Things like this are why rejoin won't happen. There is still a fundamental problem with the way the treaties are structured that allows a single country to make decisions unilaterally that impose long-term costs on others, à la Merkel in 2015.
Spain approves plan to give around 500,000 undocumented migrants legal status
All the same old arguments being trotted out there.
Interesting that most of them are Latin American.
Worth noting, of course, that until Spain gives them citizenship, they won't have the right to live and work elsewhere in the EU.
(Portugal has a similar -if smaller- issue with undocumented migrants from Brazil.)
Do you think that will stop a significant number of them from trying to move to northern European countries like the UK, Ireland, Germany, Netherlands, Sweden, etc?
What will mainly stop them doing that, which stops almost all Latin Americans in Spain and Portugal from moving North, is the fact they speak Spanish and Portuguese. They are already where they want to be. Go to Almeria and Murcia and you’ll find thousands of Ecuadoreans in particular working on the vegetable farms. You’d be hard pressed to find many Ecuadoreans elsewhere in Europe, outside the oddity of the Latam community of Elephant and Castle and Old Kent Road.
Even in intra-EU migration we see similar patterns. After accession Britain got disproportionately more Poles, Lithuanians and other North-East Europeans than South East Europeans who went in large numbers to other Southern European countries.
I'm allowed to make fun of the Greens btw, since, unlike I expect 95% of those expressing an intention to vote for them, I've read their last three GE manifestos. Not entirely terrible.
Still a league below Count Binface's manifestos. On both comedy and policy.
The SDP's was the barmiest. Oddly detailed in some places, and just plain out there for a lot of it. Felt like it was written by a local councillor working in academia given the parts that had detail.
Michael Gove very good on Newsnight on the risks of AI to the economy if not thought through properly
He's also right in my opinion about UBI being a bad idea, because it will turn lots of people into permanent couch potatoes.
So what?
OK. I get it's not fair, and sort of get the moral arguments, but while we have more jobseekers than jobs, surely it makes sense to give jobs to those people who want them and let the shirkers shirk from home rather than force them into jobs for which they are ill-suited and cannot or will not perform well.
Things like this are why rejoin won't happen. There is still a fundamental problem with the way the treaties are structured that allows a single country to make decisions unilaterally that impose long-term costs on others, à la Merkel in 2015.
Spain approves plan to give around 500,000 undocumented migrants legal status
All the same old arguments being trotted out there.
Interesting that most of them are Latin American.
Worth noting, of course, that until Spain gives them citizenship, they won't have the right to live and work elsewhere in the EU.
(Portugal has a similar -if smaller- issue with undocumented migrants from Brazil.)
Do you think that will stop a significant number of them from trying to move to northern European countries like the UK, Ireland, Germany, Netherlands, Sweden, etc?
Well, unless they have a visa for those countries, they won't be able to work there. If they get Spanish citizenship, then they might well try (albeit probably not the UK).
Big speech coming tomorrow from Polanski it seems.
Universal benefits for all.
He did in the past talk about Universal Basic Income .
Sounds like great fun in the new Green utopia .
I can get stoned , and have the state pay for that and my munchies !
The IFS looked at it and said if it was say £400 a month it would cost 200 billion pounds a year .
Maybe Polanski was stoned when he came up with this idea !
Growth is not a thing to be sought, and you can just print money, it'll be fine.
In other news, I'm about to be announced as the next Green Party spokesgenderfluidperson for Finance.
"Maybe Polanski was stoned when he came up with this idea !"
This is one of the things that really annoys me about where the Greens are and how the media and commentors respond (and not having a go at you personally):
Citizen's income (Universal income) has been Green policy for forever (ok - not literally - about thirty years).
It is NOT fucking Polanski's idea nor is it "Polanski's Green Party" as ever since newspaper article begins.
Yes, he's done gangbusters for their profile (aided by the Labour situation of course), but it is a little odd since most of what is said seems to be the usual sort of thing they've said. Seems decent enough as a political communicator, I suppose, but the extent to which he's personified as the party is remarkable. Especially considering most of the time they've had two leaders not one, as part of the party culture.
It really does matter more who says something than what they say.
Michael Gove very good on Newsnight on the risks of AI to the economy if not thought through properly
He's also right in my opinion about UBI being a bad idea, because it will turn lots of people into permanent couch potatoes.
But he was also right that if AI leads to mass job losses without replacement then AI may be inevitable if we want to try and preserve the capitalist system and funded by those high earners and corporate titans who have profited most from AI
As I just said on ITV’s News at Ten, ministerial and industry sources say the UK is two or three weeks away from shortages of diesel and jet fuel, though petrol suppliers are healthier. This means Starmer’s new Middle East Response Committee will soon face difficult decisions on how to make sure supplies get to critical users, how to ration more generally and how to price. But, as I mentioned, ministers say supplies and stocks of petrol remain decent, so no need to queue at pumps
And also it is late and I am tired after a day of unpaid care work, but in a bizarre moment, I first briefly read this as "Middle Earth Response Committee" and had a couple of weird images of wizards with staffs.
Clearly no country is going to sign up to something that you can’t leave . And the EU don’t want another UK psychodrama .
The UK can’t just call another EU referendum without the EU actually agreeing to even contemplate the UK rejoining.
It would be a waste of time to call a referendum and then the EU says sorry no thanks . There has to be a very strong majority in favour in polling and the terms of re-joining laid out clearly .
Even though I’m very pro EU I think it might be better to contemplate EEA membership which comes without the CU, CFP and CAP.
There are more restrictions on FOM within that .
I think that’s more feasible and could happen more quickly .
The EEA has more restrictions on FoM than EU membership? Interesting. Do you have a link?
“More controversially, from the perspective of those who voted ‘leave’ in the referendum, the principle of free movement of persons applies. However, it is a more limited version of free movement, as it is not underpinned by the idea of citizenship of the Union.
It gives rights to those who are economically active (workers, the self-employed) and those semi-economically active (students and persons of independent means) but not to the economically inactive.
There is what might pass as an emergency brake on free movement: Article 112 states that ‘if serious economic, societal or environmental difficulties of a sectorial or regional nature liable to persist are arising, a contracting party may unilaterally take appropriate measures’ (subject to further procedures laid down in Article 113).”
EFTA/EEA is the obvious route for us.
As to EU and referenda, SFAICS the only serious option would be to agree everything with the EU for re-entry and the whole package to be put to a referendum at that point. Otherwise the 'pig in a poke' problem is inevitable.
The problem with that is that a referendum where you actually knew the grisly details of the deal and not just metaphysical hand waving (Euro, Schengen, rule taking, FoM, ever closer union, cost) would be hard to win.
An interesting asymmetry: to join, everything must be agreed before the vote; to leave, after the vote.
Yes. The asymmetry is real. Under Article 50, as it was understood in 2016 (there was a case on it in 2018 which may have changed things) it isn't possible to agree terms with the EU, hold a referendum and then trigger article 50 if the referendum agrees. You were (or seemed to be) obliged to buy an unknown relationship with the EU in leaving as you can't start discussions until triggering article 50.
However, IMO even so the government in 2016 should have made clear what its intentions were in some detail if we left and published a document outlining its 5-10 year plan for a Brexit world.
Nah - sequencing was never “as understood”. It was a bullshit argument used by the EU because they thought it gave them leverage in the negotiations
And, unfortunately, it did
One of the gravest indicttments of the UK political elite is the dumb fuck stupid way they went into negotiations with the EU. And here I am mainly blaming Brexiteers like David Davies and John Redwood and Boris himself, all of them, Wankers
It was plainly apparent that the EU would not only play hardball in the Brexit negotiations but DELIBERATELY try to make it all as nasty as possible, and as wounding as possible for the UK economy, so no one would copy the UK in leaving. It really was a punishment beating. And it still is - see the way we generously allow EU citizens to use e-gates into Britain and yet this is very much not reciprocated. The entire EU felt menaced by our departure and it still does, if we ever prosper it will give other countries ideas
Yet somehow the bright folk in the Brexit camp didn't foresee this and they went in breezily expecting a kind of amicable dissolution of a fun but failed company. Twats
Looking back, the 'We Hold All the Cards' propaganda line was completly foolish and self-defeating. How could our negotiators take on a powerful, hard-nosed and devious entity like the EU when they thought they'd won it all already? Our chaps should have striven for every miniscule concession, instead they sat back, puffed up and complacent, and allowed themselves to be picked apart.
My reading of the negotiations was different. I don’t think the UK attitude early on particularly affected the generosity or approach of the EU negotiators. It wound them up a bit, hence the moments of snark and leaks (mostly emanating from one individual), but more problematic was the fact we had politicians negotiating, in large part, with themselves and then presenting a confused message to what were, on the EU side, largely administrators and civil servants.
The government never really accepted the fact it was the commission they needed to do a deal with, not a handful of national leaders. And the commission had a series of standard templates for how trade and regulatory relationships worked with non member states: EFTA/EEA, CU, association agreements etc. plus a bespoke agreement with Switzerland that was the product of decades of iteration, not a few months of talks.
The UK should in my view have picked a template off the shelf, got a nice relatively trouble free exit, then continued to iterate over the following years - as indeed is finally happening now.
I think the UK was unrealistic and hampered by a complete lack of clarity about what it would even ask for, whilst the EU was very much inclined to be as obstructive as possible, even if it meant a less positive deal for them as well. The pretence that 'cherry picking' was impossible was ridiculous when the whole point of negotiation is because some cherries are there to be picked - even if the UK definitely will have sought ones which were not.
That wasn’t the message I got from them and their spokespeople at the time. It was more bureaucratic - computer says no. We should have at least started from a clear understandable template and then looked for cherries to pick. And also, in time honoured EU style, the actual concessions don’t happen until the very last minute. Same to be honest with most other trade deals.
I agree the UK position was unhelpful, I'd put that as the major driver of getting in the way of a good deal, but I don't agree the issues on the EU side were purely bureucratic and classic political dealmaking with late concessions etc.
It was not just the UK side which was acting on emotion, and the people directing the bureaucrats will have had an incentive for things to have been made as difficult as possible, to further demonstrate the undesirability of our act. I don't even blame for that, it is not a totally illogical position, but I do hold firm to the view that it was not emotional and irrational UK actors against a calmly and reasonably rational EU set of actors. They were just playing their role better, as they had the stronger hand.
.
It didn't help that -at least initially- the UK negotiators themselves were often attempting to thread the needle because there wasn't a majority accepted view of what we wanted from Brexit.
Big speech coming tomorrow from Polanski it seems.
Universal benefits for all.
He did in the past talk about Universal Basic Income .
Sounds like great fun in the new Green utopia .
I can get stoned , and have the state pay for that and my munchies !
The IFS looked at it and said if it was say £400 a month it would cost 200 billion pounds a year .
Maybe Polanski was stoned when he came up with this idea !
Growth is not a thing to be sought, and you can just print money, it'll be fine.
In other news, I'm about to be announced as the next Green Party spokesgenderfluidperson for Finance.
"Maybe Polanski was stoned when he came up with this idea !"
This is one of the things that really annoys me about where the Greens are and how the media and commentors respond (and not having a go at you personally):
Citizen's income (Universal income) has been Green policy for forever (ok - not literally - about thirty years).
It is NOT fucking Polanski's idea nor is it "Polanski's Green Party" as ever single newspaper article begins at the moment.
Conference makes policy. And the policies are all written up in the Manifesto for a Sustainable Society.
May be stuff full of what others consider batshit material but it 'aint Polanski.
Forget the greens - some of the passionate proponents of it are on the right.
It’s just one of those interesting ideas that is outside the cosy political consensus. This is a country that can’t even reform energy pricing to emulate the system other countries have; I welcome anyone actually giving something new a go.
"Labour is on course to lose control in Wales for the first time since devolution, an exclusive poll for The Telegraph reveals.
Plaid Cymru is set to emerge as the largest party in Wales, with Labour pushed into third place behind Reform UK.
Labour is also facing a Reform rout across England, with the near-total collapse of the Red Wall and the loss of stronghold councils held since the 1970s."
Things getting competitive in the 'who can be the NIMBYiest' stakes. Sounds lovely, but I really don't think it would be. Ed Davey announces new Lib Dem locals policy that all new developments must come with a GP surgery - he says no new doctors = no new developments
Clearly no country is going to sign up to something that you can’t leave . And the EU don’t want another UK psychodrama .
The UK can’t just call another EU referendum without the EU actually agreeing to even contemplate the UK rejoining.
It would be a waste of time to call a referendum and then the EU says sorry no thanks . There has to be a very strong majority in favour in polling and the terms of re-joining laid out clearly .
Even though I’m very pro EU I think it might be better to contemplate EEA membership which comes without the CU, CFP and CAP.
There are more restrictions on FOM within that .
I think that’s more feasible and could happen more quickly .
The EEA has more restrictions on FoM than EU membership? Interesting. Do you have a link?
“More controversially, from the perspective of those who voted ‘leave’ in the referendum, the principle of free movement of persons applies. However, it is a more limited version of free movement, as it is not underpinned by the idea of citizenship of the Union.
It gives rights to those who are economically active (workers, the self-employed) and those semi-economically active (students and persons of independent means) but not to the economically inactive.
There is what might pass as an emergency brake on free movement: Article 112 states that ‘if serious economic, societal or environmental difficulties of a sectorial or regional nature liable to persist are arising, a contracting party may unilaterally take appropriate measures’ (subject to further procedures laid down in Article 113).”
EFTA/EEA is the obvious route for us.
As to EU and referenda, SFAICS the only serious option would be to agree everything with the EU for re-entry and the whole package to be put to a referendum at that point. Otherwise the 'pig in a poke' problem is inevitable.
The problem with that is that a referendum where you actually knew the grisly details of the deal and not just metaphysical hand waving (Euro, Schengen, rule taking, FoM, ever closer union, cost) would be hard to win.
An interesting asymmetry: to join, everything must be agreed before the vote; to leave, after the vote.
Yes. The asymmetry is real. Under Article 50, as it was understood in 2016 (there was a case on it in 2018 which may have changed things) it isn't possible to agree terms with the EU, hold a referendum and then trigger article 50 if the referendum agrees. You were (or seemed to be) obliged to buy an unknown relationship with the EU in leaving as you can't start discussions until triggering article 50.
However, IMO even so the government in 2016 should have made clear what its intentions were in some detail if we left and published a document outlining its 5-10 year plan for a Brexit world.
Nah - sequencing was never “as understood”. It was a bullshit argument used by the EU because they thought it gave them leverage in the negotiations
And, unfortunately, it did
One of the gravest indicttments of the UK political elite is the dumb fuck stupid way they went into negotiations with the EU. And here I am mainly blaming Brexiteers like David Davies and John Redwood and Boris himself, all of them, Wankers
It was plainly apparent that the EU would not only play hardball in the Brexit negotiations but DELIBERATELY try to make it all as nasty as possible, and as wounding as possible for the UK economy, so no one would copy the UK in leaving. It really was a punishment beating. And it still is - see the way we generously allow EU citizens to use e-gates into Britain and yet this is very much not reciprocated. The entire EU felt menaced by our departure and it still does, if we ever prosper it will give other countries ideas
Yet somehow the bright folk in the Brexit camp didn't foresee this and they went in breezily expecting a kind of amicable dissolution of a fun but failed company. Twats
Looking back, the 'We Hold All the Cards' propaganda line was completly foolish and self-defeating. How could our negotiators take on a powerful, hard-nosed and devious entity like the EU when they thought they'd won it all already? Our chaps should have striven for every miniscule concession, instead they sat back, puffed up and complacent, and allowed themselves to be picked apart.
My reading of the negotiations was different. I don’t think the UK attitude early on particularly affected the generosity or approach of the EU negotiators. It wound them up a bit, hence the moments of snark and leaks (mostly emanating from one individual), but more problematic was the fact we had politicians negotiating, in large part, with themselves and then presenting a confused message to what were, on the EU side, largely administrators and civil servants.
The government never really accepted the fact it was the commission they needed to do a deal with, not a handful of national leaders. And the commission had a series of standard templates for how trade and regulatory relationships worked with non member states: EFTA/EEA, CU, association agreements etc. plus a bespoke agreement with Switzerland that was the product of decades of iteration, not a few months of talks.
The UK should in my view have picked a template off the shelf, got a nice relatively trouble free exit, then continued to iterate over the following years - as indeed is finally happening now.
I think the UK was unrealistic and hampered by a complete lack of clarity about what it would even ask for, whilst the EU was very much inclined to be as obstructive as possible, even if it meant a less positive deal for them as well. The pretence that 'cherry picking' was impossible was ridiculous when the whole point of negotiation is because some cherries are there to be picked - even if the UK definitely will have sought ones which were not.
That wasn’t the message I got from them and their spokespeople at the time. It was more bureaucratic - computer says no. We should have at least started from a clear understandable template and then looked for cherries to pick. And also, in time honoured EU style, the actual concessions don’t happen until the very last minute. Same to be honest with most other trade deals.
I agree the UK position was unhelpful, I'd put that as the major driver of getting in the way of a good deal, but I don't agree the issues on the EU side were purely bureucratic and classic political dealmaking with late concessions etc.
It was not just the UK side which was acting on emotion, and the people directing the bureaucrats will have had an incentive for things to have been made as difficult as possible, to further demonstrate the undesirability of our act. I don't even blame for that, it is not a totally illogical position, but I do hold firm to the view that it was not emotional and irrational UK actors against a calmly and reasonably rational EU set of actors. They were just playing their role better, as they had the stronger hand.
.
I would say both sides got their asks. The EU asks were what member states requested, especially from Ireland, but also France, Denmark , Netherlands on fishing, banking and so on. The UK asks were no ECJ or dynamic alignment, which meant a particularly thin deal for us.
Big speech coming tomorrow from Polanski it seems.
Universal benefits for all.
He did in the past talk about Universal Basic Income .
Sounds like great fun in the new Green utopia .
I can get stoned , and have the state pay for that and my munchies !
The IFS looked at it and said if it was say £400 a month it would cost 200 billion pounds a year .
Maybe Polanski was stoned when he came up with this idea !
Growth is not a thing to be sought, and you can just print money, it'll be fine.
In other news, I'm about to be announced as the next Green Party spokesgenderfluidperson for Finance.
"Maybe Polanski was stoned when he came up with this idea !"
This is one of the things that really annoys me about where the Greens are and how the media and commentors respond (and not having a go at you personally):
Citizen's income (Universal income) has been Green policy for forever (ok - not literally - about thirty years).
It is NOT fucking Polanski's idea nor is it "Polanski's Green Party" as ever single newspaper article begins at the moment.
Conference makes policy. And the policies are all written up in the Manifesto for a Sustainable Society.
May be stuff full of what others consider batshit material but it 'aint Polanski.
Forget the greens - some of the passionate proponents of it are on the right.
It’s just one of those interesting ideas that is outside the cosy political consensus. This is a country that can’t even reform energy pricing to emulate the system other countries have; I welcome anyone actually giving something new a go.
Wikipedia says it goes back, in UK at least, to Thomas More and 'Utopia'.
Anyway. In my annual shock for PB, I'm on a 41 1/2 hour fast for Buddha's Enlightenment day. The last 24 hours with no liquids. I haven't died before so am unlikely to do so this time.
Honestly might have to support Labour at the moment purely on the basis they at least occasionally make noises about not being NIMBYs, if inconsistently.
The rest are all so comically opposed to any kind of development, stubbornly in support of turning the country into a frozen in aspic slightly twee museum, that it's hard to take them seriously.
Local election leaflets for the Newsome & Netherton, Kirklees ward all ups stand at Greens, one leaflet covering all the Huddersfield wards being targeted and one ward specific leaflet, Reform, one national level mailshot. We get a Labour Rose more often than not, but I'm wondering if we may not this time.
We also have a lamppost postering by-law, so I did my first poster count on a drive that took in Dalton, Crosland Moor and Holme Valley North today, occupied lampposts came in at 9 Labour, 6 Independent and 1 Green. I expect those numbers to fluctuate between now and polling day.
Keep up the local election updates everyone!
I have heard ..... zilch from anyone.
But I did see a crocodile of primary school children walking down my lane to the library this morning.
Which will be added to my ammunition for getting a rat-runner filter added to my lane (which has been there for the last 50 years anyway), but requires something to make it effective like a row of bollards.
I had a flier from my local Tory MP, all full of the wonderful community work they are doing in the Constituency. No bigotry or Brexitism or Badenoch at all. Clearly a tribute to Lib Dem pothole politics rather than the Faragist flag shaggers.
No local elections here, but someone is worried about holding their formerly safe seat.
Those Tory MPs who survived the 2024 massacre are finding they are having to become LD MPs. No ministerial jobs on offer just the hard slog of being backbench MPs in opposition for most of them, sorting out potholes and protecting against overdevelopment and visiting community events. Also the Tories having to copy the LD barchart strategy, as the LDs used to say 'Only the LDs can beat the evil Tories here, Labour can't win here' now the Tories are having to say 'Only the Conservatives can beat the even more evil Reform here, Labour and the LDs and Greens can't win here'
At least they’ve got time to practice their bar charts. Tories - winning here!
As I just said on ITV’s News at Ten, ministerial and industry sources say the UK is two or three weeks away from shortages of diesel and jet fuel, though petrol suppliers are healthier. This means Starmer’s new Middle East Response Committee will soon face difficult decisions on how to make sure supplies get to critical users, how to ration more generally and how to price. But, as I mentioned, ministers say supplies and stocks of petrol remain decent, so no need to queue at pumps
"Labour is on course to lose control in Wales for the first time since devolution, an exclusive poll for The Telegraph reveals.
Plaid Cymru is set to emerge as the largest party in Wales, with Labour pushed into third place behind Reform UK.
Labour is also facing a Reform rout across England, with the near-total collapse of the Red Wall and the loss of stronghold councils held since the 1970s."
Things getting competitive in the 'who can be the NIMBYiest' stakes. Sounds lovely, but I really don't think it would be. Ed Davey announces new Lib Dem locals policy that all new developments must come with a GP surgery - he says no new doctors = no new developments
Isn’t that actually YIMBYism? And actually a good idea?
Build a village centre with a pub, GP, dentist, cafe, shop, nursery, primary school. LTN road plan and utilities. Sell plots at auction to developers within 15 minute cycle of centre (about 2 miles). You could fit 100,000 people in that.
"Labour is on course to lose control in Wales for the first time since devolution, an exclusive poll for The Telegraph reveals.
Plaid Cymru is set to emerge as the largest party in Wales, with Labour pushed into third place behind Reform UK.
Labour is also facing a Reform rout across England, with the near-total collapse of the Red Wall and the loss of stronghold councils held since the 1970s."
Some will say Reform will do poorly in those councils and people will then swiftly turn on them.
That may happen in several cases, but screwing up that badly is not actually that easy on a local council, I would think many will not be dislodged at the next term, and as with others national swings will be more important than presuming Reform will face extra punishment - the potholes and bins will be as good, or as bad, as they ever were in most cases.
"screwing up that badly is not that easy on a local council" the Conservatives of Woking shout "Oi Spelthorne, hold my bolly!"
Debt per resident Woking £20k, Spelthorne £10k
Honourable mentions to Warrington, Runnymede, Barking, Birmingham, Croydon, Thurrock etc
NIMBY story. Residents in the neighborhood of Royal Marsden Hospital in London banding together to oppose a new cancer hospital because it will have too many floors.
Things getting competitive in the 'who can be the NIMBYiest' stakes. Sounds lovely, but I really don't think it would be. Ed Davey announces new Lib Dem locals policy that all new developments must come with a GP surgery - he says no new doctors = no new developments
Isn’t that actually YIMBYism? And actually a good idea?
Build a village centre with a pub, GP, dentist, cafe, shop, nursery, primary school. LTN road plan and utilities. Sell plots at auction to developers within 15 minute cycle of centre (about 2 miles).
No it isn't, they already struggle to get GPs to take up space allocated when it is part of development now, then developers come back (very happily) to get permission to just put up more houses there anyway. And funds already get allocated for public space, school provision etc, the exact amount and form depending on the development and area. Near me there was meant to be a new school as part of a massive development, but the official figures show actually it's not needed, it can all go toward existing schools because of lower birth rates etc so expanding them a little is better than a separate new school - so if they'd been forced to build and not just provide for the needed provision, it'd be pointless. The current system is not perfect and developers game it, but just declaring they 'must' come with X will mean less happens.
His statement is just NIMBYism dressed up in nicer clothes
"Labour is on course to lose control in Wales for the first time since devolution, an exclusive poll for The Telegraph reveals.
Plaid Cymru is set to emerge as the largest party in Wales, with Labour pushed into third place behind Reform UK.
Labour is also facing a Reform rout across England, with the near-total collapse of the Red Wall and the loss of stronghold councils held since the 1970s."
Some will say Reform will do poorly in those councils and people will then swiftly turn on them.
That may happen in several cases, but screwing up that badly is not actually that easy on a local council, I would think many will not be dislodged at the next term, and as with others national swings will be more important than presuming Reform will face extra punishment - the potholes and bins will be as good, or as bad, as they ever were in most cases.
"screwing up that badly is not that easy on a local council" the Conservatives of Woking shout "Oi Spelthorne, hold my bolly!"
Debt per resident Woking £20k, Spelthorne £10k
Honourable mentions to Warrington, Runnymede, Barking, Birmingham, Croydon, Thurrock etc
With 400 or so councils in the UK some do manage it.
Big speech coming tomorrow from Polanski it seems.
Universal benefits for all.
He did in the past talk about Universal Basic Income .
Sounds like great fun in the new Green utopia .
I can get stoned , and have the state pay for that and my munchies !
The IFS looked at it and said if it was say £400 a month it would cost 200 billion pounds a year .
Maybe Polanski was stoned when he came up with this idea !
Growth is not a thing to be sought, and you can just print money, it'll be fine.
In other news, I'm about to be announced as the next Green Party spokesgenderfluidperson for Finance.
"Maybe Polanski was stoned when he came up with this idea !"
This is one of the things that really annoys me about where the Greens are and how the media and commentors respond (and not having a go at you personally):
Citizen's income (Universal income) has been Green policy for forever (ok - not literally - about thirty years).
It is NOT fucking Polanski's idea nor is it "Polanski's Green Party" as ever single newspaper article begins at the moment.
Conference makes policy. And the policies are all written up in the Manifesto for a Sustainable Society.
May be stuff full of what others consider batshit material but it 'aint Polanski.
Forget the greens - some of the passionate proponents of it are on the right.
It’s just one of those interesting ideas that is outside the cosy political consensus. This is a country that can’t even reform energy pricing to emulate the system other countries have; I welcome anyone actually giving something new a go.
Wikipedia says it goes back, in UK at least, to Thomas More and 'Utopia'.
And he was a right bloody lefty green.
I suspect the same fate awaits modern supporters (figuratively).
As I just said on ITV’s News at Ten, ministerial and industry sources say the UK is two or three weeks away from shortages of diesel and jet fuel, though petrol suppliers are healthier. This means Starmer’s new Middle East Response Committee will soon face difficult decisions on how to make sure supplies get to critical users, how to ration more generally and how to price. But, as I mentioned, ministers say supplies and stocks of petrol remain decent, so no need to queue at pumps
The stupid bit there is 2 to 3 weeks away is that time frame is before the next set of deliveries could arrive if the strait was open tomorrow.
So you may as well start implementing what you need to do now as that gives you leeway...
Local election leaflets for the Newsome & Netherton, Kirklees ward all ups stand at Greens, one leaflet covering all the Huddersfield wards being targeted and one ward specific leaflet, Reform, one national level mailshot. We get a Labour Rose more often than not, but I'm wondering if we may not this time.
We also have a lamppost postering by-law, so I did my first poster count on a drive that took in Dalton, Crosland Moor and Holme Valley North today, occupied lampposts came in at 9 Labour, 6 Independent and 1 Green. I expect those numbers to fluctuate between now and polling day.
Keep up the local election updates everyone!
I have heard ..... zilch from anyone.
But I did see a crocodile of primary school children walking down my lane to the library this morning.
Which will be added to my ammunition for getting a rat-runner filter added to my lane (which has been there for the last 50 years anyway), but requires something to make it effective like a row of bollards.
I had a flier from my local Tory MP, all full of the wonderful community work they are doing in the Constituency. No bigotry or Brexitism or Badenoch at all. Clearly a tribute to Lib Dem pothole politics rather than the Faragist flag shaggers.
No local elections here, but someone is worried about holding their formerly safe seat.
Those Tory MPs who survived the 2024 massacre are finding they are having to become LD MPs. No ministerial jobs on offer just the hard slog of being backbench MPs in opposition for most of them, sorting out potholes and protecting against overdevelopment and visiting community events. Also the Tories having to copy the LD barchart strategy, as the LDs used to say 'Only the LDs can beat the evil Tories here, Labour can't win here' now the Tories are having to say 'Only the Conservatives can beat the even more evil Reform here, Labour and the LDs and Greens can't win here'
At least they’ve got time to practice their bar charts. Tories - winning here!
At least if you are still an MP you are getting paid for the work you do. Our local Tory candidate is doing all that work attached to digs about our not so good Labour MP for zero salary as he isn't an MP..
Things getting competitive in the 'who can be the NIMBYiest' stakes. Sounds lovely, but I really don't think it would be. Ed Davey announces new Lib Dem locals policy that all new developments must come with a GP surgery - he says no new doctors = no new developments
Isn’t that actually YIMBYism? And actually a good idea?
Build a village centre with a pub, GP, dentist, cafe, shop, nursery, primary school. LTN road plan and utilities. Sell plots at auction to developers within 15 minute cycle of centre (about 2 miles).
No it isn't, they already struggle to get GPs to take up space allocated when it is part of development now, then developers come back (very happily) to get permission to just put up more houses there anyway. And funds already get allocated for public space, school provision etc, the exact amount and form depending on the development and area. Near me there was meant to be a new school as part of a massive development, but the official figures show actually it's not needed, it can all go toward existing schools because of lower birth rates etc so expanding them a little is better than a separate new school - so if they'd been forced to build and not just provide for the needed provision, it'd be pointless. The current system is not perfect and developers game it, but just declaring they 'must' come with X will mean less happens.
His statement is just NIMBYism dressed up in nicer clothes
Maybe. I do think these endless suburbs with no public services drive much of opposition to them. NIMBYism is perfectly rational reaction to development when it only comes with costs to existing residents - simply dismissing those concerns is not productive, and a bit unfair.
Things getting competitive in the 'who can be the NIMBYiest' stakes. Sounds lovely, but I really don't think it would be. Ed Davey announces new Lib Dem locals policy that all new developments must come with a GP surgery - he says no new doctors = no new developments
And a pub. And a church. And an 8-til-late shop. And a dentist. And a school. And a playground. And visitor parking. And a railway station. And a field with trees to climb on.
Things getting competitive in the 'who can be the NIMBYiest' stakes. Sounds lovely, but I really don't think it would be. Ed Davey announces new Lib Dem locals policy that all new developments must come with a GP surgery - he says no new doctors = no new developments
Isn’t that actually YIMBYism? And actually a good idea?
Build a village centre with a pub, GP, dentist, cafe, shop, nursery, primary school. LTN road plan and utilities. Sell plots at auction to developers within 15 minute cycle of centre (about 2 miles).
No it isn't, they already struggle to get GPs to take up space allocated when it is part of development now, then developers come back (very happily) to get permission to just put up more houses there anyway. And funds already get allocated for public space, school provision etc, the exact amount and form depending on the development and area. Near me there was meant to be a new school as part of a massive development, but the official figures show actually it's not needed, it can all go toward existing schools because of lower birth rates etc so expanding them a little is better than a separate new school - so if they'd been forced to build and not just provide for the needed provision, it'd be pointless. The current system is not perfect and developers game it, but just declaring they 'must' come with X will mean less happens.
His statement is just NIMBYism dressed up in nicer clothes
Maybe. I do think these endless suburbs with no public services drive much of opposition to them. NIMBYism is perfectly rational reaction to development when it only comes with costs to existing residents - simply dismissing those concerns is not productive, and a bit unfair.
We have a lot of this going on in the Flatlands.
We have at least 1000 new houses going up each year with not a new facility in sight. Or even a single shop.
Strangely, the roads seem very busy and services are struggling.
As I just said on ITV’s News at Ten, ministerial and industry sources say the UK is two or three weeks away from shortages of diesel and jet fuel, though petrol suppliers are healthier. This means Starmer’s new Middle East Response Committee will soon face difficult decisions on how to make sure supplies get to critical users, how to ration more generally and how to price. But, as I mentioned, ministers say supplies and stocks of petrol remain decent, so no need to queue at pumps
And also it is late and I am tired after a day of unpaid care work, but in a bizarre moment, I first briefly read this as "Middle Earth Response Committee" and had a couple of weird images of wizards with staffs.
I see the BBC are reporting "The energy shock from the Iran war will hit the UK the hardest of the world's advanced economies, the International Monetary Fund (IMF) has forecast."
This is their headline on the midnight R4 news, too.
As far as I can see, it just means they have downgraded the UK's growth more than other nations from their January estimate, which was rather optimistic.
Overall growth in the UK is still predicted to be higher than Germany, Italy, or Japan.
Things getting competitive in the 'who can be the NIMBYiest' stakes. Sounds lovely, but I really don't think it would be. Ed Davey announces new Lib Dem locals policy that all new developments must come with a GP surgery - he says no new doctors = no new developments
Isn’t that actually YIMBYism? And actually a good idea?
Build a village centre with a pub, GP, dentist, cafe, shop, nursery, primary school. LTN road plan and utilities. Sell plots at auction to developers within 15 minute cycle of centre (about 2 miles).
No it isn't, they already struggle to get GPs to take up space allocated when it is part of development now, then developers come back (very happily) to get permission to just put up more houses there anyway. And funds already get allocated for public space, school provision etc, the exact amount and form depending on the development and area. Near me there was meant to be a new school as part of a massive development, but the official figures show actually it's not needed, it can all go toward existing schools because of lower birth rates etc so expanding them a little is better than a separate new school - so if they'd been forced to build and not just provide for the needed provision, it'd be pointless. The current system is not perfect and developers game it, but just declaring they 'must' come with X will mean less happens.
His statement is just NIMBYism dressed up in nicer clothes
Maybe. I do think these endless suburbs with no public services drive much of opposition to them. NIMBYism is perfectly rational reaction to development when it only comes with costs to existing residents - simply dismissing those concerns is not productive, and a bit unfair.
I don't think it is unfair in the slightest.
You are right people want services, we don't want to live in American suburbs. But I have witnessed hundreds of planning applications, maybe even thousands. I have seen people object to the big things and the small. I've seen them object to putting in doctor's surgeries. I've seen them object that there is not infrastructure before a development, but also oppose infrasutructure because it will bring development. I've seen parish councils object to a very small home for troubled young people on the basis that there being young people would be out of keeping with the character of the village. I've seen people object to a grain store next to some grain fields, that a small extension would be unacceptable because there will be traffic whilst it is built. I've seen them claim it's impossible to create reasonable drainage yet be proven wrong time and again. I've seen them spontaneously care about archaeology and newts and bats when never before. I've seen them object to skate parks because young people are thugs, that nursing homes should never be built, that gypsies and travellers shouldn't get to have pitches near their town or village, but also shouldn't be allowed to have them in the countryside, that ten houses in a village of 1000 is outrageous, that every green field is to be treated like green belt, that they should build on brownfield but then object to building on that brownfield land.
You name it and I've seen it. It isn't an unfair characterisation of NIMBYs.
Yes, some NIMBYs have genuine, sincere, and reasonable concerns (and are thus not really NIMBys). Yes, developers take the piss. But those do not represent the majority of objections that are received.
The balance in our system is completely our of whack, and incentives every crank who just does not want anyone else to build literally anything. That those people can cloak their desire to prevent development with the figleaf of concerns which are in fact reasonable elsewhere, doesn't make everyone making those arguments reasonable.
Just realized that I was on the last day of my holiday in Egypt when this all kicked off.
So depending who the jinx is the next issue (fuel rationing) will be Friday 24th if Mrs Eek is the jinx (she’s on holiday with her best friend), or May 10th if I am
Sorry - rest of the year is currently UK apart from a concert in July
I see the BBC are reporting "The energy shock from the Iran war will hit the UK the hardest of the world's advanced economies, the International Monetary Fund (IMF) has forecast."
This is their headline on the midnight R4 news, too.
As far as I can see, it just means they have downgraded the UK's growth more than other nations from their January estimate, which was rather optimistic.
Overall growth in the UK is still predicted to be higher than Germany, Italy, or Japan.
So the flap is somewhat misleading.
Seems to be a reasonable comment - if we are the most affected because we are the most exposed that is not misleading even if we are (by razor thin margins) still expected to grow slightly more because of other factors despite being hit hardest.
Things like this are why rejoin won't happen. There is still a fundamental problem with the way the treaties are structured that allows a single country to make decisions unilaterally that impose long-term costs on others, à la Merkel in 2015.
Spain approves plan to give around 500,000 undocumented migrants legal status
All the same old arguments being trotted out there.
Interesting that most of them are Latin American.
Worth noting, of course, that until Spain gives them citizenship, they won't have the right to live and work elsewhere in the EU.
(Portugal has a similar -if smaller- issue with undocumented migrants from Brazil.)
Do you think that will stop a significant number of them from trying to move to northern European countries like the UK, Ireland, Germany, Netherlands, Sweden, etc?
Since the majority of them are South American, and Spain's economy has a high employment rate (one yf the reasons immigration has been encouraged), both language and employment factors will be if more relevance in discouraging that.
Big speech coming tomorrow from Polanski it seems.
Universal benefits for all.
He did in the past talk about Universal Basic Income .
Sounds like great fun in the new Green utopia .
I can get stoned , and have the state pay for that and my munchies !
The IFS looked at it and said if it was say £400 a month it would cost 200 billion pounds a year .
Maybe Polanski was stoned when he came up with this idea !
Growth is not a thing to be sought, and you can just print money, it'll be fine.
In other news, I'm about to be announced as the next Green Party spokesgenderfluidperson for Finance.
"Maybe Polanski was stoned when he came up with this idea !"
This is one of the things that really annoys me about where the Greens are and how the media and commentors respond (and not having a go at you personally):
Citizen's income (Universal income) has been Green policy for forever (ok - not literally - about thirty years).
It is NOT fucking Polanski's idea nor is it "Polanski's Green Party" as ever single newspaper article begins at the moment.
Conference makes policy. And the policies are all written up in the Manifesto for a Sustainable Society.
May be stuff full of what others consider batshit material but it 'aint Polanski.
Ukraine today requested clarifications from Israel regarding the fact that a ship allegedly belonging to Russia's "shadow fleet" docked at the Port of Haifa with a shipment of wheat originating from territories Russia seized from Ukraine in the war, according to a senior Ukrainian official and another source familiar with the details ❗️Why it matters: This incident could turn out to be a significant violation by Israel of the American and international sanctions imposed on Russia and its "shadow fleet." ❓If that's indeed the case, this is a serious event that contradicts the declared policy of the Israeli government 🚢Ukraine is demanding that Israel stop the Russian ship, which Ukraine claims is subject to international sanctions, and prevent it from leaving the port 🕵️Behind the scenes: A senior Ukrainian official told me that Ukrainian intelligence identified the Russian ship's preparations to leave the Black Sea with a cargo of grain originating from territories Russia seized from Ukraine 🇺🇦Ukrainian intelligence prepared a dossier with information on the matter and transferred it to the Attorney General's Office in Ukraine on March 20 🇺🇦🇮🇱On March 27, Ukraine's Ambassador to Israel Yevgeny Korniychuk met with senior officials at the Foreign Ministry in Jerusalem, passed on the information, warned that this was a violation of sanctions, and requested that the ship not be allowed to dock in Israel.. https://x.com/BarakRavid/status/2044111045552185668
Orban lost because he'd been in power for 16 years.
That rather slides over what he did with that time in power, and why the entire opposition, across the political spectrum, had to unite behind a single candidate to boot him out.
As I just said on ITV’s News at Ten, ministerial and industry sources say the UK is two or three weeks away from shortages of diesel and jet fuel, though petrol suppliers are healthier. This means Starmer’s new Middle East Response Committee will soon face difficult decisions on how to make sure supplies get to critical users, how to ration more generally and how to price. But, as I mentioned, ministers say supplies and stocks of petrol remain decent, so no need to queue at pumps
What a twat.
As we saw in the pandemic, you really don’t hate the media enough sometimes.
He absolutely knows that his comments are going to lead to panic buying this morning, but he just can’t help himself.
Sometimes it’s best to keep your mouth shut until any official announcement from government and industry, rather than trying to front run what’s actually happening and make the situation worse.
Orban lost because he'd been in power for 16 years.
That rather slides over what he did with that time in power, and why the entire opposition, across the political spectrum, had to unite behind a single candidate to boot him out.
Indeed. If it were just maths, the SNP would be out by now, It was the naked corruption that did for him, coupled with the opposition coming up with and uniting behind a credible candidate who didn’t frighten small-c Conservative voters in the rural areas (which is essentially the whole country outside the capital). Helped along by the strategic mistakes of choosing the wrong friends.
As I just said on ITV’s News at Ten, ministerial and industry sources say the UK is two or three weeks away from shortages of diesel and jet fuel, though petrol suppliers are healthier. This means Starmer’s new Middle East Response Committee will soon face difficult decisions on how to make sure supplies get to critical users, how to ration more generally and how to price. But, as I mentioned, ministers say supplies and stocks of petrol remain decent, so no need to queue at pumps
He does understand diesel is sold at the pumps too?
Things getting competitive in the 'who can be the NIMBYiest' stakes. Sounds lovely, but I really don't think it would be. Ed Davey announces new Lib Dem locals policy that all new developments must come with a GP surgery - he says no new doctors = no new developments
Orban lost because he'd been in power for 16 years.
That rather slides over what he did with that time in power, and why the entire opposition, across the political spectrum, had to unite behind a single candidate to boot him out.
Indeed. If it were just maths, the SNP would be out by now, It was the naked corruption that did for him, coupled with the opposition coming up with and uniting behind a credible candidate who didn’t frighten small-c Conservative voters in the rural areas (which is essentially the whole country outside the capital). Helped along by the strategic mistakes of choosing the wrong friends.
Strangely, being in power for 16 years didn't do for Putin, though.
Orban lost because he'd been in power for 16 years.
Also Putin's line.
Russia’s government paper: “What went against Orbán was his unprecedentedly long time in office...16 years in a row, 20 in total. The fatigue factor, growing tired of the same people is psychologically understandable.” https://x.com/BBCSteveR/status/2043948756480012341
Clearly no country is going to sign up to something that you can’t leave . And the EU don’t want another UK psychodrama .
The UK can’t just call another EU referendum without the EU actually agreeing to even contemplate the UK rejoining.
It would be a waste of time to call a referendum and then the EU says sorry no thanks . There has to be a very strong majority in favour in polling and the terms of re-joining laid out clearly .
Even though I’m very pro EU I think it might be better to contemplate EEA membership which comes without the CU, CFP and CAP.
There are more restrictions on FOM within that .
I think that’s more feasible and could happen more quickly .
The EEA has more restrictions on FoM than EU membership? Interesting. Do you have a link?
“More controversially, from the perspective of those who voted ‘leave’ in the referendum, the principle of free movement of persons applies. However, it is a more limited version of free movement, as it is not underpinned by the idea of citizenship of the Union.
It gives rights to those who are economically active (workers, the self-employed) and those semi-economically active (students and persons of independent means) but not to the economically inactive.
There is what might pass as an emergency brake on free movement: Article 112 states that ‘if serious economic, societal or environmental difficulties of a sectorial or regional nature liable to persist are arising, a contracting party may unilaterally take appropriate measures’ (subject to further procedures laid down in Article 113).”
EFTA/EEA is the obvious route for us.
As to EU and referenda, SFAICS the only serious option would be to agree everything with the EU for re-entry and the whole package to be put to a referendum at that point. Otherwise the 'pig in a poke' problem is inevitable.
The problem with that is that a referendum where you actually knew the grisly details of the deal and not just metaphysical hand waving (Euro, Schengen, rule taking, FoM, ever closer union, cost) would be hard to win.
An interesting asymmetry: to join, everything must be agreed before the vote; to leave, after the vote.
Yes. The asymmetry is real. Under Article 50, as it was understood in 2016 (there was a case on it in 2018 which may have changed things) it isn't possible to agree terms with the EU, hold a referendum and then trigger article 50 if the referendum agrees. You were (or seemed to be) obliged to buy an unknown relationship with the EU in leaving as you can't start discussions until triggering article 50.
However, IMO even so the government in 2016 should have made clear what its intentions were in some detail if we left and published a document outlining its 5-10 year plan for a Brexit world.
Nah - sequencing was never “as understood”. It was a bullshit argument used by the EU because they thought it gave them leverage in the negotiations
And, unfortunately, it did
One of the gravest indicttments of the UK political elite is the dumb fuck stupid way they went into negotiations with the EU. And here I am mainly blaming Brexiteers like David Davies and John Redwood and Boris himself, all of them, Wankers
It was plainly apparent that the EU would not only play hardball in the Brexit negotiations but DELIBERATELY try to make it all as nasty as possible, and as wounding as possible for the UK economy, so no one would copy the UK in leaving. It really was a punishment beating. And it still is - see the way we generously allow EU citizens to use e-gates into Britain and yet this is very much not reciprocated. The entire EU felt menaced by our departure and it still does, if we ever prosper it will give other countries ideas
Yet somehow the bright folk in the Brexit camp didn't foresee this and they went in breezily expecting a kind of amicable dissolution of a fun but failed company. Twats
He's a funny old stick, Frosty - who seems to be on a personal journey of some strange sort.
Skimming his Wiki entry, it seems he tried to stand as an MP in 2024, but was blackballed by Rishi Sunak. He'd fit in the current Tory party to my eye.
That's an interesting one - can you stand to be an MP without leaving the Lords, or do you have to resign first (as happens when a Congressman stands for Senate in Usonia aiui)?
Certainly the failure of the Cons do actually do much of what they said they were going to do - such as the failure to implement suitable testing of food after the EU stopped their regime leaving us wide open, aiui is a reason why I support Starmer improving the relationship, and why I want the Tories in the dustbin of history unless they become sane.
Big speech coming tomorrow from Polanski it seems.
Universal benefits for all.
He did in the past talk about Universal Basic Income .
Sounds like great fun in the new Green utopia .
I can get stoned , and have the state pay for that and my munchies !
The IFS looked at it and said if it was say £400 a month it would cost 200 billion pounds a year .
Maybe Polanski was stoned when he came up with this idea !
Growth is not a thing to be sought, and you can just print money, it'll be fine.
In other news, I'm about to be announced as the next Green Party spokesgenderfluidperson for Finance.
"Maybe Polanski was stoned when he came up with this idea !"
This is one of the things that really annoys me about where the Greens are and how the media and commentors respond (and not having a go at you personally):
Citizen's income (Universal income) has been Green policy for forever (ok - not literally - about thirty years).
It is NOT fucking Polanski's idea nor is it "Polanski's Green Party" as ever single newspaper article begins at the moment.
Conference makes policy. And the policies are all written up in the Manifesto for a Sustainable Society.
May be stuff full of what others consider batshit material but it 'aint Polanski.
That's linked to a point I'd make to @maxh after his comment at the weekend, if you want to be a Green you need a philosophy not an ideology, since there are lots of ideologies and the prominent one changes regularly. It can't decide whether to be a movement or a party.
Clearly no country is going to sign up to something that you can’t leave . And the EU don’t want another UK psychodrama .
The UK can’t just call another EU referendum without the EU actually agreeing to even contemplate the UK rejoining.
It would be a waste of time to call a referendum and then the EU says sorry no thanks . There has to be a very strong majority in favour in polling and the terms of re-joining laid out clearly .
Even though I’m very pro EU I think it might be better to contemplate EEA membership which comes without the CU, CFP and CAP.
There are more restrictions on FOM within that .
I think that’s more feasible and could happen more quickly .
The EEA has more restrictions on FoM than EU membership? Interesting. Do you have a link?
“More controversially, from the perspective of those who voted ‘leave’ in the referendum, the principle of free movement of persons applies. However, it is a more limited version of free movement, as it is not underpinned by the idea of citizenship of the Union.
It gives rights to those who are economically active (workers, the self-employed) and those semi-economically active (students and persons of independent means) but not to the economically inactive.
There is what might pass as an emergency brake on free movement: Article 112 states that ‘if serious economic, societal or environmental difficulties of a sectorial or regional nature liable to persist are arising, a contracting party may unilaterally take appropriate measures’ (subject to further procedures laid down in Article 113).”
EFTA/EEA is the obvious route for us.
As to EU and referenda, SFAICS the only serious option would be to agree everything with the EU for re-entry and the whole package to be put to a referendum at that point. Otherwise the 'pig in a poke' problem is inevitable.
The problem with that is that a referendum where you actually knew the grisly details of the deal and not just metaphysical hand waving (Euro, Schengen, rule taking, FoM, ever closer union, cost) would be hard to win.
An interesting asymmetry: to join, everything must be agreed before the vote; to leave, after the vote.
Yes. The asymmetry is real. Under Article 50, as it was understood in 2016 (there was a case on it in 2018 which may have changed things) it isn't possible to agree terms with the EU, hold a referendum and then trigger article 50 if the referendum agrees. You were (or seemed to be) obliged to buy an unknown relationship with the EU in leaving as you can't start discussions until triggering article 50.
However, IMO even so the government in 2016 should have made clear what its intentions were in some detail if we left and published a document outlining its 5-10 year plan for a Brexit world.
Nah - sequencing was never “as understood”. It was a bullshit argument used by the EU because they thought it gave them leverage in the negotiations
And, unfortunately, it did
One of the gravest indicttments of the UK political elite is the dumb fuck stupid way they went into negotiations with the EU. And here I am mainly blaming Brexiteers like David Davies and John Redwood and Boris himself, all of them, Wankers
It was plainly apparent that the EU would not only play hardball in the Brexit negotiations but DELIBERATELY try to make it all as nasty as possible, and as wounding as possible for the UK economy, so no one would copy the UK in leaving. It really was a punishment beating. And it still is - see the way we generously allow EU citizens to use e-gates into Britain and yet this is very much not reciprocated. The entire EU felt menaced by our departure and it still does, if we ever prosper it will give other countries ideas
Yet somehow the bright folk in the Brexit camp didn't foresee this and they went in breezily expecting a kind of amicable dissolution of a fun but failed company. Twats
He's a funny old stick, Frosty - who seems to be on a personal journey of some strange sort.
Skimming his Wiki entry, it seems he tried to stand as an MP in 2024, but was blackballed by Rishi Sunak. He'd fit in the current Tory party to my eye.
That's an interesting one - can you stand to be an MP without leaving the Lords, or do you have to resign first (as happens when a Congressman stands for Senate in Usonia aiui)?
Certainly the failure of the Cons do actually do much of what they said they were going to do - such as the failure to implement suitable testing of food after the EU stopped their regime leaving us wide open, aiui is a reason why I support Starmer improving the relationship, and why I want the Tories in the dustbin of history unless they become sane.
Members of the Lords do not have a vote, so he would have been ineligible to be elected. As Anthony Wedgwood Benn was at Bristol South East in 1961. He could in theory stand but could not take his seat if elected.
Anyway. In my annual shock for PB, I'm on a 41 1/2 hour fast for Buddha's Enlightenment day. The last 24 hours with no liquids. I haven't died before so am unlikely to do so this time.
Orban lost because he'd been in power for 16 years.
Also Putin's line.
Russia’s government paper: “What went against Orbán was his unprecedentedly long time in office...16 years in a row, 20 in total. The fatigue factor, growing tired of the same people is psychologically understandable.” https://x.com/BBCSteveR/status/2043948756480012341
Orban lost because he'd been in power for 16 years.
It’s not like Vance rocking up suddenly changes the trajectory of the election.
Oh, I don't know. The opinion polls showed a definite shift against Orban after the couchfucker's speech. It may have been the difference between two-thirds majority and just short.
Orban lost because he'd been in power for 16 years.
Also Putin's line.
Russia’s government paper: “What went against Orbán was his unprecedentedly long time in office...16 years in a row, 20 in total. The fatigue factor, growing tired of the same people is psychologically understandable.” https://x.com/BBCSteveR/status/2043948756480012341
Does he feel the same about Russia?
Orban's regime was like a closing down sale. Lots of things flogged off at cut prices to a lucky few.
Orban lost because he'd been in power for 16 years.
Also Putin's line.
Russia’s government paper: “What went against Orbán was his unprecedentedly long time in office...16 years in a row, 20 in total. The fatigue factor, growing tired of the same people is psychologically understandable.” https://x.com/BBCSteveR/status/2043948756480012341
Does he feel the same about Russia?
Orban's regime was like a closing down sale. Lots of things flogged off at cut prices to a lucky few.
Anyway. In my annual shock for PB, I'm on a 41 1/2 hour fast for Buddha's Enlightenment day. The last 24 hours with no liquids. I haven't died before so am unlikely to do so this time.
If you have done shorter ones before I'm sure you'll be fine. I used to do something most years when I went on a solo retreat weekend in my twenties. I wouldn't be doing the "no water", though.
What do I wish you .... focus on the things normally crowded out, and enlightenment?
As I just said on ITV’s News at Ten, ministerial and industry sources say the UK is two or three weeks away from shortages of diesel and jet fuel, though petrol suppliers are healthier. This means Starmer’s new Middle East Response Committee will soon face difficult decisions on how to make sure supplies get to critical users, how to ration more generally and how to price. But, as I mentioned, ministers say supplies and stocks of petrol remain decent, so no need to queue at pumps
He does understand diesel is sold at the pumps too?
Things like this are why rejoin won't happen. There is still a fundamental problem with the way the treaties are structured that allows a single country to make decisions unilaterally that impose long-term costs on others, à la Merkel in 2015.
Spain approves plan to give around 500,000 undocumented migrants legal status
All the same old arguments being trotted out there.
Interesting that most of them are Latin American.
Worth noting, of course, that until Spain gives them citizenship, they won't have the right to live and work elsewhere in the EU.
(Portugal has a similar -if smaller- issue with undocumented migrants from Brazil.)
Do you think that will stop a significant number of them from trying to move to northern European countries like the UK, Ireland, Germany, Netherlands, Sweden, etc?
Since the majority of them are South American, and Spain's economy has a high employment rate (one yf the reasons immigration has been encouraged), both language and employment factors will be if more relevance in discouraging that.
Things like this are why rejoin won't happen. There is still a fundamental problem with the way the treaties are structured that allows a single country to make decisions unilaterally that impose long-term costs on others, à la Merkel in 2015.
Spain approves plan to give around 500,000 undocumented migrants legal status
All the same old arguments being trotted out there.
Interesting that most of them are Latin American.
Worth noting, of course, that until Spain gives them citizenship, they won't have the right to live and work elsewhere in the EU.
(Portugal has a similar -if smaller- issue with undocumented migrants from Brazil.)
Do you think that will stop a significant number of them from trying to move to northern European countries like the UK, Ireland, Germany, Netherlands, Sweden, etc?
Since the majority of them are South American, and Spain's economy has a high employment rate (one yf the reasons immigration has been encouraged), both language and employment factors will be if more relevance in discouraging that.
Things getting competitive in the 'who can be the NIMBYiest' stakes. Sounds lovely, but I really don't think it would be. Ed Davey announces new Lib Dem locals policy that all new developments must come with a GP surgery - he says no new doctors = no new developments
Isn’t that actually YIMBYism? And actually a good idea?
Build a village centre with a pub, GP, dentist, cafe, shop, nursery, primary school. LTN road plan and utilities. Sell plots at auction to developers within 15 minute cycle of centre (about 2 miles).
No it isn't, they already struggle to get GPs to take up space allocated when it is part of development now, then developers come back (very happily) to get permission to just put up more houses there anyway. And funds already get allocated for public space, school provision etc, the exact amount and form depending on the development and area. Near me there was meant to be a new school as part of a massive development, but the official figures show actually it's not needed, it can all go toward existing schools because of lower birth rates etc so expanding them a little is better than a separate new school - so if they'd been forced to build and not just provide for the needed provision, it'd be pointless. The current system is not perfect and developers game it, but just declaring they 'must' come with X will mean less happens.
His statement is just NIMBYism dressed up in nicer clothes
Maybe. I do think these endless suburbs with no public services drive much of opposition to them. NIMBYism is perfectly rational reaction to development when it only comes with costs to existing residents - simply dismissing those concerns is not productive, and a bit unfair.
I don't think it is unfair in the slightest.
You are right people want services, we don't want to live in American suburbs. But I have witnessed hundreds of planning applications, maybe even thousands. I have seen people object to the big things and the small. I've seen them object to putting in doctor's surgeries. I've seen them object that there is not infrastructure before a development, but also oppose infrasutructure because it will bring development. I've seen parish councils object to a very small home for troubled young people on the basis that there being young people would be out of keeping with the character of the village. I've seen people object to a grain store next to some grain fields, that a small extension would be unacceptable because there will be traffic whilst it is built. I've seen them claim it's impossible to create reasonable drainage yet be proven wrong time and again. I've seen them spontaneously care about archaeology and newts and bats when never before. I've seen them object to skate parks because young people are thugs, that nursing homes should never be built, that gypsies and travellers shouldn't get to have pitches near their town or village, but also shouldn't be allowed to have them in the countryside, that ten houses in a village of 1000 is outrageous, that every green field is to be treated like green belt, that they should build on brownfield but then object to building on that brownfield land.
You name it and I've seen it. It isn't an unfair characterisation of NIMBYs.
Yes, some NIMBYs have genuine, sincere, and reasonable concerns (and are thus not really NIMBys). Yes, developers take the piss. But those do not represent the majority of objections that are received.
The balance in our system is completely our of whack, and incentives every crank who just does not want anyone else to build literally anything. That those people can cloak their desire to prevent development with the figleaf of concerns which are in fact reasonable elsewhere, doesn't make everyone making those arguments reasonable.
On the other hand, that’s how the Victorians and Edwardians built suburbs - put in the public services first. Town hall, schools, fire station, train station etc. Plots of land sold to multiple deeper along roads with gas and sewers already laid.
Because this was part of the marketing pitch - “look at all the shiny amenities already laid on”
Things getting competitive in the 'who can be the NIMBYiest' stakes. Sounds lovely, but I really don't think it would be. Ed Davey announces new Lib Dem locals policy that all new developments must come with a GP surgery - he says no new doctors = no new developments
Isn’t that actually YIMBYism? And actually a good idea?
Build a village centre with a pub, GP, dentist, cafe, shop, nursery, primary school. LTN road plan and utilities. Sell plots at auction to developers within 15 minute cycle of centre (about 2 miles).
No it isn't, they already struggle to get GPs to take up space allocated when it is part of development now, then developers come back (very happily) to get permission to just put up more houses there anyway. And funds already get allocated for public space, school provision etc, the exact amount and form depending on the development and area. Near me there was meant to be a new school as part of a massive development, but the official figures show actually it's not needed, it can all go toward existing schools because of lower birth rates etc so expanding them a little is better than a separate new school - so if they'd been forced to build and not just provide for the needed provision, it'd be pointless. The current system is not perfect and developers game it, but just declaring they 'must' come with X will mean less happens.
His statement is just NIMBYism dressed up in nicer clothes
Maybe. I do think these endless suburbs with no public services drive much of opposition to them. NIMBYism is perfectly rational reaction to development when it only comes with costs to existing residents - simply dismissing those concerns is not productive, and a bit unfair.
I don't think it is unfair in the slightest.
You are right people want services, we don't want to live in American suburbs. But I have witnessed hundreds of planning applications, maybe even thousands. I have seen people object to the big things and the small. I've seen them object to putting in doctor's surgeries. I've seen them object that there is not infrastructure before a development, but also oppose infrasutructure because it will bring development. I've seen parish councils object to a very small home for troubled young people on the basis that there being young people would be out of keeping with the character of the village. I've seen people object to a grain store next to some grain fields, that a small extension would be unacceptable because there will be traffic whilst it is built. I've seen them claim it's impossible to create reasonable drainage yet be proven wrong time and again. I've seen them spontaneously care about archaeology and newts and bats when never before. I've seen them object to skate parks because young people are thugs, that nursing homes should never be built, that gypsies and travellers shouldn't get to have pitches near their town or village, but also shouldn't be allowed to have them in the countryside, that ten houses in a village of 1000 is outrageous, that every green field is to be treated like green belt, that they should build on brownfield but then object to building on that brownfield land.
You name it and I've seen it. It isn't an unfair characterisation of NIMBYs.
Yes, some NIMBYs have genuine, sincere, and reasonable concerns (and are thus not really NIMBys). Yes, developers take the piss. But those do not represent the majority of objections that are received.
The balance in our system is completely our of whack, and incentives every crank who just does not want anyone else to build literally anything. That those people can cloak their desire to prevent development with the figleaf of concerns which are in fact reasonable elsewhere, doesn't make everyone making those arguments reasonable.
On the other hand, that’s how the Victorians and Edwardians built suburbs - put in the public services first. Town hall, schools, fire station, train station etc. Plots of land sold to multiple deeper along roads with gas and sewers already laid.
Because this was part of the marketing pitch - “look at all the shiny amenities already laid on”
As are we going to see mass disbarring of lawyers? And presumably anyone who lied on their asylum application should have it revoked with no right of appeal. You don’t get to “build a right to family life” while you are here under false pretences
Things like this are why rejoin won't happen. There is still a fundamental problem with the way the treaties are structured that allows a single country to make decisions unilaterally that impose long-term costs on others, à la Merkel in 2015.
Spain approves plan to give around 500,000 undocumented migrants legal status
All the same old arguments being trotted out there.
Interesting that most of them are Latin American.
Worth noting, of course, that until Spain gives them citizenship, they won't have the right to live and work elsewhere in the EU.
(Portugal has a similar -if smaller- issue with undocumented migrants from Brazil.)
Do you think that will stop a significant number of them from trying to move to northern European countries like the UK, Ireland, Germany, Netherlands, Sweden, etc?
Since the majority of them are South American, and Spain's economy has a high employment rate (one yf the reasons immigration has been encouraged), both language and employment factors will be if more relevance in discouraging that.
The collapse in the Leave vote is quite amazing. I always assumed that sheer emotion alone would have kept it around 50%. That this hasn't happened demonstrates the plunging ineptitude of those tasked with making Brexit a success. Or were they only interested in getting the thing over the line and didn't give a hoot about what followed?
It is pretty obvious to anyone who goes on holiday or business to the EU that Brexit was folly and that the Europeans have a better life than us, except perhaps in the areas of Britain that voted Remain.
Leavers are still resentful of the failure of their precious, which becomes more obvious over time. No one likes being slapped in the face by their poor choice every time they visit.
It's not obvious at all, and I don't think they do - not a bit of it. Brexit hasn't affected my European experience at all.
You're projecting.
Im still waiting for someone to explain how if the EU was so excellent for our economy how come we have slipped down all the ranking tables since we joined ?
36 years of Tory government since Britain joined.
Britain is [mostly] the country Tories made.
But the shit years were Labour...
In the 81 years since the end of WWII, the Tories have been in government for 49 years. 60%. Britain is so happy with how the country turned out that the Tories received a record vote share at the last general election.
A record low vote share.
Might it not be worth a bit of introspection over what went wrong with Tory Britain over the decades?
The record over the bulk of that 81 years is sorting Britain out after Labour left it worse than they inherited.
When Labour is next thrown out by the voters, that record will continue.
A bit of introsepction by Labour over their broken business model might be time better spent.
Govt achievements since WW2
Labour NHS, Welfare State, Council housing, universal secondary schooling
Conservatives Nuclear deterrent, water nationalisation (then privatised it, ooops!), city big bang. TU Reform, Europe (then Brexit)
Any other major lasting achievements for the blue team? Admittedly Labour rely very heavily on Attlee
Things getting competitive in the 'who can be the NIMBYiest' stakes. Sounds lovely, but I really don't think it would be. Ed Davey announces new Lib Dem locals policy that all new developments must come with a GP surgery - he says no new doctors = no new developments
Isn’t that actually YIMBYism? And actually a good idea?
Build a village centre with a pub, GP, dentist, cafe, shop, nursery, primary school. LTN road plan and utilities. Sell plots at auction to developers within 15 minute cycle of centre (about 2 miles).
No it isn't, they already struggle to get GPs to take up space allocated when it is part of development now, then developers come back (very happily) to get permission to just put up more houses there anyway. And funds already get allocated for public space, school provision etc, the exact amount and form depending on the development and area. Near me there was meant to be a new school as part of a massive development, but the official figures show actually it's not needed, it can all go toward existing schools because of lower birth rates etc so expanding them a little is better than a separate new school - so if they'd been forced to build and not just provide for the needed provision, it'd be pointless. The current system is not perfect and developers game it, but just declaring they 'must' come with X will mean less happens.
His statement is just NIMBYism dressed up in nicer clothes
Maybe. I do think these endless suburbs with no public services drive much of opposition to them. NIMBYism is perfectly rational reaction to development when it only comes with costs to existing residents - simply dismissing those concerns is not productive, and a bit unfair.
I don't think it is unfair in the slightest.
You are right people want services, we don't want to live in American suburbs. But I have witnessed hundreds of planning applications, maybe even thousands. I have seen people object to the big things and the small. I've seen them object to putting in doctor's surgeries. I've seen them object that there is not infrastructure before a development, but also oppose infrasutructure because it will bring development. I've seen parish councils object to a very small home for troubled young people on the basis that there being young people would be out of keeping with the character of the village. I've seen people object to a grain store next to some grain fields, that a small extension would be unacceptable because there will be traffic whilst it is built. I've seen them claim it's impossible to create reasonable drainage yet be proven wrong time and again. I've seen them spontaneously care about archaeology and newts and bats when never before. I've seen them object to skate parks because young people are thugs, that nursing homes should never be built, that gypsies and travellers shouldn't get to have pitches near their town or village, but also shouldn't be allowed to have them in the countryside, that ten houses in a village of 1000 is outrageous, that every green field is to be treated like green belt, that they should build on brownfield but then object to building on that brownfield land.
You name it and I've seen it. It isn't an unfair characterisation of NIMBYs.
Yes, some NIMBYs have genuine, sincere, and reasonable concerns (and are thus not really NIMBys). Yes, developers take the piss. But those do not represent the majority of objections that are received.
The balance in our system is completely our of whack, and incentives every crank who just does not want anyone else to build literally anything. That those people can cloak their desire to prevent development with the figleaf of concerns which are in fact reasonable elsewhere, doesn't make everyone making those arguments reasonable.
On the other hand, that’s how the Victorians and Edwardians built suburbs - put in the public services first. Town hall, schools, fire station, train station etc. Plots of land sold to multiple deeper along roads with gas and sewers already laid.
Because this was part of the marketing pitch - “look at all the shiny amenities already laid on”
Railway stations.
Well, we can’t have railway stations anymore.
For a start, you need a station master in full dress, with a gold pocket watch on a chain.
Things getting competitive in the 'who can be the NIMBYiest' stakes. Sounds lovely, but I really don't think it would be. Ed Davey announces new Lib Dem locals policy that all new developments must come with a GP surgery - he says no new doctors = no new developments
Isn’t that actually YIMBYism? And actually a good idea?
Build a village centre with a pub, GP, dentist, cafe, shop, nursery, primary school. LTN road plan and utilities. Sell plots at auction to developers within 15 minute cycle of centre (about 2 miles).
No it isn't, they already struggle to get GPs to take up space allocated when it is part of development now, then developers come back (very happily) to get permission to just put up more houses there anyway. And funds already get allocated for public space, school provision etc, the exact amount and form depending on the development and area. Near me there was meant to be a new school as part of a massive development, but the official figures show actually it's not needed, it can all go toward existing schools because of lower birth rates etc so expanding them a little is better than a separate new school - so if they'd been forced to build and not just provide for the needed provision, it'd be pointless. The current system is not perfect and developers game it, but just declaring they 'must' come with X will mean less happens.
His statement is just NIMBYism dressed up in nicer clothes
Maybe. I do think these endless suburbs with no public services drive much of opposition to them. NIMBYism is perfectly rational reaction to development when it only comes with costs to existing residents - simply dismissing those concerns is not productive, and a bit unfair.
I don't think it is unfair in the slightest.
You are right people want services, we don't want to live in American suburbs. But I have witnessed hundreds of planning applications, maybe even thousands. I have seen people object to the big things and the small. I've seen them object to putting in doctor's surgeries. I've seen them object that there is not infrastructure before a development, but also oppose infrasutructure because it will bring development. I've seen parish councils object to a very small home for troubled young people on the basis that there being young people would be out of keeping with the character of the village. I've seen people object to a grain store next to some grain fields, that a small extension would be unacceptable because there will be traffic whilst it is built. I've seen them claim it's impossible to create reasonable drainage yet be proven wrong time and again. I've seen them spontaneously care about archaeology and newts and bats when never before. I've seen them object to skate parks because young people are thugs, that nursing homes should never be built, that gypsies and travellers shouldn't get to have pitches near their town or village, but also shouldn't be allowed to have them in the countryside, that ten houses in a village of 1000 is outrageous, that every green field is to be treated like green belt, that they should build on brownfield but then object to building on that brownfield land.
You name it and I've seen it. It isn't an unfair characterisation of NIMBYs.
Yes, some NIMBYs have genuine, sincere, and reasonable concerns (and are thus not really NIMBys). Yes, developers take the piss. But those do not represent the majority of objections that are received.
The balance in our system is completely our of whack, and incentives every crank who just does not want anyone else to build literally anything. That those people can cloak their desire to prevent development with the figleaf of concerns which are in fact reasonable elsewhere, doesn't make everyone making those arguments reasonable.
On the other hand, that’s how the Victorians and Edwardians built suburbs - put in the public services first. Town hall, schools, fire station, train station etc. Plots of land sold to multiple deeper along roads with gas and sewers already laid.
Because this was part of the marketing pitch - “look at all the shiny amenities already laid on”
Well yes- I'm currently at the platform of a rail station built on exactly that basis. However, there are a couple of caveats.
First one is that the problem often isn't the Capex of the building, it's the Opex liability of running it. Another planned station in the borough, planned to serve a massive housing development on brownfield, has got stuck in limbo for years because of that.
Second is that, although it's deffo the right way to develop, as shown by Duchy of Cornwall schemes and similar... I don't think it defangs Nimbies. I'm pretty sure that it's more 'reasons to justify visceral opposition' than 'opposition because of these reasons'.
It's just how the human mind works. Rational argument and evidence are great, but we mostly don't use them. It's why science is so powerful, but also so peculiar and effortful.
Mostly we (all of us, me included) have a set of instincts and prejudices that need a lot to shift. Even the fabled Conservative drift with age was only about ten percent of the electorate (up to 2017 or so, when everything went weird).
The collapse in the Leave vote is quite amazing. I always assumed that sheer emotion alone would have kept it around 50%. That this hasn't happened demonstrates the plunging ineptitude of those tasked with making Brexit a success. Or were they only interested in getting the thing over the line and didn't give a hoot about what followed?
It is pretty obvious to anyone who goes on holiday or business to the EU that Brexit was folly and that the Europeans have a better life than us, except perhaps in the areas of Britain that voted Remain.
Leavers are still resentful of the failure of their precious, which becomes more obvious over time. No one likes being slapped in the face by their poor choice every time they visit.
It's not obvious at all, and I don't think they do - not a bit of it. Brexit hasn't affected my European experience at all.
You're projecting.
Im still waiting for someone to explain how if the EU was so excellent for our economy how come we have slipped down all the ranking tables since we joined ?
36 years of Tory government since Britain joined.
Britain is [mostly] the country Tories made.
But the shit years were Labour...
In the 81 years since the end of WWII, the Tories have been in government for 49 years. 60%. Britain is so happy with how the country turned out that the Tories received a record vote share at the last general election.
A record low vote share.
Might it not be worth a bit of introspection over what went wrong with Tory Britain over the decades?
The record over the bulk of that 81 years is sorting Britain out after Labour left it worse than they inherited.
When Labour is next thrown out by the voters, that record will continue.
A bit of introsepction by Labour over their broken business model might be time better spent.
Govt achievements since WW2
Labour NHS, Welfare State, Council housing, universal secondary schooling
Conservatives Nuclear deterrent, water nationalisation (then privatised it, ooops!), city big bang. TU Reform, Europe (then Brexit)
Any other major lasting achievements for the blue team? Admittedly Labour rely very heavily on Attlee
The British nuclear bomb came under Attlee, commencing the programme in 1947.
Alastair Campbell on his own today talking about Orban's defeat and how all the 'goodies' on the centre left are taking advantage big time and the disgusting creatures on the populist right are crumbling. Starmer sadly seems to be wobbling in the middle as he so often does.
Things getting competitive in the 'who can be the NIMBYiest' stakes. Sounds lovely, but I really don't think it would be. Ed Davey announces new Lib Dem locals policy that all new developments must come with a GP surgery - he says no new doctors = no new developments
Isn’t that actually YIMBYism? And actually a good idea?
Build a village centre with a pub, GP, dentist, cafe, shop, nursery, primary school. LTN road plan and utilities. Sell plots at auction to developers within 15 minute cycle of centre (about 2 miles).
No it isn't, they already struggle to get GPs to take up space allocated when it is part of development now, then developers come back (very happily) to get permission to just put up more houses there anyway. And funds already get allocated for public space, school provision etc, the exact amount and form depending on the development and area. Near me there was meant to be a new school as part of a massive development, but the official figures show actually it's not needed, it can all go toward existing schools because of lower birth rates etc so expanding them a little is better than a separate new school - so if they'd been forced to build and not just provide for the needed provision, it'd be pointless. The current system is not perfect and developers game it, but just declaring they 'must' come with X will mean less happens.
His statement is just NIMBYism dressed up in nicer clothes
Maybe. I do think these endless suburbs with no public services drive much of opposition to them. NIMBYism is perfectly rational reaction to development when it only comes with costs to existing residents - simply dismissing those concerns is not productive, and a bit unfair.
I don't think it is unfair in the slightest.
You are right people want services, we don't want to live in American suburbs. But I have witnessed hundreds of planning applications, maybe even thousands. I have seen people object to the big things and the small. I've seen them object to putting in doctor's surgeries. I've seen them object that there is not infrastructure before a development, but also oppose infrasutructure because it will bring development. I've seen parish councils object to a very small home for troubled young people on the basis that there being young people would be out of keeping with the character of the village. I've seen people object to a grain store next to some grain fields, that a small extension would be unacceptable because there will be traffic whilst it is built. I've seen them claim it's impossible to create reasonable drainage yet be proven wrong time and again. I've seen them spontaneously care about archaeology and newts and bats when never before. I've seen them object to skate parks because young people are thugs, that nursing homes should never be built, that gypsies and travellers shouldn't get to have pitches near their town or village, but also shouldn't be allowed to have them in the countryside, that ten houses in a village of 1000 is outrageous, that every green field is to be treated like green belt, that they should build on brownfield but then object to building on that brownfield land.
You name it and I've seen it. It isn't an unfair characterisation of NIMBYs.
Yes, some NIMBYs have genuine, sincere, and reasonable concerns (and are thus not really NIMBys). Yes, developers take the piss. But those do not represent the majority of objections that are received.
The balance in our system is completely our of whack, and incentives every crank who just does not want anyone else to build literally anything. That those people can cloak their desire to prevent development with the figleaf of concerns which are in fact reasonable elsewhere, doesn't make everyone making those arguments reasonable.
On the other hand, that’s how the Victorians and Edwardians built suburbs - put in the public services first. Town hall, schools, fire station, train station etc. Plots of land sold to multiple deeper along roads with gas and sewers already laid.
Because this was part of the marketing pitch - “look at all the shiny amenities already laid on”
Railway stations.
Well, we can’t have railway stations anymore.
For a start, you need a station master in full dress, with a gold pocket watch on a chain.
So it’s train stations from here on in.
So last century or two. Modern title is multi-modal (a.k.a. Bus/Train/Tram/Taxi/Metro). Designated by a Ministry of Transport and Sustainable Mobility (Spain)
Things getting competitive in the 'who can be the NIMBYiest' stakes. Sounds lovely, but I really don't think it would be. Ed Davey announces new Lib Dem locals policy that all new developments must come with a GP surgery - he says no new doctors = no new developments
Isn’t that actually YIMBYism? And actually a good idea?
Build a village centre with a pub, GP, dentist, cafe, shop, nursery, primary school. LTN road plan and utilities. Sell plots at auction to developers within 15 minute cycle of centre (about 2 miles).
No it isn't, they already struggle to get GPs to take up space allocated when it is part of development now, then developers come back (very happily) to get permission to just put up more houses there anyway. And funds already get allocated for public space, school provision etc, the exact amount and form depending on the development and area. Near me there was meant to be a new school as part of a massive development, but the official figures show actually it's not needed, it can all go toward existing schools because of lower birth rates etc so expanding them a little is better than a separate new school - so if they'd been forced to build and not just provide for the needed provision, it'd be pointless. The current system is not perfect and developers game it, but just declaring they 'must' come with X will mean less happens.
His statement is just NIMBYism dressed up in nicer clothes
Maybe. I do think these endless suburbs with no public services drive much of opposition to them. NIMBYism is perfectly rational reaction to development when it only comes with costs to existing residents - simply dismissing those concerns is not productive, and a bit unfair.
I don't think it is unfair in the slightest.
You are right people want services, we don't want to live in American suburbs. But I have witnessed hundreds of planning applications, maybe even thousands. I have seen people object to the big things and the small. I've seen them object to putting in doctor's surgeries. I've seen them object that there is not infrastructure before a development, but also oppose infrasutructure because it will bring development. I've seen parish councils object to a very small home for troubled young people on the basis that there being young people would be out of keeping with the character of the village. I've seen people object to a grain store next to some grain fields, that a small extension would be unacceptable because there will be traffic whilst it is built. I've seen them claim it's impossible to create reasonable drainage yet be proven wrong time and again. I've seen them spontaneously care about archaeology and newts and bats when never before. I've seen them object to skate parks because young people are thugs, that nursing homes should never be built, that gypsies and travellers shouldn't get to have pitches near their town or village, but also shouldn't be allowed to have them in the countryside, that ten houses in a village of 1000 is outrageous, that every green field is to be treated like green belt, that they should build on brownfield but then object to building on that brownfield land.
You name it and I've seen it. It isn't an unfair characterisation of NIMBYs.
Yes, some NIMBYs have genuine, sincere, and reasonable concerns (and are thus not really NIMBys). Yes, developers take the piss. But those do not represent the majority of objections that are received.
The balance in our system is completely our of whack, and incentives every crank who just does not want anyone else to build literally anything. That those people can cloak their desire to prevent development with the figleaf of concerns which are in fact reasonable elsewhere, doesn't make everyone making those arguments reasonable.
On the other hand, that’s how the Victorians and Edwardians built suburbs - put in the public services first. Town hall, schools, fire station, train station etc. Plots of land sold to multiple deeper along roads with gas and sewers already laid.
Because this was part of the marketing pitch - “look at all the shiny amenities already laid on”
Well yes- I'm currently at the platform of a rail station built on exactly that basis. However, there are a couple of caveats.
First one is that the problem often isn't the Capex of the building, it's the Opex liability of running it. Another planned station in the borough, planned to serve a massive housing development on brownfield, has got stuck in limbo for years because of that.
Second is that, although it's deffo the right way to develop, as shown by Duchy of Cornwall schemes and similar... I don't think it defangs Nimbies. I'm pretty sure that it's more 'reasons to justify visceral opposition' than 'opposition because of these reasons'.
It's just how the human mind works. Rational argument and evidence are great, but we mostly don't use them. It's why science is so powerful, but also so peculiar and effortful.
Mostly we (all of us, me included) have a set of instincts and prejudices that need a lot to shift. Even the fabled Conservative drift with age was only about ten percent of the electorate (up to 2017 or so, when everything went weird).
Which kinda goes back to the theme of the header.
Defeating NIMBYism is like peeling an onion.
Building the services first, preventing a house building monopoly, preventing them building shite and giving some thought to construction noise… maybe (shock! horror!) building a new road for the trucks?
That won’t defeat the NIMBYs - but it will cut their support.
Things like this are why rejoin won't happen. There is still a fundamental problem with the way the treaties are structured that allows a single country to make decisions unilaterally that impose long-term costs on others, à la Merkel in 2015.
Spain approves plan to give around 500,000 undocumented migrants legal status
All the same old arguments being trotted out there.
Interesting that most of them are Latin American.
Worth noting, of course, that until Spain gives them citizenship, they won't have the right to live and work elsewhere in the EU.
(Portugal has a similar -if smaller- issue with undocumented migrants from Brazil.)
Do you think that will stop a significant number of them from trying to move to northern European countries like the UK, Ireland, Germany, Netherlands, Sweden, etc?
Since the majority of them are South American, and Spain's economy has a high employment rate (one yf the reasons immigration has been encouraged), both language and employment factors will be if more relevance in discouraging that.
Alastair Campbell on his own today talking about Orban's defeat and how all the 'goodies' on the centre left are taking advantage big time and the disgusting creatures on the populist right are crumbling. Starmer sadly seems to be wobbling in the middle as he so often does.
Things getting competitive in the 'who can be the NIMBYiest' stakes. Sounds lovely, but I really don't think it would be. Ed Davey announces new Lib Dem locals policy that all new developments must come with a GP surgery - he says no new doctors = no new developments
Isn’t that actually YIMBYism? And actually a good idea?
Build a village centre with a pub, GP, dentist, cafe, shop, nursery, primary school. LTN road plan and utilities. Sell plots at auction to developers within 15 minute cycle of centre (about 2 miles).
No it isn't, they already struggle to get GPs to take up space allocated when it is part of development now, then developers come back (very happily) to get permission to just put up more houses there anyway. And funds already get allocated for public space, school provision etc, the exact amount and form depending on the development and area. Near me there was meant to be a new school as part of a massive development, but the official figures show actually it's not needed, it can all go toward existing schools because of lower birth rates etc so expanding them a little is better than a separate new school - so if they'd been forced to build and not just provide for the needed provision, it'd be pointless. The current system is not perfect and developers game it, but just declaring they 'must' come with X will mean less happens.
His statement is just NIMBYism dressed up in nicer clothes
Maybe. I do think these endless suburbs with no public services drive much of opposition to them. NIMBYism is perfectly rational reaction to development when it only comes with costs to existing residents - simply dismissing those concerns is not productive, and a bit unfair.
I don't think it is unfair in the slightest.
You are right people want services, we don't want to live in American suburbs. But I have witnessed hundreds of planning applications, maybe even thousands. I have seen people object to the big things and the small. I've seen them object to putting in doctor's surgeries. I've seen them object that there is not infrastructure before a development, but also oppose infrasutructure because it will bring development. I've seen parish councils object to a very small home for troubled young people on the basis that there being young people would be out of keeping with the character of the village. I've seen people object to a grain store next to some grain fields, that a small extension would be unacceptable because there will be traffic whilst it is built. I've seen them claim it's impossible to create reasonable drainage yet be proven wrong time and again. I've seen them spontaneously care about archaeology and newts and bats when never before. I've seen them object to skate parks because young people are thugs, that nursing homes should never be built, that gypsies and travellers shouldn't get to have pitches near their town or village, but also shouldn't be allowed to have them in the countryside, that ten houses in a village of 1000 is outrageous, that every green field is to be treated like green belt, that they should build on brownfield but then object to building on that brownfield land.
You name it and I've seen it. It isn't an unfair characterisation of NIMBYs.
Yes, some NIMBYs have genuine, sincere, and reasonable concerns (and are thus not really NIMBys). Yes, developers take the piss. But those do not represent the majority of objections that are received.
The balance in our system is completely our of whack, and incentives every crank who just does not want anyone else to build literally anything. That those people can cloak their desire to prevent development with the figleaf of concerns which are in fact reasonable elsewhere, doesn't make everyone making those arguments reasonable.
On the other hand, that’s how the Victorians and Edwardians built suburbs - put in the public services first. Town hall, schools, fire station, train station etc. Plots of land sold to multiple deeper along roads with gas and sewers already laid.
Because this was part of the marketing pitch - “look at all the shiny amenities already laid on”
Well yes- I'm currently at the platform of a rail station built on exactly that basis. However, there are a couple of caveats.
First one is that the problem often isn't the Capex of the building, it's the Opex liability of running it. Another planned station in the borough, planned to serve a massive housing development on brownfield, has got stuck in limbo for years because of that.
Second is that, although it's deffo the right way to develop, as shown by Duchy of Cornwall schemes and similar... I don't think it defangs Nimbies. I'm pretty sure that it's more 'reasons to justify visceral opposition' than 'opposition because of these reasons'.
It's just how the human mind works. Rational argument and evidence are great, but we mostly don't use them. It's why science is so powerful, but also so peculiar and effortful.
Mostly we (all of us, me included) have a set of instincts and prejudices that need a lot to shift. Even the fabled Conservative drift with age was only about ten percent of the electorate (up to 2017 or so, when everything went weird).
Which kinda goes back to the theme of the header.
NIMBYism is merely local democracy in action. Nothing wrong with that, and very often legitimate.
It isn't too hard to get neighbourhood plans approved that meet housing targets if you simply consult residents and actually listen to them. My local LibDem councillor has successfully led on this.
As are we going to see mass disbarring of lawyers? And presumably anyone who lied on their asylum application should have it revoked with no right of appeal. You don’t get to “build a right to family life” while you are here under false pretences
Fat chance, but since up to 35% of asylum claims were on expired student, tourist or work visas last year - many in this manner - the government will now have to respond.
We’ve been assured it doesn’t happen and been told it’s racist and homophobic for claiming it.
No doubt @bondegezou will be on here shortly to tell us you don't get asylum successfully approved unless it's a bona fide genuine claim and absolutely no-one is in a 4* hotel.
As are we going to see mass disbarring of lawyers? And presumably anyone who lied on their asylum application should have it revoked with no right of appeal. You don’t get to “build a right to family life” while you are here under false pretences
Fat chance, but since up to 35% of asylum claims were on expired student, tourist or work visas last year - many in this manner - the government will now have to respond.
They’ll talk tough and do fuck all.
Just look at the pushback from Labour MPs on the reasonable changes to ILR which probably won’t go through now.
The cost of which you workers will need to cover. Work harder. Do more. Labours client vote needs your money.
Things like this are why rejoin won't happen. There is still a fundamental problem with the way the treaties are structured that allows a single country to make decisions unilaterally that impose long-term costs on others, à la Merkel in 2015.
Spain approves plan to give around 500,000 undocumented migrants legal status
All the same old arguments being trotted out there.
Interesting that most of them are Latin American.
Worth noting, of course, that until Spain gives them citizenship, they won't have the right to live and work elsewhere in the EU.
(Portugal has a similar -if smaller- issue with undocumented migrants from Brazil.)
Do you think that will stop a significant number of them from trying to move to northern European countries like the UK, Ireland, Germany, Netherlands, Sweden, etc?
Since the majority of them are South American, and Spain's economy has a high employment rate (one yf the reasons immigration has been encouraged), both language and employment factors will be if more relevance in discouraging that.
I have Spanish family who spent most of their years outside Spain due to the lack of work. Ironic.
The Spanish economy seems much improved in recent years, so things change.
That’s a comfort for Battlebus’s Spanish family. For sure.
30 years in Switzerland as a Gastarbeiter. Full Swiss pension in CHF and retiring to a low cost € nation. Seems to have worked out.
But he and the family didn't/doesn't have the right to live there* and had to return which is different from the UK's way of handling foreign gastarbeiter. Eventually had to leave and take early pension retirement as his out-of-work benefits dried up.
Am indecisive as to whether the Swiss or UK way is better.
Yes, I saw that. Is it actually true or just Reform trying to kill SLAB?
SLab have been making ‘we’ll do whatever it takes’ noises for a while now, so on balance yes. Plus there’s always the Sarwar babbling any old shite all the time factor.
Comments
Even in intra-EU migration we see similar patterns. After accession Britain got disproportionately more Poles, Lithuanians and other North-East Europeans than South East Europeans who went in large numbers to other Southern European countries.
OK. I get it's not fair, and sort of get the moral arguments, but while we have more jobseekers than jobs, surely it makes sense to give jobs to those people who want them and let the shirkers shirk from home rather than force them into jobs for which they are ill-suited and cannot or will not perform well.
It really does matter more who says something than what they say.
Robert Peston
@Peston
As I just said on ITV’s News at Ten, ministerial and industry sources say the UK is two or three weeks away from shortages of diesel and jet fuel, though petrol suppliers are healthier. This means Starmer’s new Middle East Response Committee will soon face difficult decisions on how to make sure supplies get to critical users, how to ration more generally and how to price. But, as I mentioned, ministers say supplies and stocks of petrol remain decent, so no need to queue at pumps
https://x.com/Peston/status/2044172237498888450
I predict queues tomorrow.
And also it is late and I am tired after a day of unpaid care work, but in a bizarre moment, I first briefly read this as "Middle Earth Response Committee" and had a couple of weird images of wizards with staffs.
Isn't he the expert on that?
And we know what he thinks of experts.
It’s just one of those interesting ideas that is outside the cosy political consensus. This is a country that can’t even reform energy pricing to emulate the system other countries have; I welcome anyone actually giving something new a go.
Telegraph first with breaking news.
Ed Davey announces new Lib Dem locals policy that all new developments must come with a GP surgery - he says no new doctors = no new developments
Davey says funding guarantees for GPs must be in place before any residents move in to new builds
https://nitter.poast.org/hoffman_noa/status/2043996051707686957#m
And he was a right bloody lefty green.
The last 24 hours with no liquids.
I haven't died before so am unlikely to do so this time.
The rest are all so comically opposed to any kind of development, stubbornly in support of turning the country into a frozen in aspic slightly twee museum, that it's hard to take them seriously.
As I just said on ITV’s News at Ten, ministerial and industry sources say the UK is two or three weeks away from shortages of diesel and jet fuel, though petrol suppliers are healthier. This means Starmer’s new Middle East Response Committee will soon face difficult decisions on how to make sure supplies get to critical users, how to ration more generally and how to price. But, as I mentioned, ministers say supplies and stocks of petrol remain decent, so no need to queue at pumps
Build a village centre with a pub, GP, dentist, cafe, shop, nursery, primary school. LTN road plan and utilities. Sell plots at auction to developers within 15 minute cycle of centre (about 2 miles). You could fit 100,000 people in that.
Debt per resident Woking £20k, Spelthorne £10k
Honourable mentions to Warrington, Runnymede, Barking, Birmingham, Croydon, Thurrock etc
https://x.com/lfg_uk/status/2043993979352502441#m
His statement is just NIMBYism dressed up in nicer clothes
So you may as well start implementing what you need to do now as that gives you leeway...
We have at least 1000 new houses going up each year with not a new facility in sight. Or even a single shop.
Strangely, the roads seem very busy and services are struggling.
Trumps humiliation in sending Vance to support Orban. It's bad news for Farage. Hopefully terminal
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=paNoUVmZwcQ
"The energy shock from the Iran war will hit the UK the hardest of the world's advanced economies, the International Monetary Fund (IMF) has forecast."
This is their headline on the midnight R4 news, too.
As far as I can see, it just means they have downgraded the UK's growth more than other nations from their January estimate, which was rather optimistic.
Overall growth in the UK is still predicted to be higher than Germany, Italy, or Japan.
So the flap is somewhat misleading.
You are right people want services, we don't want to live in American suburbs. But I have witnessed hundreds of planning applications, maybe even thousands. I have seen people object to the big things and the small. I've seen them object to putting in doctor's surgeries. I've seen them object that there is not infrastructure before a development, but also oppose infrasutructure because it will bring development. I've seen parish councils object to a very small home for troubled young people on the basis that there being young people would be out of keeping with the character of the village. I've seen people object to a grain store next to some grain fields, that a small extension would be unacceptable because there will be traffic whilst it is built. I've seen them claim it's impossible to create reasonable drainage yet be proven wrong time and again. I've seen them spontaneously care about archaeology and newts and bats when never before. I've seen them object to skate parks because young people are thugs, that nursing homes should never be built, that gypsies and travellers shouldn't get to have pitches near their town or village, but also shouldn't be allowed to have them in the countryside, that ten houses in a village of 1000 is outrageous, that every green field is to be treated like green belt, that they should build on brownfield but then object to building on that brownfield land.
You name it and I've seen it. It isn't an unfair characterisation of NIMBYs.
Yes, some NIMBYs have genuine, sincere, and reasonable concerns (and are thus not really NIMBys). Yes, developers take the piss. But those do not represent the majority of objections that are received.
The balance in our system is completely our of whack, and incentives every crank who just does not want anyone else to build literally anything. That those people can cloak their desire to prevent development with the figleaf of concerns which are in fact reasonable elsewhere, doesn't make everyone making those arguments reasonable.
So depending who the jinx is the next issue (fuel rationing) will be Friday 24th if Mrs Eek is the jinx (she’s on holiday with her best friend), or May 10th if I am
Sorry - rest of the year is currently UK apart from a concert in July
https://x.com/GBPolitcs/status/2044173460121788800
Sharon Osbourne says she will be at Tommy Robinson's 'Unite the Kingdom' march on May 16th
Spain already has 15 times as many registered immigrants (pretty well the highest in Europe).
His much difference do you think this will make ?
https://www.migrationpolicy.org/article/spain-immigration-system-evolution
❗️Why it matters: This incident could turn out to be a significant violation by Israel of the American and international sanctions imposed on Russia and its "shadow fleet."
❓If that's indeed the case, this is a serious event that contradicts the declared policy of the Israeli government
🚢Ukraine is demanding that Israel stop the Russian ship, which Ukraine claims is subject to international sanctions, and prevent it from leaving the port
🕵️Behind the scenes: A senior Ukrainian official told me that Ukrainian intelligence identified the Russian ship's preparations to leave the Black Sea with a cargo of grain originating from territories Russia seized from Ukraine
🇺🇦Ukrainian intelligence prepared a dossier with information on the matter and transferred it to the Attorney General's Office in Ukraine on March 20
🇺🇦🇮🇱On March 27, Ukraine's Ambassador to Israel Yevgeny Korniychuk met with senior officials at the Foreign Ministry in Jerusalem, passed on the information, warned that this was a violation of sanctions, and requested that the ship not be allowed to dock in Israel..
https://x.com/BarakRavid/status/2044111045552185668
The petro-state Iran came the closest.
As we saw in the pandemic, you really don’t hate the media enough sometimes.
He absolutely knows that his comments are going to lead to panic buying this morning, but he just can’t help himself.
Sometimes it’s best to keep your mouth shut until any official announcement from government and industry, rather than trying to front run what’s actually happening and make the situation worse.
https://www.msn.com/en-nz/news/other/kremlin-says-putin-was-never-friends-with-orban-after-election-loss/ar-AA20SfgO
What Winsor Davies said.
Yeah, right. We know how this plays out.
JD Vance: Stopping funding for Ukraine is one of the things I’m proudest we’ve done in this administration.
https://x.com/RpsAgainstTrump/status/2044195439008739777
After all, his boss is going to be distinctly unhappy that the US has attacked one of his key puppet states.
Prime Minister Mark Carney and 🇫🇮 President Alexander Stubb have taken the ice for some drills with us!
https://x.com/PWHL_Ottawa/status/2044099339971162390
Russia’s government paper: “What went against Orbán was his unprecedentedly long time in office...16 years in a row, 20 in total. The fatigue factor, growing tired of the same people is psychologically understandable.”
https://x.com/BBCSteveR/status/2043948756480012341
Skimming his Wiki entry, it seems he tried to stand as an MP in 2024, but was blackballed by Rishi Sunak. He'd fit in the current Tory party to my eye.
That's an interesting one - can you stand to be an MP without leaving the Lords, or do you have to resign first (as happens when a Congressman stands for Senate in Usonia aiui)?
Certainly the failure of the Cons do actually do much of what they said they were going to do - such as the failure to implement suitable testing of food after the EU stopped their regime leaving us wide open, aiui is a reason why I support Starmer improving the relationship, and why I want the Tories in the dustbin of history unless they become sane.
A bit like Putin's, really.
Yes, it was a case of 'everything Moscow!'
What do I wish you .... focus on the things normally crowded out, and enlightenment?
This reminds of George Osborne doing the 5:2 diet, before he got his vineyard in the garden:
https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/grace-dent-george-osborne-s-on-the-5-2-diet-let-s-hope-he-isn-t-making-budget-decisions-when-he-s-really-really-hungry-9197794.html
@MaxPB for one has been saying this for a long time:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c937wldkkw8o
Is there no beginning to Pesto’s knowledge?
Because this was part of the marketing pitch - “look at all the shiny amenities already laid on”
They're not criminal lawyers, they're criminal lawyers.
Odds that any of these criminals end up in jail for helping clients commit fraud? Guessing sub 0.01%
Labour NHS, Welfare State, Council housing, universal secondary schooling
Conservatives Nuclear deterrent, water nationalisation (then privatised it, ooops!), city big bang. TU Reform, Europe (then Brexit)
Any other major lasting achievements for the blue team?
Admittedly Labour rely very heavily on Attlee
For a start, you need a station master in full dress, with a gold pocket watch on a chain.
So it’s train stations from here on in.
We’ve been assured it doesn’t happen and been told it’s racist and homophobic for claiming it.
First one is that the problem often isn't the Capex of the building, it's the Opex liability of running it. Another planned station in the borough, planned to serve a massive housing development on brownfield, has got stuck in limbo for years because of that.
Second is that, although it's deffo the right way to develop, as shown by Duchy of Cornwall schemes and similar... I don't think it defangs Nimbies. I'm pretty sure that it's more 'reasons to justify visceral opposition' than 'opposition because of these reasons'.
It's just how the human mind works. Rational argument and evidence are great, but we mostly don't use them. It's why science is so powerful, but also so peculiar and effortful.
Mostly we (all of us, me included) have a set of instincts and prejudices that need a lot to shift. Even the fabled Conservative drift with age was only about ten percent of the electorate (up to 2017 or so, when everything went weird).
Which kinda goes back to the theme of the header.
Some rare inspiration from the centre left.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HxU_h5JNhBY
BREAKING
Anas Sarwar offered to work with Reform to remove the SNP. Malcolm Offord made the claim during a live Channel 4 election debate.
Watch here.
https://x.com/msm_monitor/status/2044156852603158633?s=61&t=LYVEHh2mqFy1oUJAdCfe-Q
Building the services first, preventing a house building monopoly, preventing them building shite and giving some thought to construction noise… maybe (shock! horror!) building a new road for the trucks?
That won’t defeat the NIMBYs - but it will cut their support.
Vance is still a shit.
It isn't too hard to get neighbourhood plans approved that meet housing targets if you simply consult residents and actually listen to them. My local LibDem councillor has successfully led on this.
1NEW THREAD
Just look at the pushback from Labour MPs on the reasonable changes to ILR which probably won’t go through now.
The cost of which you workers will need to cover. Work harder. Do more. Labours client vote needs your money.
But he and the family didn't/doesn't have the right to live there* and had to return which is different from the UK's way of handling foreign gastarbeiter. Eventually had to leave and take early pension retirement as his out-of-work benefits dried up.
Am indecisive as to whether the Swiss or UK way is better.
*Might have changed with the EU agreement
https://x.com/rosscolquhoun/status/2044154168496038140?s=61&t=LYVEHh2mqFy1oUJAdCfe-Q