Westminster Politics
- Thread starter altodevil
- Start date
Remember when Peter Oborne claimed BBC Execs thought that it was important they not point out Boris’ lies as it would undermine trust in British politics?
You're actually right and that rings true at my work too, which would have resulted in job losses before this pandemic. We've had three "restructures" in about six years and this'll be the fifth that we've had since I started working there 11 years ago. It's rough, like. Can't imagine what's going to happen this time around since our projected income for the next year is way down. At least my team is safe but everyone else is pretty much fecked.
Meanwhile in a BBC Zoom call..
"Ffs Laura, we've told you before that we need to APPEAR impartial!"
What a joke.
And this toad gets one too. I wonder if the usual suspects will be up in arms about "terrorist sympathisers" as they were for Corbyn.
https://www.warrington-worldwide.co...used-to-condemn-ira-bomb-attack-gets-peerage/
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-53625960
New homes to get 'automatic' permission in England planning shake-up
As an Archaeologist this is worrying. They've shown their hand in the past few weeks about what they think about archaeologists, ecologists and other people in similar fields of work.
New homes to get 'automatic' permission in England planning shake-up
As an Archaeologist this is worrying. They've shown their hand in the past few weeks about what they think about archaeologists, ecologists and other people in similar fields of work.
Crooked bastards lining their friends pockets as per normal.
Nothing changes, usual Tory wankers getting each other rich and fecking over everyone else.
The same minster who was recently involved in controversy over conflict of interest with housing developers. Hmmmmm. What a surprise.
That's all in the past now and the minister that minister was punished with a quick move away from the spotlight until things blew over, so it's fine...
Yet we need more houses, more houses will increase the standard of living for many people.
Planning needs a shake up, this might not be the right way to do it, but something needs to change.
I imagine conservation areas, article 4 areas and sites of archeological significance will still need more stringent applications.
Clearly we need to wait for the detail, but this is good news in my opinion.
Do you not think house building and infrastructure will play a key part in getting us all out of this economic hole we are in?
Not everything is a conspiracy.
There are 1 million houses since 2010 that have been given planning permission and haven't been built yet. Of course it is about helping their rich mates.
There will still be some archaeology but they can bypass full desk assessments, open site plans and limit it to small scale evaluations which can cut the archaeological industry by a lot.
Such a pointless quote (not from you, but the opposition to this). There are other reasons why these homes haven’t been built, but still given the outdated planning rules, smaller developments struggle to get built, and there needs to be some focus on these small developments that can never get off the ground as planning takes too long and is too risky.
This will help the small and micro businesses, and sole traders, which generally speaking make up a massive % of the working population.
I’m not interested in helping Bovis or big developers build 50+ houses. We need to help get rid of the red tape for the small developments which will employ local people.
True, can we please just look to the future with optimism, waving our flags and forgetting the past. These decisions are in no way linked to any donations or business connections to ministers.
No, but with this government everything about their own self interest.
Exactly. Get on Board with Brexit. feck, did we just give Boris his next shit slogan?!
You can probably argue every political decision from every party is all about their self interest.
If you look past that, this is a good move.
What's some of the reasons why the houses haven't been built? Genuine question as I have no clue.
Lack of money from developers/ owners of the land, better opportunities developers are working through first, the plans approved are too expensive/ or not workable to build, speculation growth (where actually its more valuable to keep the land as it because it’s increasing in value), CIL, requirement for social housing makes the development non profitable.
Lapsed planning permission is another one, usually the planning is valid for 3 years, so the majority of of those approvals will have expired (assuming those approvals were equally split across the past 10 years). A site with previous planning means it’s more likely to be approved again, but still have to go through the process.
Cheers.
The Tories aren’t suspending the whip from the MP accused of rape. Unbelievable.
The cnuts don’t want his name to come out. Shameful.
As someone who works for one of the “big PLCs” I’d agree with all of this and also the simple fact that we simply cannot build out big developments as quickly as some seem to think. 1000 unit scheme will take 10+ years to get a complete site built. Bit unfair to include remaining units in those numbers. We spend in excess of 100k on getting a successful planning application so we aren’t sitting on these permissions for fun, once we get them through we’re onsite ASAP. Viability another big one, really commend the smaller developers, the risk they take on really doesn’t seem worth it for the margins.
Some of the planning requirements we face are quite time consuming although I don’t necessarily agree with tearing up the regs. In my experience the local authorities need more money / training to sift sites at candidate site stage and only allocate sites that need little mitigation if any. More applicable for council owned land of course. Again a bit more budget to employ more highways officers, public health, ecologists etc would also massively improve timescales in getting decisions. I’m currently sitting on an application for 140 houses that hasn’t had highways comments for 8 months. Should be closer to a month.
Anything goes.
Lockdown breaches.
Helping property developers avoid millions of pounds in tax.
100k third home expenses.
Rape.
No problem.
Why not renovate disused buildings? That is far more ecologically viable. As I also said, archaeology is part of the planning process and this rule would byass that.
So that's great if it's helping a few people get back working if it means loads of other industries will be hit hard by this ruling that doesn't even mean that the houses built through auto planning will be affordable for those in the working population.
Often renovating a disused building is far more expensive than building new, and whilst clearly different for each building lends its self to change of use into flats rather than houses.
It’s not helping a few people, it’s one of the key ways of getting the economy back on track.
Mark Francois is trending on Twitter and people are wondering if he has had a nice weekend. Infer what you will from that but let’s not speculate what it might mean.
Realistically why wouldn’t you suspend the whip from whomever it was? How can you justify that?
Because they're named in that process. That's why it hasn't happened.
Was the first thought that popped into my head
You’d have to think the guy would have to take a leave of absence though, how can he continue to do constituency surgeries and the like with those charges hanging over him?
Russian hackers stole classified US trade documents from Liam Fox's account, report says
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...s-us-trade-corbyn-boris-johnson-a9651906.html
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...s-us-trade-corbyn-boris-johnson-a9651906.html
I despise the Tories probably more than anyone else on this forum, but publicly suspending the whip from the accused will only reveal who he is. Makes more sense to keep it quiet until the allegations are more thoroughly investigated.
If it was just about that then sure I’d agree but I don’t see how someone accused of such severe charges can continue to do constituent surgeries either. Sure people deserve the right to anonymity when charges are brought, but it doesn’t really work for MPs.
Yeah I think it's getting more attention than it merits. People would be better off focusing their energy on something more substantial and significant, such as the fact the Tories have starved the judicial system of funding and rape convictions have fallen to record lows recently in England and Wales.
Why? MPs are still obliged to the same virtue of innocent until proven guilty, especially with such damaging allegations that will likely taint them, irrespective of whether they're found guilty or not.
Until he's actually proven guilty, he still has an obligation to his constituents.
Agreed.