Monday 2nd March 2015

yahyah · Post by **yahyah** » Mon 02 Mar, 2015 1:16 pm

Has anyone seen an estimate of how much money local councils would lose as a result of Cameron's plan to give young first time buyers a 20% discount ?

Radio 4 said the money would come from savings the builders would make by not having to pay [as they do currently] fees to the local authority.

Am I misunderstanding it [as usual]....this means money will be lost to councils so there will be a loss to the public purse.

citizenJA · Post by **citizenJA** » Mon 02 Mar, 2015 1:20 pm

Labour Women's Network Political Day
Manchester 28 Feb 2015
Peoples History Museum

It was rainy, cold & after hours together, listening & talking to each others' concerns, stories & work, getting on board the Women's Campaign bus to campaign in the afternoon required inspiration.

Rt Hon Angela Eagle, Labour MP for Wallasey, Shadow Leader of the House, provided the inspiration.

"I'm getting on the pink bus!"
said CitizenJA, with my comrades in the audience.

It was good.
It's hard work.

If we've got a problem, we're going to have to get in there & talk with each other, allowing our comrades the chance to show us their thinking, allowing them to educate us about what we don't know.

Don't be afraid of your people.

Willow904 · Post by **Willow904** » Mon 02 Mar, 2015 1:23 pm

yahyah wrote:Has anyone seen an estimate of how much money local councils would lose as a result of Cameron's plan to give young first time buyers a 20% discount ?

Radio 4 said the money would come from savings the builders would make by not having to pay [as they do currently] fees to the local authority.

Am I misunderstanding it [as usual]....this means money will be lost to councils so there will be a loss to the public purse.

This article from the BBC doesn't put a figure on how much money to local councils will be lost but it does make clear who will be most affected:

The Conservatives are proposing to relax the obligations expected of developers in relation to affordable housing, believing this will give them more flexibility about the make-up of new developments and make more brownfield sites viable for development.

But the National Housing Federation, which represents housing associations in England, said this would reduce financial support for cheaper rented housing.

"It is basically taking money away from people who are renting and giving it to first-time buyers," Henry Gregg told the BBC.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-31683974

This suggests that the obligations being waived are the ones that currently help to fund new social housing, although that's only a guess on my part.

Edited to add that this would fit a long standing pattern for the Tory party. I've long been of the opinion that the bedroom tax was more about attacking the financial viability of social housing than it was about attacking benefit recipients.

yahyah · Post by **yahyah** » Mon 02 Mar, 2015 1:25 pm

Thanks Willow.

citizenJA · Post by **citizenJA** » Mon 02 Mar, 2015 1:26 pm

Faisal Islam ‏@faisalislam

The parliament about to end will be by far the worst on record for housebuilding....

" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

AngryAsWell · Post by **AngryAsWell** » Mon 02 Mar, 2015 1:27 pm

fedup59 wrote:
AnatolyKasparov wrote:In reply to Robert and ephe - I'm not happy about this either. At all.

(and you know what a loyalist I normally am, so I don't say such a thing lightly)

But I'm buggered if I'm going to let it deflect me from the fact this coming GE is one of the most important of my lifetime. I still have confidence in the likes of Miliband and Burnham, and both hope and expect that they will turn this dog's breakfast into something that we can at least live with.

Get a Tory-based government again in two months, then that is the end of the NHS as we have known it. And the welfare state more generally. Not to mention the United Kingdom itself.

The stakes are that high.

Hello all - long time reading but not logged in - for lots of generally miserable reasons. Anyway this is more a comment on the general unhappiness about Manchester than a specific reply to anyone. Surely any discussions about devolving power/ budgets or anything else anywhere in England have to be part and parcel of the constitutional convention or whatever it will be called that Labour intend to have in relation to devolution in England. I know more about Scotland than Wales, but the devolution settlements were not back of a fag packet nor a response to George Osborne's election manipulation but discussed, consulted on and decided over a reasonable period of time. How else can we have a NHS with both political and professional boundaries and responsibilities that makes sense and protects a whole population provision realistically? I'd really like Labour to say they will deal with any internal issues this might have thrown up but that they refuse to be dragged into short term political posturing about something that is essential to all of us living in the UK. To me this is about how devolution should not fragment national commitments but live within the constraints they require.

Hi Fedup59 and welcome

This whole Manchester situation "seems" to have been done behind closed doors (not the devo bit, that's been openly discussed for a long time and was signed in November).
The problems started late last Tuesday night when it was leaked that Manchester would take over provision for NHS services as well. The way that was done is the murky bit, well explained in the Tribune and Simon Jenkins articles I linked to last night.

pk1 · Post by **pk1** » Mon 02 Mar, 2015 1:30 pm

Willow904 wrote:
yahyah wrote:Has anyone seen an estimate of how much money local councils would lose as a result of Cameron's plan to give young first time buyers a 20% discount ?

Radio 4 said the money would come from savings the builders would make by not having to pay [as they do currently] fees to the local authority.

Am I misunderstanding it [as usual]....this means money will be lost to councils so there will be a loss to the public purse.
This article from the BBC doesn't put a figure on how much money to local councils will be lost but it does make clear who will be most affected:

The Conservatives are proposing to relax the obligations expected of developers in relation to affordable housing, believing this will give them more flexibility about the make-up of new developments and make more brownfield sites viable for development.

But the National Housing Federation, which represents housing associations in England, said this would reduce financial support for cheaper rented housing.

"It is basically taking money away from people who are renting and giving it to first-time buyers," Henry Gregg told the BBC.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-31683974
This suggests that the obligations being waived are the ones that currently help to fund new social housing, although that's only a guess on my part.

Edited to add that this would fit a long standing pattern for the Tory party. I've long been of the opinion that the bedroom tax was more about attacking the financial viability of social housing than it was about attacking benefit recipients.

AS blog:

Cameron's Q&A

Cameron is now taking questions.

Q: How will your starter home policy be funded?

This policy will work, says Cameron, because developers and builders are saying they will deliver it.

They can offer a discount because some of the regulatory costs will be cut, he says, such as section 106 agreements.

(my bold)

So there you have it plebs - if you can't/won't buy a house, you can live your lives homeless & penniless because frankly my dear, I don't give a flying fuck.

LOL Dave
mwah mwah to the wealthy, two-fingers to the rest of you.

yahyah · Post by **yahyah** » Mon 02 Mar, 2015 1:31 pm

Am posting this because I know we have some aviation fans on FTN.

The report now out refers to an incident last year.
I'm further south than the Machynlleth loop but we get our fair share of Typhoons and Hawks [& US planes in the past] whizzing down our valleys so it is a little worrying.

RAF jets worth £300m in near miss at 1,000mph in skies above Mid Wales
http://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales ... re-8749526" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

AngryAsWell · Post by **AngryAsWell** » Mon 02 Mar, 2015 1:32 pm

yahyah wrote:Has anyone seen an estimate of how much money local councils would lose as a result of Cameron's plan to give young first time buyers a 20% discount ?

Radio 4 said the money would come from savings the builders would make by not having to pay [as they do currently] fees to the local authority.

Am I misunderstanding it [as usual]....this means money will be lost to councils so there will be a loss to the public purse.

The planning fee for 2 new dwelling is £1155.00 (I used 2 because any more and other details are needed to calculate.
http://www.planningportal.gov.uk/PpForm ... ormServlet" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Eric_WLothian · Post by **Eric_WLothian** » Mon 02 Mar, 2015 1:35 pm

pk1 wrote:
Willow904 wrote:
yahyah wrote:Has anyone seen an estimate of how much money local councils would lose as a result of Cameron's plan to give young first time buyers a 20% discount ?

Radio 4 said the money would come from savings the builders would make by not having to pay [as they do currently] fees to the local authority.

Am I misunderstanding it [as usual]....this means money will be lost to councils so there will be a loss to the public purse.
This article from the BBC doesn't put a figure on how much money to local councils will be lost but it does make clear who will be most affected:

The Conservatives are proposing to relax the obligations expected of developers in relation to affordable housing, believing this will give them more flexibility about the make-up of new developments and make more brownfield sites viable for development.

But the National Housing Federation, which represents housing associations in England, said this would reduce financial support for cheaper rented housing.

"It is basically taking money away from people who are renting and giving it to first-time buyers," Henry Gregg told the BBC.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-31683974
This suggests that the obligations being waived are the ones that currently help to fund new social housing, although that's only a guess on my part.

Edited to add that this would fit a long standing pattern for the Tory party. I've long been of the opinion that the bedroom tax was more about attacking the financial viability of social housing than it was about attacking benefit recipients.
AS blog:

Cameron's Q&A

Cameron is now taking questions.

Q: How will your starter home policy be funded?

This policy will work, says Cameron, because developers and builders are saying they will deliver it.

They can offer a discount because some of the regulatory costs will be cut, he says, such as section 106 agreements.
(my bold)

So there you have it plebs - if you can't/won't buy a house, you can live your lives homeless & penniless because frankly my dear, I don't give a flying fuck.

LOL Dave
mwah mwah to the wealthy, two-fingers to the rest of you.

And the Tartan Tories jump on the bandwagon:

NICOLA Sturgeon has unveiled a £70 million scheme to help low and moderate income families in Scotland buy their first homes.
Under the plan eligible buyers will receive an interest free loan to help them get on the property ladder.

http://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/t ... -1-3706017

Anybody would think there was an election in the offing.

AngryAsWell · Post by **AngryAsWell** » Mon 02 Mar, 2015 1:35 pm

They can offer a discount because some of the regulatory costs will be cut, he says, such as section 106 agreements.

FFS!
Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL)
Legislation Planning obligations under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended), commonly known as s106 agreements, are a mechanism which make a development proposal acceptable in planning terms, that would not otherwise be acceptable. They are focused on site specific mitigation of the impact of development. S106 agreements are often referred to as 'developer contributions' along with highway contributions and the Community Infrastructure Levy.

http://www.pas.gov.uk/3-community-infra ... 01/ARTICLE" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

AngryAsWell · Post by **AngryAsWell** » Mon 02 Mar, 2015 1:40 pm

Removing the bedroom tax would go a long way to sorting the lack of homes problem as many 3 bed houses across the country are laying empty as people cannot afford to rent them.
This is from last July and will only have got worse
"The numbers of empty homes we've got to let are increasing significantly," says Iain Sim, chief executive of Coast and Country.
"People are now telling us that because of bedroom tax, they can no longer afford to move into the bigger family homes, and as a consequence of that we're getting fewer lettings and more empty houses."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-23122369" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

pk1 · Post by **pk1** » Mon 02 Mar, 2015 1:44 pm

In return for offering the discount, developers no longer have to pay for the new infrastructure to support this new housing, including schools, hospitals, roads and flood defences. This infrastructure still needs to be paid for of course, it's just that developers are no longer the ones paying for it.

Developers will also be stripped of the need to sign section 106 agreements. These agreements oblige developers to either provide new affordable homes, school places or other contributions to the local area.

Again, these new services will still need to be paid for, it's just that developers will no longer be the ones paying for them. So instead of landowners and developers paying for new affordable homes and school places out of their profits, the cost will fall entirely on local councils and taxpayers.

....

Under the proposals, developers will also be stripped of the requirement to make developments zero carbon. This will have the dubious benefit of allowing developers to build less energy efficient and poorer quality homes. Whichever way you look at it, this amounts to yet another windfall for developers.

Indeed the closer you look at the policy, the clearer it becomes that this is a straight up transfer of wealth from the public sector to the private and from local people to landowners, rather than a genuine attempt to provide new homes.

http://www.politics.co.uk/comment-analy ... ut-to-deve" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Willow904 · Post by **Willow904** » Mon 02 Mar, 2015 1:46 pm

pk1 wrote:
Willow904 wrote:
yahyah wrote:Has anyone seen an estimate of how much money local councils would lose as a result of Cameron's plan to give young first time buyers a 20% discount ?

Radio 4 said the money would come from savings the builders would make by not having to pay [as they do currently] fees to the local authority.

Am I misunderstanding it [as usual]....this means money will be lost to councils so there will be a loss to the public purse.
This article from the BBC doesn't put a figure on how much money to local councils will be lost but it does make clear who will be most affected:

The Conservatives are proposing to relax the obligations expected of developers in relation to affordable housing, believing this will give them more flexibility about the make-up of new developments and make more brownfield sites viable for development.

But the National Housing Federation, which represents housing associations in England, said this would reduce financial support for cheaper rented housing.

"It is basically taking money away from people who are renting and giving it to first-time buyers," Henry Gregg told the BBC.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-31683974
This suggests that the obligations being waived are the ones that currently help to fund new social housing, although that's only a guess on my part.

Edited to add that this would fit a long standing pattern for the Tory party. I've long been of the opinion that the bedroom tax was more about attacking the financial viability of social housing than it was about attacking benefit recipients.
AS blog:

Cameron's Q&A

Cameron is now taking questions.

Q: How will your starter home policy be funded?

This policy will work, says Cameron, because developers and builders are saying they will deliver it.

They can offer a discount because some of the regulatory costs will be cut, he says, such as section 106 agreements.
(my bold)

So there you have it plebs - if you can't/won't buy a house, you can live your lives homeless & penniless because frankly my dear, I don't give a flying fuck.

LOL Dave
mwah mwah to the wealthy, two-fingers to the rest of you.

A local development has already had the 106 agreement waived, just to get a brownfield site redeveloped. Councils have practically been throwing money at housebuilders to achieve even the pitiful levels of builds we have already. (Remember Gordon Brown's sweetners to get house building going again after the crash). I seriously doubt if Cameron's plan will have any effect on house build numbers at all, even if you generously accept he is doing it for the right reasons.

TechnicalEphemera · Post by **TechnicalEphemera** » Mon 02 Mar, 2015 1:47 pm

yahyah wrote:Am posting this because I know we have some aviation fans on FTN.

The report now out refers to an incident last year.
I'm further south than the Machynlleth loop but we get our fair share of Typhoons and Hawks [& US planes in the past] whizzing down our valleys so it is a little worrying.

RAF jets worth £300m in near miss at 1,000mph in skies above Mid Wales
http://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales ... re-8749526" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Can't find the airprox report. It is a bit of risk gone mad, low risk of collision but multiplied up the severity list by value of assets - according to the Mirror.

However looking at this it is clear an accident is inevitable at some point. No TCAS in the Typhoon because of cost cutting.

http://www.pprune.org/archive/index.php/t-554595.html

citizenJA · Post by **citizenJA** » Mon 02 Mar, 2015 1:49 pm

Cameron & his government have had almost five years to get houses built.
Instead three bedroom dwellings are standing empty because of the Bedroom Tax.

citizenJA · Post by **citizenJA** » Mon 02 Mar, 2015 1:54 pm

fedup59 wrote:
AnatolyKasparov wrote:In reply to Robert and ephe - I'm not happy about this either. At all.

(and you know what a loyalist I normally am, so I don't say such a thing lightly)

But I'm buggered if I'm going to let it deflect me from the fact this coming GE is one of the most important of my lifetime. I still have confidence in the likes of Miliband and Burnham, and both hope and expect that they will turn this dog's breakfast into something that we can at least live with.

Get a Tory-based government again in two months, then that is the end of the NHS as we have known it. And the welfare state more generally. Not to mention the United Kingdom itself.

The stakes are that high.

Hello all - long time reading but not logged in - for lots of generally miserable reasons. Anyway this is more a comment on the general unhappiness about Manchester than a specific reply to anyone. Surely any discussions about devolving power/ budgets or anything else anywhere in England have to be part and parcel of the constitutional convention or whatever it will be called that Labour intend to have in relation to devolution in England. I know more about Scotland than Wales, but the devolution settlements were not back of a fag packet nor a response to George Osborne's election manipulation but discussed, consulted on and decided over a reasonable period of time. How else can we have a NHS with both political and professional boundaries and responsibilities that makes sense and protects a whole population provision realistically? I'd really like Labour to say they will deal with any internal issues this might have thrown up but that they refuse to be dragged into short term political posturing about something that is essential to all of us living in the UK. To me this is about how devolution should not fragment national commitments but live within the constraints they require.

Welcome, Fedup59!
I've eaten all the Welsh cakes & chocolate.
Don't tell anyone it was me.

pk1 · Post by **pk1** » Mon 02 Mar, 2015 1:59 pm

More from AS blog:

Cameron says the Tories are making five pledges on housing.

First, they will keep interest rates low, he says.

They will keep interest rates low will they ? Nothing to do with the Bank of England then ?

The government is managing the economy properly. That is why interest rates are low.

If you compare rates now with what they were in 2010, the saving on a £120,000 loan is worth £155 per month, he says.

Risible !

The rates are exactly the same (0.5%) as they were in 2010 you utter moron !!

Eric_WLothian · Post by **Eric_WLothian** » Mon 02 Mar, 2015 2:11 pm

pk1 wrote:More from AS blog:

Cameron says the Tories are making five pledges on housing.

First, they will keep interest rates low, he says.
They will keep interest rates low will they ? Nothing to do with the Bank of England then ?

The government is managing the economy properly. That is why interest rates are low.

If you compare rates now with what they were in 2010, the saving on a £120,000 loan is worth £155 per month, he says.
Risible !

The rates are exactly the same (0.5%) as they were in 2010 you utter moron !!

Don't suppose he's mentioned interest rates for people with savings? (in the UK, not Switzerland or the Channel Islands).

citizenJA · Post by **citizenJA** » Mon 02 Mar, 2015 2:12 pm

Public sector workers across Northern Ireland are to stage a 24-hour strike in a dispute over budget cuts and jobs. As the Press Association reports, members of the GMB union working in education, the civil service, transport, the Rivers Agency, Forestry Service and Environment Agency will walk out on March 13. Other unions are believed to be considering joining the strike.

From AS blog [scroll down to last paragraph in link boundary]

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/blo ... 0f7be317c1" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

AngryAsWell · Post by **AngryAsWell** » Mon 02 Mar, 2015 2:33 pm

Sarah Champion MP ‏@SarahChampionMP · 4 mins4 minutes ago
Education questions about to start in the chamber.

ephemerid · Post by **ephemerid** » Mon 02 Mar, 2015 3:28 pm

AnatolyKasparov wrote:In reply to Robert and ephe - I'm not happy about this either. At all.

(and you know what a loyalist I normally am, so I don't say such a thing lightly)

But I'm buggered if I'm going to let it deflect me from the fact this coming GE is one of the most important of my lifetime. I still have confidence in the likes of Miliband and Burnham, and both hope and expect that they will turn this dog's breakfast into something that we can at least live with.

Get a Tory-based government again in two months, then that is the end of the NHS as we have known it. And the welfare state more generally. Not to mention the United Kingdom itself.

The stakes are that high.

I agree that the stakes are that high, Anatoly.

I doubt I would survive another 5 years with IDS taking my ability to live away.

But - I am repeatedly disappointed by Labour one day, then cheering them on the next. The YourBritain consultation was a bit of a sham, and I'm not the only person who thinks that. We hear a good speech, Miliband scores points and PMQs, it's all looking good....then something happens or a non-announcement announcement is made and I could scream with frustration.

I've done my fair share (more, actually, considering how poorly I am these days) of campaigning and trudging around delivering leaflets etc. etc. and that without this work and all the people who do it we could end up under the Tory cosh again.
It's not enough to say "wait and see" or "Labour have to be careful" yadda yadda yadda. The nonsense in Manchester is a case in point, and how any Labour politician of whatever seniority in local or national government can sign up to what is proposed is beyond me.

As I said, I can swallow the general uselessness of Reeves and Green as I appreciate that for most people (if not for me and a few others) social security is not that pressing a problem; but I can't let this one go without making my opinion heard.
Robert is absolutely right on this - if this goes ahead, it's the end of the NHS as a national concern. The Yorkshire Post has an article about how it could work in Leeds; speculative, but if Manchester do it other will want their slice of the action too.
This is what Osborne knows - many politicians will jettison any principles they have in the pursuit of more power or the illusion of it.

I am heartily sick of the lack of courage in so many of our politicians, including those I want to vote for. Just when I think Labour are doing something brave, they slip back into anodyne soundbites clearly designed to avoid frightening the ponies.
If they are going to sit on the fence like this for the rest of the campaign, they wont win. They're not giving me anything to get behind.
It feels like there's no fight in them and no passion.

Citizen JA - thank you for the PM.
HindleA - not having a pop at you personally.

Sometimes it is difficult here because of the way any criticism of Labour gets jumped on.
We have been here many times before.
That's why I take a break periodically, and that's why some people just leave.

I'm taking a break now.
Play nicely.

Post by **letsskiptotheleft** » Mon 02 Mar, 2015 3:39 pm

Sat on the train going to London, the wonderful Michael Sheen has got on, after giving a rocket of a speech I feel like being all star struck and going up to him.

But I won't, shy like that.

pk1 · Post by **pk1** » Mon 02 Mar, 2015 3:44 pm

letsskiptotheleft wrote:Sat on the train going to London, the wonderful Michael Sheen has got on, after giving a rocket of a speech I feel like being all star struck and going up to him.

But I won't, shy like that.

Did you hear the speech ? For those that haven't:

[youtube]qHgqAtmXuHU[/youtube]

PorFavor · Post by **PorFavor** » Mon 02 Mar, 2015 3:45 pm

Would it be realistic to renationalise the railways? (BBC News website)

Interesting (and encouraging) article. I recommend taking a gander.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-31621300

pk1 · Post by **pk1** » Mon 02 Mar, 2015 3:54 pm

Hmmm, interesting.....Matthew Oakeshott was campaigning in Hove for Labour at the weekend.

" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Jacob Kahane
‏@JacobKahane
More great teams out this afternoon for @TeamPeterKyle @peterkyle. Thanks to @oakeshottm for joining us

LadyCentauria · Post by **LadyCentauria** » Mon 02 Mar, 2015 3:55 pm

yahyah wrote:Has anyone seen an estimate of how much money local councils would lose as a result of Cameron's plan to give young first time buyers a 20% discount ?

Radio 4 said the money would come from savings the builders would make by not having to pay [as they do currently] fees to the local authority.

Am I misunderstanding it [as usual]....this means money will be lost to councils so there will be a loss to the public purse.

I read, somewhere, that the savings on price would come from builders/developers having average fees of £45,000 L.A. fees per plot waived. Sorry I can't remember where I read that.

Post by **PaulfromYorkshire** » Mon 02 Mar, 2015 4:00 pm

ephemerid wrote:
AnatolyKasparov wrote:In reply to Robert and ephe - I'm not happy about this either. At all.

(and you know what a loyalist I normally am, so I don't say such a thing lightly)

But I'm buggered if I'm going to let it deflect me from the fact this coming GE is one of the most important of my lifetime. I still have confidence in the likes of Miliband and Burnham, and both hope and expect that they will turn this dog's breakfast into something that we can at least live with.

Get a Tory-based government again in two months, then that is the end of the NHS as we have known it. And the welfare state more generally. Not to mention the United Kingdom itself.

The stakes are that high.

I agree that the stakes are that high, Anatoly.

I doubt I would survive another 5 years with IDS taking my ability to live away.

But - I am repeatedly disappointed by Labour one day, then cheering them on the next. The YourBritain consultation was a bit of a sham, and I'm not the only person who thinks that. We hear a good speech, Miliband scores points and PMQs, it's all looking good....then something happens or a non-announcement announcement is made and I could scream with frustration.

I've done my fair share (more, actually, considering how poorly I am these days) of campaigning and trudging around delivering leaflets etc. etc. and that without this work and all the people who do it we could end up under the Tory cosh again.
It's not enough to say "wait and see" or "Labour have to be careful" yadda yadda yadda. The nonsense in Manchester is a case in point, and how any Labour politician of whatever seniority in local or national government can sign up to what is proposed is beyond me.

As I said, I can swallow the general uselessness of Reeves and Green as I appreciate that for most people (if not for me and a few others) social security is not that pressing a problem; but I can't let this one go without making my opinion heard.
Robert is absolutely right on this - if this goes ahead, it's the end of the NHS as a national concern. The Yorkshire Post has an article about how it could work in Leeds; speculative, but if Manchester do it other will want their slice of the action too.
This is what Osborne knows - many politicians will jettison any principles they have in the pursuit of more power or the illusion of it.

I am heartily sick of the lack of courage in so many of our politicians, including those I want to vote for. Just when I think Labour are doing something brave, they slip back into anodyne soundbites clearly designed to avoid frightening the ponies.
If they are going to sit on the fence like this for the rest of the campaign, they wont win. They're not giving me anything to get behind.
It feels like there's no fight in them and no passion.

Citizen JA - thank you for the PM.
HindleA - not having a pop at you personally.

Sometimes it is difficult here because of the way any criticism of Labour gets jumped on.
We have been here many times before.
That's why I take a break periodically, and that's why some people just leave.

I'm taking a break now.
Play nicely.

Thanks for this ephemerid and come back soon please

We do end up here often don't we? I think people also feel jumped on (not by anyone in particular) for supporting Labour.

I think the important thing (addressed at us all) is for us to focus on the political points and not the person making them.

pk1 · Post by **pk1** » Mon 02 Mar, 2015 4:11 pm

Mike Smithson ‏@MSmithsonPB 11m11 minutes ago
CON moves from 4% deficit in Ashcroft phone poll to 3% lead

CON 34 +2
LAB 31 -5
LD 7 =
UKIP 14+3
GRN 7 -1

Post by **PaulfromYorkshire** » Mon 02 Mar, 2015 4:30 pm

pk1 wrote:Mike Smithson ‏@MSmithsonPB 11m11 minutes ago
CON moves from 4% deficit in Ashcroft phone poll to 3% lead

CON 34 +2
LAB 31 -5
LD 7 =
UKIP 14+3
GRN 7 -1

His polls are like a bloody seesaw aren't they?

TechnicalEphemera · Post by **TechnicalEphemera** » Mon 02 Mar, 2015 4:36 pm

PaulfromYorkshire wrote:
pk1 wrote:Mike Smithson ‏@MSmithsonPB 11m11 minutes ago
CON moves from 4% deficit in Ashcroft phone poll to 3% lead

CON 34 +2
LAB 31 -5
LD 7 =
UKIP 14+3
GRN 7 -1
His polls are like a bloody seesaw aren't they?

1. Very small sample sizes.
2. Different companies = different assumptions.

He is polling for headlines not accuracy.

StephenDolan · Post by **StephenDolan** » Mon 02 Mar, 2015 4:44 pm

TechnicalEphemera wrote:
PaulfromYorkshire wrote:
pk1 wrote:Mike Smithson ‏@MSmithsonPB 11m11 minutes ago
CON moves from 4% deficit in Ashcroft phone poll to 3% lead

CON 34 +2
LAB 31 -5
LD 7 =
UKIP 14+3
GRN 7 -1
His polls are like a bloody seesaw aren't they?
1. Very small sample sizes.
2. Different companies = different assumptions.

He is polling for headlines not accuracy.

Tiny sample sizes. If it hadn't been weighted the Conservatives lead appears huge given the 'class' numbers.

StephenDolan · Post by **StephenDolan** » Mon 02 Mar, 2015 4:45 pm

StephenDolan wrote:
TechnicalEphemera wrote:
PaulfromYorkshire wrote: His polls are like a bloody seesaw aren't they?
1. Very small sample sizes.
2. Different companies = different assumptions.

He is polling for headlines not accuracy.
Tiny sample sizes. If it hadn't been weighted the Conservatives lead appears huge given the 'class' numbers.

My favourite part of the LAP is the spin he applies in his summary. Always raises a chuckle.

ErnstRemarx · Post by **ErnstRemarx** » Mon 02 Mar, 2015 4:47 pm

fedup59 wrote:
AnatolyKasparov wrote:In reply to Robert and ephe - I'm not happy about this either. At all.

(and you know what a loyalist I normally am, so I don't say such a thing lightly)

But I'm buggered if I'm going to let it deflect me from the fact this coming GE is one of the most important of my lifetime. I still have confidence in the likes of Miliband and Burnham, and both hope and expect that they will turn this dog's breakfast into something that we can at least live with.

Get a Tory-based government again in two months, then that is the end of the NHS as we have known it. And the welfare state more generally. Not to mention the United Kingdom itself.

The stakes are that high.

Hello all - long time reading but not logged in - for lots of generally miserable reasons. Anyway this is more a comment on the general unhappiness about Manchester than a specific reply to anyone. Surely any discussions about devolving power/ budgets or anything else anywhere in England have to be part and parcel of the constitutional convention or whatever it will be called that Labour intend to have in relation to devolution in England. I know more about Scotland than Wales, but the devolution settlements were not back of a fag packet nor a response to George Osborne's election manipulation but discussed, consulted on and decided over a reasonable period of time. How else can we have a NHS with both political and professional boundaries and responsibilities that makes sense and protects a whole population provision realistically? I'd really like Labour to say they will deal with any internal issues this might have thrown up but that they refuse to be dragged into short term political posturing about something that is essential to all of us living in the UK. To me this is about how devolution should not fragment national commitments but live within the constraints they require.

Hello fedup59, and a warm welcome to FTN. And many thanks for a bloody excellent first post.

ErnstRemarx · Post by **ErnstRemarx** » Mon 02 Mar, 2015 4:51 pm

yahyah wrote:Has anyone seen an estimate of how much money local councils would lose as a result of Cameron's plan to give young first time buyers a 20% discount ?

Radio 4 said the money would come from savings the builders would make by not having to pay [as they do currently] fees to the local authority.

Am I misunderstanding it [as usual]....this means money will be lost to councils so there will be a loss to the public purse.

It depends if they're talking about Section 106 money or the actual Planning Department fees. If it's the former, they're already being undermined by Osborne and Pickles in order to curry favour with developers; if it's the latter, then income fromthe departments everywhere will collapse and heap further severe strain on councils everywhere.

In other words it's a rubbish policy that will further harm local councils when they're already under massive strains. Or, in other words, it's a pile of unworkable shit that will be practically impossible to implement.

Willow904 · Post by **Willow904** » Mon 02 Mar, 2015 5:06 pm

ErnstRemarx wrote:
yahyah wrote:Has anyone seen an estimate of how much money local councils would lose as a result of Cameron's plan to give young first time buyers a 20% discount ?

Radio 4 said the money would come from savings the builders would make by not having to pay [as they do currently] fees to the local authority.

Am I misunderstanding it [as usual]....this means money will be lost to councils so there will be a loss to the public purse.
It depends if they're talking about Section 106 money or the actual Planning Department fees. If it's the former, they're already being undermined by Osborne and Pickles in order to curry favour with developers; if it's the latter, then income fromthe departments everywhere will collapse and heap further severe strain on councils everywhere.

In other words it's a rubbish policy that will further harm local councils when they're already under massive strains. Or, in other words, it's a pile of unworkable shit that will be practically impossible to implement.

Like all Tory policies the only thing it will be successful in doing will be funneling money to their friends and supporters. Like the pointless killing of badgers that's really a bung to Tory voting farmers or free schools which is just a policy to give school deeds to their mates, most Tory policies achieve their real aim, it's just the real aim is rarely the stated one.

ErnstRemarx · Post by **ErnstRemarx** » Mon 02 Mar, 2015 5:13 pm

Willow904 wrote:
yahyah wrote:Has anyone seen an estimate of how much money local councils would lose as a result of Cameron's plan to give young first time buyers a 20% discount ?

Radio 4 said the money would come from savings the builders would make by not having to pay [as they do currently] fees to the local authority.

Am I misunderstanding it [as usual]....this means money will be lost to councils so there will be a loss to the public purse.
This article from the BBC doesn't put a figure on how much money to local councils will be lost but it does make clear who will be most affected:

The Conservatives are proposing to relax the obligations expected of developers in relation to affordable housing, believing this will give them more flexibility about the make-up of new developments and make more brownfield sites viable for development.

But the National Housing Federation, which represents housing associations in England, said this would reduce financial support for cheaper rented housing.

"It is basically taking money away from people who are renting and giving it to first-time buyers," Henry Gregg told the BBC.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-31683974
This suggests that the obligations being waived are the ones that currently help to fund new social housing, although that's only a guess on my part.

Edited to add that this would fit a long standing pattern for the Tory party. I've long been of the opinion that the bedroom tax was more about attacking the financial viability of social housing than it was about attacking benefit recipients.

As I suspected, it's a full on attack on S106 - the one thing that brings social conscience to developers. In short, it's a levy (generally negotiated) on planning applications that involve housing. The bigger the development, the higher the levy, whilst a proportion of 'affordable' housing is required for site - this again is negotiable. On sites with 15 or fewer dwellings S106 doesn't apply, which encourages builders to concentrate on larger, high unit value buildings, which benefits only the developer (this was brought in by the Tories).

In practice, sites that are costly to remediate due to past pollution and so forth generally generate a lower profit than greenfield ones - which is why housebuilders like the latter. If they can persuade the planners that they can't build at an adequate profit, then the affordable housing/S106 stuff is arrived at by negotiation and by conditioning of the approval, and I've seen a fair few examples where this has applied, usually always with the Bellways and so forth of the world.

Kick away the prop of S106 money and the need to produce 'affordable' housing, and at a stroke it'll reduce the amount of starter homes available, as well as screwing over our parks and other facilities that rely on S106 funding (and we're talking hundreds of thousands of pounds here). The only beneficiaries will be the developer who'll make a lot more money, and the Tory party, who'll probably receive a slice of it.

ErnstRemarx · Post by **ErnstRemarx** » Mon 02 Mar, 2015 5:20 pm

AngryAsWell wrote:Removing the bedroom tax would go a long way to sorting the lack of homes problem as many 3 bed houses across the country are laying empty as people cannot afford to rent them.
This is from last July and will only have got worse
"The numbers of empty homes we've got to let are increasing significantly," says Iain Sim, chief executive of Coast and Country.
"People are now telling us that because of bedroom tax, they can no longer afford to move into the bigger family homes, and as a consequence of that we're getting fewer lettings and more empty houses."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-23122369" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Predictable. And predicted at the time. Why would you take on a house only to be walloped by the bedroom tax? Answer: you don't bother.

ErnstRemarx · Post by **ErnstRemarx** » Mon 02 Mar, 2015 5:26 pm

pk1 wrote:
In return for offering the discount, developers no longer have to pay for the new infrastructure to support this new housing, including schools, hospitals, roads and flood defences. This infrastructure still needs to be paid for of course, it's just that developers are no longer the ones paying for it.

Developers will also be stripped of the need to sign section 106 agreements. These agreements oblige developers to either provide new affordable homes, school places or other contributions to the local area.

Again, these new services will still need to be paid for, it's just that developers will no longer be the ones paying for them. So instead of landowners and developers paying for new affordable homes and school places out of their profits, the cost will fall entirely on local councils and taxpayers.

....

Under the proposals, developers will also be stripped of the requirement to make developments zero carbon. This will have the dubious benefit of allowing developers to build less energy efficient and poorer quality homes. Whichever way you look at it, this amounts to yet another windfall for developers.

Indeed the closer you look at the policy, the clearer it becomes that this is a straight up transfer of wealth from the public sector to the private and from local people to landowners, rather than a genuine attempt to provide new homes.
http://www.politics.co.uk/comment-analy ... ut-to-deve" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The article and first comment on it lay out the weapons grade stupidity of the proposal. It's so colossally stupid that Shapps and CMD must have been up all night thinking of how to fuck up LAs and the housing market any further.

citizenJA · Post by **citizenJA** » Mon 02 Mar, 2015 5:54 pm

How can we protect ourselves from fear in order to act in the best interests of ourselves, family, friends & country?

discordantharmony · Post by **discordantharmony** » Mon 02 Mar, 2015 6:07 pm

Good Evening everyone.

Not really sure of the FTN protocol for PM'ing, so........

Ernst. Would you mind if I PM'd you with a question please?

Kind Regards.

TechnicalEphemera · Post by **TechnicalEphemera** » Mon 02 Mar, 2015 6:14 pm

citizenJA wrote:How can we protect ourselves from fear in order to act in the best interests of ourselves, family, friends & country?

I recommend a large number of specially trained guard Aardvarks.

yahyah · Post by **yahyah** » Mon 02 Mar, 2015 6:15 pm

Did anyone else hear the amazingly gentle BBC interview with Prof McWilliams on PM ?
I almost wondered if the interviewer was his daughter she was so easy on him.

PorFavor · Post by **PorFavor** » Mon 02 Mar, 2015 6:35 pm

Is anyone else as uninterested as I am in what Mohammed Emwazi's Nan had for breakfast? By comparison, I'm riveted by the reportage of William's trip to China in spite of the absence of Mrs William and the offspring (who are, nevertheless, very much in the thoughts of the BBC).

TechnicalEphemera · Post by **TechnicalEphemera** » Mon 02 Mar, 2015 6:36 pm

TechnicalEphemera wrote:
yahyah wrote:Am posting this because I know we have some aviation fans on FTN.

The report now out refers to an incident last year.
I'm further south than the Machynlleth loop but we get our fair share of Typhoons and Hawks [& US planes in the past] whizzing down our valleys so it is a little worrying.

RAF jets worth £300m in near miss at 1,000mph in skies above Mid Wales
http://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales ... re-8749526" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Can't find the airprox report. It is a bit of risk gone mad, low risk of collision but multiplied up the severity list by value of assets - according to the Mirror.

However looking at this it is clear an accident is inevitable at some point. No TCAS in the Typhoon because of cost cutting.

http://www.pprune.org/archive/index.php/t-554595.html

Report here.

http://www.airproxboard.org.uk/docs/423/2014154.pdf

GetYou · Post by **GetYou** » Mon 02 Mar, 2015 6:44 pm

pk1 wrote:
letsskiptotheleft wrote:Sat on the train going to London, the wonderful Michael Sheen has got on, after giving a rocket of a speech I feel like being all star struck and going up to him.

But I won't, shy like that.
Did you hear the speech ? For those that haven't:

[youtube]qHgqAtmXuHU[/youtube]

That speech hit so many nails on the head we're going to need a new hammer. Powerful stuff.

TechnicalEphemera · Post by **TechnicalEphemera** » Mon 02 Mar, 2015 6:45 pm

PorFavor wrote:Is anyone else as uninterested as I am in what Mohammed Emwazi's Nan had for breakfast? By comparison, I'm riveted by the reportage of William's trip to China in spite of the absence of Mrs William and the offspring (who are, nevertheless, very much in the thoughts of the BBC).

The whole thing is bollocks.

Who cares about one homicidal muppet, hardly relevant in the grand scheme of things.

But it distracts from the real issues, and Dave gets to pretend to be hard.

yahyah · Post by **yahyah** » Mon 02 Mar, 2015 6:48 pm

For those who missed it Sheen's programme from South Wales 'walking in the footsteps of the Chartists' is well worth watching on i-player

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b0547tsj" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

pk1 · Post by **pk1** » Mon 02 Mar, 2015 6:57 pm

Just sat through ITV news, waiting for their coverage of the Oxford child sexual abuse report.

When they mentioned 10 arrests I was pleasantly surprised but then they followed that up with "in Rochdale"

Oxford ? Not. A. Single. Word !

This is our glorious free press.......

rebeccariots2 · Post by **rebeccariots2** » Mon 02 Mar, 2015 6:58 pm

Chris Williamson ‏@ChriswMP 37m37 minutes ago
Great work by RSPCA & Derbys Police sees badger killing thugs get 3 month jail. Foxhunters should face same penalty http://www.derbyshiretimes.co.uk/news/c ... unstone-1-" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;