politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » On Grand National day Marf links the big race to the genera
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » On Grand National day Marf links the big race to the general election
Over the years Marf’s cartoons have enriched the site but unfortunately the only way we’ve been able to help her financially is though encouraging people to buy originals or prints of her work and allocating part of the proceeds when we’ve had a PB appeal.
Comments
-
Thirst?
Edit: is Marf calling Ed Miliband a horse? If so, perhaps time to roll out the long-deceased 'Mr Ed' joke?0 -
In for a penny in for a pound
Oh and first
Edit - or maybe not first
Donated anyway.0 -
Yes. I think that the horse MR ED is what Marf is referring to.JosiasJessop said:Thirst?
Edit: is Marf calling Ed Miliband a horse? If so, perhaps time to roll out the long-deceased 'Mr Ed' joke?
0 -
It's a nursery rhyme about an imaginary being that can actually talk to humans.....
Sooooo.......Nothing like Ed then.0 -
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/general-election-2015/11528903/Green-Belt-is-safe-under-us-until-2020-Conservative-manifesto-will-say.html
"The Green Belt will be safe for another five years under a Conservative Government, David Cameron will pledge next week.
The Prime Minister and Tory leader will say that the protected greenfield land around towns and cities will not get any smaller in its manifesto next week."
I'm sure this will have been extensively poll tested but I can't help feeling it's increasingly questionable electorally. They risk being painted as protecting the interests of the 'have houses' against the young.0 -
Glad to donate £100
-
Or concrete everything and destroy the future of our young people.williamglenn said:http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/general-election-2015/11528903/Green-Belt-is-safe-under-us-until-2020-Conservative-manifesto-will-say.html
"The Green Belt will be safe for another five years under a Conservative Government, David Cameron will pledge next week.
The Prime Minister and Tory leader will say that the protected greenfield land around towns and cities will not get any smaller in its manifesto next week."
I'm sure this will have been extensively poll tested but I can't help feeling it's increasingly questionable electorally. They risk being painted as protecting the interests of the 'have houses' against the young.
Can't win really can he....?0 -
The young don't vote.williamglenn said:http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/general-election-2015/11528903/Green-Belt-is-safe-under-us-until-2020-Conservative-manifesto-will-say.html
"The Green Belt will be safe for another five years under a Conservative Government, David Cameron will pledge next week.
The Prime Minister and Tory leader will say that the protected greenfield land around towns and cities will not get any smaller in its manifesto next week."
I'm sure this will have been extensively poll tested but I can't help feeling it's increasingly questionable electorally. They risk being painted as protecting the interests of the 'have houses' against the young.0 -
So a London home owner I will personally benefit from this. But it is economically absurd and irrational.williamglenn said:http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/general-election-2015/11528903/Green-Belt-is-safe-under-us-until-2020-Conservative-manifesto-will-say.html
"The Green Belt will be safe for another five years under a Conservative Government, David Cameron will pledge next week.
The Prime Minister and Tory leader will say that the protected greenfield land around towns and cities will not get any smaller in its manifesto next week."
I'm sure this will have been extensively poll tested but I can't help feeling it's increasingly questionable electorally. They risk being painted as protecting the interests of the 'have houses' against the young.0 -
Protecting the green belt is about more than housing and industry. It's about everyone's quality of life, and preserving something that, once lost, will be nearly impossible to regain.rcs1000 said:
So a London home owner I will personally benefit from this. But it is economically absurd and irrational.williamglenn said:http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/general-election-2015/11528903/Green-Belt-is-safe-under-us-until-2020-Conservative-manifesto-will-say.html
"The Green Belt will be safe for another five years under a Conservative Government, David Cameron will pledge next week.
The Prime Minister and Tory leader will say that the protected greenfield land around towns and cities will not get any smaller in its manifesto next week."
I'm sure this will have been extensively poll tested but I can't help feeling it's increasingly questionable electorally. They risk being painted as protecting the interests of the 'have houses' against the young.0 -
Worms are useful for comedic purposes only: you can laugh at people who take them seriously.TweetFinder said:0 -
But he had a touch of class, Mike.....MikeSmithson said:
Yes. I think that the horse MR ED is what Marf is referring to.JosiasJessop said:Thirst?
Edit: is Marf calling Ed Miliband a horse? If so, perhaps time to roll out the long-deceased 'Mr Ed' joke?0 -
It's another dickhead policy. Really is this the best the Conservatives have to offer ?rcs1000 said:
So a London home owner I will personally benefit from this. But it is economically absurd and irrational.williamglenn said:http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/general-election-2015/11528903/Green-Belt-is-safe-under-us-until-2020-Conservative-manifesto-will-say.html
"The Green Belt will be safe for another five years under a Conservative Government, David Cameron will pledge next week.
The Prime Minister and Tory leader will say that the protected greenfield land around towns and cities will not get any smaller in its manifesto next week."
I'm sure this will have been extensively poll tested but I can't help feeling it's increasingly questionable electorally. They risk being painted as protecting the interests of the 'have houses' against the young.0 -
Thinking about the Betfair exchange PM after the next election market:
'Who will be the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom when the first government is formed after the next UK general election. This market will be settled on the formation of the first ministry (government) after assent is given by the reigning monarch after the next UK general election.'
Is it possible we could proceed straight to a second election without any government being formed?0 -
That's just rhetoric. The present is always lost to the future and there's no inherent reason why human habitation should be a less aesthetic use of land than monoculture fields, for example.JosiasJessop said:
Protecting the green belt is about more than housing and industry. It's about everyone's quality of life, and preserving something that, once lost, will be nearly impossible to regain.rcs1000 said:
So a London home owner I will personally benefit from this. But it is economically absurd and irrational.williamglenn said:http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/general-election-2015/11528903/Green-Belt-is-safe-under-us-until-2020-Conservative-manifesto-will-say.html
"The Green Belt will be safe for another five years under a Conservative Government, David Cameron will pledge next week.
The Prime Minister and Tory leader will say that the protected greenfield land around towns and cities will not get any smaller in its manifesto next week."
I'm sure this will have been extensively poll tested but I can't help feeling it's increasingly questionable electorally. They risk being painted as protecting the interests of the 'have houses' against the young.
Central planning of land use seems to be the last remaining remnant of post-war socialism that the right can't abandon. It's even more of a religion than the NHS.0 -
Entirely possibleinitforthemoney said:Thinking about the Betfair exchange PM after the next election market:
'Who will be the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom when the first government is formed after the next UK general election. This market will be settled on the formation of the first ministry (government) after assent is given by the reigning monarch after the next UK general election.'
Is it possible we could proceed straight to a second election without any government being formed?0 -
Yeswilliamglenn said:
That's just rhetoric. The present is always lost to the future and there's no inherent reason why human habitation should be a less aesthetic use of land than monoculture fields, for example.JosiasJessop said:
Protecting the green belt is about more than housing and industry. It's about everyone's quality of life, and preserving something that, once lost, will be nearly impossible to regain.rcs1000 said:
So a London home owner I will personally benefit from this. But it is economically absurd and irrational.williamglenn said:http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/general-election-2015/11528903/Green-Belt-is-safe-under-us-until-2020-Conservative-manifesto-will-say.html
"The Green Belt will be safe for another five years under a Conservative Government, David Cameron will pledge next week.
The Prime Minister and Tory leader will say that the protected greenfield land around towns and cities will not get any smaller in its manifesto next week."
I'm sure this will have been extensively poll tested but I can't help feeling it's increasingly questionable electorally. They risk being painted as protecting the interests of the 'have houses' against the young.
Central planning of land use seems to be the last remaining remnant of post-war socialism that the right can't abandon. It's even more of a religion than the NHS.0 -
@williamglenn
It's an interesting read about the history of the greenbelt, and it's various supporters0 -
What is required are more retirement homes for the biggest growing segment of the population.Alanbrooke said:
It's another dickhead policy. Really is this the best the Conservatives have to offer ?rcs1000 said:
So a London home owner I will personally benefit from this. But it is economically absurd and irrational.williamglenn said:http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/general-election-2015/11528903/Green-Belt-is-safe-under-us-until-2020-Conservative-manifesto-will-say.html
"The Green Belt will be safe for another five years under a Conservative Government, David Cameron will pledge next week.
The Prime Minister and Tory leader will say that the protected greenfield land around towns and cities will not get any smaller in its manifesto next week."
I'm sure this will have been extensively poll tested but I can't help feeling it's increasingly questionable electorally. They risk being painted as protecting the interests of the 'have houses' against the young.
Where do they want them? The answer is that many want them outside of London. So build in areas such as ex MOD land, which are usually rural spacious and raises cash for the Govt. Is it really green belt? Some is but a lot is under utilised semi brown land sites.
0 -
I agree. There could be an issue there. It id very hard to define this market lthough we know what it means.initforthemoney said:Thinking about the Betfair exchange PM after the next election market:
'Who will be the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom when the first government is formed after the next UK general election. This market will be settled on the formation of the first ministry (government) after assent is given by the reigning monarch after the next UK general election.'
Is it possible we could proceed straight to a second election without any government being formed?
0 -
Keep the green fields..when they have gone we will be left with concrete.0
-
What I thought was interesting was the train fare price freeze policy yesterday. It is overwhelmingly the SE commuter belt, where the issue of high season tickets into London is something that is real core interest. The Tories aren't struggling to win those areas, it is basically just playing to the home crowd.Alanbrooke said:
It's another dickhead policy. Really is this the best the Conservatives have to offer ?rcs1000 said:
So a London home owner I will personally benefit from this. But it is economically absurd and irrational.williamglenn said:http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/general-election-2015/11528903/Green-Belt-is-safe-under-us-until-2020-Conservative-manifesto-will-say.html
"The Green Belt will be safe for another five years under a Conservative Government, David Cameron will pledge next week.
The Prime Minister and Tory leader will say that the protected greenfield land around towns and cities will not get any smaller in its manifesto next week."
I'm sure this will have been extensively poll tested but I can't help feeling it's increasingly questionable electorally. They risk being painted as protecting the interests of the 'have houses' against the young.
Again this green belt policy and the train one, I can't see how that win any votes in key marginals like in the midlands.0 -
Except 'monoculture fields' produce something useful: food.williamglenn said:
That's just rhetoric. The present is always lost to the future and there's no inherent reason why human habitation should be a less aesthetic use of land than monoculture fields, for example.JosiasJessop said:
Protecting the green belt is about more than housing and industry. It's about everyone's quality of life, and preserving something that, once lost, will be nearly impossible to regain.rcs1000 said:
So a London home owner I will personally benefit from this. But it is economically absurd and irrational.williamglenn said:http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/general-election-2015/11528903/Green-Belt-is-safe-under-us-until-2020-Conservative-manifesto-will-say.html
"The Green Belt will be safe for another five years under a Conservative Government, David Cameron will pledge next week.
The Prime Minister and Tory leader will say that the protected greenfield land around towns and cities will not get any smaller in its manifesto next week."
I'm sure this will have been extensively poll tested but I can't help feeling it's increasingly questionable electorally. They risk being painted as protecting the interests of the 'have houses' against the young.
Central planning of land use seems to be the last remaining remnant of post-war socialism that the right can't abandon. It's even more of a religion than the NHS.
I love construction. I've worked in it, and nearly went into civil engineering as a career. We should have more construction.
Yet I cannot see how altering green belt policy will be in any way positive, and would only be a sticking-plaster over the real problems that bedevil housing policy, as discussed on here passim.
I live in a new, modern housing development that is still under construction. The problems that we have here - transport, jobs, shops, build quality etc - will be the same in every new out-of-town development.
We need to build wiser, not build more of the same.
(Oh, and usual, I will add that we need to build communities, not homes).0 -
@TCPoliticalBetting
Building a retirement village can only work on a small scale, and as part of a larger community, otherwise it becomes a parking lot for the STBD".
*(soon to be dead)0 -
Absolutely. I live in a leafy village in rural Warks. There are about 400 houses in the village and I'd happily have another 200 if they were sensibly done as this would keep the few facilities we have left open and maybe even get us on a bus route.TCPoliticalBetting said:
What is required are more retirement homes for the biggest growing segment of the population.Alanbrooke said:
It's another dickhead policy. Really is this the best the Conservatives have to offer ?rcs1000 said:
So a London home owner I will personally benefit from this. But it is economically absurd and irrational.williamglenn said:http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/general-election-2015/11528903/Green-Belt-is-safe-under-us-until-2020-Conservative-manifesto-will-say.html
"The Green Belt will be safe for another five years under a Conservative Government, David Cameron will pledge next week.
The Prime Minister and Tory leader will say that the protected greenfield land around towns and cities will not get any smaller in its manifesto next week."
I'm sure this will have been extensively poll tested but I can't help feeling it's increasingly questionable electorally. They risk being painted as protecting the interests of the 'have houses' against the young.
Where do they want them? The answer is that many want them outside of London. So build in areas such as ex MOD land, which are usually rural spacious and raises cash for the Govt. Is it really green belt? Some is but a lot is under utilised semi brown land sites.
There are enough places to develop to house our population on both green and brown land if it's done right. All our politicans seem to want to offer is cannibalisation of the existing housing stock and ludicrously priced accommodation.0 -
There are lots of train commuters in the northern cities as well; it's not just about London. And northerners are just as keen to preserve their local environment as those in the home counties.FrancisUrquhart said:
What I thought was interesting was the train fare price freeze policy yesterday. It is overwhelmingly the SE commuter belt, where the issue of high season tickets into London is something that is real core interest. The Tories aren't struggling to win those areas, it is basically just playing to the home crowd.Alanbrooke said:
It's another dickhead policy. Really is this the best the Conservatives have to offer ?rcs1000 said:
So a London home owner I will personally benefit from this. But it is economically absurd and irrational.williamglenn said:http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/general-election-2015/11528903/Green-Belt-is-safe-under-us-until-2020-Conservative-manifesto-will-say.html
"The Green Belt will be safe for another five years under a Conservative Government, David Cameron will pledge next week.
The Prime Minister and Tory leader will say that the protected greenfield land around towns and cities will not get any smaller in its manifesto next week."
I'm sure this will have been extensively poll tested but I can't help feeling it's increasingly questionable electorally. They risk being painted as protecting the interests of the 'have houses' against the young.
Again this green belt policy and the train one, I can't see how that win any votes in key marginals like in the midlands.0 -
More fun will be how Cameron tries to square the circle of oil in Surrey. Will he sell out to big corporates or stop one of our few growth industries.FrancisUrquhart said:
What I thought was interesting was the train fare price freeze policy yesterday. It is overwhelmingly the SE commuter belt, where the issue of high season tickets into London is something that is real core interest. The Tories aren't struggling to win those areas, it is basically just playing to the home crowd.Alanbrooke said:
It's another dickhead policy. Really is this the best the Conservatives have to offer ?rcs1000 said:
So a London home owner I will personally benefit from this. But it is economically absurd and irrational.williamglenn said:http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/general-election-2015/11528903/Green-Belt-is-safe-under-us-until-2020-Conservative-manifesto-will-say.html
"The Green Belt will be safe for another five years under a Conservative Government, David Cameron will pledge next week.
The Prime Minister and Tory leader will say that the protected greenfield land around towns and cities will not get any smaller in its manifesto next week."
I'm sure this will have been extensively poll tested but I can't help feeling it's increasingly questionable electorally. They risk being painted as protecting the interests of the 'have houses' against the young.
Again this green belt policy and the train one, I can't see how that win any votes in key marginals like in the midlands.
As for what is cameron doing for those outside his comfort zone - precious little.0 -
It's a case of building a community (what you refer to as 'doing it right'). Develop houses of the right sort, ensure that there is access to shops and facilities, and transport to where people want to go. Sadly these all cost money, and do not earn developers any money.Alanbrooke said:
Absolutely. I live in a leafy village in rural Warks. There are about 400 houses in the village and I'd happily have another 200 if they were sensibly done as this would keep the few facilities we have left open and maybe even get us on a bus route.TCPoliticalBetting said:
What is required are more retirement homes for the biggest growing segment of the population.Alanbrooke said:
It's another dickhead policy. Really is this the best the Conservatives have to offer ?rcs1000 said:
So a London home owner I will personally benefit from this. But it is economically absurd and irrational.williamglenn said:http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/general-election-2015/11528903/Green-Belt-is-safe-under-us-until-2020-Conservative-manifesto-will-say.html
"The Green Belt will be safe for another five years under a Conservative Government, David Cameron will pledge next week.
The Prime Minister and Tory leader will say that the protected greenfield land around towns and cities will not get any smaller in its manifesto next week."
I'm sure this will have been extensively poll tested but I can't help feeling it's increasingly questionable electorally. They risk being painted as protecting the interests of the 'have houses' against the young.
Where do they want them? The answer is that many want them outside of London. So build in areas such as ex MOD land, which are usually rural spacious and raises cash for the Govt. Is it really green belt? Some is but a lot is under utilised semi brown land sites.
There are enough places to develop to house our population on both green and brown land if it's done right. All our politicans seem to want to offer is cannibalisation of the existing housing stock and ludicrously priced accommodation.
We also need to learn the mistakes made when developing planned communities in the past.
Section 106 need tightening up, to avoid developers taking the p*ss. As one example, I believe there is a road that a developer had to build that would act as a bypass for a village. The road had to be completed with the development. So the developers have built a few less houses than they planned, and have only built the part of the road to serve the development. They are now saying they will complete the road if they get permission for more houses.
Cunning barstewards. ;-)0 -
Cameron square it? At this rate, it will be Ed who has to make that decision and he is all Mr Green Energy, so I would presume that he will side with the anti-fracking / green lobby and instead we will end up with millions windmills across the country which of course we have to pay for because they aren't economically viable.Alanbrooke said:
More fun will be how Cameron tries to square the circle of oil in Surrey. Will he sell out to big corporates or stop one of our few growth industries.FrancisUrquhart said:
What I thought was interesting was the train fare price freeze policy yesterday. It is overwhelmingly the SE commuter belt, where the issue of high season tickets into London is something that is real core interest. The Tories aren't struggling to win those areas, it is basically just playing to the home crowd.Alanbrooke said:
It's another dickhead policy. Really is this the best the Conservatives have to offer ?rcs1000 said:
So a London home owner I will personally benefit from this. But it is economically absurd and irrational.williamglenn said:http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/general-election-2015/11528903/Green-Belt-is-safe-under-us-until-2020-Conservative-manifesto-will-say.html
"The Green Belt will be safe for another five years under a Conservative Government, David Cameron will pledge next week.
The Prime Minister and Tory leader will say that the protected greenfield land around towns and cities will not get any smaller in its manifesto next week."
I'm sure this will have been extensively poll tested but I can't help feeling it's increasingly questionable electorally. They risk being painted as protecting the interests of the 'have houses' against the young.
Again this green belt policy and the train one, I can't see how that win any votes in key marginals like in the midlands.
As for what is cameron doing for those outside his comfort zone - precious little.
0 -
Who is doing Conservative strategy?
"Calculated attack (Beeb)
Posted at 12:26
Mr Richards adds he defence secretary's attack on the Labour leader wasn't "a clumsy, casual intervention" but a deliberate act.
He says this is largely because the one thing most pollsters say people know about Mr Miliband is that he beat his brother to the leadership of the Labour party."
Probably true, but almost all of them don't see it as a heinous crime.....
especially the younger members of a family.
0 -
That's simply down to project specification and management. But since I live in a green belt area of S Brum I'm not the one calling for my community to be set in aspic for eternity.JosiasJessop said:
It's a case of building a community (what you refer to as 'doing it right'). Develop houses of the right sort, ensure that there is access to shops and facilities, and transport to where people want to go. Sadly these all cost money, and do not earn developers any money.Alanbrooke said:
Absolutely. I live in a leafy village in rural Warks. There are about 400 houses in the village of the existing housing stock and ludicrously priced accommodation.TCPoliticalBetting said:
What is required are more retirement homes for the biggest growing segment of the population. semi brown land sites.Alanbrooke said:
It's another dickhead policy. Really is this the best the Conservatives have to offer ?rcs1000 said:
So a London home owner I will personally benefit from this. But it is economically absurd and irrational.williamglenn said:http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/general-election-2015/11528903/Green-Belt-is-safe-under-us-until-2020-Conservative-manifesto-will-say.html
"The Green Belt will be safe for another five years under a Conservative Government, David Cameron will pledge next week.
The Prime Minister and Tory leader will say that the protected greenfield land around towns and cities will not get any smaller in its manifesto next week."
. They risk being painted as protecting the interests of the 'have houses' against the young.
We also need to learn the mistakes made when developing planned communities in the past.
Section 106 need tightening up, to avoid developers taking the p*ss. As one example, I believe there is a road that a developer had to build that would act as a bypass for a village. The road had to be completed with the development. So the developers have built a few less houses than they planned, and have only built the part of the road to serve the development. They are now saying they will complete the road if they get permission for more houses.
Cunning barstewards. ;-)
Likewise if Cameron's so concerned about our green and pleasant land why's he subsidising sodding great wind turbines across some of our best scenery.
The policy is a lemon. he shouldn't be saying no development but articulating how a sympathetic housing policy can be implemented in established communities.0 -
The Green Belt is an interesting example of how political opinion can shift 180 degrees. It was introduced by Attlee's government and loathed by Conservatives at the time, on the basis that people should do as they please with their own property. But now, Conservatives are the staunchest defenders.rcs1000 said:
Yeswilliamglenn said:
That's just rhetoric. The present is always lost to the future and there's no inherent reason why human habitation should be a less aesthetic use of land than monoculture fields, for example.JosiasJessop said:
Protecting the green belt is about more than housing and industry. It's about everyone's quality of life, and preserving something that, once lost, will be nearly impossible to regain.rcs1000 said:
So a London home owner I will personally benefit from this. But it is economically absurd and irrational.williamglenn said:http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/general-election-2015/11528903/Green-Belt-is-safe-under-us-until-2020-Conservative-manifesto-will-say.html
"The Green Belt will be safe for another five years under a Conservative Government, David Cameron will pledge next week.
The Prime Minister and Tory leader will say that the protected greenfield land around towns and cities will not get any smaller in its manifesto next week."
I'm sure this will have been extensively poll tested but I can't help feeling it's increasingly questionable electorally. They risk being painted as protecting the interests of the 'have houses' against the young.
Central planning of land use seems to be the last remaining remnant of post-war socialism that the right can't abandon. It's even more of a religion than the NHS.
0 -
You don't need house builders to make sure there are shops, if there are people there who want to buy things people who want to sell things will build shops. What you need to do is stop making other rules that ban people from building shops where people want to buy things.JosiasJessop said:
It's a case of building a community (what you refer to as 'doing it right'). Develop houses of the right sort, ensure that there is access to shops and facilities, and transport to where people want to go. Sadly these all cost money, and do not earn developers any money.Alanbrooke said:
Absolutely. I live in a leafy village in rural Warks. There are about 400 houses in the village and I'd happily have another 200 if they were sensibly done as this would keep the few facilities we have left open and maybe even get us on a bus route.TCPoliticalBetting said:
What is required are more retirement homes for the biggest growing segment of the population.Alanbrooke said:
It's another dickhead policy. Really is this the best the Conservatives have to offer ?rcs1000 said:
So a London home owner I will personally benefit from this. But it is economically absurd and irrational.williamglenn said:
Where do they want them? The answer is that many want them outside of London. So build in areas such as ex MOD land, which are usually rural spacious and raises cash for the Govt. Is it really green belt? Some is but a lot is under utilised semi brown land sites.
There are enough places to develop to house our population on both green and brown land if it's done right. All our politicans seem to want to offer is cannibalisation of the existing housing stock and ludicrously priced accommodation.
We also need to learn the mistakes made when developing planned communities in the past.
Section 106 need tightening up, to avoid developers taking the p*ss. As one example, I believe there is a road that a developer had to build that would act as a bypass for a village. The road had to be completed with the development. So the developers have built a few less houses than they planned, and have only built the part of the road to serve the development. They are now saying they will complete the road if they get permission for more houses.
Cunning barstewards. ;-)0 -
For me the best bIt about the Hatton Garden Heist is they must have obviously risk assessed the whole operation. Tool box talked it through then carried it out. I mean the.guy on camera has high vis, helmet and glasses.
Respect...0 -
You need there to be plans for where the shops are going to go. If you leave it to builders, they will create dense housing with no gaps for facilities. This is one thing they've done quite well here IMHO.edmundintokyo said:
You don't need house builders to make sure there are shops, if there are people there who want to buy things people who want to sell things will build shops. What you need to do is stop making other rules that ban people from building shops where people want to buy things.JosiasJessop said:
It's a case of building a community (what you refer to as 'doing it right'). Develop houses of the right sort, ensure that there is access to shops and facilities, and transport to where people want to go. Sadly these all cost money, and do not earn developers any money.Alanbrooke said:
Absolutely. I live in a leafy village in rural Warks. There are about 400 houses in the village and I'd happily have another 200 if they were sensibly done as this would keep the few facilities we have left open and maybe even get us on a bus route.TCPoliticalBetting said:
What is required are more retirement homes for the biggest growing segment of the population.Alanbrooke said:
It's another dickhead policy. Really is this the best the Conservatives have to offer ?rcs1000 said:
So a London home owner I will personally benefit from this. But it is economically absurd and irrational.williamglenn said:
Where do they want them? The answer is that many want them outside of London. So build in areas such as ex MOD land, which are usually rural spacious and raises cash for the Govt. Is it really green belt? Some is but a lot is under utilised semi brown land sites.
There are enough places to develop to house our population on both green and brown land if it's done right. All our politicans seem to want to offer is cannibalisation of the existing housing stock and ludicrously priced accommodation.
We also need to learn the mistakes made when developing planned communities in the past.
Section 106 need tightening up, to avoid developers taking the p*ss. As one example, I believe there is a road that a developer had to build that would act as a bypass for a village. The road had to be completed with the development. So the developers have built a few less houses than they planned, and have only built the part of the road to serve the development. They are now saying they will complete the road if they get permission for more houses.
Cunning barstewards. ;-)0 -
Thank you, Mike - I really appreciate it. I've never enjoyed such freedom as on PB. And it does seem crowd-funding is the way forward for artists who publish online.0
-
LOL....Moses_ said:For me the best bIt about the Hatton Garden Heist is they must have obviously risk assessed the whole operation. Tool box talked it through then carried it out. I mean the.guy on camera has high vis, helmet and glasses.
Respect...
There are some comedy moments in the video. The guy getting his wheelie bin stuck and having to get 2 other guys to come and help him....While one of the gang has the ability to disable alarms and break into a vault, 3 of them can't work out why a wheelie bin is stuck.
Also, who goes to do a massive heist where you are going to be drilling through thick concrete walls in fancy shoes...gotta look good on the cctv.
And the guy very carefully and neatly parking his moped and nearly forgetting to put his disguise on.
I want to know what the Mirror haven't shown us. I am presuming there is a lot more.0 -
I don't want my community to be held in aspic. I fact, the 'village' (*) is going to be extended as per the local plan, and I'm one of the few voices calling for it to be done, but done right.Alanbrooke said:That's simply down to project specification and management. But since I live in a green belt area of S Brum I'm not the one calling for my community to be set in aspic for eternity.
Likewise if Cameron's so concerned about our green and pleasant land why's he subsidising sodding great wind turbines across some of our best scenery.
The policy is a lemon. he shouldn't be saying no development but articulating how a sympathetic housing policy can be implemented in established communities.
I think you may be confusing green belt with all rural land - the vast majority of rural land is outside the green belt and I'm guessing will not be affected by this policy.
And I agree about the wind turbines.
(*) It's farcical that it's called a village; but people like it that way.0 -
Yeah quite agree... Let's put the house on 00 and vote LabourAlanbrooke said:
It's another dickhead policy. Really is this the best the Conservatives have to offer ?rcs1000 said:
So a London home owner I will personally benefit from this. But it is economically absurd and irrational.williamglenn said:http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/general-election-2015/11528903/Green-Belt-is-safe-under-us-until-2020-Conservative-manifesto-will-say.html
"The Green Belt will be safe for another five years under a Conservative Government, David Cameron will pledge next week.
The Prime Minister and Tory leader will say that the protected greenfield land around towns and cities will not get any smaller in its manifesto next week."
I'm sure this will have been extensively poll tested but I can't help feeling it's increasingly questionable electorally. They risk being painted as protecting the interests of the 'have houses' against the young.
feckall to lose really.......except an entire country and history.0 -
No JJ I'm saying even within green belt there has to be development of some kind. People live there and times change and move on. At one level it gets pretty annoying having townies who rarely come near the place specify what I can do in my community because they grew up watching Trumpton and think that's how village life is.JosiasJessop said:
I don't want my community to be held in aspic. I fact, the 'village' (*) is going to be extended as per the local plan, and I'm one of the few voices calling for it to be done, but done right.Alanbrooke said:That's simply down to project specification and management. But since I live in a green belt area of S Brum I'm not the one calling for my community to be set in aspic for eternity.
Likewise if Cameron's so concerned about our green and pleasant land why's he subsidising sodding great wind turbines across some of our best scenery.
The policy is a lemon. he shouldn't be saying no development but articulating how a sympathetic housing policy can be implemented in established communities.
I think you may be confusing green belt with all rural land - the vast majority of rural land is outside the green belt and I'm guessing will not be affected by this policy.
And I agree about the wind turbines.
(*) It's farcical that it's called a village; but people like it that way.0 -
What are you moaning at me for ? I'm not part of Cameron's target audience,Moses_ said:
Yeah quite agree... Let's put the house on 00 and vote LabourAlanbrooke said:
It's another dickhead policy. Really is this the best the Conservatives have to offer ?rcs1000 said:
So a London home owner I will personally benefit from this. But it is economically absurd and irrational.williamglenn said:http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/general-election-2015/11528903/Green-Belt-is-safe-under-us-until-2020-Conservative-manifesto-will-say.html
"The Green Belt will be safe for another five years under a Conservative Government, David Cameron will pledge next week.
The Prime Minister and Tory leader will say that the protected greenfield land around towns and cities will not get any smaller in its manifesto next week."
I'm sure this will have been extensively poll tested but I can't help feeling it's increasingly questionable electorally. They risk being painted as protecting the interests of the 'have houses' against the young.
feckall to lose really.......except an entire country and history.
Nag antifrank he got all the benefits and lurv and still isn't voting Cameron.0 -
Oh, Oh ! SPIN gap now 11. Sleazy Tories on the slide !
Is there any ELBOW room ? Even a partly-formed ELBOW .0 -
Green belt development is not full verboten nowadays - AIUI plenty gets built on the green belt. It is just that there is an extra level of hassle to go through to get it built. In some cases they even have to go up to the SoS level.Alanbrooke said:
No JJ I'm saying even within green belt there has to be development of some kind. People live there and times change and move on. At one level it gets pretty annoying having townies who rarely come near the place specify what I can do in my community because they grew up watching Trumpton and think that's how village life is.JosiasJessop said:
I don't want my community to be held in aspic. I fact, the 'village' (*) is going to be extended as per the local plan, and I'm one of the few voices calling for it to be done, but done right.Alanbrooke said:That's simply down to project specification and management. But since I live in a green belt area of S Brum I'm not the one calling for my community to be set in aspic for eternity.
Likewise if Cameron's so concerned about our green and pleasant land why's he subsidising sodding great wind turbines across some of our best scenery.
The policy is a lemon. he shouldn't be saying no development but articulating how a sympathetic housing policy can be implemented in established communities.
I think you may be confusing green belt with all rural land - the vast majority of rural land is outside the green belt and I'm guessing will not be affected by this policy.
And I agree about the wind turbines.
(*) It's farcical that it's called a village; but people like it that way.0 -
George Osborne@George_Osborne·1m1 minute ago
On campaign trail today with my crack team...0 -
A party has to protect the interests of someone. Its in trying to be "all things to all men" that has got us into the mess of wishy-washy pointless triangulated policies. It would be nice for once if parties took a stand, and said in effect, this is what we stand for, these are our values, and these are the people we believe need our protection. But those days are long past, we are now in the days of Crosby anodyne cr*p sadly.williamglenn said:I'm sure this will have been extensively poll tested but I can't help feeling it's increasingly questionable electorally. They risk being painted as protecting the interests of the 'have houses' against the young.
0 -
I think the Tories have finally hit upon the correct strategy. Perhaps even influenced by our highly respected PBTories. They have been reminding us for 4 years why EIC is what he is. One of his failings was he did not follow the patrician edict, only the "eldest" inherits the world !Smarmeron said:Who is doing Conservative strategy?
"Calculated attack (Beeb)
Posted at 12:26
Mr Richards adds he defence secretary's attack on the Labour leader wasn't "a clumsy, casual intervention" but a deliberate act.
He says this is largely because the one thing most pollsters say people know about Mr Miliband is that he beat his brother to the leadership of the Labour party."
Probably true, but almost all of them don't see it as a heinous crime.....
especially the younger members of a family.
The Conservatives should keep on repeating how Ed stabbed his brother in the back !0 -
Yes that's true but as you say the extra level of hassle puts a lot of people off. Really we need to get back to some simple ways of planning where we house people. The standard approach of building mega estates of houses that all look the same isn't much use in a lot of areas.JosiasJessop said:
Green belt development is not full verboten nowadays - AIUI plenty gets built on the green belt. It is just that there is an extra level of hassle to go through to get it built. In some cases they even have to go up to the SoS level.Alanbrooke said:
No JJ I'm saying even within green belt there has to be development of some kind. People live there and times change and move on. At one level it gets pretty annoying having townies who rarely come near the place specify what I can do in my community because they grew up watching Trumpton and think that's how village life is.JosiasJessop said:
I don't want my community to be held in aspic. I fact, the 'village' (*) is going to be extended as per the local plan, and I'm one of the few voices calling for it to be done, but done right.Alanbrooke said:That's simply down to project specification and management. But since I live in a green belt area of S Brum I'm not the one calling for my community to be set in aspic for eternity.
Likewise if Cameron's so concerned about our green and pleasant land why's he subsidising sodding great wind turbines across some of our best scenery.
The policy is a lemon. he shouldn't be saying no development but articulating how a sympathetic housing policy can be implemented in established communities.
I think you may be confusing green belt with all rural land - the vast majority of rural land is outside the green belt and I'm guessing will not be affected by this policy.
And I agree about the wind turbines.
(*) It's farcical that it's called a village; but people like it that way.
There is moreover still lots of land and older buildings which is nor being used and where more housing would fit easily within the exisiting infrastructure. I drive trhough S Birmingham most days on the way to work and there are loads of old factory and retail buildings which could be converted to sensible living accommodation.0 -
OT. I got a notification of Prudential's AGM this morning. In pride of place under 'Directors' is Chief Executive Tidjane Thiam. In the list of 'current appointments' it states 'Tidjane was appointed British Business Ambassador by invitation from the Prime Minister'.
He also also happens to be one of the 103 businessmen who signed the letter to the Telegraph urging people to vote Tory. Prudential has a proud and honourable heritage as one of the UK's most prominent insurance companies.
Doesn't this touting for votes on behalf of Cameron's political party make both of them seem rather tawdry?0 -
Unless we have our own wind turbine and solar industry and not import them from Germany or Denmark. I don't think these countries receive more energy from our sun than we do. We definitely get more quality wind than they do. This is one policy of the SNP post oil that is very good indeed.FrancisUrquhart said:
Cameron square it? At this rate, it will be Ed who has to make that decision and he is all Mr Green Energy, so I would presume that he will side with the anti-fracking / green lobby and instead we will end up with millions windmills across the country which of course we have to pay for because they aren't economically viable.Alanbrooke said:
More fun will be how Cameron tries to square the circle of oil in Surrey. Will he sell out to big corporates or stop one of our few growth industries.FrancisUrquhart said:
What I thought was interesting was the train fare price freeze policy yesterday. It is overwhelmingly the SE commuter belt, where the issue of high season tickets into London is something that is real core interest. The Tories aren't struggling to win those areas, it is basically just playing to the home crowd.Alanbrooke said:
It's another dickhead policy. Really is this the best the Conservatives have to offer ?rcs1000 said:
So a London home owner I will personally benefit from this. But it is economically absurd and irrational.williamglenn said:http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/general-election-2015/11528903/Green-Belt-is-safe-under-us-until-2020-Conservative-manifesto-will-say.html
"The Green Belt will be safe for another five years under a Conservative Government, David Cameron will pledge next week.
The Prime Minister and Tory leader will say that the protected greenfield land around towns and cities will not get any smaller in its manifesto next week."
I'm sure this will have been extensively poll tested but I can't help feeling it's increasingly questionable electorally. They risk being painted as protecting the interests of the 'have houses' against the young.
Again this green belt policy and the train one, I can't see how that win any votes in key marginals like in the midlands.
As for what is cameron doing for those outside his comfort zone - precious little.
Tories are basically Luddites !0 -
Best sell your shares on ethical grounds.Roger said:OT. I got a notification of Prudential's AGM this morning. In pride of place under 'Directors' is Chief Executive Tidjane Thiam. In the list of 'current appointments' it states 'Tidjane was appointed British Business Ambassador by invitation from the Prime Minister'.
He also also happens to be one of the 103 businessmen who signed the letter to the Telegraph urging people to vote Tory. Prudential has a proud and honourable heritage as one of the UK's most prominent insurance companies.
Doesn't this touting for votes on behalf of Cameron's political party make both of them seem rather tawdry?0 -
Non dom ?Roger said:OT. I got a notification of Prudential's AGM this morning. In pride of place under 'Directors' is Chief Executive Tidjane Thiam. In the list of 'current appointments' it states 'Tidjane was appointed British Business Ambassador by invitation from the Prime Minister'.
He also also happens to be one of the 103 businessmen who signed the letter to the Telegraph urging people to vote Tory. Prudential has a proud and honourable heritage as one of the UK's most prominent insurance companies.
Doesn't this touting for votes on behalf of Cameron's political party make both of them seem rather tawdry?0 -
Seems lefties agree it's the smart approach.surbiton said:
I think the Tories have finally hit upon the correct strategy. Perhaps even influenced by our highly respected PBTories. They have been reminding us for 4 years why EIC is what he is. One of his failings was he did not follow the patrician edict, only the "eldest" inherits the world !Smarmeron said:Who is doing Conservative strategy?
"Calculated attack (Beeb)
Posted at 12:26
Mr Richards adds he defence secretary's attack on the Labour leader wasn't "a clumsy, casual intervention" but a deliberate act.
He says this is largely because the one thing most pollsters say people know about Mr Miliband is that he beat his brother to the leadership of the Labour party."
Probably true, but almost all of them don't see it as a heinous crime.....
especially the younger members of a family.
The Conservatives should keep on repeating how Ed stabbed his brother in the back !
http://labour-uncut.co.uk/2015/04/10/yes-the-tories-were-in-the-gutter-yesterday-but-thats-where-elections-are-wonSecond, to refocus voters’ thoughts on Ed Miliband’s character. The manner in which Ed Miliband defeated his brother is regularly brought up on the doorstep with Labour canvassers and crystallises discomfort with the idea of Ed Miliband as an untrustworthy leader, for many voters.
0 -
Suppose 6 months ago the following was made
"We intend to invest £8 billion on the NHS" - party 1
"How do you intend to fund it?" - party 2
Who would party-1 and party-2 have been?
it's a funny world.0 -
I don't think so, the article says bought up with Labour canvasser on the doorstep, so its unlikely they are talking to Tories, the conversation would not have got that far...Smarmeron said:@Indigo
You are probably right, unfortunately almost all of the voters who bother with nonsense like that, vote Tory already.0 -
Simple ways of planning have a habit of working for a lucky few, and not working for everyone else.Alanbrooke said:Yes that's true but as you say the extra level of hassle puts a lot of people off. Really we need to get back to some simple ways of planning where we house people. The standard approach of building mega estates of houses that all look the same isn't much use in a lot of areas.
There is moreover still lots of land and older buildings which is nor being used and where more housing would fit easily within the exisiting infrastructure. I drive trhough S Birmingham most days on the way to work and there are loads of old factory and retail buildings which could be converted to sensible living accommodation.
There is no reason for housing estates of new builds to look the same. I could refer you to my own village, where they had the cunning plan of having four developers. Each had their own areas of land, but these were interspersed in smallish blocks. Hence faux-wooden barn conversions intermingle with town houses, to (in my opinion) reasonable effect. Looking out my window, I can see several different styles of houses in a pleasant and relatively traffic-free mall where children can play safely as there are ninety-degree bends at either end.
It works. Even better, as the houses are made of differing materials and age at slightly different rates, they do not necessarily look like they were built at the same time. Differing roof lines and pitches, even when the houses are in a line, also have a positive effect.
Agree about redevelopment of existing structures where possible. But again, it needs to be done right (although there are companies with plenty of experience of doing it right).
Oh, and SuDS is a must on any new development. ;-)0 -
Party 1 are likely to point to the nice large chunk of uncommitted money left in the budget last month that was presumably held back for sweeties just like this so they can say its is both costed, and won't impact budgets, because the money is already there, just not allocated. Some PBers pointed out at the time that there appeared to be about £20bn unspent, so I assume we can expect another £12bn of sweeties in the manifesto.weejonnie said:Suppose 6 months ago the following was made
"We intend to invest £8 billion on the NHS" - party 1
"How do you intend to fund it?" - party 2
Who would party-1 and party-2 have been?
it's a funny world.0 -
Surbiton
Non dom ?
Good point! Perhaps Ed should operate his non dom policy retrospectively and collect back taxes to say 2005. That should get the public excited.
On Any Questions when Caroline Lucas was asked whether she was worried the non dom policy might not increase the tax take she said she didn't care. "if non doms want to leave because they have to pay tax like the rest of us then I'll personally drive them to the airport".
THAT got the biggest cheer of the day.0 -
Good afternoon, everyone.
Marf, some independent/self-published authors are going down crowd-funding as a route. Not sure it works as well for writers as, for example, game development (which is not without its pitfalls).
It is interesting to see how such things (and in music as well, with the likes of ViolinTay and Malukah) will develop. At the moment, my vague plan is to see how Sir Edric goes being traditionally published, and keep my 'serious' fantasy self-published, for now.
Cartoons may be quite a good area for this, because it's easy to see quite quickly if you like a certain style.0 -
Good of her to show that her party stands for screwing the rest of us by driving out the non doms. Just goes to show how brainless she is.Roger said:Surbiton
Non dom ?
Good point! Perhaps Ed should operate his non dom policy retrospectively and collect back taxes to say 2005. That should get the public excited.
On Any Questions when Caroline Lucas was asked whether she was worried the non dom policy might not increase the tax take she said she didn't care. "if non doms want to leave because they have to pay tax like the rest of us then I'll personally drive them to the airport".
THAT got the biggest cheer of the day.
0 -
No. Unusually a breathtakingly well qualified individual.surbiton said:
Non dom ?Roger said:OT. I got a notification of Prudential's AGM this morning. In pride of place under 'Directors' is Chief Executive Tidjane Thiam. In the list of 'current appointments' it states 'Tidjane was appointed British Business Ambassador by invitation from the Prime Minister'.
He also also happens to be one of the 103 businessmen who signed the letter to the Telegraph urging people to vote Tory. Prudential has a proud and honourable heritage as one of the UK's most prominent insurance companies.
Doesn't this touting for votes on behalf of Cameron's political party make both of them seem rather tawdry?0 -
Great stuff Marf keep it up!Marf said:Thank you, Mike - I really appreciate it. I've never enjoyed such freedom as on PB. And it does seem crowd-funding is the way forward for artists who publish online.
I honestly don't get this fratricide thing. Why was David any more entitled to be leader than Ed? Is there some sort of primogeniture fetishism going on here? There was a contest and Ed won. Whether he was the best candidate or not we'll see.Smarmeron said:Who is doing Conservative strategy?
"Calculated attack (Beeb)
Posted at 12:26
Mr Richards adds he defence secretary's attack on the Labour leader wasn't "a clumsy, casual intervention" but a deliberate act.
He says this is largely because the one thing most pollsters say people know about Mr Miliband is that he beat his brother to the leadership of the Labour party."
Probably true, but almost all of them don't see it as a heinous crime.....
especially the younger members of a family.
0 -
Neither, don't play the fool. That isn't what the article said as well you know, it said attacking Ed's character because of Labour voters ambivalence over his handling of his brother was the right thing to do electorally speaking. Don't agree ? Go and take it up with Atul Hatwal, its his article.Smarmeron said:@Indigo
At which point should a sibling defer to their older brother?
Obviously you wouldn't expect them to not try at an exam in case they got higher marks?0 -
Scrapheap
"Best sell your shares on ethical grounds."
I think I will!0 -
@Monksfield
Perhaps they don't Like Andy Murray because he doesn't let Jamie win?0 -
That does sound more the way to go. Mixed developemnt and a bit of variety make a more pleasant environment imo. I hope the new towns announced by the coalition get to go a head and we do something a bit more interesting as we build them.JosiasJessop said:
Simple ways of planning have a habit of working for a lucky few, and not working for everyone else.Alanbrooke said:Yes that's true but as you say the extra level of hassle puts a lot of people off. Really we need to get back to some simple ways of planning where we house people. The standard approach of building mega estates of houses that all look the same isn't much use in a lot of areas.
There is moreover still lots of land and older buildings which is nor being used and where more housing would fit easily within the exisiting infrastructure. I drive trhough S Birmingham most days on the way to work and there are loads of old factory and retail buildings which could be converted to sensible living accommodation.
There is no reason for housing estates of new builds to look the same. I could refer you to my own village, where they had the cunning plan of having four developers. Each had their own areas of land, but these were interspersed in smallish blocks. Hence faux-wooden barn conversions intermingle with town houses, to (in my opinion) reasonable effect. Looking out my window, I can see several different styles of houses in a pleasant and relatively traffic-free mall where children can play safely as there are ninety-degree bends at either end.
It works. Even better, as the houses are made of differing materials and age at slightly different rates, they do not necessarily look like they were built at the same time. Differing roof lines and pitches, even when the houses are in a line, also have a positive effect.
Agree about redevelopment of existing structures where possible. But again, it needs to be done right (although there are companies with plenty of experience of doing it right).
Oh, and SuDS is a must on any new development. ;-)
Modern architecture always seems to struggle in the UK. Patly it's the attachment to older designs and partly it's the weather. But if we nominated one of the new towns as more of a showpiece for modernism, it could just work.0 -
It is of course correct that for many people, the only thing they know about him is that he beat his brother. It's also true that for many people (wrongly) it's a negative. The problem is that the Tories' attacks on him are so utterly transparent it's actively causing people to reassess him and undermining their point. People may think something, but when they see politicians they mistrust bleating on about it, they think hang on a minute. Possibly the most successful bit of negative campaigning of the modern era was swiftboating. Why? Because Bush basically was seen as above it, but it still undermined Kerry's big selling point. As for Labour Uncut, it's just a place for wannabe Hodges. I'd listen to Tim Montgomerie.Indigo said:
Seems lefties agree it's the smart approach.surbiton said:
I think the Tories have finally hit upon the correct strategy. Perhaps even influenced by our highly respected PBTories. They have been reminding us for 4 years why EIC is what he is. One of his failings was he did not follow the patrician edict, only the "eldest" inherits the world !Smarmeron said:Who is doing Conservative strategy?
"Calculated attack (Beeb)
Posted at 12:26
Mr Richards adds he defence secretary's attack on the Labour leader wasn't "a clumsy, casual intervention" but a deliberate act.
He says this is largely because the one thing most pollsters say people know about Mr Miliband is that he beat his brother to the leadership of the Labour party."
Probably true, but almost all of them don't see it as a heinous crime.....
especially the younger members of a family.
The Conservatives should keep on repeating how Ed stabbed his brother in the back !
http://labour-uncut.co.uk/2015/04/10/yes-the-tories-were-in-the-gutter-yesterday-but-thats-where-elections-are-wonSecond, to refocus voters’ thoughts on Ed Miliband’s character. The manner in which Ed Miliband defeated his brother is regularly brought up on the doorstep with Labour canvassers and crystallises discomfort with the idea of Ed Miliband as an untrustworthy leader, for many voters.
0 -
She can spout any populist cr*p she wants, she is never going to be a minister, and no one is going to implement any of her policies. Its only slightly more interesting than asking the OMRLP what their policy is.dr_spyn said:
Good of her to show that her party stands for screwing the rest of us by driving out the non doms. Just goes to show how brainless she is.Roger said:Surbiton
Non dom ?
Good point! Perhaps Ed should operate his non dom policy retrospectively and collect back taxes to say 2005. That should get the public excited.
On Any Questions when Caroline Lucas was asked whether she was worried the non dom policy might not increase the tax take she said she didn't care. "if non doms want to leave because they have to pay tax like the rest of us then I'll personally drive them to the airport".
THAT got the biggest cheer of the day.0 -
The election is clearly sending you doolally.Alanbrooke said:
More fun will be how Cameron tries to square the circle of oil in Surrey. Will he sell out to big corporates or stop one of our few growth industries.FrancisUrquhart said:
What I thought was interesting was the train fare price freeze policy yesterday. It is overwhelmingly the SE commuter belt, where the issue of high season tickets into London is something that is real core interest. The Tories aren't struggling to win those areas, it is basically just playing to the home crowd.Alanbrooke said:
It's another dickhead policy. Really is this the best the Conservatives have to offer ?rcs1000 said:
So a London home owner I will personally benefit from this. But it is economically absurd and irrational.williamglenn said:
Again this green belt policy and the train one, I can't see how that win any votes in key marginals like in the midlands.
As for what is cameron doing for those outside his comfort zone - precious little.
Why would the govt give permission to test drill for oil in Surrey if it did not want to extract oil in Surrey? One minute the nimbys are out complaining that Cameron wants to build a railway through the countryside but according to you Cameron will struggke to give permission to drill for oil.
According to the Telegraph the manifs=esto will say...
“We will ensure that local people have more control over planning and protect the Green Belt. We will encourage more neighbourhood planning and protect the Green Belt.
“Neighbourhood planning gives more power to local people, allowing them to play a much stronger role in shaping their areas.”
The manifesto will highlight the 1,400 communities, representing six million people, have now applied to draw up the plans to set out where development can take place. It will say: “We will encourage more communities to draw up such plans.”
I find it hard to see what is wrong with this.0 -
I wouldn't, he is Ted Heath's ideological nephew, and is behind complete bilge like The Good Right.marktheowl said:I'd listen to Tim Montgomerie.
0 -
Thanks Morris.Morris_Dancer said:Good afternoon, everyone.
Marf, some independent/self-published authors are going down crowd-funding as a route. Not sure it works as well for writers as, for example, game development (which is not without its pitfalls).
It is interesting to see how such things (and in music as well, with the likes of ViolinTay and Malukah) will develop. At the moment, my vague plan is to see how Sir Edric goes being traditionally published, and keep my 'serious' fantasy self-published, for now.
Cartoons may be quite a good area for this, because it's easy to see quite quickly if you like a certain style.
I'll see she gets the message.0 -
@Flightpath
"The manifesto will highlight the 1,400 communities"
Local referendum or council decision?
Might not be entirely win win if it is the latter?0 -
Isn't £12 billion supposed to be the shortfall of cuts that have to be announced?Indigo said:
Party 1 are likely to point to the nice large chunk of uncommitted money left in the budget last month that was presumably held back for sweeties just like this so they can say its is both costed, and won't impact budgets, because the money is already there, just not allocated. Some PBers pointed out at the time that there appeared to be about £20bn unspent, so I assume we can expect another £12bn of sweeties in the manifesto.weejonnie said:Suppose 6 months ago the following was made
"We intend to invest £8 billion on the NHS" - party 1
"How do you intend to fund it?" - party 2
Who would party-1 and party-2 have been?
it's a funny world.
Just a co-incidence I suppose.
if the Tories HAVE allowed themselves £20 billion to play with during the election campaign, then it seems a clever political manoeuvre as they can allocate it where it will do them most good. (Not necessarily the country of course).
However they are going to have to explain it in words of 1 syllable or less so that the populace who ARE worried about the deficit can be assured. (Most Labour supporters won't care one way or the other of course - to them money comes from heaven.)0 -
The only problem that immediately springs to mind is if those communities combined fail to come up with plans that provide for the required amount of development. That then presumably requires central government to tell them their plans aren't good enough and to think again, which tends to piss people off.Flightpath said:The manifesto will highlight the 1,400 communities, representing six million people, have now applied to draw up the plans to set out where development can take place. It will say: “We will encourage more communities to draw up such plans.”
I find it hard to see what is wrong with this.-1 -
At the time HMG were granting licences no-one was anticipating a discovery of the size announced this week. something the size of Wytch Farm was more likely. The facts have changed so somewhere along the line Cameron if still PM will have to change his opinion.Flightpath said:
The election is clearly sending you doolally.Alanbrooke said:
More fun will be how Cameron tries to square the circle of oil in Surrey. Will he sell out to big corporates or stop one of our few growth industries.FrancisUrquhart said:
What I thought was interesting was the train fare price freeze policy yesterday. It is overwhelmingly the SE commuter belt, where the issue of high season tickets into London is something that is real core interest. The Tories aren't struggling to win those areas, it is basically just playing to the home crowd.Alanbrooke said:
It's another dickhead policy. Really is this the best the Conservatives have to offer ?rcs1000 said:
So a London home owner I will personally benefit from this. But it is economically absurd and irrational.williamglenn said:
Again this green belt policy and the train one, I can't see how that win any votes in key marginals like in the midlands.
As for what is cameron doing for those outside his comfort zone - precious little.
Why would the govt give permission to test drill for oil in Surrey if it did not want to extract oil in Surrey? One minute the nimbys are out complaining that Cameron wants to build a railway through the countryside but according to you Cameron will struggke to give permission to drill for oil.
According to the Telegraph the manifs=esto will say...
“We will ensure that local people have more control over planning and protect the Green Belt. We will encourage more neighbourhood planning and protect the Green Belt.
“Neighbourhood planning gives more power to local people, allowing them to play a much stronger role in shaping their areas.”
The manifesto will highlight the 1,400 communities, representing six million people, have now applied to draw up the plans to set out where development can take place. It will say: “We will encourage more communities to draw up such plans.”
I find it hard to see what is wrong with this.
I suspect Ed will happily let the South Downs be ripped up.0 -
The Green MP drives?Roger said:
On Any Questions when Caroline Lucas was asked whether she was worried the non dom policy might not increase the tax take she said she didn't care. "if non doms want to leave because they have to pay tax like the rest of us then I'll personally drive them to the airport".
THAT got the biggest cheer of the day.
0 -
Much more efficient to have people of same type in same areas. That way services can be tailored to their needs. No need for a school but every need for smooth pavements, easy access and a large Care Home.Smarmeron said:@TCPoliticalBetting
Building a retirement village can only work on a small scale, and as part of a larger community, otherwise it becomes a parking lot for the STBD".
*(soon to be dead)
0 -
So the Tories are going to propose on keeping the green belt l;and for another five years...
For goodness sake, why it the Tory campaign so boring?! Where are the radical policies that voters can get behind ? Where are the modern equivalents such as right to buy share ownership.
They deserve to lose if they can't give people real reasons to vote FOR them instead of against Ed.0 -
Manny Shinwell of our times ?Alanbrooke said:I suspect Ed will happily let the South Downs be ripped up.
0 -
Wrong. Montgomerie is a Eurosceptic. Think IDS.Indigo said:
I wouldn't, he is Ted Heath's ideological nephew, and is behind complete bilge like The Good Right.marktheowl said:I'd listen to Tim Montgomerie.
0 -
Ted Heath won a majority.Indigo said:
I wouldn't, he is Ted Heath's ideological nephew, and is behind complete bilge like The Good Right.marktheowl said:I'd listen to Tim Montgomerie.
0 -
And spent the rest of his life apologising for being a Conservative, rather like Montie does.marktheowl said:
Ted Heath won a majority.Indigo said:
I wouldn't, he is Ted Heath's ideological nephew, and is behind complete bilge like The Good Right.marktheowl said:I'd listen to Tim Montgomerie.
0 -
The biggest argument I've heard against the Cambourne-style housing is that it is architecturally dishonest. Which is true, but I don't give a damn. Architectural honesty is a low second to the actual quality of the housing.Alanbrooke said:
That does sound more the way to go. Mixed developemnt and a bit of variety make a more pleasant environment imo. I hope the new towns announced by the coalition get to go a head and we do something a bit more interesting as we build them.JosiasJessop said:
Simple ways of planning have a habit of working for a lucky few, and not working for everyone else.Alanbrooke said:Yes that's true but as you say the extra level of hassle puts a lot of people off. Really we need to get back to some simple ways of planning where we house people. The standard approach of building mega estates of houses that all look the same isn't much use in a lot of areas.
There is moreover still lots of land and older buildings which is nor being used and where more housing would fit easily within the exisiting infrastructure. I drive trhough S Birmingham most days on the way to work and there are loads of old factory and retail buildings which could be converted to sensible living accommodation.
There is no reason for housing estates of new builds to look the same. I could refer you to my own village, where they had the cunning plan of having four developers. Each had their own areas of land, but these were interspersed in smallish blocks. Hence faux-wooden barn conversions intermingle with town houses, to (in my opinion) reasonable effect. Looking out my window, I can see several different styles of houses in a pleasant and relatively traffic-free mall where children can play safely as there are ninety-degree bends at either end.
It works. Even better, as the houses are made of differing materials and age at slightly different rates, they do not necessarily look like they were built at the same time. Differing roof lines and pitches, even when the houses are in a line, also have a positive effect.
Agree about redevelopment of existing structures where possible. But again, it needs to be done right (although there are companies with plenty of experience of doing it right).
Oh, and SuDS is a must on any new development. ;-)
Modern architecture always seems to struggle in the UK. Patly it's the attachment to older designs and partly it's the weather. But if we nominated one of the new towns as more of a showpiece for modernism, it could just work.
I'd give Cambourne 8 or 8.5 out of town for the development. It can be improved, but sadly the new developments being planned (e.g. Northstowe) are going to be worse. That's why I've got a bee in my bonnet about this: we need to build better developments, not worse.0 -
And, the point isn't about ideology, it's about tactics. If I were a Tory, I'd initially at least be killing Ed Miliband with kindness. Saying he's nice but inept (I don't think he is, in fact he's often much more capable than Cameron). People have their preconceptions without politicians informing them of them, you bank that and move on - at the moment Ed Miliband looks utterly prime ministerial purely by virtue of dealing with the negativity in the Tory campaign with dignity.Indigo said:
I wouldn't, he is Ted Heath's ideological nephew, and is behind complete bilge like The Good Right.marktheowl said:I'd listen to Tim Montgomerie.
0 -
FPT: In other news, Scott P steps on a dog turd on the street corner in Auchtermuchty and personally blames A. Salmond.Scott_P said:Life in Scotland under the fanatical Nats
@pressjournal: The Conservative offices in Aberdeen have been attacked overnight http://t.co/tY3o3kbzVC http://t.co/zhiCIzAyoT
It might have escaped him that just as there are an awful lot of dogs, and an awful lot of people who don't like the Tory Party, most of whom aren't SNP members and many of whom aren't SNP voters. Vandaism is pointess and criminal, but I remember the supposed vandalism blaned on Yessers of an Edinburgh Labour pol's office, when any local would instantly recognise the spray painted slogans as the local youth gang (young toi or whatever they call themselves nowadays).0 -
Spurs players in April onwards = Labour Front Bench from May onwards.0
-
If you look at the Wytch Farm development, it is very well disguised. And it is in a fairly beautiful and environmentally sensitive area. It should be easier to disguise with oil wells, which should last longer than the more transitory fracking gas wells.Alanbrooke said:
At the time HMG were granting licences no-one was anticipating a discovery of the size announced this week. something the size of Wytch Farm was more likely. The facts have changed so somewhere along the line Cameron if still PM will have to change his opinion.
I suspect Ed will happily let the South Downs be ripped up.
I guess - Mr Tyndall should know more.0 -
I want to know when it is being declared Extra RegioAlanbrooke said:
More fun will be how Cameron tries to square the circle of oil in Surrey. Will he sell out to big corporates or stop one of our few growth industries.FrancisUrquhart said:
What I thought was interesting was the train fare price freeze policy yesterday. It is overwhelmingly the SE commuter belt, where the issue of high season tickets into London is something that is real core interest. The Tories aren't struggling to win those areas, it is basically just playing to the home crowd.Alanbrooke said:
It's another dickhead policy. Really is this the best the Conservatives have to offer ?rcs1000 said:
So a London home owner I will personally benefit from this. But it is economically absurd and irrational.williamglenn said:http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/general-election-2015/11528903/Green-Belt-is-safe-under-us-until-2020-Conservative-manifesto-will-say.html
"The Green Belt will be safe for another five years under a Conservative Government, David Cameron will pledge next week.
The Prime Minister and Tory leader will say that the protected greenfield land around towns and cities will not get any smaller in its manifesto next week."
I'm sure this will have been extensively poll tested but I can't help feeling it's increasingly questionable electorally. They risk being painted as protecting the interests of the 'have houses' against the young.
Again this green belt policy and the train one, I can't see how that win any votes in key marginals like in the midlands.
As for what is cameron doing for those outside his comfort zone - precious little.0 -
Scott has to be the most stupid one issue dullard on the site, total contribution is just unadulterated merde tout le monde.Carnyx said:
FPT: In other news, Scott P steps on a dog turd on the street corner in Auchtermuchty and personally blames A. Salmond.Scott_P said:Life in Scotland under the fanatical Nats
@pressjournal: The Conservative offices in Aberdeen have been attacked overnight http://t.co/tY3o3kbzVC http://t.co/zhiCIzAyoT
It might have escaped him that just as there are an awful lot of dogs, and an awful lot of people who don't like the Tory Party, most of whom aren't SNP members and many of whom aren't SNP voters. Vandaism is pointess and criminal, but I remember the supposed vandalism blaned on Yessers of an Edinburgh Labour pol's office, when any local would instantly recognise the spray painted slogans as the local youth gang (young toi or whatever they call themselves nowadays).0 -
IANAE, but I *think* the way it works at the moment is that central government gives local authorities targets for housebuilding. The local authority then comes up with a local plan to match the centrally-imposed target, and this has to be signed off by the relevant SoS.Indigo said:
The only problem that immediately springs to mind is if those communities combined fail to come up with plans that provide for the required amount of development. That then presumably requires central government to tell them their plans aren't good enough and to think again, which tends to piss people off.Flightpath said:The manifesto will highlight the 1,400 communities, representing six million people, have now applied to draw up the plans to set out where development can take place. It will say: “We will encourage more communities to draw up such plans.”
I find it hard to see what is wrong with this.
As an example:
https://www.scambs.gov.uk/localplan
It'd be nice to know how this new scheme changes this (if I've understood it correctly).0 -
It is a borefest competition between labour and Tories to see who can be the worst.nu123 said:So the Tories are going to propose on keeping the green belt l;and for another five years...
For goodness sake, why it the Tory campaign so boring?! Where are the radical policies that voters can get behind ? Where are the modern equivalents such as right to buy share ownership.
They deserve to lose if they can't give people real reasons to vote FOR them instead of against Ed.0 -
Is there such a thing as 'modernism'? Georgian architecture harked back to Roman and Greek architecture, the Gothic revival harked back to mediaeval architecture. Both are now seen as iconic eras for building design in their own right. 1960's architecture on the other hand...Alanbrooke said:
That does sound more the way to go. Mixed developemnt and a bit of variety make a more pleasant environment imo. I hope the new towns announced by the coalition get to go a head and we do something a bit more interesting as we build them.JosiasJessop said:
Simple ways of planning have a habit of working for a lucky few, and not working for everyone else.Alanbrooke said:Yes that's true but as you say the extra level of hassle puts a lot of people off. Really we need to get back to some simple ways of planning where we house people. The standard approach of building mega estates of houses that all look the same isn't much use in a lot of areas.
There is moreover still lots of land and older buildings which is nor being used and where more housing would fit easily within the exisiting infrastructure. I drive trhough S Birmingham most days on the way to work and there are loads of old factory and retail buildings which could be converted to sensible living accommodation.
There is no reason for housing estates of new builds to look the same. I could refer you to my own village, where they had the cunning plan of having four developers. Each had their own areas of land, but these were interspersed in smallish blocks. Hence faux-wooden barn conversions intermingle with town houses, to (in my opinion) reasonable effect. Looking out my window, I can see several different styles of houses in a pleasant and relatively traffic-free mall where children can play safely as there are ninety-degree bends at either end.
It works. Even better, as the houses are made of differing materials and age at slightly different rates, they do not necessarily look like they were built at the same time. Differing roof lines and pitches, even when the houses are in a line, also have a positive effect.
Agree about redevelopment of existing structures where possible. But again, it needs to be done right (although there are companies with plenty of experience of doing it right).
Oh, and SuDS is a must on any new development. ;-)
Modern architecture always seems to struggle in the UK. Patly it's the attachment to older designs and partly it's the weather. But if we nominated one of the new towns as more of a showpiece for modernism, it could just work.0 -
I suspect the oil wells could be sensitively blended in to the landscape without much effort. However the main issue will be the human one of protestors not wanting to let any of it get started for any number of reasons. Having Greenie Brighton on the doorstep gives the "alternatives" a big head start in the protest game.JosiasJessop said:
If you look at the Wytch Farm development, it is very well disguised. And it is in a fairly beautiful and environmentally sensitive area. It should be easier to disguise with oil wells, which should last longer than the more transitory fracking gas wells.Alanbrooke said:
At the time HMG were granting licences no-one was anticipating a discovery of the size announced this week. something the size of Wytch Farm was more likely. The facts have changed so somewhere along the line Cameron if still PM will have to change his opinion.
I suspect Ed will happily let the South Downs be ripped up.
I guess - Mr Tyndall should know more.0 -
Just on Spring Heeled, but Nicholls is right here - Rocky Creek should be favourite.0
-
I'd have thought this will be good news for you short term. I can see HMG wanting to let local communities keep more of their oil money. In Scotland it's to shut you up and in the SE to bribe them to let exploitation go ahead.malcolmg said:
I want to know when it is being declared Extra RegioAlanbrooke said:
More fun will be how Cameron tries to square the circle of oil in Surrey. Will he sell out to big corporates or stop one of our few growth industries.FrancisUrquhart said:
What I thought was interesting was the train fare price freeze policy yesterday. It is how that win any votes in key marginals like in the midlands.Alanbrooke said:
It's another dickhead policy. Really is this the best the Conservatives have to offer ?rcs1000 said:
So a London home owner I will personally benefit from this. But it is economically absurd and irrational.williamglenn said:http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/general-election-2015/11528903/Green-Belt-is-safe-under-us-until-2020-Conservative-manifesto-will-say.html
"The Green Belt will be safe for another five years under a Conservative Government, David Cameron will pledge next week.
The Prime Minister and Tory leader will say that the protected greenfield land around towns and cities will not get any smaller in its manifesto next week."
I'm sure this will have been extensively poll tested but I can't help feeling it's increasingly questionable electorally. They risk being painted as protecting the interests of the 'have houses' against the young.
As for what is cameron doing for those outside his comfort zone - precious little.0 -
No, he was a eurosceptic, now he's a sellout. Think Hague.TCPoliticalBetting said:
Wrong. Montgomerie is a Eurosceptic. Think IDS.Indigo said:
I wouldn't, he is Ted Heath's ideological nephew, and is behind complete bilge like The Good Right.marktheowl said:I'd listen to Tim Montgomerie.
0 -
I think there's been some good sensible comment here about the Ed fratricide nonsense.
As for DC: I don't believe a word he says about green belts or anything else.
Fingers crossed the Tories will keep up their present head of steam and Ed will stay cool.0
