On topic Sir Kneel Starmer has made very few mis-steps to date. Nothing he has done has been rocket science but after the blundering incoherence of the Corbyn regime it seems remarkable.
In contrast the government is struggling with the virus and its aftermath with a physically weakened PM and several mediocrities around the Cabinet table. Boris needs a reshuffle. Williamson has to go for sheer incompetence and Jenrick needs to go for pure dumbness and a void in his ethics bank. Ideally Boris would reach out to the likes of Hunt and Javid but that is not really his style. When you fall out with Boris it tends to be for keeps (Gove being a notable exception).
Well, anyone who thought Keir a bit drippy got a surprise. Clearly a new broom, and antisemitism will not be tolerated.
Might make for an interesting relationship with the Deputy Leader, RLB's housemate.
I disagree. He’s been brutal, and that’s politics. But he’s also been unjust and that’s more important.
At the end of the day RLB shared an Independent interview with a constituent of her’s. An MP should be able to do something like that without having their reputation trashed.
It’s not the sacking that matters. RLB will be remembered in history* as being sacked for forwarding an anti-Semitic article. I don’t think that’s right.
I've been surprised by how little discussion there has been on here and generally on these proposed planning "reforms" which seem to have been a formula for (even greater) corruption in politics regarding planning permission.
Jenrick’s planning reforms: the key changes at a glance
Planning reforms
Introduce new permitted development rights for building upwards on existing buildings by summer 2020 Consult on potential permitted development rights to allow vacant buildings to be demolished and replaced with new homes New support for community and self-build housing schemes, including support finding plots of land Support the Oxford-Cambridge arc by setting up a new spatial framework for the area, setting out where housing will be delivered up to 2050, and create four development corporations across the region
Housing Delivery Test
Review the formula for calculating local housing need to encourage more building in urban areas Require all local authorities to have an up-to-date local plan by 2023 or government will intervene Continue with plans to raise the Housing Delivery Test threshold to 75% in November 2020 Reform the New Homes Bonus to ensure local authorities that build more homes have access to greater funding
Planning departments
Implement new planning fee structure to better resource planning authorities and link funding to improved performance Provide automatic rebates of fees when planning applications are successful at appeal Expand the use of zoning tools to support development that is aimed at simplifying the process of granting planning permission for residential and commercial property Make it clearer who owns land by requiring greater transparency on land options Support local authorities to use compulsory purchase orders by introducing statutory timescales for decisions and ending the automatic right to public inquiry
Homeownership
Continue with the proposed First Homes scheme, which offers eligible first-time buyers new homes at prices discounted by a third Form partnerships with developers and local authorities to be the frontrunners for delivering the first wave of new homes
Design
Revise National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) to encourage good design and placemaking throughout the planning process Respond to the Building Better, Building Beautiful Commission and take forward recommendations calling for urban tree-planting and giving communities more influence over design Implement a new National Design Code to allow residents of communities to have more influence over design. Allow local areas to produce their own design codes for new development.
Climate and sustainability
Review policy for building in areas at flood risk by assessing whether current NPPF protections are enough and whether further reform is needed Introduce Future Homes Standard in 2025, which will require up to 80% lower carbon emissions for new homes Create a new net zero carbon housing development in Toton in the East Midlands through a development corporation
I'm quite new here and find it interesting, I've never come across a group of people so out of touch with public opinion. Outside of this site I never hear Cummings name mentioned yet so many on here are trying to convince themselves he's an ongoing issue. .
No one mentioned the front page news story for a week, led the news on multiple days?
Are you sure? Not even once?
At the time Cummings was news, but its fish and chip paper, all the talk now is of beaches.
Despite people wanting Cummings to be news, he isn't. And the ongoing story will be the economy, which millions are unaware of as they cook bbqs whilst furloughed.
It is an issue that will resonate with waverers. Enthusiastic Labourites and Tories have made their decisions based on partisanship, but for the floating voter it is something else to quietly add to the debit column.
Even for Korea, this is an astonishing drop in birth rate:
Childbirths drop 10.4% in April as population decline looms http://m.koreatimes.co.kr/pages/article.asp?newsIdx=291799 The number of babies born in Korea dropped 10.4 percent in April from a year earlier, in the latest sign underscoring a looming population decline.
According to Statistics Korea Wednesday, 23,420 babies were born in April, compared with 26,151 in April 2019.
It marks the lowest number of newborns for any April since the state agency started keeping records in 1981.
Meanwhile, the number of people who died increased 3.3 percent to 24,628.
All this indicates that the country is evidently on track this year to reporting its first natural population decline.
It will be interesting to see if the lockdown has any effect on this. Not much sign of that here so far in the maternity wards but maybe still early days.
Well I know COVID has been linked with many and varied effects, but shortening gestation periods by several months would be a new one!
LOL. I read that early studies showed that there had been no increase in pregnancies here over the lockdown, in fact almost the reverse.
Am I the only person who hates the use of staycation to mean holiday in the UK? I am certain when it was first used it meant staying at home and taking day-trips. A holiday in the UK for me is a holiday! Its what I do almost all years.
Plus if you live in southern England, northern France is closer than northern England, if you live in Scotland, Norway and Iceland are closer than London and the Home Counties and if you live in Northern Ireland the Republic is closer than most of Great Britain
The football is played with no crowd, it maybe possible to livestream plays with no audience if venues are indoors particularly
Football is not being played with no crowd! Premier League and Championship football is. There is more to football than just that!
Lower league football is not. League One and League Two got terminated prematurely (seeing my League One side relegated harshly) while Leagues below them were marked nul and void. The idea that simply playing behind closed doors is a solution for everyone is farcical - maybe it is for the Premier League and their equivalents, not for everyone else.
This response is unnecesarily combative. Football is being played with no crowd, just not that much.
It's not combative it matters.
Cyclefree, I and many others have repeatedly made the point that many people's livelihoods are not viable socially distanced. To be dismissive of this as HYUFD is with an attitude of "football can be played behind closed doors so can theatres etc" is utterly ignorant and dismissive and will if followed through without any support lead to the destruction of people's livelihoods.
The Premier League is an exception because they make their money so much more from the TV cameras than they do from just people in the stadia. They are more comparable with actors on TV shows filming behind closed doors than they are actors in live theatre normally playing to an audience without a camera.
Many theatres are live streaming archive plays e.g. the National Theatre and can stream live performances too without audiences as the Premier League is.
For smaller theatres and smaller football clubs they have much smaller crowds and audiences so as lockdown eases will be back before the biggest football clubs and theatres anyway and of course can still benefit from furlough until October
You do realize that national league club players are having to sleep in the club bar and other such places, have no idea yet ifbthe playoffs are going to take place, or if they win them it will result in promotion. 30% capacity would be good for most Lowe league clubs, just need to find a way to maintain distancing getting into the ground. How many go under I don’t know
I've been surprised by how little discussion there has been on here and generally on these proposed planning "reforms" which seem to have been a formula for (even greater) corruption in politics regarding planning permission.
Could something like this work for big housing developments:
Government compulsorily purchases land at 2-3x price without planning permission Government auctions off same land with planning permission
That way the existing landowner gets a significant but smaller windfall, but it both raises tax revenue and takes out the corruption from the process.
Interesting - I hadn't seen that.
What problem is that proposal designed to address?
I agree that existing CPO powers are extensive, which iirc (not my absolute specialist subject) are quite draconian? See for example how Camden used them in in the late 70s.
I think there is quite a lot of stuff in the postwar planning legislation which is quite powerful if used.
My main issue there would be question whether that will address the problem.
I dont know enough about planning to know if it would work or not. Its simply a better way to deal with the windfall gains around planning permission - most of it should go to the public (probably weighted to the local community), but still keeping enough incentive for the landowner and developer to build. Currently is shared by the landowner, developer and corrupt politicians and officials - clearly sub optimal.
Well, anyone who thought Keir a bit drippy got a surprise. Clearly a new broom, and antisemitism will not be tolerated.
Might make for an interesting relationship with the Deputy Leader, RLB's housemate.
I disagree. He’s been brutal, and that’s politics. But he’s also been unjust and that’s more important.
At the end of the day RLB shared an Independent interview with a constituent of her’s. An MP should be able to do something like that without having their reputation trashed.
It’s not the sacking that matters. RLB will be remembered in history* as being sacked for forwarding an anti-Semitic article. I don’t think that’s right.
(* to the extent that she is at all)
Amazing how those who complained Labour didnt address antisemitism now say Labour is too harsh dealing with antisemitism. An observer might almost think that their issue was with Labour rather than antisemitism.
The GOP are disgusting , beneath contempt . This however is a gift to the Democrats , the GOP were punished in the mid terms because of their unhinged obsession with removing Obamacare and to go after that again during a pandemic is astonishing .
I would have thought it would hurt Trump and Republican candidates, so what is the idea?
Is it Trump being driven by hatred of Obama, and resigned to losing in November, trying to destroy Obama's legacy while he still has the chance? Obama is more popular than both Trump and Biden, so if Trump is still obsessed with Obama, and keeps going on about Obamagate I think it can only help Biden.
Am I the only person who hates the use of staycation to mean holiday in the UK? I am certain when it was first used it meant staying at home and taking day-trips. A holiday in the UK for me is a holiday! Its what I do almost all years.
Totally agree, a staycation is having a holiday at home, not staying in the same country.
Well, anyone who thought Keir a bit drippy got a surprise. Clearly a new broom, and antisemitism will not be tolerated.
Might make for an interesting relationship with the Deputy Leader, RLB's housemate.
I disagree. He’s been brutal, and that’s politics. But he’s also been unjust and that’s more important.
At the end of the day RLB shared an Independent interview with a constituent of her’s. An MP should be able to do something like that without having their reputation trashed.
It’s not the sacking that matters. RLB will be remembered in history* as being sacked for forwarding an anti-Semitic article. I don’t think that’s right.
(* to the extent that she is at all)
He made it very clear that removing the disgusting stain of anti-Semitism was a priority. RLB really should have been aware that he would be watching her particularly carefully given her track record. She should have been more careful.
Starmer wanted a sacrifice before the report next month so he can show that things are now different. And he got it. He may even go for one more just to make the point. Its not as if finding Corbynites making such remarks is difficult. They just can't help themselves.
Am I the only person who hates the use of staycation to mean holiday in the UK? I am certain when it was first used it meant staying at home and taking day-trips. A holiday in the UK for me is a holiday! Its what I do almost all years.
Plus if you live in southern England, northern France is closer than northern England, if you live in Scotland, Norway and Iceland are closer than London and the Home Counties and if you live in Northern Ireland the Republic is closer than most of Great Britain
Manchester is roughly the same distance from Dublin as it is from London. Growing up in East Kent we were always encouraged to listen to French radio when revising for GCSEs.
Well, anyone who thought Keir a bit drippy got a surprise. Clearly a new broom, and antisemitism will not be tolerated.
Might make for an interesting relationship with the Deputy Leader, RLB's housemate.
I disagree. He’s been brutal, and that’s politics. But he’s also been unjust and that’s more important.
At the end of the day RLB shared an Independent interview with a constituent of her’s. An MP should be able to do something like that without having their reputation trashed.
It’s not the sacking that matters. RLB will be remembered in history* as being sacked for forwarding an anti-Semitic article. I don’t think that’s right.
(* to the extent that she is at all)
More pressing, in reality, was that Peake’s comments were less than flattering about Starmer.
Am I the only person who hates the use of staycation to mean holiday in the UK? I am certain when it was first used it meant staying at home and taking day-trips. A holiday in the UK for me is a holiday! Its what I do almost all years.
Imagine thinking that a holiday in the UK is good.
Starmer can now be less ruthless, even screw up on this issue, and get away with it, as he'll have formed a very strong impression. Like Tory ruthlessness itll be a useful myth.
RLB doesnt believe her own defence about not endorsing everything in a shared piece, a partisan person like her would not let, say, Michael Gove use that justification. So Starmer might have preferred an even solider grounds for sacking but she still gave him the chance.
Am I the only person who hates the use of staycation to mean holiday in the UK? I am certain when it was first used it meant staying at home and taking day-trips. A holiday in the UK for me is a holiday! Its what I do almost all years.
Plus if you live in southern England, northern France is closer than northern England, if you live in Scotland, Norway and Iceland are closer than London and the Home Counties and if you live in Northern Ireland the Republic is closer than most of Great Britain
When I lived in Exeter I went on holiday in Shetland travelling by train/boat. The trip took longer than travelling overland to Cologne ore even Marseilles.
Well, anyone who thought Keir a bit drippy got a surprise. Clearly a new broom, and antisemitism will not be tolerated.
Might make for an interesting relationship with the Deputy Leader, RLB's housemate.
I disagree. He’s been brutal, and that’s politics. But he’s also been unjust and that’s more important.
At the end of the day RLB shared an Independent interview with a constituent of her’s. An MP should be able to do something like that without having their reputation trashed.
It’s not the sacking that matters. RLB will be remembered in history* as being sacked for forwarding an anti-Semitic article. I don’t think that’s right.
(* to the extent that she is at all)
Come off it. You would have been amongst the first calling out Starmer's weakness and indecision if she'd stayed.
It is the one single issue that Starmer cannot be seen to be tolerant over. He had forewarned the Party, and he acted accordingly.
Granted, RLB's indescretion was minor in comparison to Robert Jenrick's antics, but I would like to think, when faced with the same issue, namely brazen corruption, Starmer will be equally forthright.
Am I the only person who hates the use of staycation to mean holiday in the UK? I am certain when it was first used it meant staying at home and taking day-trips. A holiday in the UK for me is a holiday! Its what I do almost all years.
Plus if you live in southern England, northern France is closer than northern England, if you live in Scotland, Norway and Iceland are closer than London and the Home Counties and if you live in Northern Ireland the Republic is closer than most of Great Britain
Manchester is roughly the same distance from Dublin as it is from London. Growing up in East Kent we were always encouraged to listen to French radio when revising for GCSEs.
Newcastle is only 10 miles closer to Leeds than it is to Edinburgh, never mind London.
What relevance this has to anything is another matter.
The football is played with no crowd, it maybe possible to livestream plays with no audience if venues are indoors particularly
Football is not being played with no crowd! Premier League and Championship football is. There is more to football than just that!
Lower league football is not. League One and League Two got terminated prematurely (seeing my League One side relegated harshly) while Leagues below them were marked nul and void. The idea that simply playing behind closed doors is a solution for everyone is farcical - maybe it is for the Premier League and their equivalents, not for everyone else.
This response is unnecesarily combative. Football is being played with no crowd, just not that much.
It's not combative it matters.
Cyclefree, I and many others have repeatedly made the point that many people's livelihoods are not viable socially distanced. To be dismissive of this as HYUFD is with an attitude of "football can be played behind closed doors so can theatres etc" is utterly ignorant and dismissive and will if followed through without any support lead to the destruction of people's livelihoods.
The Premier League is an exception because they make their money so much more from the TV cameras than they do from just people in the stadia. They are more comparable with actors on TV shows filming behind closed doors than they are actors in live theatre normally playing to an audience without a camera.
Many theatres are live streaming archive plays e.g. the National Theatre and can stream live performances too without audiences as the Premier League is.
For smaller theatres and smaller football clubs they have much smaller crowds and audiences so as lockdown eases will be back before the biggest football clubs and theatres anyway and of course can still benefit from furlough until October
That’s one of the ways we are looking at supporting the performing arts sector - by using the house as a backdrop for live-streamed programmes
Politics can indeed prove to be a cruel business. From having once been the favourite to succeed Corbyn as Leader of H.M. Opposition, Ms Long-Bailey now finds herself a few months later as just a bog-standard Labour backbencher with decidedly limited future career prospects.
It was always a mystery to me how Long-Bailey was ever FAV.
Usually you can see why politicians climb to the top, or near to the top, of the slippery pole. For example, Gove and Raab are slimy and repugnant stools, but I can just about understand why a Tory backbencher or member might vote for them. For a slimy, repugnant party, the qualities of slime and repugnance are both strong positives, so in that sense they might buy what they see on the tin. But Long-Bailey is just a total mystery to me. I just cannot see her USP to the Labour selectorate, let alone to the wider Labour-sympathetic bloke on the omnibus.
She comes over as a total vacuum. My only way of starting to even conceive of her as a FAV for leader of HM Opposition was to conclude that if she was the best the Labour Party has to offer then talent within the party had been so hollowed out that the organisation was firmly set for terminal decline. But luckily for Labour, they had Starmer. He ain’t no superstar, but he’s good enough, and up against The Great Charlatan, good enough is simply outstanding.
Labour are very, very lucky.
Now, turning to Richard Leonard... OMFG.
I know the uniform opinion on here is that Starmer has played a blinder with RLB but it's less than 24 hours and who knows what the ramifications will be. Maybe he can trample over the Corbynites in the Labour party but there are a fair few of them and I doubt whether they are going to let go without a struggle especially in the current climate where would have been considered radical fantasies of the future are now being openly discussed.
The other risk I can see for Starmer here is that if eg he sacked RLB but doesn't sack a frontbencher or another member of his team who calls for Churchill's statue etc to come down etc etc, it leaves him open to the charge of double standards or charges it shows he is secretly sympathetic to the statement.
Starmer should support proportional representation, let Momentum form their own party and sink without trace. It would likely cause the Tories to split too. He won't get a majority anyway but PR would give them extra seats in Scotland and ensure support from the LibDems so he could be our next (coalition) PM.
He'd need to win under the present crooked system first, and when Labour achieves that, suddenly that system doesnt seem so bad.
Twas ever thus.
I wonder how many Democrats who've come to dislike the electoral college will bother to push for change if they win in November.
I think it interesting that the Old Vic still has published ticket prices from £12-65 for their online performances and you are encouraged to pay what you normally would although everyone gets the same view.
I'm quite new here and find it interesting, I've never come across a group of people so out of touch with public opinion. Outside of this site I never hear Cummings name mentioned yet so many on here are trying to convince themselves he's an ongoing issue.
And on the other side I don't suppose 1% of the population knows who Long Bailey is, even less that she's been sacked.
OK its a political site but plenty on here seem able to convince themselves black is white.
Are you sure it is not you who is a bubble. I have Tory friends who are livid about Cummings. As soon as the housing minister issue came up they immediately refer back to Cummings even though it is unrelated.
Well, anyone who thought Keir a bit drippy got a surprise. Clearly a new broom, and antisemitism will not be tolerated.
Might make for an interesting relationship with the Deputy Leader, RLB's housemate.
I disagree. He’s been brutal, and that’s politics. But he’s also been unjust and that’s more important.
At the end of the day RLB shared an Independent interview with a constituent of her’s. An MP should be able to do something like that without having their reputation trashed.
It’s not the sacking that matters. RLB will be remembered in history* as being sacked for forwarding an anti-Semitic article. I don’t think that’s right.
(* to the extent that she is at all)
Amazing how those who complained Labour didnt address antisemitism now say Labour is too harsh dealing with antisemitism. An observer might almost think that their issue was with Labour rather than antisemitism.
Whilst I don't care particularly about this, I do have a smidgen of sympathy for the view that retweeting an Independent article doesn't seem the most grievous of crimes. It does feel like Starmer was looking for an excuse to sack RLB. Perhaps stuff went on behind the scenes yesterday that we didn't hear about, but a statement by RLB saying specifically that she considered the line about Israel to be antisemitic would seem enough to me.
Well, anyone who thought Keir a bit drippy got a surprise. Clearly a new broom, and antisemitism will not be tolerated.
Might make for an interesting relationship with the Deputy Leader, RLB's housemate.
I disagree. He’s been brutal, and that’s politics. But he’s also been unjust and that’s more important.
At the end of the day RLB shared an Independent interview with a constituent of her’s. An MP should be able to do something like that without having their reputation trashed.
It’s not the sacking that matters. RLB will be remembered in history* as being sacked for forwarding an anti-Semitic article. I don’t think that’s right.
(* to the extent that she is at all)
More pressing, in reality, was that Peake’s comments were less than flattering about Starmer.
Peake said she would still vote for Starmer to get rid of the Tories as she had voted for Blair for the same reason despite not being a Blair fan but clearly was furious about voters who were voting for Starmer but not willing to vote for Corbyn
I've been surprised by how little discussion there has been on here and generally on these proposed planning "reforms" which seem to have been a formula for (even greater) corruption in politics regarding planning permission.
Could something like this work for big housing developments:
Government compulsorily purchases land at 2-3x price without planning permission Government auctions off same land with planning permission
That way the existing landowner gets a significant but smaller windfall, but it both raises tax revenue and takes out the corruption from the process.
Interesting - I hadn't seen that.
What problem is that proposal designed to address?
I agree that existing CPO powers are extensive, which iirc (not my absolute specialist subject) are quite draconian? See for example how Camden used them in in the late 70s.
I think there is quite a lot of stuff in the postwar planning legislation which is quite powerful if used.
My main issue there would be question whether that will address the problem.
I dont know enough about planning to know if it would work or not. Its simply a better way to deal with the windfall gains around planning permission - most of it should go to the public (probably weighted to the local community), but still keeping enough incentive for the landowner and developer to build. Currently is shared by the landowner, developer and corrupt politicians and officials - clearly sub optimal.
Why should the state take the profit from a landowner developing the land (over and above normal taxes)
Well, anyone who thought Keir a bit drippy got a surprise. Clearly a new broom, and antisemitism will not be tolerated.
Might make for an interesting relationship with the Deputy Leader, RLB's housemate.
I disagree. He’s been brutal, and that’s politics. But he’s also been unjust and that’s more important.
At the end of the day RLB shared an Independent interview with a constituent of her’s. An MP should be able to do something like that without having their reputation trashed.
It’s not the sacking that matters. RLB will be remembered in history* as being sacked for forwarding an anti-Semitic article. I don’t think that’s right.
(* to the extent that she is at all)
More pressing, in reality, was that Peake’s comments were less than flattering about Starmer.
Peake said she would still vote for Starmer to get rid of the Tories as she had voted for Blair for the same reason despite not being a Blair fan but clearly was furious about voters who were voting for Starmer but not willing to vote for Corbyn
Which frankly shows her stupidity. Starmer needs 2-3m of them.
This is actually just continuation of what was started a while ago. When McCain screwed Trump and voted against ACA repeal (and the GOP saw what going for repeal did to their polling) the GOP chose a new tact. They changed the tax penalty for the individual mandate to zero. When Trump signed that law he then said "we've just repealed Obamacare, not many people know that". His meaning being that a court case would now be started about Obamacare's constitutionality and they get the SC to strike it down on technicalities.
If the Conservative justices on the SC had any moral consistency they would throw this out saying that if Congress wanted to repeal Obamacare then they should pass a law repealing it.
Judges in many places, but particularly the USA, dont seem to have an issue in determining what legislatures want or meant, even if what they said they want or meant is something different. It just requires creativity.
I've been surprised by how little discussion there has been on here and generally on these proposed planning "reforms" which seem to have been a formula for (even greater) corruption in politics regarding planning permission.
Could something like this work for big housing developments:
Government compulsorily purchases land at 2-3x price without planning permission Government auctions off same land with planning permission
That way the existing landowner gets a significant but smaller windfall, but it both raises tax revenue and takes out the corruption from the process.
Interesting - I hadn't seen that.
What problem is that proposal designed to address?
I agree that existing CPO powers are extensive, which iirc (not my absolute specialist subject) are quite draconian? See for example how Camden used them in in the late 70s.
I think there is quite a lot of stuff in the postwar planning legislation which is quite powerful if used.
My main issue there would be question whether that will address the problem.
I dont know enough about planning to know if it would work or not. Its simply a better way to deal with the windfall gains around planning permission - most of it should go to the public (probably weighted to the local community), but still keeping enough incentive for the landowner and developer to build. Currently is shared by the landowner, developer and corrupt politicians and officials - clearly sub optimal.
Why should the state take the profit from a landowner developing the land (over and above normal taxes)
You could say that about any tax. I’m not sure it’s particularly insightful. The answer is simply: because they can.
Well, anyone who thought Keir a bit drippy got a surprise. Clearly a new broom, and antisemitism will not be tolerated.
Might make for an interesting relationship with the Deputy Leader, RLB's housemate.
I disagree. He’s been brutal, and that’s politics. But he’s also been unjust and that’s more important.
At the end of the day RLB shared an Independent interview with a constituent of her’s. An MP should be able to do something like that without having their reputation trashed.
It’s not the sacking that matters. RLB will be remembered in history* as being sacked for forwarding an anti-Semitic article. I don’t think that’s right.
(* to the extent that she is at all)
He made it very clear that removing the disgusting stain of anti-Semitism was a priority. RLB really should have been aware that he would be watching her particularly carefully given her track record. She should have been more careful.
Starmer wanted a sacrifice before the report next month so he can show that things are now different. And he got it. He may even go for one more just to make the point. Its not as if finding Corbynites making such remarks is difficult. They just can't help themselves.
This issue simply shows that RLB has no political intelligence. The tweet was as dumb as Emily Thornberry's. A politician that cannot see, that the tweet would not be seen by many as offensive and controversial with the party leadership should not be in the shadow cabinet.
RLB has discovered that she actual has no allies and that she is now of no use.
I think it's also the distant whiff of power. Keir Starmer looks like a serious contender and Labour mean business. The virus has also hastened the scales falling from the public's eyes about Boris Johnson.
It's one thing to abandon a sinking ship, another to resign just before the launch.
I would imagine Starmer has told his shadow cabinet to lay off posting/saying anything referring to Israel unless they have triple-checked that it is absolutely accurate, relevant, fair and proportionate. Any Labour politician with any clue would be doing this anyway. Why on earth would anyone resign because of RLB's apparent inability to follow this simple necessity?
Well, anyone who thought Keir a bit drippy got a surprise. Clearly a new broom, and antisemitism will not be tolerated.
Might make for an interesting relationship with the Deputy Leader, RLB's housemate.
I disagree. He’s been brutal, and that’s politics. But he’s also been unjust and that’s more important.
At the end of the day RLB shared an Independent interview with a constituent of her’s. An MP should be able to do something like that without having their reputation trashed.
It’s not the sacking that matters. RLB will be remembered in history* as being sacked for forwarding an anti-Semitic article. I don’t think that’s right.
(* to the extent that she is at all)
Come off it. You would have been amongst the first calling out Starmer's weakness and indecision if she'd stayed.
It is the one single issue that Starmer cannot be seen to be tolerant over. He had forewarned the Party, and he acted accordingly.
Granted, RLB's indescretion was minor in comparison to Robert Jenrick's antics, but I would like to think, when faced with the same issue, namely brazen corruption, Starmer will be equally forthright.
As for Jenrick? Haven't looked properly at the details but although whichever minister it was got criticised for saying it, if you are a member of the Party and/or a donor of course you get better access to MPs and ministers because you will attend functions which they are invited to.
Am I the only person who hates the use of staycation to mean holiday in the UK? I am certain when it was first used it meant staying at home and taking day-trips. A holiday in the UK for me is a holiday! Its what I do almost all years.
Plus if you live in southern England, northern France is closer than northern England, if you live in Scotland, Norway and Iceland are closer than London and the Home Counties and if you live in Northern Ireland the Republic is closer than most of Great Britain
Manchester is roughly the same distance from Dublin as it is from London. Growing up in East Kent we were always encouraged to listen to French radio when revising for GCSEs.
Newcastle is only 10 miles closer to Leeds than it is to Edinburgh, never mind London.
What relevance this has to anything is another matter.
Yes, but Scottish Miles are different from English Miles, and distance from London is in the mind.
Once drove to Bexhill and back in a day - never knew London was so far bloody north.
Well, anyone who thought Keir a bit drippy got a surprise. Clearly a new broom, and antisemitism will not be tolerated.
Might make for an interesting relationship with the Deputy Leader, RLB's housemate.
I disagree. He’s been brutal, and that’s politics. But he’s also been unjust and that’s more important.
At the end of the day RLB shared an Independent interview with a constituent of her’s. An MP should be able to do something like that without having their reputation trashed.
It’s not the sacking that matters. RLB will be remembered in history* as being sacked for forwarding an anti-Semitic article. I don’t think that’s right.
(* to the extent that she is at all)
Amazing how those who complained Labour didnt address antisemitism now say Labour is too harsh dealing with antisemitism. An observer might almost think that their issue was with Labour rather than antisemitism.
Amazing how people who want to make partisan attacks make partisan attacks.
I’m not convinced RLB had read this interview or was forwarding it because it contained an anti Semitic myth.
An interview in the Independent with a well recognised actress - that’s a reasonable thing to forward.
I've been surprised by how little discussion there has been on here and generally on these proposed planning "reforms" which seem to have been a formula for (even greater) corruption in politics regarding planning permission.
Could something like this work for big housing developments:
Government compulsorily purchases land at 2-3x price without planning permission Government auctions off same land with planning permission
That way the existing landowner gets a significant but smaller windfall, but it both raises tax revenue and takes out the corruption from the process.
Interesting - I hadn't seen that.
What problem is that proposal designed to address?
I agree that existing CPO powers are extensive, which iirc (not my absolute specialist subject) are quite draconian? See for example how Camden used them in in the late 70s.
I think there is quite a lot of stuff in the postwar planning legislation which is quite powerful if used.
My main issue there would be question whether that will address the problem.
I dont know enough about planning to know if it would work or not. Its simply a better way to deal with the windfall gains around planning permission - most of it should go to the public (probably weighted to the local community), but still keeping enough incentive for the landowner and developer to build. Currently is shared by the landowner, developer and corrupt politicians and officials - clearly sub optimal.
Why should the state take the profit from a landowner developing the land (over and above normal taxes)
Because the profit is generated from a state action, grant of planning permission, that also causes increased state costs in transport, education, doctors surgeries etc.
Well, anyone who thought Keir a bit drippy got a surprise. Clearly a new broom, and antisemitism will not be tolerated.
Might make for an interesting relationship with the Deputy Leader, RLB's housemate.
I disagree. He’s been brutal, and that’s politics. But he’s also been unjust and that’s more important.
At the end of the day RLB shared an Independent interview with a constituent of her’s. An MP should be able to do something like that without having their reputation trashed.
It’s not the sacking that matters. RLB will be remembered in history* as being sacked for forwarding an anti-Semitic article. I don’t think that’s right.
(* to the extent that she is at all)
He made it very clear that removing the disgusting stain of anti-Semitism was a priority. RLB really should have been aware that he would be watching her particularly carefully given her track record. She should have been more careful.
Starmer wanted a sacrifice before the report next month so he can show that things are now different. And he got it. He may even go for one more just to make the point. Its not as if finding Corbynites making such remarks is difficult. They just can't help themselves.
Sure. I understand the politics and RLB has been hung out to dry. That doesn’t make it a just action.
The Daily Mail has really taken an interesting turn in this Parliament. They're not pro-Labour by any stretch but they seem to hate the Tory Party, or more specifically, Boris Johnson's version of it.
same was broadly true for the Coalition.
Are you basically saying ... governments are typically unpopular?
I've been surprised by how little discussion there has been on here and generally on these proposed planning "reforms" which seem to have been a formula for (even greater) corruption in politics regarding planning permission.
Could something like this work for big housing developments:
Government compulsorily purchases land at 2-3x price without planning permission Government auctions off same land with planning permission
That way the existing landowner gets a significant but smaller windfall, but it both raises tax revenue and takes out the corruption from the process.
Interesting - I hadn't seen that.
What problem is that proposal designed to address?
I agree that existing CPO powers are extensive, which iirc (not my absolute specialist subject) are quite draconian? See for example how Camden used them in in the late 70s.
I think there is quite a lot of stuff in the postwar planning legislation which is quite powerful if used.
My main issue there would be question whether that will address the problem.
I dont know enough about planning to know if it would work or not. Its simply a better way to deal with the windfall gains around planning permission - most of it should go to the public (probably weighted to the local community), but still keeping enough incentive for the landowner and developer to build. Currently is shared by the landowner, developer and corrupt politicians and officials - clearly sub optimal.
Why should the state take the profit from a landowner developing the land (over and above normal taxes)
You could say that about any tax. I’m not sure it’s particularly insightful. The answer is simply: because they can.
And because it might simplify things and encourage development. If the price paid is based on full planning permission with all costs (including S106 charges but not social housing requirements) included then everyone would know where they stand and there would be an incentive to start building asap.
The contrast between the condemnation of people going to the beach and people going to Anfield is stratling. I'm thoroughly pissed off this morning. People should kick off if the beaches are closed.
It should be criticised. The bbc report was weak, with a throwaway line about many wearing masks, next to photos of very few wearing masks.
Well, anyone who thought Keir a bit drippy got a surprise. Clearly a new broom, and antisemitism will not be tolerated.
Might make for an interesting relationship with the Deputy Leader, RLB's housemate.
I disagree. He’s been brutal, and that’s politics. But he’s also been unjust and that’s more important.
At the end of the day RLB shared an Independent interview with a constituent of her’s. An MP should be able to do something like that without having their reputation trashed.
It’s not the sacking that matters. RLB will be remembered in history* as being sacked for forwarding an anti-Semitic article. I don’t think that’s right.
(* to the extent that she is at all)
Amazing how those who complained Labour didnt address antisemitism now say Labour is too harsh dealing with antisemitism. An observer might almost think that their issue was with Labour rather than antisemitism.
Whilst I don't care particularly about this, I do have a smidgen of sympathy for the view that retweeting an Independent article doesn't seem the most grievous of crimes. It does feel like Starmer was looking for an excuse to sack RLB. Perhaps stuff went on behind the scenes yesterday that we didn't hear about, but a statement by RLB saying specifically that she considered the line about Israel to be antisemitic would seem enough to me.
But like I say, I don't care all that much.
AIUI she was offered the chance to delete the tweet but wouldnt do it. Doesnt seem particularly harsh, she didnt have to grovel, just stop promoting lies about Israel?
I've been surprised by how little discussion there has been on here and generally on these proposed planning "reforms" which seem to have been a formula for (even greater) corruption in politics regarding planning permission.
Could something like this work for big housing developments:
Government compulsorily purchases land at 2-3x price without planning permission Government auctions off same land with planning permission
That way the existing landowner gets a significant but smaller windfall, but it both raises tax revenue and takes out the corruption from the process.
Interesting - I hadn't seen that.
What problem is that proposal designed to address?
I agree that existing CPO powers are extensive, which iirc (not my absolute specialist subject) are quite draconian? See for example how Camden used them in in the late 70s.
I think there is quite a lot of stuff in the postwar planning legislation which is quite powerful if used.
My main issue there would be question whether that will address the problem.
I dont know enough about planning to know if it would work or not. Its simply a better way to deal with the windfall gains around planning permission - most of it should go to the public (probably weighted to the local community), but still keeping enough incentive for the landowner and developer to build. Currently is shared by the landowner, developer and corrupt politicians and officials - clearly sub optimal.
Why should the state take the profit from a landowner developing the land (over and above normal taxes)
Because the profit is a consequence of no action or activity or contribution to the public good on the part of the landowner but a somewhat deficient public policy. If there were many more planning permissions there would be less planning gain. What we ideally want is a massive surplus of permissions so that builders can meet the demand where it exists without the premium caused by the current shortage.
Nice to see the Liverpool fans being given the same exemption to ignore social distancing rules like BLM protests. Maybe boring old swimming pools should become BLM reds supporters
Given how many people were killed because of the Liverpool-Athletico match you would have thought they would have leaned. But clearly not.
Well, anyone who thought Keir a bit drippy got a surprise. Clearly a new broom, and antisemitism will not be tolerated.
Might make for an interesting relationship with the Deputy Leader, RLB's housemate.
I disagree. He’s been brutal, and that’s politics. But he’s also been unjust and that’s more important.
At the end of the day RLB shared an Independent interview with a constituent of her’s. An MP should be able to do something like that without having their reputation trashed.
It’s not the sacking that matters. RLB will be remembered in history* as being sacked for forwarding an anti-Semitic article. I don’t think that’s right.
(* to the extent that she is at all)
Come off it. You would have been amongst the first calling out Starmer's weakness and indecision if she'd stayed.
It is the one single issue that Starmer cannot be seen to be tolerant over. He had forewarned the Party, and he acted accordingly.
Granted, RLB's indescretion was minor in comparison to Robert Jenrick's antics, but I would like to think, when faced with the same issue, namely brazen corruption, Starmer will be equally forthright.
No.
I do my best to figure out the just approach in any situation. I don’t really care about the politics.
I haven’t really dug into the details of Jenrick’s case but, based on the comments I’ve seen, he was an idiot and probably deserves to be sacked.
Well, anyone who thought Keir a bit drippy got a surprise. Clearly a new broom, and antisemitism will not be tolerated.
Might make for an interesting relationship with the Deputy Leader, RLB's housemate.
I disagree. He’s been brutal, and that’s politics. But he’s also been unjust and that’s more important.
At the end of the day RLB shared an Independent interview with a constituent of her’s. An MP should be able to do something like that without having their reputation trashed.
It’s not the sacking that matters. RLB will be remembered in history* as being sacked for forwarding an anti-Semitic article. I don’t think that’s right.
(* to the extent that she is at all)
Come off it. You would have been amongst the first calling out Starmer's weakness and indecision if she'd stayed.
It is the one single issue that Starmer cannot be seen to be tolerant over. He had forewarned the Party, and he acted accordingly.
Granted, RLB's indescretion was minor in comparison to Robert Jenrick's antics, but I would like to think, when faced with the same issue, namely brazen corruption, Starmer will be equally forthright.
As for Jenrick? Haven't looked properly at the details but although whichever minister it was got criticised for saying it, if you are a member of the Party and/or a donor of course you get better access to MPs and ministers because you will attend functions which they are invited to.
This is not news.
Oh, it is and it should be. Jenrick furiously worked at saving Tory donor and pornographer, Richard Desmond just shy of a £50m tax bill to Tower Hamlets Council. The fact that in return Jenrick's campaign was rewarded with around a paltry £10,000 is almost irrelevant.
Well, anyone who thought Keir a bit drippy got a surprise. Clearly a new broom, and antisemitism will not be tolerated.
Might make for an interesting relationship with the Deputy Leader, RLB's housemate.
I disagree. He’s been brutal, and that’s politics. But he’s also been unjust and that’s more important.
At the end of the day RLB shared an Independent interview with a constituent of her’s. An MP should be able to do something like that without having their reputation trashed.
It’s not the sacking that matters. RLB will be remembered in history* as being sacked for forwarding an anti-Semitic article. I don’t think that’s right.
(* to the extent that she is at all)
Amazing how those who complained Labour didnt address antisemitism now say Labour is too harsh dealing with antisemitism. An observer might almost think that their issue was with Labour rather than antisemitism.
Amazing how people who want to make partisan attacks make partisan attacks.
I’m not convinced RLB had read this interview or was forwarding it because it contained an anti Semitic myth.
An interview in the Independent with a well recognised actress - that’s a reasonable thing to forward.
I have voted Tory and Labour about equally in my life, expect to do so in the future and have never been a member of a political party. It was not a partisan attack, just an observation.
If it was simply she hadnt read it, why did she refuse to delete it and keep her job?
Well, anyone who thought Keir a bit drippy got a surprise. Clearly a new broom, and antisemitism will not be tolerated.
Might make for an interesting relationship with the Deputy Leader, RLB's housemate.
I disagree. He’s been brutal, and that’s politics. But he’s also been unjust and that’s more important.
At the end of the day RLB shared an Independent interview with a constituent of her’s. An MP should be able to do something like that without having their reputation trashed.
It’s not the sacking that matters. RLB will be remembered in history* as being sacked for forwarding an anti-Semitic article. I don’t think that’s right.
(* to the extent that she is at all)
Amazing how those who complained Labour didnt address antisemitism now say Labour is too harsh dealing with antisemitism. An observer might almost think that their issue was with Labour rather than antisemitism.
Amazing how people who want to make partisan attacks make partisan attacks.
I’m not convinced RLB had read this interview or was forwarding it because it contained an anti Semitic myth.
An interview in the Independent with a well recognised actress - that’s a reasonable thing to forward.
So the lesson is:
Read things before forwarding them, and check there is no possible problem.
Anyone who fails to follow that simple rule doesn’t last long in teaching. Google ‘Jenna Delich’ if you don’t believe me.
Agree with this. Attacks on SKS featuring him being a lawyer or being boring won't do. Neither will attacks on him being leftish. Nor, now, will attacks on Labour's slight trend towards spending other people's money and manufacturing the stuff out of thin air. The Tories have cornered the market in uncontrolled spending.
His big problem is that despite the high esteem he is held in - on account of being boring, lawyerly and there being no proof that he is incompetent - he still is Labour. Behind him both in and out of parliament are troglodytes in substantial numbers, and the Corbyn experience shows there are loads of them waiting around. RLB is among the nicest, most decent and principled and most charming of the left. But that casual anti semitism is still there on the back benches and in the party at every level.
Well, anyone who thought Keir a bit drippy got a surprise. Clearly a new broom, and antisemitism will not be tolerated.
Might make for an interesting relationship with the Deputy Leader, RLB's housemate.
I disagree. He’s been brutal, and that’s politics. But he’s also been unjust and that’s more important.
At the end of the day RLB shared an Independent interview with a constituent of her’s. An MP should be able to do something like that without having their reputation trashed.
It’s not the sacking that matters. RLB will be remembered in history* as being sacked for forwarding an anti-Semitic article. I don’t think that’s right.
(* to the extent that she is at all)
Amazing how those who complained Labour didnt address antisemitism now say Labour is too harsh dealing with antisemitism. An observer might almost think that their issue was with Labour rather than antisemitism.
Whilst I don't care particularly about this, I do have a smidgen of sympathy for the view that retweeting an Independent article doesn't seem the most grievous of crimes. It does feel like Starmer was looking for an excuse to sack RLB. Perhaps stuff went on behind the scenes yesterday that we didn't hear about, but a statement by RLB saying specifically that she considered the line about Israel to be antisemitic would seem enough to me.
But like I say, I don't care all that much.
AIUI she was offered the chance to delete the tweet but wouldnt do it. Doesnt seem particularly harsh, she didnt have to grovel, just stop promoting lies about Israel?
If that's the case, then she deserves everything she gets. It's quite funny that Peake and the Independent have rowed back on the claim and Amnesty have disowned it too.
I've been surprised by how little discussion there has been on here and generally on these proposed planning "reforms" which seem to have been a formula for (even greater) corruption in politics regarding planning permission.
Could something like this work for big housing developments:
Government compulsorily purchases land at 2-3x price without planning permission Government auctions off same land with planning permission
That way the existing landowner gets a significant but smaller windfall, but it both raises tax revenue and takes out the corruption from the process.
Interesting - I hadn't seen that.
What problem is that proposal designed to address?
I agree that existing CPO powers are extensive, which iirc (not my absolute specialist subject) are quite draconian? See for example how Camden used them in in the late 70s.
I think there is quite a lot of stuff in the postwar planning legislation which is quite powerful if used.
My main issue there would be question whether that will address the problem.
I dont know enough about planning to know if it would work or not. Its simply a better way to deal with the windfall gains around planning permission - most of it should go to the public (probably weighted to the local community), but still keeping enough incentive for the landowner and developer to build. Currently is shared by the landowner, developer and corrupt politicians and officials - clearly sub optimal.
Why should the state take the profit from a landowner developing the land (over and above normal taxes)
You could say that about any tax. I’m not sure it’s particularly insightful. The answer is simply: because they can.
Oh dear.
A lawyer who doesn’t understand the difference between “should” and “can”
Well, anyone who thought Keir a bit drippy got a surprise. Clearly a new broom, and antisemitism will not be tolerated.
Might make for an interesting relationship with the Deputy Leader, RLB's housemate.
I disagree. He’s been brutal, and that’s politics. But he’s also been unjust and that’s more important.
At the end of the day RLB shared an Independent interview with a constituent of her’s. An MP should be able to do something like that without having their reputation trashed.
It’s not the sacking that matters. RLB will be remembered in history* as being sacked for forwarding an anti-Semitic article. I don’t think that’s right.
(* to the extent that she is at all)
He made it very clear that removing the disgusting stain of anti-Semitism was a priority. RLB really should have been aware that he would be watching her particularly carefully given her track record. She should have been more careful.
Starmer wanted a sacrifice before the report next month so he can show that things are now different. And he got it. He may even go for one more just to make the point. Its not as if finding Corbynites making such remarks is difficult. They just can't help themselves.
Sure. I understand the politics and RLB has been hung out to dry. That doesn’t make it a just action.
I am not sure what justice has to do with politics. There is a changing of the guard. A moral stain on our country, let alone the Labour party is being removed. That is a good thing. I'd like to think those who voted for a Corbyn led Labour party would reflect and feel ashamed but that is probably asking too much.
While I think the summation may be right on this occasion, in actual fact that form of words is utterly standard when it comes to planning. The importance of avoiding even the appearance of bias is talked about as just not having bias may not be enough to prevent successful challenge.
Well, anyone who thought Keir a bit drippy got a surprise. Clearly a new broom, and antisemitism will not be tolerated.
Might make for an interesting relationship with the Deputy Leader, RLB's housemate.
I disagree. He’s been brutal, and that’s politics. But he’s also been unjust and that’s more important.
At the end of the day RLB shared an Independent interview with a constituent of her’s. An MP should be able to do something like that without having their reputation trashed.
It’s not the sacking that matters. RLB will be remembered in history* as being sacked for forwarding an anti-Semitic article. I don’t think that’s right.
(* to the extent that she is at all)
Amazing how those who complained Labour didnt address antisemitism now say Labour is too harsh dealing with antisemitism. An observer might almost think that their issue was with Labour rather than antisemitism.
Whilst I don't care particularly about this, I do have a smidgen of sympathy for the view that retweeting an Independent article doesn't seem the most grievous of crimes. It does feel like Starmer was looking for an excuse to sack RLB. Perhaps stuff went on behind the scenes yesterday that we didn't hear about, but a statement by RLB saying specifically that she considered the line about Israel to be antisemitic would seem enough to me.
But like I say, I don't care all that much.
AIUI she was offered the chance to delete the tweet but wouldnt do it. Doesnt seem particularly harsh, she didnt have to grovel, just stop promoting lies about Israel?
If that's the case, then she deserves everything she gets. It's quite funny that Peake and the Independent have rowed back on the claim and Amnesty have disowned it too.
"The decision to sack Rebecca Long-Bailey came when she refused to delete her initial tweet which shared Maxine Peake's interview and described the actress as an 'absolute diamond'
The Salford MP had agreed with the Labour leader's office to post a follow-up tweet as 'clarification' to distance her from some of the views expressed in the article.
But she was later asked to delete both the original tweet and clarification, and refused. The MP says she decided she 'could not do that in good conscience'"
Well, anyone who thought Keir a bit drippy got a surprise. Clearly a new broom, and antisemitism will not be tolerated.
Might make for an interesting relationship with the Deputy Leader, RLB's housemate.
I disagree. He’s been brutal, and that’s politics. But he’s also been unjust and that’s more important.
At the end of the day RLB shared an Independent interview with a constituent of her’s. An MP should be able to do something like that without having their reputation trashed.
It’s not the sacking that matters. RLB will be remembered in history* as being sacked for forwarding an anti-Semitic article. I don’t think that’s right.
(* to the extent that she is at all)
Come off it. You would have been amongst the first calling out Starmer's weakness and indecision if she'd stayed.
It is the one single issue that Starmer cannot be seen to be tolerant over. He had forewarned the Party, and he acted accordingly.
Granted, RLB's indescretion was minor in comparison to Robert Jenrick's antics, but I would like to think, when faced with the same issue, namely brazen corruption, Starmer will be equally forthright.
As for Jenrick? Haven't looked properly at the details but although whichever minister it was got criticised for saying it, if you are a member of the Party and/or a donor of course you get better access to MPs and ministers because you will attend functions which they are invited to.
This is not news.
Oh, it is and it should be. Jenrick furiously worked at saving Tory donor and pornographer, Richard Desmond just shy of a £50m tax bill to Tower Hamlets Council. The fact that in return Jenrick's campaign was rewarded with around a paltry £10,000 is almost irrelevant.
As I say I have no idea of the details of this case. But the principle of access? Not a party activist or member, I take it? Those disgusting soggy chicken dinners, barbecues, hell even MPs' talks? All for local association members and all if they possibly can, with an invited MP the senior the better.
While I think the summation may be right on this occasion, in actual fact that form of words is utterly standard when it comes to planning. The importance of avoiding even the appearance of bias is talked about as just not having bias may not be enough to prevent successful challenge.
Indeed, but IIRC the message saying we need to avoid the appearance of influence came after they had already met once and agreed to meet again
While I think the summation may be right on this occasion, in actual fact that form of words is utterly standard when it comes to planning. The importance of avoiding even the appearance of bias is talked about as just not having bias may not be enough to prevent successful challenge.
There's something in this - if you lobby a local councillor on a planning permission which goes to Planning Committee, they may have to recuse from commenting or even participating in committee on than application iirc.
Whether they do or not is a different matter.
Interesting to see that they are exploring Misconduct in a Public Office (which even now makes me think of Prezza, and smile).
Jolyon is rather more up his own backside on the PPE thing in the piece imo.
Well, anyone who thought Keir a bit drippy got a surprise. Clearly a new broom, and antisemitism will not be tolerated.
Might make for an interesting relationship with the Deputy Leader, RLB's housemate.
I disagree. He’s been brutal, and that’s politics. But he’s also been unjust and that’s more important.
At the end of the day RLB shared an Independent interview with a constituent of her’s. An MP should be able to do something like that without having their reputation trashed.
It’s not the sacking that matters. RLB will be remembered in history* as being sacked for forwarding an anti-Semitic article. I don’t think that’s right.
(* to the extent that she is at all)
Amazing how those who complained Labour didnt address antisemitism now say Labour is too harsh dealing with antisemitism. An observer might almost think that their issue was with Labour rather than antisemitism.
Amazing how people who want to make partisan attacks make partisan attacks.
I’m not convinced RLB had read this interview or was forwarding it because it contained an anti Semitic myth.
An interview in the Independent with a well recognised actress - that’s a reasonable thing to forward.
It was perhaps a harsh thing to be sacked. I have sympathy with that. But my sympathy only goes so far not because of party but because of profession. Act how you wish to be treated.
Well, anyone who thought Keir a bit drippy got a surprise. Clearly a new broom, and antisemitism will not be tolerated.
Might make for an interesting relationship with the Deputy Leader, RLB's housemate.
I disagree. He’s been brutal, and that’s politics. But he’s also been unjust and that’s more important.
At the end of the day RLB shared an Independent interview with a constituent of her’s. An MP should be able to do something like that without having their reputation trashed.
It’s not the sacking that matters. RLB will be remembered in history* as being sacked for forwarding an anti-Semitic article. I don’t think that’s right.
(* to the extent that she is at all)
Come off it. You would have been amongst the first calling out Starmer's weakness and indecision if she'd stayed.
It is the one single issue that Starmer cannot be seen to be tolerant over. He had forewarned the Party, and he acted accordingly.
Granted, RLB's indescretion was minor in comparison to Robert Jenrick's antics, but I would like to think, when faced with the same issue, namely brazen corruption, Starmer will be equally forthright.
As for Jenrick? Haven't looked properly at the details but although whichever minister it was got criticised for saying it, if you are a member of the Party and/or a donor of course you get better access to MPs and ministers because you will attend functions which they are invited to.
This is not news.
The issue for me was accelerating the decision to avoid the £40m community contribution (or whatever it was).
The decision should have been given in its own time. I think it was a £1.5bn project, so the owners probably expected to make about £300-400m profit. £40m is a decent chunk of that, but not the difference between viability/unviability.
That’s a minister intervening directly in the interests of someone who had just lobbied him when he was acting in a quasi-judicial role.
While I think the summation may be right on this occasion, in actual fact that form of words is utterly standard when it comes to planning. The importance of avoiding even the appearance of bias is talked about as just not having bias may not be enough to prevent successful challenge.
Agree with this. Attacks on SKS featuring him being a lawyer or being boring won't do. Neither will attacks on him being leftish. Nor, now, will attacks on Labour's slight trend towards spending other people's money and manufacturing the stuff out of thin air. The Tories have cornered the market in uncontrolled spending.
His big problem is that despite the high esteem he is held in - on account of being boring, lawyerly and there being no proof that he is incompetent - he still is Labour. Behind him both in and out of parliament are troglodytes in substantial numbers, and the Corbyn experience shows there are loads of them waiting around. RLB is among the nicest, most decent and principled and most charming of the left. But that casual anti semitism is still there on the back benches and in the party at every level.
Yes agree but with the right leader, that element can be relegated to wholly irrelevant. I shudder to think of the types on the far end of the Cons party (and indeed have met several) but they have no say over the leadership.
Far right in this case as in racist/xenophobic.
Of course the whole Brexit project is precisely founded on xenophobia but that also cut across party lines.
I've been surprised by how little discussion there has been on here and generally on these proposed planning "reforms" which seem to have been a formula for (even greater) corruption in politics regarding planning permission.
Could something like this work for big housing developments:
Government compulsorily purchases land at 2-3x price without planning permission Government auctions off same land with planning permission
That way the existing landowner gets a significant but smaller windfall, but it both raises tax revenue and takes out the corruption from the process.
Interesting - I hadn't seen that.
What problem is that proposal designed to address?
I agree that existing CPO powers are extensive, which iirc (not my absolute specialist subject) are quite draconian? See for example how Camden used them in in the late 70s.
I think there is quite a lot of stuff in the postwar planning legislation which is quite powerful if used.
My main issue there would be question whether that will address the problem.
I dont know enough about planning to know if it would work or not. Its simply a better way to deal with the windfall gains around planning permission - most of it should go to the public (probably weighted to the local community), but still keeping enough incentive for the landowner and developer to build. Currently is shared by the landowner, developer and corrupt politicians and officials - clearly sub optimal.
Why should the state take the profit from a landowner developing the land (over and above normal taxes)
Because the profit is generated from a state action, grant of planning permission, that also causes increased state costs in transport, education, doctors surgeries etc.
The state benefits from the increased housing stock. If they didn’t think that was a public benefit they wouldn’t grant permission.
The increased costs are covered by the community contribution the developers make. Possibly there’s an argument for the landowner paying some as well, but I think that should be a matter for negotiating between the landowner and the developer.
Well, anyone who thought Keir a bit drippy got a surprise. Clearly a new broom, and antisemitism will not be tolerated.
Might make for an interesting relationship with the Deputy Leader, RLB's housemate.
I disagree. He’s been brutal, and that’s politics. But he’s also been unjust and that’s more important.
At the end of the day RLB shared an Independent interview with a constituent of her’s. An MP should be able to do something like that without having their reputation trashed.
It’s not the sacking that matters. RLB will be remembered in history* as being sacked for forwarding an anti-Semitic article. I don’t think that’s right.
(* to the extent that she is at all)
Come off it. You would have been amongst the first calling out Starmer's weakness and indecision if she'd stayed.
It is the one single issue that Starmer cannot be seen to be tolerant over. He had forewarned the Party, and he acted accordingly.
Granted, RLB's indescretion was minor in comparison to Robert Jenrick's antics, but I would like to think, when faced with the same issue, namely brazen corruption, Starmer will be equally forthright.
As for Jenrick? Haven't looked properly at the details but although whichever minister it was got criticised for saying it, if you are a member of the Party and/or a donor of course you get better access to MPs and ministers because you will attend functions which they are invited to.
This is not news.
The issue for me was accelerating the decision to avoid the £40m community contribution (or whatever it was).
The decision should have been given in its own time. I think it was a £1.5bn project, so the owners probably expected to make about £300-400m profit. £40m is a decent chunk of that, but not the difference between viability/unviability.
That’s a minister intervening directly in the interests of someone who had just lobbied him when he was acting in a quasi-judicial role.
Everything else is just fluff.
Thanks - as I said I hadn't looked into it. That does sound germane.
An actress (who happens to be hard left and Corbynite) is interviewed.
She can't get through the interview without saying (about the Black Lives Matters protests and the murder that spared it by a police officer kneeling on someone's neck): "Oh, the Jews taught them that, you know" (effectively).
And explicitly expressing her contempt for those who have joined the Labour Party since Starmer became leader.
Bearing in mind the huge issues that Corbynite Labour had with antisemitism, going out of your way to approvingly spread that interview around while the party is trying to evict all antisemitism and demonstrate that they are taking it seriously is, at the very least, a colossal error of judgement. And a massive slap in the face for all who despise antisemitism.
I reckon Starmer did exactly what he should. If RLB had read the interview and spread it, she should be fired (deliberately spreading an antisemitic myth while her party was still trying to recover from an infection of antisemitism). If he hadn't read the interview but still spread it around, she should be fired (for being stupid enough to mindlessly spread an antisemitic myth and not even bother to try to understand what she was spreading).
Well, anyone who thought Keir a bit drippy got a surprise. Clearly a new broom, and antisemitism will not be tolerated.
Might make for an interesting relationship with the Deputy Leader, RLB's housemate.
I disagree. He’s been brutal, and that’s politics. But he’s also been unjust and that’s more important.
At the end of the day RLB shared an Independent interview with a constituent of her’s. An MP should be able to do something like that without having their reputation trashed.
It’s not the sacking that matters. RLB will be remembered in history* as being sacked for forwarding an anti-Semitic article. I don’t think that’s right.
(* to the extent that she is at all)
Amazing how those who complained Labour didnt address antisemitism now say Labour is too harsh dealing with antisemitism. An observer might almost think that their issue was with Labour rather than antisemitism.
Amazing how people who want to make partisan attacks make partisan attacks.
I’m not convinced RLB had read this interview or was forwarding it because it contained an anti Semitic myth.
An interview in the Independent with a well recognised actress - that’s a reasonable thing to forward.
I have voted Tory and Labour about equally in my life, expect to do so in the future and have never been a member of a political party. It was not a partisan attack, just an observation.
If it was simply she hadnt read it, why did she refuse to delete it and keep her job?
Well, anyone who thought Keir a bit drippy got a surprise. Clearly a new broom, and antisemitism will not be tolerated.
Might make for an interesting relationship with the Deputy Leader, RLB's housemate.
I disagree. He’s been brutal, and that’s politics. But he’s also been unjust and that’s more important.
At the end of the day RLB shared an Independent interview with a constituent of her’s. An MP should be able to do something like that without having their reputation trashed.
It’s not the sacking that matters. RLB will be remembered in history* as being sacked for forwarding an anti-Semitic article. I don’t think that’s right.
(* to the extent that she is at all)
Come off it. You would have been amongst the first calling out Starmer's weakness and indecision if she'd stayed.
It is the one single issue that Starmer cannot be seen to be tolerant over. He had forewarned the Party, and he acted accordingly.
Granted, RLB's indescretion was minor in comparison to Robert Jenrick's antics, but I would like to think, when faced with the same issue, namely brazen corruption, Starmer will be equally forthright.
As for Jenrick? Haven't looked properly at the details but although whichever minister it was got criticised for saying it, if you are a member of the Party and/or a donor of course you get better access to MPs and ministers because you will attend functions which they are invited to.
This is not news.
Oh, it is and it should be. Jenrick furiously worked at saving Tory donor and pornographer, Richard Desmond just shy of a £50m tax bill to Tower Hamlets Council. The fact that in return Jenrick's campaign was rewarded with around a paltry £10,000 is almost irrelevant.
As I say I have no idea of the details of this case. But the principle of access? Not a party activist or member, I take it? Those disgusting soggy chicken dinners, barbecues, hell even MPs' talks? All for local association members and all if they possibly can, with an invited MP the senior the better.
I understand your point. That is not to say it is not unacceptable.
As someone these days, more inclined to the Starmer side of the argument, I would still be outraged if Starmer failed to fire a minister who had engaged themselves as Jenrick has clearly done.
While I think the summation may be right on this occasion, in actual fact that form of words is utterly standard when it comes to planning. The importance of avoiding even the appearance of bias is talked about as just not having bias may not be enough to prevent successful challenge.
It's hardly a smoking gun, is it?
There may be a gun here, it's a drip feed of him being at best careless and at worse crossing thr line, but I dont think Jolyon may be an expert on these matters to take bog standard holding responses and extrapolate them. You're even allowed to favour one side in your comments so long as you keep an open mind, that was a deliberate clarification in the law.
If you're on the left and you quit the Labour party, you're doing nothing but delighting the right and disenfranchising yourself, not least from the upcoming NEC elections.
Well, anyone who thought Keir a bit drippy got a surprise. Clearly a new broom, and antisemitism will not be tolerated.
Might make for an interesting relationship with the Deputy Leader, RLB's housemate.
I disagree. He’s been brutal, and that’s politics. But he’s also been unjust and that’s more important.
At the end of the day RLB shared an Independent interview with a constituent of her’s. An MP should be able to do something like that without having their reputation trashed.
It’s not the sacking that matters. RLB will be remembered in history* as being sacked for forwarding an anti-Semitic article. I don’t think that’s right.
(* to the extent that she is at all)
Amazing how those who complained Labour didnt address antisemitism now say Labour is too harsh dealing with antisemitism. An observer might almost think that their issue was with Labour rather than antisemitism.
Amazing how people who want to make partisan attacks make partisan attacks.
I’m not convinced RLB had read this interview or was forwarding it because it contained an anti Semitic myth.
An interview in the Independent with a well recognised actress - that’s a reasonable thing to forward.
I have voted Tory and Labour about equally in my life, expect to do so in the future and have never been a member of a political party. It was not a partisan attack, just an observation.
If it was simply she hadnt read it, why did she refuse to delete it and keep her job?
Well, anyone who thought Keir a bit drippy got a surprise. Clearly a new broom, and antisemitism will not be tolerated.
Might make for an interesting relationship with the Deputy Leader, RLB's housemate.
I disagree. He’s been brutal, and that’s politics. But he’s also been unjust and that’s more important.
At the end of the day RLB shared an Independent interview with a constituent of her’s. An MP should be able to do something like that without having their reputation trashed.
It’s not the sacking that matters. RLB will be remembered in history* as being sacked for forwarding an anti-Semitic article. I don’t think that’s right.
(* to the extent that she is at all)
Amazing how those who complained Labour didnt address antisemitism now say Labour is too harsh dealing with antisemitism. An observer might almost think that their issue was with Labour rather than antisemitism.
Whilst I don't care particularly about this, I do have a smidgen of sympathy for the view that retweeting an Independent article doesn't seem the most grievous of crimes. It does feel like Starmer was looking for an excuse to sack RLB. Perhaps stuff went on behind the scenes yesterday that we didn't hear about, but a statement by RLB saying specifically that she considered the line about Israel to be antisemitic would seem enough to me.
But like I say, I don't care all that much.
AIUI she was offered the chance to delete the tweet but wouldnt do it. Doesnt seem particularly harsh, she didnt have to grovel, just stop promoting lies about Israel?
If that's the case, then she deserves everything she gets. It's quite funny that Peake and the Independent have rowed back on the claim and Amnesty have disowned it too.
Her press release said she tweeted a disavowal agreed with Starmer’s office
The contrast between the condemnation of people going to the beach and people going to Anfield is stratling. I'm thoroughly pissed off this morning. People should kick off if the beaches are closed.
Yes it struck me too and won't have gone unnoticed with most people! The contrast also won't have gone completely unnoticed with Greater Manchester Police restricting its involvement with two illegal "quarantine raves" in Failsworth and Carrington and yet the Met Police deciding to attempt to disperse crowds at illegal parties in Brixton, Notting Hill & Streatham in the last two days with the resulting headlines.
I hope we don't see more community tensions flare in London this weekend with the Met Police "enhanced policing operation" across the capital? This weekend should have also been the Pride in London festival when vast numbers swell onto the streets and parties are held. Veterans from the Gay Liberation Front are expected to march in London to mark their 50th anniversary.
I'm quite new here and find it interesting, I've never come across a group of people so out of touch with public opinion. Outside of this site I never hear Cummings name mentioned yet so many on here are trying to convince themselves he's an ongoing issue.
And on the other side I don't suppose 1% of the population knows who Long Bailey is, even less that she's been sacked.
OK its a political site but plenty on here seem able to convince themselves black is white.
Are you sure it is not you who is a bubble. I have Tory friends who are livid about Cummings. As soon as the housing minister issue came up they immediately refer back to Cummings even though it is unrelated.
Everyone is in a bubble of one kind or another. The important thing is to be aware of that fact.
While I think the summation may be right on this occasion, in actual fact that form of words is utterly standard when it comes to planning. The importance of avoiding even the appearance of bias is talked about as just not having bias may not be enough to prevent successful challenge.
Indeed. Maugham is once again being utterly disingenuous here. It is not enough that there is no bias, it is important that there is no appearance of bias either. That is all that statement is saying and as a QC he knows that perfectly well. But Jenrick failed on both counts, actual and appearance, and he should have gone.
While I think the summation may be right on this occasion, in actual fact that form of words is utterly standard when it comes to planning. The importance of avoiding even the appearance of bias is talked about as just not having bias may not be enough to prevent successful challenge.
There's something in this - if you lobby a local councillor on a planning permission which goes to Planning Committee, they may have to recuse from commenting or even participating in committee on than application iirc.
Whether they do or not is a different matter.
Interesting to see that they are exploring Misconduct in a Public Office (which even now makes me think of Prezza, and smile).
Jolyon is rather more up his own backside on the PPE thing in the piece imo.
It used to be even harsher, preventing many from participating on issues of great local importance. Now so long as they are relatively restrained in language and emphasise they will continue to consider all the evidence before making up their mind fully you can still comment favourably or negatively beforehand to a degree, though its easier not to.
Jenrick involves other issues too, but while I'm suspicious of him like Jolyon I cannot pretend boilerplate words are more than they are .
An actress (who happens to be hard left and Corbynite) is interviewed.
She can't get through the interview without saying (about the Black Lives Matters protests and the murder that spared it by a police officer kneeling on someone's neck): "Oh, the Jews taught them that, you know" (effectively).
And explicitly expressing her contempt for those who have joined the Labour Party since Starmer became leader.
Bearing in mind the huge issues that Corbynite Labour had with antisemitism, going out of your way to approvingly spread that interview around while the party is trying to evict all antisemitism and demonstrate that they are taking it seriously is, at the very least, a colossal error of judgement. And a massive slap in the face for all who despise antisemitism.
I reckon Starmer did exactly what he should. If RLB had read the interview and spread it, she should be fired (deliberately spreading an antisemitic myth while her party was still trying to recover from an infection of antisemitism). If he hadn't read the interview but still spread it around, she should be fired (for being stupid enough to mindlessly spread an antisemitic myth and not even bother to try to understand what she was spreading).
While I think the summation may be right on this occasion, in actual fact that form of words is utterly standard when it comes to planning. The importance of avoiding even the appearance of bias is talked about as just not having bias may not be enough to prevent successful challenge.
It's hardly a smoking gun, is it?
There may be a gun here, it's a drip feed of him being at best careless and at worse crossing thr line, but I dont think Jolyon may be an expert on these matters to take bog standard holding responses and extrapolate them. You're even allowed to favour one side in your comments so long as you keep an open mind, that was a deliberate clarification in the law.
An open mind is always healthy. But this looks venal. It looks like corruption.
Well, anyone who thought Keir a bit drippy got a surprise. Clearly a new broom, and antisemitism will not be tolerated.
Might make for an interesting relationship with the Deputy Leader, RLB's housemate.
I disagree. He’s been brutal, and that’s politics. But he’s also been unjust and that’s more important.
At the end of the day RLB shared an Independent interview with a constituent of her’s. An MP should be able to do something like that without having their reputation trashed.
It’s not the sacking that matters. RLB will be remembered in history* as being sacked for forwarding an anti-Semitic article. I don’t think that’s right.
(* to the extent that she is at all)
Amazing how those who complained Labour didnt address antisemitism now say Labour is too harsh dealing with antisemitism. An observer might almost think that their issue was with Labour rather than antisemitism.
Amazing how people who want to make partisan attacks make partisan attacks.
I’m not convinced RLB had read this interview or was forwarding it because it contained an anti Semitic myth.
An interview in the Independent with a well recognised actress - that’s a reasonable thing to forward.
I have voted Tory and Labour about equally in my life, expect to do so in the future and have never been a member of a political party. It was not a partisan attack, just an observation.
If it was simply she hadnt read it, why did she refuse to delete it and keep her job?
Ok. A personal attack then.
I’m not sure that makes you look better
If RLB can't follow the simple rule of not (whether accidentally or not) linking to anything anti-semitic then of course Starmer should sack her from the shadow cabinet. It's an obvious priority for the Labour party right now, and her behaviour a clear challenge to Starmer's authority.
If she deserves being remembered by history it won't be for anything she's done up to now.
I dont think Jolyon may be an expert on these matters to take bog standard holding responses and extrapolate them.
The extrapolation is key.
As I understand it, the holding statement came only after they met, and agreed to meet again, then claimed they couldn't appear to be influenced
I didnt say he was innocent I said the words are standard. You could extrapolate that as proof he didnt cross a line as he took steps to clarify boundaries, if you wanted. I dont think that will work, i think it's a matter of time, but you just cannot infer guilt so strongly from that.
Well, anyone who thought Keir a bit drippy got a surprise. Clearly a new broom, and antisemitism will not be tolerated.
Might make for an interesting relationship with the Deputy Leader, RLB's housemate.
I disagree. He’s been brutal, and that’s politics. But he’s also been unjust and that’s more important.
At the end of the day RLB shared an Independent interview with a constituent of her’s. An MP should be able to do something like that without having their reputation trashed.
It’s not the sacking that matters. RLB will be remembered in history* as being sacked for forwarding an anti-Semitic article. I don’t think that’s right.
(* to the extent that she is at all)
Come off it. You would have been amongst the first calling out Starmer's weakness and indecision if she'd stayed.
It is the one single issue that Starmer cannot be seen to be tolerant over. He had forewarned the Party, and he acted accordingly.
Granted, RLB's indescretion was minor in comparison to Robert Jenrick's antics, but I would like to think, when faced with the same issue, namely brazen corruption, Starmer will be equally forthright.
As for Jenrick? Haven't looked properly at the details but although whichever minister it was got criticised for saying it, if you are a member of the Party and/or a donor of course you get better access to MPs and ministers because you will attend functions which they are invited to.
This is not news.
Oh, it is and it should be. Jenrick furiously worked at saving Tory donor and pornographer, Richard Desmond just shy of a £50m tax bill to Tower Hamlets Council. The fact that in return Jenrick's campaign was rewarded with around a paltry £10,000 is almost irrelevant.
As I say I have no idea of the details of this case. But the principle of access? Not a party activist or member, I take it? Those disgusting soggy chicken dinners, barbecues, hell even MPs' talks? All for local association members and all if they possibly can, with an invited MP the senior the better.
I understand your point. That is not to say it is not unacceptable.
As someone these days, more inclined to the Starmer side of the argument, I would still be outraged if Starmer failed to fire a minister who had engaged themselves as Jenrick has clearly done.
a) bloody love the three negatives in your first para. Reminds me of those financial services exam questions - when wouldn't you not advise an investor not to delay investing in XXX; and
b) yes it sounds like it was something of note as @Charles has also pointed out; but
c) the principle of access applies across all parties. I bet it's a catch if the Worksop & District Labour Party nabs Lisa Nandy for their Summer barbecue?
While I think the summation may be right on this occasion, in actual fact that form of words is utterly standard when it comes to planning. The importance of avoiding even the appearance of bias is talked about as just not having bias may not be enough to prevent successful challenge.
Indeed. Maugham is once again being utterly disingenuous here. It is not enough that there is no bias, it is important that there is no appearance of bias either. That is all that statement is saying and as a QC he knows that perfectly well. But Jenrick failed on both counts, actual and appearance, and he should have gone.
Well, anyone who thought Keir a bit drippy got a surprise. Clearly a new broom, and antisemitism will not be tolerated.
Might make for an interesting relationship with the Deputy Leader, RLB's housemate.
I disagree. He’s been brutal, and that’s politics. But he’s also been unjust and that’s more important.
At the end of the day RLB shared an Independent interview with a constituent of her’s. An MP should be able to do something like that without having their reputation trashed.
It’s not the sacking that matters. RLB will be remembered in history* as being sacked for forwarding an anti-Semitic article. I don’t think that’s right.
(* to the extent that she is at all)
Amazing how those who complained Labour didnt address antisemitism now say Labour is too harsh dealing with antisemitism. An observer might almost think that their issue was with Labour rather than antisemitism.
Amazing how people who want to make partisan attacks make partisan attacks.
I’m not convinced RLB had read this interview or was forwarding it because it contained an anti Semitic myth.
An interview in the Independent with a well recognised actress - that’s a reasonable thing to forward.
I have voted Tory and Labour about equally in my life, expect to do so in the future and have never been a member of a political party. It was not a partisan attack, just an observation.
If it was simply she hadnt read it, why did she refuse to delete it and keep her job?
Comments
In contrast the government is struggling with the virus and its aftermath with a physically weakened PM and several mediocrities around the Cabinet table. Boris needs a reshuffle. Williamson has to go for sheer incompetence and Jenrick needs to go for pure dumbness and a void in his ethics bank. Ideally Boris would reach out to the likes of Hunt and Javid but that is not really his style. When you fall out with Boris it tends to be for keeps (Gove being a notable exception).
At the end of the day RLB shared an Independent interview with a constituent of her’s. An MP should be able to do something like that without having their reputation trashed.
It’s not the sacking that matters. RLB will be remembered in history* as being sacked for forwarding an anti-Semitic article. I don’t think that’s right.
(* to the extent that she is at all)
To me it doesn't seem *that* controversial.
https://www.insidehousing.co.uk/insight/insight/jenricks-planning-reforms-the-key-changes-at-a-glance-65419
Jenrick’s planning reforms: the key changes at a glance
Planning reforms
Introduce new permitted development rights for building upwards on existing buildings by summer 2020
Consult on potential permitted development rights to allow vacant buildings to be demolished and replaced with new homes
New support for community and self-build housing schemes, including support finding plots of land
Support the Oxford-Cambridge arc by setting up a new spatial framework for the area, setting out where housing will be delivered up to 2050, and create four development corporations across the region
Housing Delivery Test
Review the formula for calculating local housing need to encourage more building in urban areas
Require all local authorities to have an up-to-date local plan by 2023 or government will intervene
Continue with plans to raise the Housing Delivery Test threshold to 75% in November 2020
Reform the New Homes Bonus to ensure local authorities that build more homes have access to greater funding
Planning departments
Implement new planning fee structure to better resource planning authorities and link funding to improved performance
Provide automatic rebates of fees when planning applications are successful at appeal
Expand the use of zoning tools to support development that is aimed at simplifying the process of granting planning permission for residential and commercial property
Make it clearer who owns land by requiring greater transparency on land options
Support local authorities to use compulsory purchase orders by introducing statutory timescales for decisions and ending the automatic right to public inquiry
Homeownership
Continue with the proposed First Homes scheme, which offers eligible first-time buyers new homes at prices discounted by a third
Form partnerships with developers and local authorities to be the frontrunners for delivering the first wave of new homes
Design
Revise National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) to encourage good design and placemaking throughout the planning process
Respond to the Building Better, Building Beautiful Commission and take forward recommendations calling for urban tree-planting and giving communities more influence over design
Implement a new National Design Code to allow residents of communities to have more influence over design. Allow local areas to produce their own design codes for new development.
Climate and sustainability
Review policy for building in areas at flood risk by assessing whether current NPPF protections are enough and whether further reform is needed
Introduce Future Homes Standard in 2025, which will require up to 80% lower carbon emissions for new homes
Create a new net zero carbon housing development in Toton in the East Midlands through a development corporation
Is it Trump being driven by hatred of Obama, and resigned to losing in November, trying to destroy Obama's legacy while he still has the chance? Obama is more popular than both Trump and Biden, so if Trump is still obsessed with Obama, and keeps going on about Obamagate I think it can only help Biden.
https://twitter.com/JolyonMaugham/status/1276397601726791681
Starmer wanted a sacrifice before the report next month so he can show that things are now different. And he got it. He may even go for one more just to make the point. Its not as if finding Corbynites making such remarks is difficult. They just can't help themselves.
https://twitter.com/chriscurtis94/status/1276399939325755392?s=21
RLB doesnt believe her own defence about not endorsing everything in a shared piece, a partisan person like her would not let, say, Michael Gove use that justification. So Starmer might have preferred an even solider grounds for sacking but she still gave him the chance.
It is the one single issue that Starmer cannot be seen to be tolerant over. He had forewarned the Party, and he acted accordingly.
Granted, RLB's indescretion was minor in comparison to Robert Jenrick's antics, but I would like to think, when faced with the same issue, namely brazen corruption, Starmer will be equally forthright.
What relevance this has to anything is another matter.
I wonder how many Democrats who've come to dislike the electoral college will bother to push for change if they win in November.
The equivalent of an honesty box.
But like I say, I don't care all that much.
imagine.
You are of course exactly right.
As for Jenrick? Haven't looked properly at the details but although whichever minister it was got criticised for saying it, if you are a member of the Party and/or a donor of course you get better access to MPs and ministers because you will attend functions which they are invited to.
This is not news.
Once drove to Bexhill and back in a day - never knew London was so far bloody north.
I’m not convinced RLB had read this interview or was forwarding it because it contained an anti Semitic myth.
An interview in the Independent with a well recognised actress - that’s a reasonable thing to forward.
Reagan 1980 was 489-49. FDR in 1932 was 472-59. Taft I think was the only incumbent to come third, having 8 votes to Wilson’s 435 in 1912.
So this still wouldn’t be a record even if it materialised. But it would be a thumping.
Are you basically saying ... governments are typically unpopular?
I do my best to figure out the just approach in any situation. I don’t really care about the politics.
I haven’t really dug into the details of Jenrick’s case but, based on the comments I’ve seen, he was an idiot and probably deserves to be sacked.
If it was simply she hadnt read it, why did she refuse to delete it and keep her job?
Read things before forwarding them, and check there is no possible problem.
Anyone who fails to follow that simple rule doesn’t last long in teaching. Google ‘Jenna Delich’ if you don’t believe me.
Have a good morning.
His big problem is that despite the high esteem he is held in - on account of being boring, lawyerly and there being no proof that he is incompetent - he still is Labour. Behind him both in and out of parliament are troglodytes in substantial numbers, and the Corbyn experience shows there are loads of them waiting around. RLB is among the nicest, most decent and principled and most charming of the left. But that casual anti semitism is still there on the back benches and in the party at every level.
A lawyer who doesn’t understand the difference between “should” and “can”
"That wild air of unreason that has overtaken parts of America, a country whose existence now appears to be in danger."
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2020/06/25/american-carnage-could-mark-donald-trumps-downfall/
"The decision to sack Rebecca Long-Bailey came when she refused to delete her initial tweet which shared Maxine Peake's interview and described the actress as an 'absolute diamond'
The Salford MP had agreed with the Labour leader's office to post a follow-up tweet as 'clarification' to distance her from some of the views expressed in the article.
But she was later asked to delete both the original tweet and clarification, and refused. The MP says she decided she 'could not do that in good conscience'"
Whether they do or not is a different matter.
Interesting to see that they are exploring Misconduct in a Public Office (which even now makes me think of Prezza, and smile).
Jolyon is rather more up his own backside on the PPE thing in the piece imo.
The decision should have been given in its own time. I think it was a £1.5bn project, so the owners probably expected to make about £300-400m profit. £40m is a decent chunk of that, but not the difference between viability/unviability.
That’s a minister intervening directly in the interests of someone who had just lobbied him when he was acting in a quasi-judicial role.
Everything else is just fluff.
Far right in this case as in racist/xenophobic.
Of course the whole Brexit project is precisely founded on xenophobia but that also cut across party lines.
https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/does-israel-train-america-s-police-forces-
The increased costs are covered by the community contribution the developers make. Possibly there’s an argument for the landowner paying some as well, but I think that should be a matter for negotiating between the landowner and the developer.
An actress (who happens to be hard left and Corbynite) is interviewed.
She can't get through the interview without saying (about the Black Lives Matters protests and the murder that spared it by a police officer kneeling on someone's neck): "Oh, the Jews taught them that, you know" (effectively).
And explicitly expressing her contempt for those who have joined the Labour Party since Starmer became leader.
Bearing in mind the huge issues that Corbynite Labour had with antisemitism, going out of your way to approvingly spread that interview around while the party is trying to evict all antisemitism and demonstrate that they are taking it seriously is, at the very least, a colossal error of judgement. And a massive slap in the face for all who despise antisemitism.
I reckon Starmer did exactly what he should. If RLB had read the interview and spread it, she should be fired (deliberately spreading an antisemitic myth while her party was still trying to recover from an infection of antisemitism). If he hadn't read the interview but still spread it around, she should be fired (for being stupid enough to mindlessly spread an antisemitic myth and not even bother to try to understand what she was spreading).
I’m not sure that makes you look better
As someone these days, more inclined to the Starmer side of the argument, I would still be outraged if Starmer failed to fire a minister who had engaged themselves as Jenrick has clearly done.
I hope we don't see more community tensions flare in London this weekend with the Met Police "enhanced policing operation" across the capital? This weekend should have also been the Pride in London festival when vast numbers swell onto the streets and parties are held. Veterans from the Gay Liberation Front are expected to march in London to mark their 50th anniversary.
Jenrick involves other issues too, but while I'm suspicious of him like Jolyon I cannot pretend boilerplate words are more than they are .
As I understand it, the holding statement came only after they met, and agreed to meet again, then claimed they couldn't appear to be influenced
If she deserves being remembered by history it won't be for anything she's done up to now.
b) yes it sounds like it was something of note as @Charles has also pointed out; but
c) the principle of access applies across all parties. I bet it's a catch if the Worksop & District Labour Party nabs Lisa Nandy for their Summer barbecue?
https://twitter.com/Politics_Polls/status/1276389391410356224?s=20
You accused me of having double standards.