houses where Boris thought his voters might live.)
Workless youths who are “on the internet 24-hours a day” won’t get out of bed for less than £40,000, Lords have been told.
Graham Cowley, who works with young people who are not in employment, education or training (Neets) in Blackpool, said a colleague this week told him there were “kids on the internet 24-hours a day, and they don’t want to work for anything less than 40 grand”.
Some on the Lords’ social mobility policy committee gasped in response, prompting Mr Crowley to say: “I know, I had that reaction. You may laugh, but that is the reality.”
They don't want to work for £40k they want to be employed for £40k.
No employer would be able to get them to put down their mobiles in the few weeks before they were sacked.
What mortgage can you get on £40,000 a year? What about the minimum wage of £20,000 a year? As one of Leon's mates pointed out some years back, in London, even quite ordinary homes originally built for single-income, working class households now fetch around £1 million. Even in the frozen north or a left-behind seaside town like Clacton, you'd be looking at £200,000 which brings us back to a mortgage of 5 times £40k.
One of the awkward realities of now.
If your housing costs are zero, for whatever reason, life is really quite easy. The pressure to work to survive isn't really there, and not doing a minimum wage job is pretty rational from the point of view of homo economicus. You would have to be paid a blooming fortune to generate enough happiness.
If you are paying current market rents, life is a flipping nightmare. Hence the tales of young barristers in a flatshare in Watford.
One of the mysteries of the last decade has been the homeowners in depressed areas. They have been key to the success of Farage and Johnson. Objectively, they are comfortably off, but it's in a house price so it's not visible. And yet the areas around them are dismal. On one hand, that mismatch explains the appeal of national populism, but it doesn't make it a better idea.
Hence why so many on benefits, free house, free council tax and money in your pocket, alternative is work your butt off trying to survive paying all your own bills.
And high taxes because of the lazy arses who want to live off benefits. Time to cut the welfare state down to size and force them into taking any job.
Just realised that in the past month I crossed a time zone without realising - at least once. Maybe more
How did I not notice???
Been there, done that.
I have a little pet idea that the whole world just stays on the same time zone. I always despair at farmers or people complaining about kids walking to school in the dark so have arguments on when the clocks should change. It is bonkers. Adjust the time the school starts twice a year (or more if you want) or the time you get up to milk the cows. After all if we change the clock like we do now that is all you are really doing anyway. Why do you need someone to artificially make it the same time as it was before when it isn't. Cows don't care and schools can adapt to the light conditions applicable to them (eg Aberdeen compared to Portsmouth)
It would stop confusion (how many times have people missed cross continent conference calls because times changed on different days in different places).
I believe aircraft use GMT regardless of where they are, so why not the rest of us.
An acquaintance of mine, with whom I was involved in running an Internet forum for older people, used to opine that the world would soon be divided by time zone, rather than language. We haven't yet reached the stage of instant translation into any language, but we're not far away. The forum is based in UK and is in English, so those Americans..... and we have a few every so often ..... have to get up early, and the Australians ...... again a few ...... stay up late.
A simpler solution for the UK at least, would be to keep England on GMT and let the Scottish parliament change their clocks as they wish, or at least change their working day.
Neither the UK parliament nor the Scottish parliament need get involved in schools in Invernessshire starting their day a bit later in winter, or when farmers get up.
The confusion arises when school A runs on one time and school B, which second child attends, on a different time. And what time does the milk lorry arrive on a farm. Some sort of 'organisation' is necessary.
Why? Much easier if we have a universal time. Less confusion.
If two schools open at different times that is not an issue of the timing system but an issue of the schools. It arises whether you use a universal time or some made up time like we currently do.
Again same for milk lorries and as far as cows are concerned they have no idea what the time is anyway (or at least I am led to believe).
Cows tell the time the same way we used to. 12 noon is when the sun is directly overhead.
Might not be depending upon what time systems we use eg GMT, double summer time, etc
Not seen a cow have a nervous breakdown as a consequence though.
Does a cow produce double cream in double summer time?
Mark Allen just got a 147. I think that's the first time I've seen one all the way through. You know the phrase 'Never in doubt?' It was the opposite of that.
I'm fascinated by the psychology of making a 147. Many, many frames in snooker start with some reds and blacks, so the 147 is 'on'. At what point does a player make the switch from winning the frame being the most important thing (so take a pink or blue if its better for the break building) to going for the 147? Clearly being a prize associated with it helps.
Just realised that in the past month I crossed a time zone without realising - at least once. Maybe more
How did I not notice???
Been there, done that.
I have a little pet idea that the whole world just stays on the same time zone. I always despair at farmers or people complaining about kids walking to school in the dark so have arguments on when the clocks should change. It is bonkers. Adjust the time the school starts twice a year (or more if you want) or the time you get up to milk the cows. After all if we change the clock like we do now that is all you are really doing anyway. Why do you need someone to artificially make it the same time as it was before when it isn't. Cows don't care and schools can adapt to the light conditions applicable to them (eg Aberdeen compared to Portsmouth)
It would stop confusion (how many times have people missed cross continent conference calls because times changed on different days in different places).
I believe aircraft use GMT regardless of where they are, so why not the rest of us.
An acquaintance of mine, with whom I was involved in running an Internet forum for older people, used to opine that the world would soon be divided by time zone, rather than language. We haven't yet reached the stage of instant translation into any language, but we're not far away. The forum is based in UK and is in English, so those Americans..... and we have a few every so often ..... have to get up early, and the Australians ...... again a few ...... stay up late.
A simpler solution for the UK at least, would be to keep England on GMT and let the Scottish parliament change their clocks as they wish, or at least change their working day.
Is the timing of the working day legislated for?
No, but schools and public sector will have guidelines which could be set by government, central or devolved. This has a knock-on effect on many.
Workless youths who are “on the internet 24-hours a day” won’t get out of bed for less than £40,000, Lords have been told.
Graham Cowley, who works with young people who are not in employment, education or training (Neets) in Blackpool, said a colleague this week told him there were “kids on the internet 24-hours a day, and they don’t want to work for anything less than 40 grand”.
Some on the Lords’ social mobility policy committee gasped in response, prompting Mr Crowley to say: “I know, I had that reaction. You may laugh, but that is the reality.”
They don't want to work for £40k they want to be employed for £40k.
No employer would be able to get them to put down their mobiles in the few weeks before they were sacked.
What mortgage can you get on £40,000 a year? What about the minimum wage of £20,000 a year? As one of Leon's mates pointed out some years back, in London, even quite ordinary homes originally built for single-income, working class households now fetch around £1 million. Even in the frozen north or a left-behind seaside town like Clacton, you'd be looking at £200,000 which brings us back to a mortgage of 5 times £40k.
Another run-down seaside resort. Are there many well-paid, non-seasonal jobs there?
There are trains to Manchester and Liverpool. And WFH.
Way, way back, the well-healed businessmen (and they were all men) commuting from Blackpool to Manchester had their own "club train" where the select few could travel in comfort and figure out the best way to exploit the proletariat.
One of the club carriages is preserved at the Keighley & Worth Valley Railway, and you can sometimes take a ride in it.
Comments
Now, I agree with those who think that will be bad for the people involved, and an utter disaster for society if everyone who can do it does it. But on some level, it's rational.
1.3% of England is homes, with an additional 4.9% classified as gardens.
The local authority decides where it wants a housing development.
It decides the mix of housing, large houses, small houses, flats, etc..
It decides what infrastructure is needed to support the development.
It arranges planning permission.
It issues a tender document and asks the property developers to bid for the development.
The successful bidder builds the development.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/ce3v5y3kyw1o
Life has made me skeptical of bidding systems. They seem to always end up favouring the companies who are good at writing bids more than anything else.
1) Layout a plan for an area.
2) Build the roads, utilities, schools etc.
3) Sell a "roads" (or one side of a road) of plots to different developers, with rules about the style of housing.
The main issue with your idea is that the developer will try and control the rate of construction to get the highest possible prices. Competition is better.
If one side of a bet *can’t* win according to the rules then a bookie shouldn’t take a bet on it
NEW: Tory Party chairman Nigel Huddleston hits back at speculation about a Tory-Reform merger: ‘They are not Conservatives’
He says unlike Reform, the Conservative party has ‘credible policies and a really good team’
https://x.com/harriet_symonds/status/1915489403306418358
@adampayne26
Tory chairman on the Q of a Reform pact: “They are not Conservatives...
"Their energy policies were more tax, more government intervention...
"Nigel Farage’s admiration for Putin... breaks the principles of sovereignty, democracy & freedom, which we hold dear as Conservatives"
https://x.com/adampayne26/status/1915693629479305441
Sounds like support but really means “I pity her” and therefore undermines her.
One thing an in-place local plan does is undermine manipulation by developers.
And that's without getting into contrasting inheritance systems.
At some point, the FuckTheCountrysideEspeciallyHard party will get in. And build all over the Lake District.
My advice is to get there first and control the process
For example consider the powers given to LAs to make different investment some years ago whilst they were being gutted as organisations, piled up with statutory responsibilities, and having their resource-bases destroyed.
Result: a number going "bankrupt".
That's not viable until we have a stronger, appropriately resourced, base of local government, with at least a significantly shared political vision as to the idea that it should exist.
Lakeside is an old airfield, although it had developed into an interesting mosaic of habitats.
But all the M18 link road developments are green field.
The mayor said she didn't like seeing sheep there (as was) because it made us look like a 'hick town'.
Anyway, 3 common cranes just flew over and I hear trumpeting in the distance, so I'm off out to investigate.
How did I not notice???
In France, the taxation aligns with the locality (mostly). So more people = more revenue. Visibly and simply. So growing towns are awesome for local politicians, in many places.
However I still don't see how you would stop firms land banking. Maybe there should be a clause that if the plot isn't developed within a certain period, it is forfeit back to the council.
Per Russian media, a car exploded in the Moscow suburbs, killing Major General Yaroslav Moskalik, deputy chief of the Russian General Staff’s Main Operational Directorate. The bomb detonated as he passed the vehicle.
lol
Looking back now I can remember staring at my watch/phone in surprise thinking Wow that bus trip was a lot longer than they promised
However I was dealing with the tedious hassle of frontier crossing so I’m gonna forgive myself
Sad that after so much death and destruction Ukraine is being totally betrayed .
But I question who who sell small numbers of plots - I'm not aware that LAs own significant amounts of land. Requirements could in theory be imposed on developers, but the profit delta would have to be met from somewhere.
I just don't think LAs have these capabilities on the whole, or the skills to use them. There may be bits of law that can be used, since our planning etc law is stuffed with attempted ideas that never quite made it that are useful once we remember them.
(I think there's one about planned communities somewhere, for a start. Is it called "something something Development Orders" ?)
I have a little pet idea that the whole world just stays on the same time zone. I always despair at farmers or people complaining about kids walking to school in the dark so have arguments on when the clocks should change. It is bonkers. Adjust the time the school starts twice a year (or more if you want) or the time you get up to milk the cows. After all if we change the clock like we do now that is all you are really doing anyway. Why do you need someone to artificially make it the same time as it was before when it isn't. Cows don't care and schools can adapt to the light conditions applicable to them (eg Aberdeen compared to Portsmouth)
It would stop confusion (how many times have people missed cross continent conference calls because times changed on different days in different places).
I believe aircraft use GMT regardless of where they are, so why not the rest of us.
The forum is based in UK and is in English, so those Americans..... and we have a few every so often ..... have to get up early, and the Australians ...... again a few ...... stay up late.
You were free to not build on your half of a road - while your competitor got to market first.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cnv58ejyrpzo
While Democrats are abandoning their party registration and running as independents, a firmer GOP congressman files as a Democrat.
David Jolly registers as a Democrat, making moves toward Florida governor bid
https://x.com/politico/status/1915360127508480402
Fairly precise.
https://x.com/bayraktar_1love/status/1915706124419878991
Russian media “The improvised explosive device (IED) was constructed using VOG-type grenades, originally designed for under-barrel grenade launchers. The VOGs were distributed throughout the vehicle, with the highest concentration located in the left section of the trunk.”
Sadly, it appears that in the new west development, each builder has been given an area. They've started a heck of a lot of new houses there in the last few months; it feels like they've really sped up. A fair few seem finished and ready for sale as well.
(*) I think a fourth joined later
People would generally be quite amenable to new development because it brought in more cash for the area and meant that new schools, etc. would be built. This is in stark contrast to the UK, where people will often fight tooth and nail and against new development for fear of overcrowding.
One issue is that the selling rate of a development is fairly standard, regardless of the size of a development, and each developer needs a minimum size of development to optimise overhead costs eg a sales office.
When I was researching this a few years ago by talking to all the national developers, they were not really very interested unless a development was more than 80-100 dwellings.
There are differences (eg in a city), but it is about the size of available market which sets the limit - which is mainly about relatively local people buying most of the stock to meet changed life circumstances, rather than say people moving 200 miles for a job.
Having said that, over the last couple of weeks I've been out around Chelmsford and Colchester for the first time for a couple of years and there is a lot of development going on on the edges of both towns. (Sorry, can't get used to the concept of both of them being Cities).
If two schools open at different times that is not an issue of the timing system but an issue of the schools. It arises whether you use a universal time or some made up time like we currently do.
Again same for milk lorries and as far as cows are concerned they have no idea what the time is anyway (or at least I am led to believe).
The milk lorry turns up at the time he says.
The farmer gets up when he needs to get up, not set by a fictitious clock
And when you organise a conference call between the US, UK and Australia you don't need to get your spreadsheet out and work out what time it will be in each place due to the time difference and worse still because the clocks are changing between now and when the meeting starts.
It has its own set of complications and inefficiencies - in Germany one in particular is that the householder can get caught out very badly if they change a requirement without understanding. That happens especially when they are not familiar with the process end-to-end. It is called Sonderwunsch.
Example (15 minute video deep link):
FULL DISCLOSURE | German House Tour & Actual Cost of Customization
https://youtu.be/ivXAB1LKngc?t=839
In part 4 of our ongoing series on buying and building a house in Germany, we take you on a tour to show you how the construction process is going and talk about all of the surprises that were in store when it came to customizing the house with "special requests" or "Sonderwunsch".
From changing the hardwood floors, upgrading the tile flooring, electrical changes, and new interior doors - it is safe to say that we were shocked at the final price tag for our home in Germany.
We hope you enjoy our latest home building update on our dream house in the Black Forest!
Not seen a cow have a nervous breakdown as a consequence though.
The boundary between built-up and grimly undeveloped here is pretty arbitary; it's just where the builders of the 1930s had got to when Herr Hitler intervened. But thoughts and prayers to anyone who even thinks of adjusting that line, or even densifying the 1930s sprawl. (Would it really be bad if those two storey terraces became 3 or 4?). So you get mega high buildings on the few spots where you can, even though they are a pain to engineer.
And away from the railway line, there's quite a lot going up in central Romford, including a site that has been in limbo for at least fifteen years.
The Dark Brotherhood quest is what stuck with me. It was very, very well done.
I think that's the first time I've seen one all the way through. You know the phrase 'Never in doubt?' It was the opposite of that.
An extra storey or two is now (in principle) permitted development (Class AA). 1930s sprawl not included. AI:
The new permitted development right allowing for the addition of up to two extra storeys to existing houses, known as Class AA, was introduced on August 31, 2020. This change specifically allows for extensions to existing houses, such as detached or terraced houses, and the creation of new homes, like a flat above the existing house. This PDR applies to dwelling houses, excluding those constructed before 1 July 1948 or after 28 October 2018, and those in conservation areas, National Parks, or Sites of Special Scientific Interest.
(One might say excluding houses where Boris thought his voters might live.)