DE voters ideally want higher benefits for themselves, more spending on the NHS etc and would be happy with renationalising the railways and utilities.
However DE voters would also be happy with a No Deal Brexit and slashed immigration and tougher policies on crime.
In fact the ideal DE Government at the moment would be a Corbyn and Farage coalition
> @malcolmg said: > > @FF43 said: > > > On the 'Tumescent PB Tory hanging on her every word' metric Ruth is certainly drooping. However I think she's still got a way to run with a supine media agog to see what farm animal she mounts next. > > > > > > Ruth Davidson is liberal, witty and articulate in defence of the Union that is supported by more than half of Scots, which is why the SNP are obsessed by her. But she is shackled to the Tory Party monster. I don't see how she escapes. > > > > Perhaps if she made a minimal effort to distance herself from the frothers, bigots, racists, mad Brexiters and LOLers that seem to have safe haven within her sub branch, Ruth might be able to carve out a separate identity. > > > > However I see that's not going to be a goer. > > > > > > https://twitter.com/ChrisMusson/status/1125317332509835265 > > > > I wonder if any teacher has been fired for staying stuff about Tories? > > You stupid turnip, that was not what she was fired for moron. She was staking people on social media for years, nothing to do with SNP or Sturgeon. At least read the story before you talk bollox.
"staking people" ?
I know Internet trolling can go a little far, but that seems a little excessive ...
> On the 'Tumescent PB Tory hanging on her every word' metric Ruth is certainly drooping. However I think she's still got a way to run with a supine media agog to see what farm animal she mounts next.
>
> Ruth Davidson is liberal, witty and articulate in defence of the Union that is supported by more than half of Scots, which is why the SNP are obsessed by her. But she is shackled to the Tory Party monster. I don't see how she escapes.
Perhaps if she made a minimal effort to distance herself from the frothers, bigots, racists, mad Brexiters and LOLers that seem to have safe haven within her sub branch, Ruth might be able to carve out a separate identity.
I wonder if any teacher has been fired for staying stuff about Tories?
You stupid turnip, that was not what she was fired for moron. She was staking people on social media for years, nothing to do with SNP or Sturgeon. At least read the story before you talk bollox.
I did, and it said
Kathleen Leslie, 42, is a parly aide to Bill Bowman despite agreeing to be struck off as a Miss over her Twitter jibes at the Nats leader..
Perhaps the Scottish Sun has a corrections and clarifications page?
> @kjh said: > > @edb said: > > This local plan thing (in general) seems to be a disaster for absolutely everyone. Central govt imposing unrealistic targets and then local councils cant achieve them but become very unpopular trying. Meanwhile it doesnt look good for those who want cheap housing, or for those who want to preserve the greenbelt. > > It seems obvious to me that if we really want to build loads of houses for commuters they need to be in new towns and/or motorway+good rail corridors. Even better would be to build enough houses in london regeneration projects so that commuting is not needed. > > Obviously there will then be nimby opposition in those areas, but it wont be in EVERY area at once which it seems to be now. > > One issue that seems apparent (and mentioned earlier by someone) is the complete lack of infrastructure planning surrounding some of these plans. It seems so incompetent that one wonders whether it is deliberate. That is you need houses so build them, then you find you have a roads/parking/school/sewage/pollution/flooding/surgery/etc crisis. So it is essential you must now overcome that. Whereas if you had tried to get it all through in the first place you would never have done so. Now build more houses because you have renewed infrastructure. In other words keep creating a problem by overcoming another problem. > > Deliberate or incompetent?
A bit of both, probably. I wonder though, if the general revolt against the Conservatives was no so much that they were getting more houses built, but rather that they rolled over and allowed developers to get away with everything - even to the extent of failing to put in the necessary infrastructure.
> @RobD said: > > @FF43 said: > > > On the 'Tumescent PB Tory hanging on her every word' metric Ruth is certainly drooping. However I think she's still got a way to run with a supine media agog to see what farm animal she mounts next. > > > > > > Ruth Davidson is liberal, witty and articulate in defence of the Union that is supported by more than half of Scots, which is why the SNP are obsessed by her. But she is shackled to the Tory Party monster. I don't see how she escapes. > > > > Perhaps if she made a minimal effort to distance herself from the frothers, bigots, racists, mad Brexiters and LOLers that seem to have safe haven within her sub branch, Ruth might be able to carve out a separate identity. > > > > However I see that's not going to be a goer. > > > > > > https://twitter.com/ChrisMusson/status/1125317332509835265 > > > > I wonder if any teacher has been fired for staying stuff about Tories?
Dunno. I'd be surprised if they went on to be employed by an MP or MSP though.
> @PClipp said: > > @kjh said: > > > @edb said: > > > This local plan thing (in general) seems to be a disaster for absolutely everyone. Central govt imposing unrealistic targets and then local councils cant achieve them but become very unpopular trying. Meanwhile it doesnt look good for those who want cheap housing, or for those who want to preserve the greenbelt. > > > It seems obvious to me that if we really want to build loads of houses for commuters they need to be in new towns and/or motorway+good rail corridors. Even better would be to build enough houses in london regeneration projects so that commuting is not needed. > > > Obviously there will then be nimby opposition in those areas, but it wont be in EVERY area at once which it seems to be now. > > > > One issue that seems apparent (and mentioned earlier by someone) is the complete lack of infrastructure planning surrounding some of these plans. It seems so incompetent that one wonders whether it is deliberate. That is you need houses so build them, then you find you have a roads/parking/school/sewage/pollution/flooding/surgery/etc crisis. So it is essential you must now overcome that. Whereas if you had tried to get it all through in the first place you would never have done so. Now build more houses because you have renewed infrastructure. In other words keep creating a problem by overcoming another problem. > > > > Deliberate or incompetent? > > A bit of both, probably. I wonder though, if the general revolt against the Conservatives was no so much that they were getting more houses built, but rather that they rolled over and allowed developers to get away with everything - even to the extent of failing to put in the necessary infrastructure. > > Is that where the suspicion of corruption arises? >
Developers are meant to provide benefits for the community in return for planning permission but either the amounts paid disappear into Council coffers with no visible benefits or the proposed benefits that are meant to be part of the plan never, somehow, materialise.
Kings X in London is a good example of how a run down area can be regenerated well. The developers behind that are, according to the papers, now proposing to do something similar in Tottenham.
But most of the housing developers wanting to build new expensive homes on the edges of towns or nice villages are not of this type and between them and useless councils, it is not hard to see how poor plans are devised which then face NIMBY-style reactions.
The old normal was a bankrupt system that maintained a political and economic elite in power whilst failing to address the needs and aspirations of the vast majority of people in Britain. Some of us only ever saw Brexit as the first step on a massive remoulding of British politics so the chaos we are seeing now amongst the political classes is a good thing.
Next we need Scottish Independence, Irish reunification and a huge transfer of power down the ladder to counties and districts. A proper revising second chamber based on skills and expertise not patronage and the breaking of the power of the parties over MPs.
> > On the 'Tumescent PB Tory hanging on her every word' metric Ruth is certainly drooping. However I think she's still got a way to run with a supine media agog to see what farm animal she mounts next.
>
> >
>
> > Ruth Davidson is liberal, witty and articulate in defence of the Union that is supported by more than half of Scots, which is why the SNP are obsessed by her. But she is shackled to the Tory Party monster. I don't see how she escapes.
>
>
>
> Perhaps if she made a minimal effort to distance herself from the frothers, bigots, racists, mad Brexiters and LOLers that seem to have safe haven within her sub branch, Ruth might be able to carve out a separate identity.
> I wonder if any teacher has been fired for staying stuff about Tories?
>
> You stupid turnip, that was not what she was fired for moron. She was staking people on social media for years, nothing to do with SNP or Sturgeon. At least read the story before you talk bollox.
"staking people" ?
I know Internet trolling can go a little far, but that seems a little excessive ...
Appropriate I would say for some, many would need the silver bullet.
> @williamglenn said: > On the 'Tumescent PB Tory hanging on her every word' metric Ruth is certainly drooping. However I think she's still got a way to run with a supine media agog to see what farm animal she mounts next. > > Ruth Davidson is liberal, witty and articulate in defence of the Union that is supported by more than half of Scots, which is why the SNP are obsessed by her. But she is shackled to the Tory Party monster. I don't see how she escapes. > > > Her message that the union doesn't hold Scotland back, while simultaneously arguing that Scotland has to go through with a Brexit she doesn't think it good for Scotland because the rest of the UK voted for it has problems with intellectual coherence.
Her unspoken position is that that preservation of the Union is worth almost any price, which I suppose is verging on the coherent though a stranger to the intellectual.
This local plan thing (in general) seems to be a disaster for absolutely everyone. Central govt imposing unrealistic targets and then local councils cant achieve them but become very unpopular trying. Meanwhile it doesnt look good for those who want cheap housing, or for those who want to preserve the greenbelt.
It seems obvious to me that if we really want to build loads of houses for commuters they need to be in new towns and/or motorway+good rail corridors. Even better would be to build enough houses in london regeneration projects so that commuting is not needed.
Obviously there will then be nimby opposition in those areas, but it wont be in EVERY area at once which it seems to be now.
Indeed building a normal speed line with a string of new eco friendly towns on the HS2 route would be a good first step.
> > On the 'Tumescent PB Tory hanging on her every word' metric Ruth is certainly drooping. However I think she's still got a way to run with a supine media agog to see what farm animal she mounts next.
>
> >
>
> > Ruth Davidson is liberal, witty and articulate in defence of the Union that is supported by more than half of Scots, which is why the SNP are obsessed by her. But she is shackled to the Tory Party monster. I don't see how she escapes.
>
>
>
> Perhaps if she made a minimal effort to distance herself from the frothers, bigots, racists, mad Brexiters and LOLers that seem to have safe haven within her sub branch, Ruth might be able to carve out a separate identity.
> @DecrepitJohnL said: > > @HYUFD said: > > Tory Remainer MPs plot a 'coronation' for either Jeremy Hunt or Michael Gove to succeed May by getting them both into the final two with the hope one gives way to the other if they are the last men standing. > > > > They would thus block Boris or Raab from getting to the final two and likely winning the membership vote > > > > https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2019/05/05/conservative-party-split-price-worth-paying-deliver-brexit-let/ > > Funny how chief Leave campaigner Michael Gove is always the beneficiary of these murky plots by Remainers.
For most Brexiteers Gove is now a Leaver in name only
> @twistedfirestopper3 said: > > @Big_G_NorthWales said: > > Duchess of Sussex in labour. Now that will see the media go crazy > > You're right-I'd always had her down as a Green party member.
> @Theuniondivvie said: > > @FF43 said: > > On the 'Tumescent PB Tory hanging on her every word' metric Ruth is certainly drooping. However I think she's still got a way to run with a supine media agog to see what farm animal she mounts next. > > > > Ruth Davidson is liberal, witty and articulate in defence of the Union that is supported by more than half of Scots, which is why the SNP are obsessed by her. But she is shackled to the Tory Party monster. I don't see how she escapes. > > Perhaps if she made a minimal effort to distance herself from the frothers, bigots, racists, mad Brexiters and LOLers that seem to have safe haven within her sub branch, Ruth might be able to carve out a separate identity. > > However I see that's not going to be a goer. > > > https://twitter.com/ChrisMusson/status/1125317332509835265 > > >
You lose your job for calling Sturgeon "Wee Jimmy" on tw@ter these days ?!
> @HYUFD said: > > @DecrepitJohnL said: > > > @HYUFD said: > > > Tory Remainer MPs plot a 'coronation' for either Jeremy Hunt or Michael Gove to succeed May by getting them both into the final two with the hope one gives way to the other if they are the last men standing. > > > > > > They would thus block Boris or Raab from getting to the final two and likely winning the membership vote > > > > > > https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2019/05/05/conservative-party-split-price-worth-paying-deliver-brexit-let/ > > > > Funny how chief Leave campaigner Michael Gove is always the beneficiary of these murky plots by Remainers. > > For most Brexiteers Gove is now a Leaver in name only
No. For some he is. For many more sensible Brexiteers he is one of the few voices of reason.
> @Cyclefree said: > > @PClipp said: > > > @kjh said: > > > > @edb said: > > > > This local plan thing (in general) seems to be a disaster for absolutely everyone. Central govt imposing unrealistic targets and then local councils cant achieve them but become very unpopular trying. Meanwhile it doesnt look good for those who want cheap housing, or for those who want to preserve the greenbelt. > > > > It seems obvious to me that if we really want to build loads of houses for commuters they need to be in new towns and/or motorway+good rail corridors. Even better would be to build enough houses in london regeneration projects so that commuting is not needed. > > > > Obviously there will then be nimby opposition in those areas, but it wont be in EVERY area at once which it seems to be now. > > > > > > One issue that seems apparent (and mentioned earlier by someone) is the complete lack of infrastructure planning surrounding some of these plans. It seems so incompetent that one wonders whether it is deliberate. That is you need houses so build them, then you find you have a roads/parking/school/sewage/pollution/flooding/surgery/etc crisis. So it is essential you must now overcome that. Whereas if you had tried to get it all through in the first place you would never have done so. Now build more houses because you have renewed infrastructure. In other words keep creating a problem by overcoming another problem. > > > > > > Deliberate or incompetent? > > > > A bit of both, probably. I wonder though, if the general revolt against the Conservatives was no so much that they were getting more houses built, but rather that they rolled over and allowed developers to get away with everything - even to the extent of failing to put in the necessary infrastructure. > > > > Is that where the suspicion of corruption arises? > > > > Developers are meant to provide benefits for the community in return for planning permission but either the amounts paid disappear into Council coffers with no visible benefits or the proposed benefits that are meant to be part of the plan never, somehow, materialise. > > Kings X in London is a good example of how a run down area can be regenerated well. The developers behind that are, according to the papers, now proposing to do something similar in Tottenham. > > But most of the housing developers wanting to build new expensive homes on the edges of towns or nice villages are not of this type and between them and useless councils, it is not hard to see how poor plans are devised which then face NIMBY-style reactions.
We have neighbourhood plans in Epping which feed into the District's Local Plan to ensure with new development comes infrastructure.
> On the 'Tumescent PB Tory hanging on her every word' metric Ruth is certainly drooping. However I think she's still got a way to run with a supine media agog to see what farm animal she mounts next.
>
> Ruth Davidson is liberal, witty and articulate in defence of the Union that is supported by more than half of Scots, which is why the SNP are obsessed by her. But she is shackled to the Tory Party monster. I don't see how she escapes.
Perhaps if she made a minimal effort to distance herself from the frothers, bigots, racists, mad Brexiters and LOLers that seem to have safe haven within her sub branch, Ruth might be able to carve out a separate identity.
I wonder if any teacher has been fired for staying stuff about Tories?
You stupid turnip, that was not what she was fired for moron. She was staking people on social media for years, nothing to do with SNP or Sturgeon. At least read the story before you talk bollox.
I did, and it said
Kathleen Leslie, 42, is a parly aide to Bill Bowman despite agreeing to be struck off as a Miss over her Twitter jibes at the Nats leader..
Perhaps the Scottish Sun has a corrections and clarifications page?
LOL, only a Tory could quote the SUN as evidence of anything, come on Rob have you had a clanky on the napper
> On the 'Tumescent PB Tory hanging on her every word' metric Ruth is certainly drooping. However I think she's still got a way to run with a supine media agog to see what farm animal she mounts next.
>
> Ruth Davidson is liberal, witty and articulate in defence of the Union that is supported by more than half of Scots, which is why the SNP are obsessed by her. But she is shackled to the Tory Party monster. I don't see how she escapes.
Perhaps if she made a minimal effort to distance herself from the frothers, bigots, racists, mad Brexiters and LOLers that seem to have safe haven within her sub branch, Ruth might be able to carve out a separate identity.
I wonder if any teacher has been fired for staying stuff about Tories?
You stupid turnip, that was not what she was fired for moron. She was staking people on social media for years, nothing to do with SNP or Sturgeon. At least read the story before you talk bollox.
I did, and it said
Kathleen Leslie, 42, is a parly aide to Bill Bowman despite agreeing to be struck off as a Miss over her Twitter jibes at the Nats leader..
Perhaps the Scottish Sun has a corrections and clarifications page?
LOL, only a Tory could quote the SUN as evidence of anything, come on Rob have you had a clanky on the napper
You were the one questioning whether I had read the article.
> > On the 'Tumescent PB Tory hanging on her every word' metric Ruth is certainly drooping. However I think she's still got a way to run with a supine media agog to see what farm animal she mounts next.
> >
> > Ruth Davidson is liberal, witty and articulate in defence of the Union that is supported by more than half of Scots, which is why the SNP are obsessed by her. But she is shackled to the Tory Party monster. I don't see how she escapes.
>
> Perhaps if she made a minimal effort to distance herself from the frothers, bigots, racists, mad Brexiters and LOLers that seem to have safe haven within her sub branch, Ruth might be able to carve out a separate identity.
>
> However I see that's not going to be a goer.
>
>
>
>
>
>
You lose your job for calling Sturgeon "Wee Jimmy" on tw@ter these days ?!
> > On the 'Tumescent PB Tory hanging on her every word' metric Ruth is certainly drooping. However I think she's still got a way to run with a supine media agog to see what farm animal she mounts next.
> >
> > Ruth Davidson is liberal, witty and articulate in defence of the Union that is supported by more than half of Scots, which is why the SNP are obsessed by her. But she is shackled to the Tory Party monster. I don't see how she escapes.
>
> Perhaps if she made a minimal effort to distance herself from the frothers, bigots, racists, mad Brexiters and LOLers that seem to have safe haven within her sub branch, Ruth might be able to carve out a separate identity.
You could reverse it and say why are so many young graduates Remainers.
They're deep in debt and have their pay and housing choices restricted by immigration.
Is it because Remain represents the sort of globalist, cosmopolitan image they yearn for in their lives ?
When I worked in Taiwan just 20 years ago, I had to rely on a weekly delivery of the International Daily Telegraph to find out what was happening in British politics.
Globalisation has happened.
You can choose to deny it or embrace it.
I agree about globalization. Ditto the multicultural society. If something is a fact of life, the best approach is to seek to maximize the benefits and minimize the drawbacks.
> On the 'Tumescent PB Tory hanging on her every word' metric Ruth is certainly drooping. However I think she's still got a way to run with a supine media agog to see what farm animal she mounts next.
>
> Ruth Davidson is liberal, witty and articulate in defence of the Union that is supported by more than half of Scots, which is why the SNP are obsessed by her. But she is shackled to the Tory Party monster. I don't see how she escapes.
Perhaps if she made a minimal effort to distance herself from the frothers, bigots, racists, mad Brexiters and LOLers that seem to have safe haven within her sub branch, Ruth might be able to carve out a separate identity.
I wonder if any teacher has been fired for staying stuff about Tories?
You stupid turnip, that was not what she was fired for moron. She was staking people on social media for years, nothing to do with SNP or Sturgeon. At least read the story before you talk bollox.
I did, and it said
Kathleen Leslie, 42, is a parly aide to Bill Bowman despite agreeing to be struck off as a Miss over her Twitter jibes at the Nats leader..
Perhaps the Scottish Sun has a corrections and clarifications page?
LOL, only a Tory could quote the SUN as evidence of anything, come on Rob have you had a clanky on the napper
You were the one questioning whether I had read the article.
Obviously it was just a bollox headline and not the full story, the toilet paper SUN would be unlikely to print reality. Big writing and a picture is not the article and in the SUN there will be no more , certainly not the truth for sure.
> @Sean_F said: > > @twistedfirestopper3 said: > > > @Big_G_NorthWales said: > > > Duchess of Sussex in labour. Now that will see the media go crazy > > > > You're right-I'd always had her down as a Green party member. > > I thought she'd be more SWP, myself.
They've produced a boy, he is called the Earl of Dumbarton, though obviously he'll also have a personal name. That's all the papers will be talking about tomorrow. Now's the moment for the government to bury any bad news.
> On the 'Tumescent PB Tory hanging on her every word' metric Ruth is certainly drooping. However I think she's still got a way to run with a supine media agog to see what farm animal she mounts next.
>
> Ruth Davidson is liberal, witty and articulate in defence of the Union that is supported by more than half of Scots, which is why the SNP are obsessed by her. But she is shackled to the Tory Party monster. I don't see how she escapes.
Perhaps if she made a minimal effort to distance herself from the frothers, bigots, racists, mad Brexiters and LOLers that seem to have safe haven within her sub branch, Ruth might be able to carve out a separate identity.
I wonder if any teacher has been fired for staying stuff about Tories?
You stupid turnip, that was not what she was fired for moron. She was staking people on social media for years, nothing to do with SNP or Sturgeon. At least read the story before you talk bollox.
I did, and it said
Kathleen Leslie, 42, is a parly aide to Bill Bowman despite agreeing to be struck off as a Miss over her Twitter jibes at the Nats leader..
Perhaps the Scottish Sun has a corrections and clarifications page?
LOL, only a Tory could quote the SUN as evidence of anything, come on Rob have you had a clanky on the napper
You were the one questioning whether I had read the article.
Obviously it was just a bollox headline and not the full story, the toilet paper SUN would be unlikely to print reality. Big writing and a picture is not the article and in the SUN there will be no more , certainly not the truth for sure.
Care to post the full story then? Find it hard to imagine they’d publish an outright lie.
It's funny with the election coverage. You can just see the ghost of the 80's beginning to peep thru, but it's mostly unremittingly Seventies: Peter Jenkins of the Guardian is wearing a pinstripe suit, a striped shirt and a patterened tie - he must have dressed in the dark. Everybody looks younger: Rhodes Boyson was not always old and grey, it seems. Communist Party, Ecology Party, National Front. Jumpers for goalposts. The graphics don't have the vibrancy of 80's graphics nor the overcomplication of modern day's. The Godlike Bob McKenzie applies a simple algorithm and reaches the right conclusion, the computer guy does an overcomplicated model that can't cope with irregular unrepresentative input and messes up: so no change there then. A different time.
A Corbyn Government raising taxes and slowing growth, spending too much and increasing inflation is not going to benefit them.
However given the poorest DE voters voted both to Leave the EU in the 2016 referendum and for Corbyn Labour at the last general election it is more a case they want both Brexit and Corbyn not either or.
Whether Labour economic policies would work is another matter. It's not valid to project your Conservative mindset onto these people.
And it's not GE17 I'm talking about, it's now - the appeal of Farage and No Deal Brexit to our DE citizens.
In particular, given it is clear to everybody that the political cheerleaders of Hard Brexit are almost exclusively reactionary right wing Tories (inc Farage), why does this not discredit it in their eyes?
It's odd.
Well the only people who take any interest at all in the DEs are the hard left, many of whom are from that background, who are very anti-EU. So the ground has been tilled to some extent.
I would say it was much more those who have something but think they are losing out from globalisation who voted Leave.
And I'll reverse the question and ask why did so many of the poor in London vote Remain when globalisation is a driver in the deprivation and inequality they suffer from ?
I don't know, my circle is pretty much me and the missus, but perhaps down here they are more savvy that Hard Brexit is the wet dream of the right wing of the Tory Party (plus fellow traveler Nige), and thus cannot possibly be something that will be in the interests of the poor.
Kathleen Leslie, 42, is a parly aide to Bill Bowman despite agreeing to be struck off as a Miss over her Twitter jibes at the Nats leader..
Perhaps the Scottish Sun has a corrections and clarifications page?
LOL, only a Tory could quote the SUN as evidence of anything, come on Rob have you had a clanky on the napper
You were the one questioning whether I had read the article.
Obviously it was just a bollox headline and not the full story, the toilet paper SUN would be unlikely to print reality. Big writing and a picture is not the article and in the SUN there will be no more , certainly not the truth for sure.
Care to post the full story then? Find it hard to imagine they’d publish an outright lie.
A Tory councillor struck off the teaching register for offensive comments about Nicola Sturgeon has been put in charge of standards at her local authority.
Kathleen Leslie was appointed to Fife Council’s Special Standards and Audit Committee, where she will “promote and maintain high standards of conduct by councillors”.
The move came days after it emerged Leslie had agreed to be struck off the teaching register after complaints about tweets in 2013 including branding Sturgeon “Wee Jimmy Krankie”. Leslie also called EuroMillions winners Chris and Colin Weir “fat f*****s” after they donated millions to the Yes campaign. It emerged last week she agreed to remove herself from the teaching register in July following an investigation by the General Teaching Council.
Leslie, from Dalgety Bay, later told her local newspaper: “I chose not to exercise my right to take the issue to a hearing.
The old normal was a bankrupt system that maintained a political and economic elite in power whilst failing to address the needs and aspirations of the vast majority of people in Britain. Some of us only ever saw Brexit as the first step on a massive remoulding of British politics so the chaos we are seeing now amongst the political classes is a good thing.
Next we need Scottish Independence, Irish reunification and a huge transfer of power down the ladder to counties and districts. A proper revising second chamber based on skills and expertise not patronage and the breaking of the power of the parties over MPs.
And after breakfast....
While I agree that such a revolutionary deconstruction of the United Kingdom is a possible outcome of Brexit, there are other equally possible outcomes from the new normal, including a decline into British Peronism. We shall have to wait and see.
I don't think this bears much resemblance to what Leavers voted for. essentially a return to the sense of community present in early 70's Britain, prior to EEC entry. Back to a world of Carry On movies and Britain as a manufacturing economy of well paid manual workers, only with the benefits of the modern world too.
I think both you and they are going to be disappointed, when it turns out that little has changed.
> You could reverse it and say why are so many young graduates Remainers. > > They're deep in debt and have their pay and housing choices restricted by immigration. > > Is it because Remain represents the sort of globalist, cosmopolitan image they yearn for in their lives ? > > When I worked in Taiwan just 20 years ago, I had to rely on a weekly delivery of the International Daily Telegraph to find out what was happening in British politics. > > Globalisation has happened. > > You can choose to deny it or embrace it. > Globalisation of information, goods even travel might have happened.
But globalisation of people hasn't happened.
Except in the partial example of FOM within the EU.
> @Richard_Tyndall said: > > @HYUFD said: > > > @DecrepitJohnL said: > > > > @HYUFD said: > > > > Tory Remainer MPs plot a 'coronation' for either Jeremy Hunt or Michael Gove to succeed May by getting them both into the final two with the hope one gives way to the other if they are the last men standing. > > > > > > > > They would thus block Boris or Raab from getting to the final two and likely winning the membership vote > > > > > > > > https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2019/05/05/conservative-party-split-price-worth-paying-deliver-brexit-let/ > > > > > > Funny how chief Leave campaigner Michael Gove is always the beneficiary of these murky plots by Remainers. > > > > For most Brexiteers Gove is now a Leaver in name only > > No. For some he is. For many more sensible Brexiteers he is one of the few voices of reason.
For the minority of Leavers such as you who are fine with staying in the single market, fine with free movement and some European court jurisdiction etc Gove is fine.
Most Leave voters though now want a hard Brexit or even No Deal
> @viewcode said: > It's funny with the election coverage. You can just see the ghost of the 80's beginning to peep thru, but it's mostly unremittingly Seventies: Peter Jenkins of the Guardian is wearing a pinstripe suit, a striped shirt and a patterened tie - he must have dressed in the dark. Everybody looks younger: Rhodes Boyson was not always old and grey, it seems. Communist Party, Ecology Party, National Front. Jumpers for goalposts. The graphics don't have the vibrancy of 80's graphics nor the overcomplication of modern day's. The Godlike Bob McKenzie applies a simple algorithm and reaches the right conclusion, the computer guy does an overcomplicated model that can't cope with irregular unrepresentative input and messes up: so no change there then. A different time.
I see nothing amiss with the attire of Peter Jenkins - only the tie might appear a bit out of place today. The programme is far superior to what we have been given over the last 25 years or so. Nowadays we have a chatshow format imposed on us with many results not covered at all.There is a flippancy present today encouraged by the media obsession with silly graphics and models - and the overall effect is a much less serious programme.Increasingly the focus appears to be on entertainment - rather than delivering the serious news.
> > > > Tory Remainer MPs plot a 'coronation' for either Jeremy Hunt or Michael Gove to succeed May by getting them both into the final two with the hope one gives way to the other if they are the last men standing.
> > > >
> > > > They would thus block Boris or Raab from getting to the final two and likely winning the membership vote
> > > Funny how chief Leave campaigner Michael Gove is always the beneficiary of these murky plots by Remainers.
> >
> > For most Brexiteers Gove is now a Leaver in name only
>
> No. For some he is. For many more sensible Brexiteers he is one of the few voices of reason.
For the minority of Leavers such as you who are fine with staying in the single market, fine with free movement and some European court jurisdiction etc Gove is fine.
Most Leave voters though now want a hard Brexit or even No Deal
Surely the Tory membership are going to raze the party to the ground if they are blocked from having yet another leadership vote by an engineered coronation?
> @Foxy said: > "This is the new normal" > > > > The only sensible response to that is 'good'. > > > > The old normal was a bankrupt system that maintained a political and economic elite in power whilst failing to address the needs and aspirations of the vast majority of people in Britain. Some of us only ever saw Brexit as the first step on a massive remoulding of British politics so the chaos we are seeing now amongst the political classes is a good thing. > > > > Next we need Scottish Independence, Irish reunification and a huge transfer of power down the ladder to counties and districts. A proper revising second chamber based on skills and expertise not patronage and the breaking of the power of the parties over MPs. > > > > And after breakfast.... > > While I agree that such a revolutionary deconstruction of the United Kingdom is a possible outcome of Brexit, there are other equally possible outcomes from the new normal, including a decline into British Peronism. We shall have to wait and see. > > I don't think this bears much resemblance to what Leavers voted for. essentially a return to the sense of community present in early 70's Britain, prior to EEC entry. Back to a world of Carry On movies and Britain as a manufacturing economy of well paid manual workers, only with the benefits of the modern world too. > > I think both you and they are going to be disappointed, when it turns out that little has changed.
What will happen we don't know but despite the yearning from some Remainers the Leave areas haven't suffered as they were predicted to do back in 2016.
And either of those two possibilities would be better than the 'hand carwash on every road' stagnant wages and rising house prices vision of the Remain establishment.
It's funny with the election coverage. You can just see the ghost of the 80's beginning to peep thru, but it's mostly unremittingly Seventies: Peter Jenkins of the Guardian is wearing a pinstripe suit, a striped shirt and a patterened tie - he must have dressed in the dark. Everybody looks younger: Rhodes Boyson was not always old and grey, it seems. Communist Party, Ecology Party, National Front. Jumpers for goalposts. The graphics don't have the vibrancy of 80's graphics nor the overcomplication of modern day's. The Godlike Bob McKenzie applies a simple algorithm and reaches the right conclusion, the computer guy does an overcomplicated model that can't cope with irregular unrepresentative input and messes up: so no change there then. A different time.
I see nothing amiss with the attire of Peter Jenkins - only the tie might appear a bit out of place today. The programme is far superior to what we have been given over the last 25 years or so. Nowadays we have a chatshow format imposed on us with many results not covered at all.There is a flippancy present today encouraged by the media obsession with silly graphics and models - and the overall effect is a much less serious programme. Increasingly the focus appears to be on entertainment - rather than delivering the serious news.
I agree to an extent, but the coverage has always had some frivolous aspects. However I agree that Jeremy Vine is not as good as his predecessors.
> @Foxy said: > "This is the new normal" > > > > The only sensible response to that is 'good'. > > > > The old normal was a bankrupt system that maintained a political and economic elite in power whilst failing to address the needs and aspirations of the vast majority of people in Britain. Some of us only ever saw Brexit as the first step on a massive remoulding of British politics so the chaos we are seeing now amongst the political classes is a good thing. > > > > Next we need Scottish Independence, Irish reunification and a huge transfer of power down the ladder to counties and districts. A proper revising second chamber based on skills and expertise not patronage and the breaking of the power of the parties over MPs. > > > > And after breakfast.... > > While I agree that such a revolutionary deconstruction of the United Kingdom is a possible outcome of Brexit, there are other equally possible outcomes from the new normal, including a decline into British Peronism. We shall have to wait and see. > > I don't think this bears much resemblance to what Leavers voted for. essentially a return to the sense of community present in early 70's Britain, prior to EEC entry. Back to a world of Carry On movies and Britain as a manufacturing economy of well paid manual workers, only with the benefits of the modern world too. > > I think both you and they are going to be disappointed, when it turns out that little has changed.
No one of my acquaintance who voted leave has ever cited the empire or any variation of it as a reason why they put a cross in the box. Now I realise it was Barbara Windsor in a nurse outfit that clinched it.
> @rottenborough said: > > @Richard_Tyndall said: > > > > @HYUFD said: > > > > > @DecrepitJohnL said: > > > > > > @HYUFD said: > > > > > > Tory Remainer MPs plot a 'coronation' for either Jeremy Hunt or Michael Gove to succeed May by getting them both into the final two with the hope one gives way to the other if they are the last men standing. > > > > > > > > > > > > They would thus block Boris or Raab from getting to the final two and likely winning the membership vote > > > > > > > > > > > > https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2019/05/05/conservative-party-split-price-worth-paying-deliver-brexit-let/ > > > > > > > > > > Funny how chief Leave campaigner Michael Gove is always the beneficiary of these murky plots by Remainers. > > > > > > > > For most Brexiteers Gove is now a Leaver in name only > > > > > > No. For some he is. For many more sensible Brexiteers he is one of the few voices of reason. > > > > For the minority of Leavers such as you who are fine with staying in the single market, fine with free movement and some European court jurisdiction etc Gove is fine. > > > > Most Leave voters though now want a hard Brexit or even No Deal > > Surely the Tory membership are going to raze the party to the ground if they are blocked from having yet another leadership vote by an engineered coronation? > > The associates would force a rule change.
To say they would not be happy is an understatement
A Tory councillor struck off the teaching register for offensive comments about Nicola Sturgeon has been put in charge of standards at her local authority.
Kathleen Leslie was appointed to Fife Council’s Special Standards and Audit Committee, where she will “promote and maintain high standards of conduct by councillors”.
The move came days after it emerged Leslie had agreed to be struck off the teaching register after complaints about tweets in 2013 including branding Sturgeon “Wee Jimmy Krankie”. Leslie also called EuroMillions winners Chris and Colin Weir “fat f*****s” after they donated millions to the Yes campaign. It emerged last week she agreed to remove herself from the teaching register in July following an investigation by the General Teaching Council.
Leslie, from Dalgety Bay, later told her local newspaper: “I chose not to exercise my right to take the issue to a hearing.
So your claim it was nothing to do with Sturgeon/SNP was false? Glad we got that sorted out!
> @Cyclefree said: > > @PClipp said: > > > @kjh said: > > > > @edb said: > > > > This local plan thing (in general) seems to be a disaster for absolutely everyone. Central govt imposing unrealistic targets and then local councils cant achieve them but become very unpopular trying. Meanwhile it doesnt look good for those who want cheap housing, or for those who want to preserve the greenbelt. > > > > It seems obvious to me that if we really want to build loads of houses for commuters they need to be in new towns and/or motorway+good rail corridors. Even better would be to build enough houses in london regeneration projects so that commuting is not needed. > > > > Obviously there will then be nimby opposition in those areas, but it wont be in EVERY area at once which it seems to be now. > > > > > > One issue that seems apparent (and mentioned earlier by someone) is the complete lack of infrastructure planning surrounding some of these plans. It seems so incompetent that one wonders whether it is deliberate. That is you need houses so build them, then you find you have a roads/parking/school/sewage/pollution/flooding/surgery/etc crisis. So it is essential you must now overcome that. Whereas if you had tried to get it all through in the first place you would never have done so. Now build more houses because you have renewed infrastructure. In other words keep creating a problem by overcoming another problem. > > > > > > Deliberate or incompetent? > > > > A bit of both, probably. I wonder though, if the general revolt against the Conservatives was no so much that they were getting more houses built, but rather that they rolled over and allowed developers to get away with everything - even to the extent of failing to put in the necessary infrastructure. > > > > Is that where the suspicion of corruption arises? > > > > Developers are meant to provide benefits for the community in return for planning permission but either the amounts paid disappear into Council coffers with no visible benefits or the proposed benefits that are meant to be part of the plan never, somehow, materialise. > > Kings X in London is a good example of how a run down area can be regenerated well. The developers behind that are, according to the papers, now proposing to do something similar in Tottenham. > > But most of the housing developers wanting to build new expensive homes on the edges of towns or nice villages are not of this type and between them and useless councils, it is not hard to see how poor plans are devised which then face NIMBY-style reactions.
And the Conservative councillors were too complacent / incompetent to see that the reaction would be somewhat negative? Or just thought they could get away with it...
> @kinabalu said: > I would say it was much more those who have something but think they are losing out from globalisation who voted Leave. > > And I'll reverse the question and ask why did so many of the poor in London vote Remain when globalisation is a driver in the deprivation and inequality they suffer from ? > > I don't know, my circle is pretty much me and the missus, but perhaps down here they are more savvy that Hard Brexit is the wet dream of the right wing of the Tory Party (plus fellow traveler Nige), and thus cannot possibly be something that will be in the interests of the poor.
There must be some good, well-researched, literature on why poor people vote for right wing parties.
I didn't mention the Empire, but a general theme of the Leavers that I know was to turn back the clock, to a less globalised world, hence my reference to the cosy world of the Carry On movies.
I think the risk of a slow gentle slide into a British Peronism is a likely outcome. What I cannot see is that Brexit offers any solution to the ills of the post industrial regions.
I would say it was much more those who have something but think they are losing out from globalisation who voted Leave.
And I'll reverse the question and ask why did so many of the poor in London vote Remain when globalisation is a driver in the deprivation and inequality they suffer from ?
Brexit was sold on the promise of more globalisation, not less. The argument was that the European Union was holding us back from embracing global opportunities at a fast enough pace.
> @Cyclefree said: > > @PClipp said: > > > @kjh said: > > > > @edb said: > > > > This local plan thing (in general) seems to be a disaster for absolutely everyone. Central govt imposing unrealistic targets and then local councils cant achieve them but become very unpopular trying. Meanwhile it doesnt look good for those who want cheap housing, or for those who want to preserve the greenbelt. > > > > It seems obvious to me that if we really want to build loads of houses for commuters they need to be in new towns and/or motorway+good rail corridors. Even better would be to build enough houses in london regeneration projects so that commuting is not needed. > > > > Obviously there will then be nimby opposition in those areas, but it wont be in EVERY area at once which it seems to be now. > > > > > > One issue that seems apparent (and mentioned earlier by someone) is the complete lack of infrastructure planning surrounding some of these plans. It seems so incompetent that one wonders whether it is deliberate. That is you need houses so build them, then you find you have a roads/parking/school/sewage/pollution/flooding/surgery/etc crisis. So it is essential you must now overcome that. Whereas if you had tried to get it all through in the first place you would never have done so. Now build more houses because you have renewed infrastructure. In other words keep creating a problem by overcoming another problem. > > > > > > Deliberate or incompetent? > > > > A bit of both, probably. I wonder though, if the general revolt against the Conservatives was no so much that they were getting more houses built, but rather that they rolled over and allowed developers to get away with everything - even to the extent of failing to put in the necessary infrastructure. > > > > Is that where the suspicion of corruption arises? > > > > Developers are meant to provide benefits for the community in return for planning permission but either the amounts paid disappear into Council coffers with no visible benefits or the proposed benefits that are meant to be part of the plan never, somehow, materialise. > > But most of the housing developers wanting to build new expensive homes on the edges of towns or nice villages are not of this type and between them and useless councils, it is not hard to see how poor plans are devised which then face NIMBY-style reactions.
Not quite the whole picture. Planning Gain and other taxes on planning permission for development raise £6-7 billion per year - equivalent to £15-20k tax on each newbuild house (obviously paid for by eg the young family moving in), and two-thirds of it is spent on affordable housing.
If the Council do not spend it as allocated, the developer gets clawback after I think 5 years.
> @williamglenn said: > I would say it was much more those who have something but think they are losing out from globalisation who voted Leave. > > And I'll reverse the question and ask why did so many of the poor in London vote Remain when globalisation is a driver in the deprivation and inequality they suffer from ? > > Brexit was sold on the promise of more globalisation, not less. The argument was that the European Union was holding us back from embracing global opportunities at a fast enough pace.
No that was the niche Libertarian Pirate Island vision.
What Barnsley and Boston voted for was immigration control and more spending on 'people like me' not 'people like them'.
> I would say it was much more those who have something but think they are losing out from globalisation who voted Leave.
>
> And I'll reverse the question and ask why did so many of the poor in London vote Remain when globalisation is a driver in the deprivation and inequality they suffer from ?
>
> I don't know, my circle is pretty much me and the missus, but perhaps down here they are more savvy that Hard Brexit is the wet dream of the right wing of the Tory Party (plus fellow traveler Nige), and thus cannot possibly be something that will be in the interests of the poor.
There must be some good, well-researched, literature on why poor people vote for right wing parties.
Indeed there is a very good new book on the subject, albeit on American politics.
> @kinabalu said: > A Corbyn Government raising taxes and slowing growth, spending too much and increasing inflation is not going to benefit them. > > However given the poorest DE voters voted both to Leave the EU in the 2016 referendum and for Corbyn Labour at the last general election it is more a case they want both Brexit and Corbyn not either or. > > Whether Labour economic policies would work is another matter. It's not valid to project your Conservative mindset onto these people. > > And it's not GE17 I'm talking about, it's now - the appeal of Farage and No Deal Brexit to our DE citizens. > > In particular, given it is clear to everybody that the political cheerleaders of Hard Brexit are almost exclusively reactionary right wing Tories (inc Farage), why does this not discredit it in their eyes? > > It's odd.
Over on LSE blogs they have some ineteresting articles from academics about why the DE's voted for brexit.
Here is one and the article links to other research on the subject.
I didn't mention the Empire, but a general theme of the Leavers that I know was to turn back the clock, to a less globalised world, hence my reference to the cosy world of the Carry On movies.
I think the risk of a slow gentle slide into a British Peronism is a likely outcome. What I cannot see is that Brexit offers any solution to the ills of the post industrial regions.
No, but it’s a tedious trope employed far too often by people wishing to denigrate leavers.
Some of you may remember the recent local elections. To put them in context it might be interesting to look at the coverage of the 2014 locals, to see what is similar and what different. Here is (grits teeth) Jeremy Vine:
> @MattW said: > > @Cyclefree said: > > > > Developers are meant to provide benefits for the community in return for planning permission but either the amounts paid disappear into Council coffers with no visible benefits or the proposed benefits that are meant to be part of the plan never, somehow, materialise. > > > > But most of the housing developers wanting to build new expensive homes on the edges of towns or nice villages are not of this type and between them and useless councils, it is not hard to see how poor plans are devised which then face NIMBY-style reactions. > > Not quite the whole picture. Planning Gain and other taxes on planning permission for development raise £6-7 billion per year - equivalent to £15-20k tax on each newbuild house (obviously paid for by eg the young family moving in), and two-thirds of it is spent on affordable housing. > > If the Council do not spend it as allocated, the developer gets clawback after I think 5 years. > > https://twitter.com/mattwardman/status/1125408326051872775 >
Isn't 'affordable housing' defined as being below average prices ?
Which is rarely affordable to those on average earnings in those councils the Conservatives lost.
> @Foxy said: > @twistedfirestopper2 > > I didn't mention the Empire, but a general theme of the Leavers that I know was to turn back the clock, to a less globalised world, hence my reference to the cosy world of the Carry On movies. > > I think the risk of a slow gentle slide into a British Peronism is a likely outcome. What I cannot see is that Brexit offers any solution to the ills of the post industrial regions.
try looking
it starts by making the better off realise they cant ignore the poorer regions any longer without consequences. Brexit is simply the result of poor stewardship by affluent centrists
Well the only people who take any interest at all in the DEs are the hard left, many of whom are from that background, who are very anti-EU. So the ground has been tilled to some extent.
That’s true.
In a sense it's to be hoped that people voted Leave for cultural rather than economic reasons.
Because it is next to impossible that it will make them richer but it IS very possible that it will lead to a more 'local' country.
I didn't mention the Empire, but a general theme of the Leavers that I know was to turn back the clock, to a less globalised world, hence my reference to the cosy world of the Carry On movies.
I think the risk of a slow gentle slide into a British Peronism is a likely outcome. What I cannot see is that Brexit offers any solution to the ills of the post industrial regions.
No, but it’s a tedious trope employed far too often by people wishing to denigrate leavers.
Edit: my inability to spell is one, too
I do not denigrate the people who voted Leave. Their nostalgic desire to reverse a globalisation that has eroded their communities is entirely understandable, and I am sympathetic.
On the other hand, I have nothing but contempt for the Leave politicians who have exploited and lied to them to push their own agendas. Farage is no friend of the working man, he is a spiv ripping them off.
> @ralphmalph said: > > @kinabalu said: > > A Corbyn Government raising taxes and slowing growth, spending too much and increasing inflation is not going to benefit them. > > > > However given the poorest DE voters voted both to Leave the EU in the 2016 referendum and for Corbyn Labour at the last general election it is more a case they want both Brexit and Corbyn not either or. > > > > Whether Labour economic policies would work is another matter. It's not valid to project your Conservative mindset onto these people. > > > > And it's not GE17 I'm talking about, it's now - the appeal of Farage and No Deal Brexit to our DE citizens. > > > > In particular, given it is clear to everybody that the political cheerleaders of Hard Brexit are almost exclusively reactionary right wing Tories (inc Farage), why does this not discredit it in their eyes? > > > > It's odd. > > Over on LSE blogs they have some ineteresting articles from academics about why the DE's voted for brexit. > > Here is one and the article links to other research on the subject. > > https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/brexit/2019/01/31/many-working-class-people-believe-in-brexit-who-can-blame-them/ > > and another > > https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/brexit/2018/01/15/we-dont-exist-to-them-do-we-why-working-class-people-voted-for-brexit/ >
' HS2, the Channel Tunnel, and London’s Crossrail move meticulously around their communities, never stopping, moving the financially mobile around the country and into Europe, while their local buses and services are stripped back to almost nothing. '
' When a list of demands by the Brexit Yellow Jackets was being shared and ridiculed on social media because of its confusion and poor grammar, there was no empathy or even acknowledgment that a poorly-educated working class in a wealthy society is a shame upon us all, and is a failure of a system not an individual. For every public sector worker, academic, journalist, and politician that shared those demands with the intention of shaming those that had written it: you are the reason we have Brexit. Brexit has let those rational, liberal masks slip, and you are ugly. '
> @Big_G_NorthWales said: > > @HYUFD said: > > Congratulations to the Duke and Duchess of Sussex on the birth of their son > > > @HYUFD said: > > Congratulations to the Duke and Duchess of Sussex on the birth of their son > > And to everyone else who has had a baby today
Any news on the name? As he was born on May Day, maybe Karl....?
> @Foxy said: > @twistedfirestopper2 > > I didn't mention the Empire, but a general theme of the Leavers that I know was to turn back the clock, to a less globalised world, hence my reference to the cosy world of the Carry On movies. > > I think the risk of a slow gentle slide into a British Peronism is a likely outcome. What I cannot see is that Brexit offers any solution to the ills of the post industrial regions.
I know it wasn't you, but the Carry On theme ties in nicely with the whole "Back to the Empire/50s" vibe that a lot of remainers try to pin on anyone who voted to leave the EU. I can only reiterate my point that the people I know who voted leave don't think like that. I certainly don't. As to Brexit, I think we can all agree it is a complete clusterfeck, and we probably should remain as none of the current politicians have a clue what to do. It's grinding on here being told (not by you!) that I'm a racist, xenophobic, gammon faced thick little Englander because I voted Leave by posters who I actually have a lot of respect for and share their views on most things- I don't disagree with much that Mr Meeks writes about, except that I voted to leave. I have always said I could vote for the Southam Observer Labour party. I guess we're all a little jaded by it all, and I've got something much eviler than the EU to worry about.
> @Foxy said: > @twistedfirestopper2 > > I didn't mention the Empire, but a general theme of the Leavers that I know was to turn back the clock, to a less globalised world, hence my reference to the cosy world of the Carry On movies. > > I think the risk of a slow gentle slide into a British Peronism is a likely outcome. What I cannot see is that Brexit offers any solution to the ills of the post industrial regions. > > No, but it’s a tedious trope employed far too often by people wishing to denigrate leavers. > > Edit: my inability to spell is one, too > > I do not denigrate the people who voted Leave. Their nostalgic desire to reverse a globalisation that has eroded their communities is entirely understandable, and I am sympathetic. > > On the other hand, I have nothing but contempt for the Leave politicians who have exploited and lied to them to push their own agendas. Farage is no friend of the working man, he is a spiv ripping them off.
why no contempt for people like Mandelson, Blair or Cameron who created the conditions in which Farage could prosper >
While I'm here, here's an alternate history timeline I'm currently enjoying: depicting the rise of "Norsefire" (the dictatorial party in "V for Vendetta") as if it was a real party:
> @williamglenn said: > No that was the niche Libertarian Pirate Island vision. > > What Barnsley and Boston voted for was immigration control and more spending on 'people like me' not 'people like them'. > > Why people were voting and what people were voting for were different things.
Yet May's Deal responds to the why - immigration control and more NHS spending.
> @Sean_F said: > > @kinabalu said: > > I would say it was much more those who have something but think they are losing out from globalisation who voted Leave. > > > > And I'll reverse the question and ask why did so many of the poor in London vote Remain when globalisation is a driver in the deprivation and inequality they suffer from ? > > > > I don't know, my circle is pretty much me and the missus, but perhaps down here they are more savvy that Hard Brexit is the wet dream of the right wing of the Tory Party (plus fellow traveler Nige), and thus cannot possibly be something that will be in the interests of the poor. > > There must be some good, well-researched, literature on why poor people vote for right wing parties.
Used to be called deference in the old days - and anecdotally I think it still happens quite a bit.
> I didn't mention the Empire, but a general theme of the Leavers that I know was to turn back the clock, to a less globalised world, hence my reference to the cosy world of the Carry On movies.
>
> I think the risk of a slow gentle slide into a British Peronism is a likely outcome. What I cannot see is that Brexit offers any solution to the ills of the post industrial regions.
>
> No, but it’s a tedious trope employed far too often by people wishing to denigrate leavers.
>
> Edit: my inability to spell is one, too
>
> I do not denigrate the people who voted Leave. Their nostalgic desire to reverse a globalisation that has eroded their communities is entirely understandable, and I am sympathetic.
>
> On the other hand, I have nothing but contempt for the Leave politicians who have exploited and lied to them to push their own agendas. Farage is no friend of the working man, he is a spiv ripping them off.
why no contempt for people like Mandelson, Blair or Cameron who created the conditions in which Farage could prosper >
The likes of Farage can prosper in any environment, for there will always be people who are slightly left behind, and those who want to blame everyone else for their own failures.
It's human nature to complain, and Farage feeds off that like a posh, well-spoken vampire.
> @Foxy said: > @twistedfirestopper2 > > I didn't mention the Empire, but a general theme of the Leavers that I know was to turn back the clock, to a less globalised world, hence my reference to the cosy world of the Carry On movies. > > I think the risk of a slow gentle slide into a British Peronism is a likely outcome. What I cannot see is that Brexit offers any solution to the ills of the post industrial regions. > > No, but it’s a tedious trope employed far too often by people wishing to denigrate leavers. > > Edit: my inability to spell is one, too > > I do not denigrate the people who voted Leave. Their nostalgic desire to reverse a globalisation that has eroded their communities is entirely understandable, and I am sympathetic. > > On the other hand, I have nothing but contempt for the Leave politicians who have exploited and lied to them to push their own agendas. Farage is no friend of the working man, he is a spiv ripping them off.
Indeed.
Though I would have expected better of those Conservative MPs who opposed May's Deal.
I find it amusing that their self indulgent tantrums are being now overwhelmed by the force of Farage.
> @JosiasJessop said: > > @Foxy said: > > > @twistedfirestopper2 > > > > > > I didn't mention the Empire, but a general theme of the Leavers that I know was to turn back the clock, to a less globalised world, hence my reference to the cosy world of the Carry On movies. > > > > > > I think the risk of a slow gentle slide into a British Peronism is a likely outcome. What I cannot see is that Brexit offers any solution to the ills of the post industrial regions. > > > > > > No, but it’s a tedious trope employed far too often by people wishing to denigrate leavers. > > > > > > Edit: my inability to spell is one, too > > > > > > I do not denigrate the people who voted Leave. Their nostalgic desire to reverse a globalisation that has eroded their communities is entirely understandable, and I am sympathetic. > > > > > > On the other hand, I have nothing but contempt for the Leave politicians who have exploited and lied to them to push their own agendas. Farage is no friend of the working man, he is a spiv ripping them off. > > > > why no contempt for people like Mandelson, Blair or Cameron who created the conditions in which Farage could prosper > > > The likes of Farage can prosper in any environment, for there will always be people who are slightly left behind, and those who want to blame everyone else for their own failures. > > It's human nature to complain, and Farage feeds off that like a posh, well-spoken vampire.
Ttur only to the point that we have never as a post war society had it to this degree. previously discontent went to the LDs.
> > I didn't mention the Empire, but a general theme of the Leavers that I know was to turn back the clock, to a less globalised world, hence my reference to the cosy world of the Carry On movies.
>
> >
>
> > I think the risk of a slow gentle slide into a British Peronism is a likely outcome. What I cannot see is that Brexit offers any solution to the ills of the post industrial regions.
>
> >
>
> > No, but it’s a tedious trope employed far too often by people wishing to denigrate leavers.
>
> >
>
> > Edit: my inability to spell is one, too
>
> >
>
> > I do not denigrate the people who voted Leave. Their nostalgic desire to reverse a globalisation that has eroded their communities is entirely understandable, and I am sympathetic.
>
> >
>
> > On the other hand, I have nothing but contempt for the Leave politicians who have exploited and lied to them to push their own agendas. Farage is no friend of the working man, he is a spiv ripping them off.
>
>
>
> why no contempt for people like Mandelson, Blair or Cameron who created the conditions in which Farage could prosper >
>
> The likes of Farage can prosper in any environment, for there will always be people who are slightly left behind, and those who want to blame everyone else for their own failures.
>
> It's human nature to complain, and Farage feeds off that like a posh, well-spoken vampire.
Ttur only to the point that we have never as a post war society had it to this degree. previously discontent went to the LDs.
We are getting more than discontent though: we are getting childish strops. What is achievable is unimportant: they have dreams, and those dreams must be delivered, whatever the waking reality.
Here is one and the article links to other research on the subject. ...
Thanks. I will read those. And just to clarify what I'm seeking an answer to:
It is not so much - Why did so many of the WWC vote Leave?
It is rather -
Why are they enthused by a No Deal Brexit pushed by Farage and his fellow reactionary right wing politicos but not by the prospect of a Radical Left Labour government which has several specific policies aimed at them?
> @another_richard said: > > @MattW said: > > > @Cyclefree said: > > > > > > Developers are meant to provide benefits for the community in return for planning permission but either the amounts paid disappear into Council coffers with no visible benefits or the proposed benefits that are meant to be part of the plan never, somehow, materialise. > > > > > > But most of the housing developers wanting to build new expensive homes on the edges of towns or nice villages are not of this type and between them and useless councils, it is not hard to see how poor plans are devised which then face NIMBY-style reactions. > > > > Not quite the whole picture. Planning Gain and other taxes on planning permission for development raise £6-7 billion per year - equivalent to £15-20k tax on each newbuild house (obviously paid for by eg the young family moving in), and two-thirds of it is spent on affordable housing. > > > > If the Council do not spend it as allocated, the developer gets clawback after I think 5 years. > > > > https://twitter.com/mattwardman/status/1125408326051872775 > > > > Isn't 'affordable housing' defined as being below average prices ? > > Which is rarely affordable to those on average earnings in those councils the Conservatives lost.
I don't see how that comment relates. Social housing contributions are used for 2 things afaik - rented and shared ownership. Subsidised Rented can be up to 80% of market rent. It is a matter for Council Policy how the mix is set.
The £15-20k is what is in the price of the market housing in the development to pay for it all, though:
> @kinabalu said: > Here is one and the article links to other research on the subject. > ... > > > Thanks. I will read those. And just to clarify what I'm seeking an answer to: > > It is not so much - Why did so many of the WWC vote Leave? > > It is rather - > > Why are they enthused by a No Deal Brexit pushed by Farage and his fellow reactionary right wing politicos but not by the prospect of a Radical Left Labour government which has several specific policies aimed at them?
Various explanations could be that they don't believe the radical left can deliver; that their local Labour councillors are crap; that they dislike the political representatives of the radical left, or that they think many of the issues that motivate the radical left are irrelevant or absurd.
Dr. Foxy, your comments on globalisation reminds me of a BBC news segment from a few days, maybe a week, ago.
It was billed as being about class determining life chances, but turned out to be entirely about geography (essentially, London and people going there to seek their fortune). [That reminded me of the twonk who, some months ago, reported that HS2 would one day go 'as far north as Leeds', as if 'Here there be dragons' marked the map (goodness knows what he would've made of Newcastle, let alone Scotland). Or when the twerp Gompertz tittered about people not wanting see art in Hull].
Similar seems to happen with migration and globalisation. High-flying migrants gravitate to London, integrate, work hard, pay their taxes, (or serve coffee to the delight of cosmopolitan citizenry). Lazier migrants or those unable to work get housed in cheaper parts of the country and enjoy the non-contributory benefits system, perhaps also forming cultural enclaves, whilst increasing pressure on local infrastructure.
Meanwhile, government has failed to build sufficient housing for decades, leading to higher prices, more inherited wealth, and greater difficulty getting on the ladder.
Globalisation, as discussed here before, has led to some getting a lot richer, but mostly the thinning of the middle class with a majority becoming a bit worse off rather than enjoying greater prosperity.
We see a similar lack of understanding when it comes to rural matters. Things that might be feasible in cities (electric-only cars, no real money) just don't work elsewhere, and aren't wanted. But because policymakers are so London-centric they're unable to see that. And so it was with the EU. Popular in London, less so elsewhere, used as a convenient scapegoat by the political class, who played the sceptical card in opposition and were then surprised people didn't like it very much (still astounding the Remain campaign was so negative, and Cameron didn't require Vote Leave to put forward a firm prospectus...)
> @RobD said: > A Tory councillor struck off the teaching register for offensive comments about Nicola Sturgeon has been put in charge of standards at her local authority. > > Kathleen Leslie was appointed to Fife Council’s Special Standards and Audit Committee, where she will “promote and maintain high standards of conduct by councillors”. > > The move came days after it emerged Leslie had agreed to be struck off the teaching register after complaints about tweets in 2013 including branding Sturgeon “Wee Jimmy Krankie”. > Leslie also called EuroMillions winners Chris and Colin Weir “fat f*****s” after they donated millions to the Yes campaign. > It emerged last week she agreed to remove herself from the teaching register in July following an investigation by the General Teaching Council. > > Leslie, from Dalgety Bay, later told her local newspaper: “I chose not to exercise my right to take the issue to a hearing. > > > So your claim it was nothing to do with Sturgeon/SNP was false? Glad we got that sorted out!
Are you saying that Sturgeon & the SNP influenced the General Teaching Council to encourage Ms Leslie to remove herself from the teaching register? I'd have thought going on social media to call people you've never met fat fuckers and drooling hags might have figured in their calculations.
@Roger Thanks for links to tobacco ads. Will look at them later. I had thought that the Strand cigarette ad was a great example on how not to promote a product.
> I didn't mention the Empire, but a general theme of the Leavers that I know was to turn back the clock, to a less globalised world, hence my reference to the cosy world of the Carry On movies.
>
> I think the risk of a slow gentle slide into a British Peronism is a likely outcome. What I cannot see is that Brexit offers any solution to the ills of the post industrial regions.
>
> No, but it’s a tedious trope employed far too often by people wishing to denigrate leavers.
>
> Edit: my inability to spell is one, too
>
> I do not denigrate the people who voted Leave. Their nostalgic desire to reverse a globalisation that has eroded their communities is entirely understandable, and I am sympathetic.
>
> On the other hand, I have nothing but contempt for the Leave politicians who have exploited and lied to them to push their own agendas. Farage is no friend of the working man, he is a spiv ripping them off.
why no contempt for people like Mandelson, Blair or Cameron who created the conditions in which Farage could prosper >
I have posted many times of my contempt for them too, but they are now of historic interest only now.
> A Tory councillor struck off the teaching register for offensive comments about Nicola Sturgeon has been put in charge of standards at her local authority.
>
> Kathleen Leslie was appointed to Fife Council’s Special Standards and Audit Committee, where she will “promote and maintain high standards of conduct by councillors”.
>
> The move came days after it emerged Leslie had agreed to be struck off the teaching register after complaints about tweets in 2013 including branding Sturgeon “Wee Jimmy Krankie”.
> Leslie also called EuroMillions winners Chris and Colin Weir “fat f*****s” after they donated millions to the Yes campaign.
> It emerged last week she agreed to remove herself from the teaching register in July following an investigation by the General Teaching Council.
>
> Leslie, from Dalgety Bay, later told her local newspaper: “I chose not to exercise my right to take the issue to a hearing.
>
>
> So your claim it was nothing to do with Sturgeon/SNP was false? Glad we got that sorted out!
Are you saying that Sturgeon & the SNP influenced the General Teaching Council to encourage Ms Leslie to remove herself from the teaching register? I'd have thought going on social media to call people you've never met fat fuckers and drooling hags might have figured in their calculations.
Sounds like a Tory normal to me TUD, in Scotland anyway , hence her immediate promotion in the party.
> I didn't mention the Empire, but a general theme of the Leavers that I know was to turn back the clock, to a less globalised world, hence my reference to the cosy world of the Carry On movies.
>
> I think the risk of a slow gentle slide into a British Peronism is a likely outcome. What I cannot see is that Brexit offers any solution to the ills of the post industrial regions.
>
> No, but it’s a tedious trope employed far too often by people wishing to denigrate leavers.
>
> Edit: my inability to spell is one, too
>
> I do not denigrate the people who voted Leave. Their nostalgic desire to reverse a globalisation that has eroded their communities is entirely understandable, and I am sympathetic.
>
> On the other hand, I have nothing but contempt for the Leave politicians who have exploited and lied to them to push their own agendas. Farage is no friend of the working man, he is a spiv ripping them off.
why no contempt for people like Mandelson, Blair or Cameron who created the conditions in which Farage could prosper >
I have posted many times of my contempt for them too, but they are now of historic interest only now.
Who do you like, who has had to wield power in recent times?
Comments
> BLAT.
DE voters ideally want higher benefits for themselves, more spending on the NHS etc and would be happy with renationalising the railways and utilities.
However DE voters would also be happy with a No Deal Brexit and slashed immigration and tougher policies on crime.
In fact the ideal DE Government at the moment would be a Corbyn and Farage coalition
> > @FF43 said:
>
> > On the 'Tumescent PB Tory hanging on her every word' metric Ruth is certainly drooping. However I think she's still got a way to run with a supine media agog to see what farm animal she mounts next.
>
> >
>
> > Ruth Davidson is liberal, witty and articulate in defence of the Union that is supported by more than half of Scots, which is why the SNP are obsessed by her. But she is shackled to the Tory Party monster. I don't see how she escapes.
>
>
>
> Perhaps if she made a minimal effort to distance herself from the frothers, bigots, racists, mad Brexiters and LOLers that seem to have safe haven within her sub branch, Ruth might be able to carve out a separate identity.
>
>
>
> However I see that's not going to be a goer.
>
>
>
>
>
> https://twitter.com/ChrisMusson/status/1125317332509835265
>
>
>
> I wonder if any teacher has been fired for staying stuff about Tories?
>
> You stupid turnip, that was not what she was fired for moron. She was staking people on social media for years, nothing to do with SNP or Sturgeon. At least read the story before you talk bollox.
"staking people" ?
I know Internet trolling can go a little far, but that seems a little excessive ...
Kathleen Leslie, 42, is a parly aide to Bill Bowman despite agreeing to be struck off as a Miss over her Twitter jibes at the Nats leader..
Perhaps the Scottish Sun has a corrections and clarifications page?
> > @edb said:
> > This local plan thing (in general) seems to be a disaster for absolutely everyone. Central govt imposing unrealistic targets and then local councils cant achieve them but become very unpopular trying. Meanwhile it doesnt look good for those who want cheap housing, or for those who want to preserve the greenbelt.
> > It seems obvious to me that if we really want to build loads of houses for commuters they need to be in new towns and/or motorway+good rail corridors. Even better would be to build enough houses in london regeneration projects so that commuting is not needed.
> > Obviously there will then be nimby opposition in those areas, but it wont be in EVERY area at once which it seems to be now.
>
> One issue that seems apparent (and mentioned earlier by someone) is the complete lack of infrastructure planning surrounding some of these plans. It seems so incompetent that one wonders whether it is deliberate. That is you need houses so build them, then you find you have a roads/parking/school/sewage/pollution/flooding/surgery/etc crisis. So it is essential you must now overcome that. Whereas if you had tried to get it all through in the first place you would never have done so. Now build more houses because you have renewed infrastructure. In other words keep creating a problem by overcoming another problem.
>
> Deliberate or incompetent?
A bit of both, probably. I wonder though, if the general revolt against the Conservatives was no so much that they were getting more houses built, but rather that they rolled over and allowed developers to get away with everything - even to the extent of failing to put in the necessary infrastructure.
Is that where the suspicion of corruption arises?
> > @FF43 said:
>
> > On the 'Tumescent PB Tory hanging on her every word' metric Ruth is certainly drooping. However I think she's still got a way to run with a supine media agog to see what farm animal she mounts next.
>
> >
>
> > Ruth Davidson is liberal, witty and articulate in defence of the Union that is supported by more than half of Scots, which is why the SNP are obsessed by her. But she is shackled to the Tory Party monster. I don't see how she escapes.
>
>
>
> Perhaps if she made a minimal effort to distance herself from the frothers, bigots, racists, mad Brexiters and LOLers that seem to have safe haven within her sub branch, Ruth might be able to carve out a separate identity.
>
>
>
> However I see that's not going to be a goer.
>
>
>
>
>
> https://twitter.com/ChrisMusson/status/1125317332509835265
>
>
>
> I wonder if any teacher has been fired for staying stuff about Tories?
Dunno. I'd be surprised if they went on to be employed by an MP or MSP though.
Dammit, that's exactly right...
> > @kjh said:
> > > @edb said:
> > > This local plan thing (in general) seems to be a disaster for absolutely everyone. Central govt imposing unrealistic targets and then local councils cant achieve them but become very unpopular trying. Meanwhile it doesnt look good for those who want cheap housing, or for those who want to preserve the greenbelt.
> > > It seems obvious to me that if we really want to build loads of houses for commuters they need to be in new towns and/or motorway+good rail corridors. Even better would be to build enough houses in london regeneration projects so that commuting is not needed.
> > > Obviously there will then be nimby opposition in those areas, but it wont be in EVERY area at once which it seems to be now.
> >
> > One issue that seems apparent (and mentioned earlier by someone) is the complete lack of infrastructure planning surrounding some of these plans. It seems so incompetent that one wonders whether it is deliberate. That is you need houses so build them, then you find you have a roads/parking/school/sewage/pollution/flooding/surgery/etc crisis. So it is essential you must now overcome that. Whereas if you had tried to get it all through in the first place you would never have done so. Now build more houses because you have renewed infrastructure. In other words keep creating a problem by overcoming another problem.
> >
> > Deliberate or incompetent?
>
> A bit of both, probably. I wonder though, if the general revolt against the Conservatives was no so much that they were getting more houses built, but rather that they rolled over and allowed developers to get away with everything - even to the extent of failing to put in the necessary infrastructure.
>
> Is that where the suspicion of corruption arises?
>
Developers are meant to provide benefits for the community in return for planning permission but either the amounts paid disappear into Council coffers with no visible benefits or the proposed benefits that are meant to be part of the plan never, somehow, materialise.
Kings X in London is a good example of how a run down area can be regenerated well. The developers behind that are, according to the papers, now proposing to do something similar in Tottenham.
But most of the housing developers wanting to build new expensive homes on the edges of towns or nice villages are not of this type and between them and useless councils, it is not hard to see how poor plans are devised which then face NIMBY-style reactions.
The only sensible response to that is 'good'.
The old normal was a bankrupt system that maintained a political and economic elite in power whilst failing to address the needs and aspirations of the vast majority of people in Britain. Some of us only ever saw Brexit as the first step on a massive remoulding of British politics so the chaos we are seeing now amongst the political classes is a good thing.
Next we need Scottish Independence, Irish reunification and a huge transfer of power down the ladder to counties and districts. A proper revising second chamber based on skills and expertise not patronage and the breaking of the power of the parties over MPs.
And after breakfast....
> On the 'Tumescent PB Tory hanging on her every word' metric Ruth is certainly drooping. However I think she's still got a way to run with a supine media agog to see what farm animal she mounts next.
>
> Ruth Davidson is liberal, witty and articulate in defence of the Union that is supported by more than half of Scots, which is why the SNP are obsessed by her. But she is shackled to the Tory Party monster. I don't see how she escapes.
>
>
> Her message that the union doesn't hold Scotland back, while simultaneously arguing that Scotland has to go through with a Brexit she doesn't think it good for Scotland because the rest of the UK voted for it has problems with intellectual coherence.
Her unspoken position is that that preservation of the Union is worth almost any price, which I suppose is verging on the coherent though a stranger to the intellectual.
> > @HYUFD said:
> > Tory Remainer MPs plot a 'coronation' for either Jeremy Hunt or Michael Gove to succeed May by getting them both into the final two with the hope one gives way to the other if they are the last men standing.
> >
> > They would thus block Boris or Raab from getting to the final two and likely winning the membership vote
> >
> > https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2019/05/05/conservative-party-split-price-worth-paying-deliver-brexit-let/
>
> Funny how chief Leave campaigner Michael Gove is always the beneficiary of these murky plots by Remainers.
For most Brexiteers Gove is now a Leaver in name only
> > @Big_G_NorthWales said:
> > Duchess of Sussex in labour. Now that will see the media go crazy
>
> You're right-I'd always had her down as a Green party member.
I thought she'd be more SWP, myself.
> > @FF43 said:
> > On the 'Tumescent PB Tory hanging on her every word' metric Ruth is certainly drooping. However I think she's still got a way to run with a supine media agog to see what farm animal she mounts next.
> >
> > Ruth Davidson is liberal, witty and articulate in defence of the Union that is supported by more than half of Scots, which is why the SNP are obsessed by her. But she is shackled to the Tory Party monster. I don't see how she escapes.
>
> Perhaps if she made a minimal effort to distance herself from the frothers, bigots, racists, mad Brexiters and LOLers that seem to have safe haven within her sub branch, Ruth might be able to carve out a separate identity.
>
> However I see that's not going to be a goer.
>
>
> https://twitter.com/ChrisMusson/status/1125317332509835265
>
>
>
You lose your job for calling Sturgeon "Wee Jimmy" on tw@ter these days ?!
> > @DecrepitJohnL said:
> > > @HYUFD said:
> > > Tory Remainer MPs plot a 'coronation' for either Jeremy Hunt or Michael Gove to succeed May by getting them both into the final two with the hope one gives way to the other if they are the last men standing.
> > >
> > > They would thus block Boris or Raab from getting to the final two and likely winning the membership vote
> > >
> > > https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2019/05/05/conservative-party-split-price-worth-paying-deliver-brexit-let/
> >
> > Funny how chief Leave campaigner Michael Gove is always the beneficiary of these murky plots by Remainers.
>
> For most Brexiteers Gove is now a Leaver in name only
No. For some he is. For many more sensible Brexiteers he is one of the few voices of reason.
> > @PClipp said:
> > > @kjh said:
> > > > @edb said:
> > > > This local plan thing (in general) seems to be a disaster for absolutely everyone. Central govt imposing unrealistic targets and then local councils cant achieve them but become very unpopular trying. Meanwhile it doesnt look good for those who want cheap housing, or for those who want to preserve the greenbelt.
> > > > It seems obvious to me that if we really want to build loads of houses for commuters they need to be in new towns and/or motorway+good rail corridors. Even better would be to build enough houses in london regeneration projects so that commuting is not needed.
> > > > Obviously there will then be nimby opposition in those areas, but it wont be in EVERY area at once which it seems to be now.
> > >
> > > One issue that seems apparent (and mentioned earlier by someone) is the complete lack of infrastructure planning surrounding some of these plans. It seems so incompetent that one wonders whether it is deliberate. That is you need houses so build them, then you find you have a roads/parking/school/sewage/pollution/flooding/surgery/etc crisis. So it is essential you must now overcome that. Whereas if you had tried to get it all through in the first place you would never have done so. Now build more houses because you have renewed infrastructure. In other words keep creating a problem by overcoming another problem.
> > >
> > > Deliberate or incompetent?
> >
> > A bit of both, probably. I wonder though, if the general revolt against the Conservatives was no so much that they were getting more houses built, but rather that they rolled over and allowed developers to get away with everything - even to the extent of failing to put in the necessary infrastructure.
> >
> > Is that where the suspicion of corruption arises?
> >
>
> Developers are meant to provide benefits for the community in return for planning permission but either the amounts paid disappear into Council coffers with no visible benefits or the proposed benefits that are meant to be part of the plan never, somehow, materialise.
>
> Kings X in London is a good example of how a run down area can be regenerated well. The developers behind that are, according to the papers, now proposing to do something similar in Tottenham.
>
> But most of the housing developers wanting to build new expensive homes on the edges of towns or nice villages are not of this type and between them and useless councils, it is not hard to see how poor plans are devised which then face NIMBY-style reactions.
We have neighbourhood plans in Epping which feed into the District's Local Plan to ensure with new development comes infrastructure.
Not all developers do a bad job either
Like ageing.
EDIT: Well, no - that is all drawbacks.
> > @twistedfirestopper3 said:
> > > @Big_G_NorthWales said:
> > > Duchess of Sussex in labour. Now that will see the media go crazy
> >
> > You're right-I'd always had her down as a Green party member.
>
> I thought she'd be more SWP, myself.
They've produced a boy, he is called the Earl of Dumbarton, though obviously he'll also have a personal name. That's all the papers will be talking about tomorrow.
Now's the moment for the government to bury any bad news.
I did, and it said
Kathleen Leslie, 42, is a parly aide to Bill Bowman despite agreeing to be struck off as a Miss over her Twitter jibes at the Nats leader..
Perhaps the Scottish Sun has a corrections and clarifications page?
LOL, only a Tory could quote the SUN as evidence of anything, come on Rob have you had a clanky on the napper
You were the one questioning whether I had read the article.
Obviously it was just a bollox headline and not the full story, the toilet paper SUN would be unlikely to print reality. Big writing and a picture is not the article and in the SUN there will be no more , certainly not the truth for sure.
Care to post the full story then? Find it hard to imagine they’d publish an outright lie.
A Tory councillor struck off the teaching register for offensive comments about Nicola Sturgeon has been put in charge of standards at her local authority.
Kathleen Leslie was appointed to Fife Council’s Special Standards and Audit Committee, where she will “promote and maintain high standards of conduct by councillors”.
The move came days after it emerged Leslie had agreed to be struck off the teaching register after complaints about tweets in 2013 including branding Sturgeon “Wee Jimmy Krankie”.
Leslie also called EuroMillions winners Chris and Colin Weir “fat f*****s” after they donated millions to the Yes campaign.
It emerged last week she agreed to remove herself from the teaching register in July following an investigation by the General Teaching Council.
Leslie, from Dalgety Bay, later told her local newspaper: “I chose not to exercise my right to take the issue to a hearing.
I don't think this bears much resemblance to what Leavers voted for. essentially a return to the sense of community present in early 70's Britain, prior to EEC entry. Back to a world of Carry On movies and Britain as a manufacturing economy of well paid manual workers, only with the benefits of the modern world too.
I think both you and they are going to be disappointed, when it turns out that little has changed.
>
> They're deep in debt and have their pay and housing choices restricted by immigration.
>
> Is it because Remain represents the sort of globalist, cosmopolitan image they yearn for in their lives ?
>
> When I worked in Taiwan just 20 years ago, I had to rely on a weekly delivery of the International Daily Telegraph to find out what was happening in British politics.
>
> Globalisation has happened.
>
> You can choose to deny it or embrace it.
>
Globalisation of information, goods even travel might have happened.
But globalisation of people hasn't happened.
Except in the partial example of FOM within the EU.
> > @HYUFD said:
> > > @DecrepitJohnL said:
> > > > @HYUFD said:
> > > > Tory Remainer MPs plot a 'coronation' for either Jeremy Hunt or Michael Gove to succeed May by getting them both into the final two with the hope one gives way to the other if they are the last men standing.
> > > >
> > > > They would thus block Boris or Raab from getting to the final two and likely winning the membership vote
> > > >
> > > > https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2019/05/05/conservative-party-split-price-worth-paying-deliver-brexit-let/
> > >
> > > Funny how chief Leave campaigner Michael Gove is always the beneficiary of these murky plots by Remainers.
> >
> > For most Brexiteers Gove is now a Leaver in name only
>
> No. For some he is. For many more sensible Brexiteers he is one of the few voices of reason.
For the minority of Leavers such as you who are fine with staying in the single market, fine with free movement and some European court jurisdiction etc Gove is fine.
Most Leave voters though now want a hard Brexit or even No Deal
Just begun re-reading Ian Mortimer's The Fears of Henry IV. Rather a good book about regal rivals.
We shall now have flowering meadows and rainbow skies, and rivers made of chocolate, where our children dance and laugh and play with gumdrop smiles!
> It's funny with the election coverage. You can just see the ghost of the 80's beginning to peep thru, but it's mostly unremittingly Seventies: Peter Jenkins of the Guardian is wearing a pinstripe suit, a striped shirt and a patterened tie - he must have dressed in the dark. Everybody looks younger: Rhodes Boyson was not always old and grey, it seems. Communist Party, Ecology Party, National Front. Jumpers for goalposts. The graphics don't have the vibrancy of 80's graphics nor the overcomplication of modern day's. The Godlike Bob McKenzie applies a simple algorithm and reaches the right conclusion, the computer guy does an overcomplicated model that can't cope with irregular unrepresentative input and messes up: so no change there then. A different time.
I see nothing amiss with the attire of Peter Jenkins - only the tie might appear a bit out of place today. The programme is far superior to what we have been given over the last 25 years or so. Nowadays we have a chatshow format imposed on us with many results not covered at all.There is a flippancy present today encouraged by the media obsession with silly graphics and models - and the overall effect is a much less serious programme.Increasingly the focus appears to be on entertainment - rather than delivering the serious news.
The associates would force a rule change.
> "This is the new normal"
>
>
>
> The only sensible response to that is 'good'.
>
>
>
> The old normal was a bankrupt system that maintained a political and economic elite in power whilst failing to address the needs and aspirations of the vast majority of people in Britain. Some of us only ever saw Brexit as the first step on a massive remoulding of British politics so the chaos we are seeing now amongst the political classes is a good thing.
>
>
>
> Next we need Scottish Independence, Irish reunification and a huge transfer of power down the ladder to counties and districts. A proper revising second chamber based on skills and expertise not patronage and the breaking of the power of the parties over MPs.
>
>
>
> And after breakfast....
>
> While I agree that such a revolutionary deconstruction of the United Kingdom is a possible outcome of Brexit, there are other equally possible outcomes from the new normal, including a decline into British Peronism. We shall have to wait and see.
>
> I don't think this bears much resemblance to what Leavers voted for. essentially a return to the sense of community present in early 70's Britain, prior to EEC entry. Back to a world of Carry On movies and Britain as a manufacturing economy of well paid manual workers, only with the benefits of the modern world too.
>
> I think both you and they are going to be disappointed, when it turns out that little has changed.
What will happen we don't know but despite the yearning from some Remainers the Leave areas haven't suffered as they were predicted to do back in 2016.
And either of those two possibilities would be better than the 'hand carwash on every road' stagnant wages and rising house prices vision of the Remain establishment.
> "This is the new normal"
>
>
>
> The only sensible response to that is 'good'.
>
>
>
> The old normal was a bankrupt system that maintained a political and economic elite in power whilst failing to address the needs and aspirations of the vast majority of people in Britain. Some of us only ever saw Brexit as the first step on a massive remoulding of British politics so the chaos we are seeing now amongst the political classes is a good thing.
>
>
>
> Next we need Scottish Independence, Irish reunification and a huge transfer of power down the ladder to counties and districts. A proper revising second chamber based on skills and expertise not patronage and the breaking of the power of the parties over MPs.
>
>
>
> And after breakfast....
>
> While I agree that such a revolutionary deconstruction of the United Kingdom is a possible outcome of Brexit, there are other equally possible outcomes from the new normal, including a decline into British Peronism. We shall have to wait and see.
>
> I don't think this bears much resemblance to what Leavers voted for. essentially a return to the sense of community present in early 70's Britain, prior to EEC entry. Back to a world of Carry On movies and Britain as a manufacturing economy of well paid manual workers, only with the benefits of the modern world too.
>
> I think both you and they are going to be disappointed, when it turns out that little has changed.
No one of my acquaintance who voted leave has ever cited the empire or any variation of it as a reason why they put a cross in the box. Now I realise it was Barbara Windsor in a nurse outfit that clinched it.
> > @Richard_Tyndall said:
>
> > > @HYUFD said:
>
> > > > @DecrepitJohnL said:
>
> > > > > @HYUFD said:
>
> > > > > Tory Remainer MPs plot a 'coronation' for either Jeremy Hunt or Michael Gove to succeed May by getting them both into the final two with the hope one gives way to the other if they are the last men standing.
>
> > > > >
>
> > > > > They would thus block Boris or Raab from getting to the final two and likely winning the membership vote
>
> > > > >
>
> > > > > https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2019/05/05/conservative-party-split-price-worth-paying-deliver-brexit-let/
>
> > > >
>
> > > > Funny how chief Leave campaigner Michael Gove is always the beneficiary of these murky plots by Remainers.
>
> > >
>
> > > For most Brexiteers Gove is now a Leaver in name only
>
> >
>
> > No. For some he is. For many more sensible Brexiteers he is one of the few voices of reason.
>
>
>
> For the minority of Leavers such as you who are fine with staying in the single market, fine with free movement and some European court jurisdiction etc Gove is fine.
>
>
>
> Most Leave voters though now want a hard Brexit or even No Deal
>
> Surely the Tory membership are going to raze the party to the ground if they are blocked from having yet another leadership vote by an engineered coronation?
>
> The associates would force a rule change.
To say they would not be happy is an understatement
> > @PClipp said:
> > > @kjh said:
> > > > @edb said:
> > > > This local plan thing (in general) seems to be a disaster for absolutely everyone. Central govt imposing unrealistic targets and then local councils cant achieve them but become very unpopular trying. Meanwhile it doesnt look good for those who want cheap housing, or for those who want to preserve the greenbelt.
> > > > It seems obvious to me that if we really want to build loads of houses for commuters they need to be in new towns and/or motorway+good rail corridors. Even better would be to build enough houses in london regeneration projects so that commuting is not needed.
> > > > Obviously there will then be nimby opposition in those areas, but it wont be in EVERY area at once which it seems to be now.
> > >
> > > One issue that seems apparent (and mentioned earlier by someone) is the complete lack of infrastructure planning surrounding some of these plans. It seems so incompetent that one wonders whether it is deliberate. That is you need houses so build them, then you find you have a roads/parking/school/sewage/pollution/flooding/surgery/etc crisis. So it is essential you must now overcome that. Whereas if you had tried to get it all through in the first place you would never have done so. Now build more houses because you have renewed infrastructure. In other words keep creating a problem by overcoming another problem.
> > >
> > > Deliberate or incompetent?
> >
> > A bit of both, probably. I wonder though, if the general revolt against the Conservatives was no so much that they were getting more houses built, but rather that they rolled over and allowed developers to get away with everything - even to the extent of failing to put in the necessary infrastructure.
> >
> > Is that where the suspicion of corruption arises?
> >
>
> Developers are meant to provide benefits for the community in return for planning permission but either the amounts paid disappear into Council coffers with no visible benefits or the proposed benefits that are meant to be part of the plan never, somehow, materialise.
>
> Kings X in London is a good example of how a run down area can be regenerated well. The developers behind that are, according to the papers, now proposing to do something similar in Tottenham.
>
> But most of the housing developers wanting to build new expensive homes on the edges of towns or nice villages are not of this type and between them and useless councils, it is not hard to see how poor plans are devised which then face NIMBY-style reactions.
And the Conservative councillors were too complacent / incompetent to see that the reaction would be somewhat negative? Or just thought they could get away with it...
> I would say it was much more those who have something but think they are losing out from globalisation who voted Leave.
>
> And I'll reverse the question and ask why did so many of the poor in London vote Remain when globalisation is a driver in the deprivation and inequality they suffer from ?
>
> I don't know, my circle is pretty much me and the missus, but perhaps down here they are more savvy that Hard Brexit is the wet dream of the right wing of the Tory Party (plus fellow traveler Nige), and thus cannot possibly be something that will be in the interests of the poor.
There must be some good, well-researched, literature on why poor people vote for right wing parties.
> Congratulations to the Duke and Duchess of Sussex on the birth of their son
> @HYUFD said:
> Congratulations to the Duke and Duchess of Sussex on the birth of their son
And to everyone else who has had a baby today
I didn't mention the Empire, but a general theme of the Leavers that I know was to turn back the clock, to a less globalised world, hence my reference to the cosy world of the Carry On movies.
I think the risk of a slow gentle slide into a British Peronism is a likely outcome. What I cannot see is that Brexit offers any solution to the ills of the post industrial regions.
> > @PClipp said:
> > > @kjh said:
> > > > @edb said:
> > > > This local plan thing (in general) seems to be a disaster for absolutely everyone. Central govt imposing unrealistic targets and then local councils cant achieve them but become very unpopular trying. Meanwhile it doesnt look good for those who want cheap housing, or for those who want to preserve the greenbelt.
> > > > It seems obvious to me that if we really want to build loads of houses for commuters they need to be in new towns and/or motorway+good rail corridors. Even better would be to build enough houses in london regeneration projects so that commuting is not needed.
> > > > Obviously there will then be nimby opposition in those areas, but it wont be in EVERY area at once which it seems to be now.
> > >
> > > One issue that seems apparent (and mentioned earlier by someone) is the complete lack of infrastructure planning surrounding some of these plans. It seems so incompetent that one wonders whether it is deliberate. That is you need houses so build them, then you find you have a roads/parking/school/sewage/pollution/flooding/surgery/etc crisis. So it is essential you must now overcome that. Whereas if you had tried to get it all through in the first place you would never have done so. Now build more houses because you have renewed infrastructure. In other words keep creating a problem by overcoming another problem.
> > >
> > > Deliberate or incompetent?
> >
> > A bit of both, probably. I wonder though, if the general revolt against the Conservatives was no so much that they were getting more houses built, but rather that they rolled over and allowed developers to get away with everything - even to the extent of failing to put in the necessary infrastructure.
> >
> > Is that where the suspicion of corruption arises?
> >
>
> Developers are meant to provide benefits for the community in return for planning permission but either the amounts paid disappear into Council coffers with no visible benefits or the proposed benefits that are meant to be part of the plan never, somehow, materialise.
>
> But most of the housing developers wanting to build new expensive homes on the edges of towns or nice villages are not of this type and between them and useless councils, it is not hard to see how poor plans are devised which then face NIMBY-style reactions.
Not quite the whole picture. Planning Gain and other taxes on planning permission for development raise £6-7 billion per year - equivalent to £15-20k tax on each newbuild house (obviously paid for by eg the young family moving in), and two-thirds of it is spent on affordable housing.
If the Council do not spend it as allocated, the developer gets clawback after I think 5 years.
https://twitter.com/mattwardman/status/1125408326051872775
> I would say it was much more those who have something but think they are losing out from globalisation who voted Leave.
>
> And I'll reverse the question and ask why did so many of the poor in London vote Remain when globalisation is a driver in the deprivation and inequality they suffer from ?
>
> Brexit was sold on the promise of more globalisation, not less. The argument was that the European Union was holding us back from embracing global opportunities at a fast enough pace.
No that was the niche Libertarian Pirate Island vision.
What Barnsley and Boston voted for was immigration control and more spending on 'people like me' not 'people like them'.
https://www.vox.com/2019/3/19/18236247/dying-of-whiteness-trump-politics-jonathan-metzl
> A Corbyn Government raising taxes and slowing growth, spending too much and increasing inflation is not going to benefit them.
>
> However given the poorest DE voters voted both to Leave the EU in the 2016 referendum and for Corbyn Labour at the last general election it is more a case they want both Brexit and Corbyn not either or.
>
> Whether Labour economic policies would work is another matter. It's not valid to project your Conservative mindset onto these people.
>
> And it's not GE17 I'm talking about, it's now - the appeal of Farage and No Deal Brexit to our DE citizens.
>
> In particular, given it is clear to everybody that the political cheerleaders of Hard Brexit are almost exclusively reactionary right wing Tories (inc Farage), why does this not discredit it in their eyes?
>
> It's odd.
Over on LSE blogs they have some ineteresting articles from academics about why the DE's voted for brexit.
Here is one and the article links to other research on the subject.
https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/brexit/2019/01/31/many-working-class-people-believe-in-brexit-who-can-blame-them/
and another
https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/brexit/2018/01/15/we-dont-exist-to-them-do-we-why-working-class-people-voted-for-brexit/
Edit: my inability to spell is one, too
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-politics-27502569/local-and-european-election-numbers-with-jeremy-vine
> > @Cyclefree said:
> >
> > Developers are meant to provide benefits for the community in return for planning permission but either the amounts paid disappear into Council coffers with no visible benefits or the proposed benefits that are meant to be part of the plan never, somehow, materialise.
> >
> > But most of the housing developers wanting to build new expensive homes on the edges of towns or nice villages are not of this type and between them and useless councils, it is not hard to see how poor plans are devised which then face NIMBY-style reactions.
>
> Not quite the whole picture. Planning Gain and other taxes on planning permission for development raise £6-7 billion per year - equivalent to £15-20k tax on each newbuild house (obviously paid for by eg the young family moving in), and two-thirds of it is spent on affordable housing.
>
> If the Council do not spend it as allocated, the developer gets clawback after I think 5 years.
>
> https://twitter.com/mattwardman/status/1125408326051872775
>
Isn't 'affordable housing' defined as being below average prices ?
Which is rarely affordable to those on average earnings in those councils the Conservatives lost.
> @twistedfirestopper2
>
> I didn't mention the Empire, but a general theme of the Leavers that I know was to turn back the clock, to a less globalised world, hence my reference to the cosy world of the Carry On movies.
>
> I think the risk of a slow gentle slide into a British Peronism is a likely outcome. What I cannot see is that Brexit offers any solution to the ills of the post industrial regions.
try looking
it starts by making the better off realise they cant ignore the poorer regions any longer without consequences. Brexit is simply the result of poor stewardship by affluent centrists
In a sense it's to be hoped that people voted Leave for cultural rather than economic reasons.
Because it is next to impossible that it will make them richer but it IS very possible that it will lead to a more 'local' country.
On the other hand, I have nothing but contempt for the Leave politicians who have exploited and lied to them to push their own agendas. Farage is no friend of the working man, he is a spiv ripping them off.
> > @kinabalu said:
> > A Corbyn Government raising taxes and slowing growth, spending too much and increasing inflation is not going to benefit them.
> >
> > However given the poorest DE voters voted both to Leave the EU in the 2016 referendum and for Corbyn Labour at the last general election it is more a case they want both Brexit and Corbyn not either or.
> >
> > Whether Labour economic policies would work is another matter. It's not valid to project your Conservative mindset onto these people.
> >
> > And it's not GE17 I'm talking about, it's now - the appeal of Farage and No Deal Brexit to our DE citizens.
> >
> > In particular, given it is clear to everybody that the political cheerleaders of Hard Brexit are almost exclusively reactionary right wing Tories (inc Farage), why does this not discredit it in their eyes?
> >
> > It's odd.
>
> Over on LSE blogs they have some ineteresting articles from academics about why the DE's voted for brexit.
>
> Here is one and the article links to other research on the subject.
>
> https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/brexit/2019/01/31/many-working-class-people-believe-in-brexit-who-can-blame-them/
>
> and another
>
> https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/brexit/2018/01/15/we-dont-exist-to-them-do-we-why-working-class-people-voted-for-brexit/
>
' HS2, the Channel Tunnel, and London’s Crossrail move meticulously around their communities, never stopping, moving the financially mobile around the country and into Europe, while their local buses and services are stripped back to almost nothing. '
' When a list of demands by the Brexit Yellow Jackets was being shared and ridiculed on social media because of its confusion and poor grammar, there was no empathy or even acknowledgment that a poorly-educated working class in a wealthy society is a shame upon us all, and is a failure of a system not an individual. For every public sector worker, academic, journalist, and politician that shared those demands with the intention of shaming those that had written it: you are the reason we have Brexit. Brexit has let those rational, liberal masks slip, and you are ugly. '
> > @HYUFD said:
> > Congratulations to the Duke and Duchess of Sussex on the birth of their son
>
> > @HYUFD said:
> > Congratulations to the Duke and Duchess of Sussex on the birth of their son
>
> And to everyone else who has had a baby today
Any news on the name? As he was born on May Day, maybe Karl....?
> @twistedfirestopper2
>
> I didn't mention the Empire, but a general theme of the Leavers that I know was to turn back the clock, to a less globalised world, hence my reference to the cosy world of the Carry On movies.
>
> I think the risk of a slow gentle slide into a British Peronism is a likely outcome. What I cannot see is that Brexit offers any solution to the ills of the post industrial regions.
I know it wasn't you, but the Carry On theme ties in nicely with the whole "Back to the Empire/50s" vibe that a lot of remainers try to pin on anyone who voted to leave the EU. I can only reiterate my point that the people I know who voted leave don't think like that. I certainly don't. As to Brexit, I think we can all agree it is a complete clusterfeck, and we probably should remain as none of the current politicians have a clue what to do.
It's grinding on here being told (not by you!) that I'm a racist, xenophobic, gammon faced thick little Englander because I voted Leave by posters who I actually have a lot of respect for and share their views on most things- I don't disagree with much that Mr Meeks writes about, except that I voted to leave. I have always said I could vote for the Southam Observer Labour party.
I guess we're all a little jaded by it all, and I've got something much eviler than the EU to worry about.
> @twistedfirestopper2
>
> I didn't mention the Empire, but a general theme of the Leavers that I know was to turn back the clock, to a less globalised world, hence my reference to the cosy world of the Carry On movies.
>
> I think the risk of a slow gentle slide into a British Peronism is a likely outcome. What I cannot see is that Brexit offers any solution to the ills of the post industrial regions.
>
> No, but it’s a tedious trope employed far too often by people wishing to denigrate leavers.
>
> Edit: my inability to spell is one, too
>
> I do not denigrate the people who voted Leave. Their nostalgic desire to reverse a globalisation that has eroded their communities is entirely understandable, and I am sympathetic.
>
> On the other hand, I have nothing but contempt for the Leave politicians who have exploited and lied to them to push their own agendas. Farage is no friend of the working man, he is a spiv ripping them off.
why no contempt for people like Mandelson, Blair or Cameron who created the conditions in which Farage could prosper >
https://www.alternatehistory.com/forum/threads/remember-remember-the-fifth-of-november-britain-1981-1990.433198/
> No that was the niche Libertarian Pirate Island vision.
>
> What Barnsley and Boston voted for was immigration control and more spending on 'people like me' not 'people like them'.
>
> Why people were voting and what people were voting for were different things.
Yet May's Deal responds to the why - immigration control and more NHS spending.
> > @kinabalu said:
> > I would say it was much more those who have something but think they are losing out from globalisation who voted Leave.
> >
> > And I'll reverse the question and ask why did so many of the poor in London vote Remain when globalisation is a driver in the deprivation and inequality they suffer from ?
> >
> > I don't know, my circle is pretty much me and the missus, but perhaps down here they are more savvy that Hard Brexit is the wet dream of the right wing of the Tory Party (plus fellow traveler Nige), and thus cannot possibly be something that will be in the interests of the poor.
>
> There must be some good, well-researched, literature on why poor people vote for right wing parties.
Used to be called deference in the old days - and anecdotally I think it still happens quite a bit.
It's human nature to complain, and Farage feeds off that like a posh, well-spoken vampire.
> @twistedfirestopper2
>
> I didn't mention the Empire, but a general theme of the Leavers that I know was to turn back the clock, to a less globalised world, hence my reference to the cosy world of the Carry On movies.
>
> I think the risk of a slow gentle slide into a British Peronism is a likely outcome. What I cannot see is that Brexit offers any solution to the ills of the post industrial regions.
>
> No, but it’s a tedious trope employed far too often by people wishing to denigrate leavers.
>
> Edit: my inability to spell is one, too
>
> I do not denigrate the people who voted Leave. Their nostalgic desire to reverse a globalisation that has eroded their communities is entirely understandable, and I am sympathetic.
>
> On the other hand, I have nothing but contempt for the Leave politicians who have exploited and lied to them to push their own agendas. Farage is no friend of the working man, he is a spiv ripping them off.
Indeed.
Though I would have expected better of those Conservative MPs who opposed May's Deal.
I find it amusing that their self indulgent tantrums are being now overwhelmed by the force of Farage.
> > @Foxy said:
>
> > @twistedfirestopper2
>
> >
>
> > I didn't mention the Empire, but a general theme of the Leavers that I know was to turn back the clock, to a less globalised world, hence my reference to the cosy world of the Carry On movies.
>
> >
>
> > I think the risk of a slow gentle slide into a British Peronism is a likely outcome. What I cannot see is that Brexit offers any solution to the ills of the post industrial regions.
>
> >
>
> > No, but it’s a tedious trope employed far too often by people wishing to denigrate leavers.
>
> >
>
> > Edit: my inability to spell is one, too
>
> >
>
> > I do not denigrate the people who voted Leave. Their nostalgic desire to reverse a globalisation that has eroded their communities is entirely understandable, and I am sympathetic.
>
> >
>
> > On the other hand, I have nothing but contempt for the Leave politicians who have exploited and lied to them to push their own agendas. Farage is no friend of the working man, he is a spiv ripping them off.
>
>
>
> why no contempt for people like Mandelson, Blair or Cameron who created the conditions in which Farage could prosper >
>
> The likes of Farage can prosper in any environment, for there will always be people who are slightly left behind, and those who want to blame everyone else for their own failures.
>
> It's human nature to complain, and Farage feeds off that like a posh, well-spoken vampire.
Ttur only to the point that we have never as a post war society had it to this degree. previously discontent went to the LDs.
>
> Ttur only to the point that we have never as a post war society had it to this degree. previously discontent went to the LDs.
Its only in the last decade that the establishment has advocated rising house prices together with stagnant wages.
Plus the impoverishment of the young which has boosted Corbynism and the Greens.
It is not so much - Why did so many of the WWC vote Leave?
It is rather -
Why are they enthused by a No Deal Brexit pushed by Farage and his fellow reactionary right wing politicos but not by the prospect of a Radical Left Labour government which has several specific policies aimed at them?
> > @MattW said:
> > > @Cyclefree said:
> > >
> > > Developers are meant to provide benefits for the community in return for planning permission but either the amounts paid disappear into Council coffers with no visible benefits or the proposed benefits that are meant to be part of the plan never, somehow, materialise.
> > >
> > > But most of the housing developers wanting to build new expensive homes on the edges of towns or nice villages are not of this type and between them and useless councils, it is not hard to see how poor plans are devised which then face NIMBY-style reactions.
> >
> > Not quite the whole picture. Planning Gain and other taxes on planning permission for development raise £6-7 billion per year - equivalent to £15-20k tax on each newbuild house (obviously paid for by eg the young family moving in), and two-thirds of it is spent on affordable housing.
> >
> > If the Council do not spend it as allocated, the developer gets clawback after I think 5 years.
> >
> > https://twitter.com/mattwardman/status/1125408326051872775
> >
>
> Isn't 'affordable housing' defined as being below average prices ?
>
> Which is rarely affordable to those on average earnings in those councils the Conservatives lost.
@another_richard
I don't see how that comment relates. Social housing contributions are used for 2 things afaik - rented and shared ownership. Subsidised Rented can be up to 80% of market rent. It is a matter for Council Policy how the mix is set.
The £15-20k is what is in the price of the market housing in the development to pay for it all, though:
https://twitter.com/mattwardman/status/1125412138841980928
> Here is one and the article links to other research on the subject.
> ...
>
>
> Thanks. I will read those. And just to clarify what I'm seeking an answer to:
>
> It is not so much - Why did so many of the WWC vote Leave?
>
> It is rather -
>
> Why are they enthused by a No Deal Brexit pushed by Farage and his fellow reactionary right wing politicos but not by the prospect of a Radical Left Labour government which has several specific policies aimed at them?
Various explanations could be that they don't believe the radical left can deliver; that their local Labour councillors are crap; that they dislike the political representatives of the radical left, or that they think many of the issues that motivate the radical left are irrelevant or absurd.
It was billed as being about class determining life chances, but turned out to be entirely about geography (essentially, London and people going there to seek their fortune). [That reminded me of the twonk who, some months ago, reported that HS2 would one day go 'as far north as Leeds', as if 'Here there be dragons' marked the map (goodness knows what he would've made of Newcastle, let alone Scotland). Or when the twerp Gompertz tittered about people not wanting see art in Hull].
Similar seems to happen with migration and globalisation. High-flying migrants gravitate to London, integrate, work hard, pay their taxes, (or serve coffee to the delight of cosmopolitan citizenry). Lazier migrants or those unable to work get housed in cheaper parts of the country and enjoy the non-contributory benefits system, perhaps also forming cultural enclaves, whilst increasing pressure on local infrastructure.
Meanwhile, government has failed to build sufficient housing for decades, leading to higher prices, more inherited wealth, and greater difficulty getting on the ladder.
Globalisation, as discussed here before, has led to some getting a lot richer, but mostly the thinning of the middle class with a majority becoming a bit worse off rather than enjoying greater prosperity.
We see a similar lack of understanding when it comes to rural matters. Things that might be feasible in cities (electric-only cars, no real money) just don't work elsewhere, and aren't wanted. But because policymakers are so London-centric they're unable to see that. And so it was with the EU. Popular in London, less so elsewhere, used as a convenient scapegoat by the political class, who played the sceptical card in opposition and were then surprised people didn't like it very much (still astounding the Remain campaign was so negative, and Cameron didn't require Vote Leave to put forward a firm prospectus...)
/endramble
> A Tory councillor struck off the teaching register for offensive comments about Nicola Sturgeon has been put in charge of standards at her local authority.
>
> Kathleen Leslie was appointed to Fife Council’s Special Standards and Audit Committee, where she will “promote and maintain high standards of conduct by councillors”.
>
> The move came days after it emerged Leslie had agreed to be struck off the teaching register after complaints about tweets in 2013 including branding Sturgeon “Wee Jimmy Krankie”.
> Leslie also called EuroMillions winners Chris and Colin Weir “fat f*****s” after they donated millions to the Yes campaign.
> It emerged last week she agreed to remove herself from the teaching register in July following an investigation by the General Teaching Council.
>
> Leslie, from Dalgety Bay, later told her local newspaper: “I chose not to exercise my right to take the issue to a hearing.
>
>
> So your claim it was nothing to do with Sturgeon/SNP was false? Glad we got that sorted out!
Are you saying that Sturgeon & the SNP influenced the General Teaching Council to encourage Ms Leslie to remove herself from the teaching register? I'd have thought going on social media to call people you've never met fat fuckers and drooling hags might have figured in their calculations.