NPR

Biffer wrote: Fri Jan 17, 2025 2:52 pm Nobody talking about how the FTSE 100 hit an all time high today?

Is this not because sterling is going down and more interest cuts are now expected due to the weakening economy?

robmatic wrote: Fri Jan 17, 2025 3:29 pm

Biffer wrote: Fri Jan 17, 2025 2:52 pm Nobody talking about how the FTSE 100 hit an all time high today?

Is this not because sterling is going down and more interest cuts are now expected due to the weakening economy?

Of an upgrade in the IMF forecast for the UK?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cglyynp44g4o

Biffer wrote: Fri Jan 17, 2025 2:52 pm Nobody talking about how the FTSE 100 hit an all time high today?

The average man on the Clapham Omnibus doesn't give a toss about the markets, it's whether things are more expensive for him that determines whether or not a party is getting reelected or not, irrespective of whether the alternative is an actual Nazi.

Hal Jordan wrote: Fri Jan 17, 2025 6:32 pm

Biffer wrote: Fri Jan 17, 2025 2:52 pm Nobody talking about how the FTSE 100 hit an all time high today?

The average man on the Clapham Omnibus doesn't give a toss about the markets, it's whether things are more expensive for him that determines whether or not a party is getting reelected or not, irrespective of whether the alternative is an actual Nazi.

Same can be said about gilts, but people keep talking about them.

Biffer wrote: Fri Jan 17, 2025 7:09 pm

Hal Jordan wrote: Fri Jan 17, 2025 6:32 pm

Biffer wrote: Fri Jan 17, 2025 2:52 pm Nobody talking about how the FTSE 100 hit an all time high today?

The average man on the Clapham Omnibus doesn't give a toss about the markets, it's whether things are more expensive for him that determines whether or not a party is getting reelected or not, irrespective of whether the alternative is an actual Nazi.

Same can be said about gilts, but people keep talking about them.

One immediately and massively affects government policy, the other is almost entirely irrelevant to it (as indeed was pointed out ad nauseam by the Adults in the Room after Brexit as the FTSE rose)

The Times having a meltdown because 10,000 millionaires have left the UK. Out of a total of more than three million. That’s barely a rounding error.

And in an average year six or seven thousand leave anyway.

Biffer wrote: Mon Jan 20, 2025 8:16 am The Times having a meltdown because 10,000 millionaires have left the UK. Out of a total of more than three million. That’s barely a rounding error.

And in an average year six or seven thousand leave anyway.

Media headline frenzy while burying the facts. Usual shit that works in the modern world of shocking headlines & scrolling without reading beyond the 2nd paragraph.

It works, so they'll keep doing it.

Sandstorm wrote: Mon Jan 20, 2025 9:46 am

Biffer wrote: Mon Jan 20, 2025 8:16 am The Times having a meltdown because 10,000 millionaires have left the UK. Out of a total of more than three million. That’s barely a rounding error.

And in an average year six or seven thousand leave anyway.

Media headline frenzy while burying the facts. Usual shit that works in the modern world of shocking headlines & scrolling without reading beyond the 2nd paragraph.

It works, so they'll keep doing it.

Probably all guesswork anyway since no-one checks passports at smaller airports anyway! They also use the $$$ to define millionaires so not all that accurate for UK. On a plus side one of them will be Isabel Oakeshott who has decided to become an economic migrant in Dubai.

dpedin wrote: Mon Jan 20, 2025 10:26 am

Sandstorm wrote: Mon Jan 20, 2025 9:46 am

Biffer wrote: Mon Jan 20, 2025 8:16 am The Times having a meltdown because 10,000 millionaires have left the UK. Out of a total of more than three million. That’s barely a rounding error.

And in an average year six or seven thousand leave anyway.

Media headline frenzy while burying the facts. Usual shit that works in the modern world of shocking headlines & scrolling without reading beyond the 2nd paragraph.

It works, so they'll keep doing it.

Probably all guesswork anyway since no-one checks passports at smaller airports anyway! They also use the $$$ to define millionaires so not all that accurate for UK. On a plus side one of them will be Isabel Oakeshott who has decided to become an economic migrant in Dubai.

To be fair Dubai is a step up from a house in Skegness where her partner is MP

SaintK wrote: Mon Jan 20, 2025 10:36 am
To be fair Dubai is a step up from a house in Skegness where her partner is MP

Monbiot yesterday
Trump and Musk have launched a new class war. In the UK, we must prepare to defend ourselves
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... -democracy

Sandstorm wrote: Mon Jan 20, 2025 10:39 am

SaintK wrote: Mon Jan 20, 2025 10:36 am
To be fair Dubai is a step up from a house in Skegness where her partner is MP

I am sure Skegness will be devastated, as will Dubai? The woman of the people educated at private St Georges school in Edinburgh, private school and the Kings alma mater Gordonstoun, Bristol Uni and married to millionaire Tice will be sadly missed by the millionaires in Skegness.

PS I heard a story about St Georges school - a teacher doing roll call in registration one morning got a call from pupil saying she would be late in. Teacher asked why and was told by pupil she was currently circling Edinburgh Airport in Daddy's private jet due to fog. She had flown home for weekend to Moscow to visit parents. For a while Edinburgh private schools did very well educating kids from rich Russian as well as middle and far east families.

dpedin wrote: Mon Jan 20, 2025 10:57 am

Sandstorm wrote: Mon Jan 20, 2025 10:39 am

SaintK wrote: Mon Jan 20, 2025 10:36 am
To be fair Dubai is a step up from a house in Skegness where her partner is MP

I am sure Skegness will be devastated, as will Dubai? The woman of the people educated at private St Georges school in Edinburgh, private school and the Kings alma mater Gordonstoun, Bristol Uni and married to millionaire Tice will be sadly missed by the millionaires in Skegness.

PS I heard a story about St Georges school - a teacher doing roll call in registration one morning got a call from pupil saying she would be late in. Teacher asked why and was told by pupil she was currently circling Edinburgh Airport in Daddy's private jet due to fog. She had flown home for weekend to Moscow to visit parents. For a while Edinburgh private schools did very well educating kids from rich Russian as well as middle and far east families.

I know of a private school down this way where the Russian and Arab parents complained that there weren’t enough English kids at the school, so they ended up creating more scholarships to balance it out

dpedin wrote: Mon Jan 20, 2025 10:57 am

Sandstorm wrote: Mon Jan 20, 2025 10:39 am

SaintK wrote: Mon Jan 20, 2025 10:36 am
To be fair Dubai is a step up from a house in Skegness where her partner is MP

I am sure Skegness will be devastated, as will Dubai? The woman of the people educated at private St Georges school in Edinburgh, private school and the Kings alma mater Gordonstoun, Bristol Uni and married to millionaire Tice will be sadly missed by the millionaires in Skegness.

PS I heard a story about St Georges school - a teacher doing roll call in registration one morning got a call from pupil saying she would be late in. Teacher asked why and was told by pupil she was currently circling Edinburgh Airport in Daddy's private jet due to fog. She had flown home for weekend to Moscow to visit parents. For a while Edinburgh private schools did very well educating kids from rich Russian as well as middle and far east families.

My mum used to teach at a small independent school in Cheshire, and famously the late book (where excuses were recorded by the kids) contained the entry "helicopter wouldn't start". I always assumed it was a joke, but in retrospect maybe it wasn't.

Paddington Bear wrote: Fri Jan 17, 2025 9:22 am

Biffer wrote: Fri Jan 17, 2025 8:51 am

Paddington Bear wrote: Fri Jan 17, 2025 8:34 am

These are things that reflect your own political prejudice rather than any serious attempt to analyse the situation.

Find a mirror fella.

Not really, 25% is clearly desperate for a governing party and I’ve explained how I agree Labour can still find a way to win against a divided right. I haven’t pretended 20% is a good thing nor decided that a chunk of the electorate are beyond reason.

In any population there's people who are indeed beyond reason.

The way this is exploited by the likes of Reform is triangulating on the racists and dog whistling for their votes, racism isn't something you can reason someone away from because of its irrational/emotional nature. If a party like Reform can then make everything about "immigrants" (normally used as a way of saying people who aren't white) and from time to time even directly say things like British cities aren't British unless they have a majority white British population (which team Frog Face has said), then it's like using a political cheat code, there'll always be voters available for that.

I've seen plenty of UK polling. I remember a Runnymede poll years back, which included a question that amounted to "are you racist?" (an amusing question to ask, because who says "sure am, very much so!"), from memory it was about 20% who answered "very" or "somewhat". The more typical way the question is asked is something along the lines of "how much would you care if a black person to married a relative", or "how much would you care if a Muslim family was your neighbour". It normally comes out there's about 10% who are committed racists and about another 10% who are more half hearted about it.

10% or so can get s party quite far in any electoral system. The skill of Frog Face is packaging it up into something that looks more reasonable, than say the NF or BNP.

Andrew McIntyre was just sentenced to 7 and a half years for helping to organise the riots last year. The reporting there was of this character said he was the key organiser. The day after the murders he started organising to attack Mosques. He was arrested at the first Mosque attack in Southport for carrying a knife and then released the very next day, he set about organising more violence including another attack on a Mosque in Liverpool and calls for the use of Molotov cocktails. He also created the original hit list of lawyers dealing with asylum cases. He had 100s of accounts across different social media websites, selfies doing the Sieg Heil, well read copy of Mein Kampf, calls for violence against Jews and all the rest of it. A straight up violent Neo-Nazi was indeed organising at least a decent amount of the riots.

Now, find any online or offline space where there's a lot of Reform types, and tell them the "riots" were indeed far right, physically attacking random people for not being white is not just racist but insane, Starmer was correct to crack down as hard as possible, Frog Face was deeply irresponsible throughout, and Tommy Ten Names is a habitual criminal. I'm sure you'll able to reason with the responses you get, all deeply reasonable people.

Also worth pointing out, that once a large group of people who are beyond reason have been identified and isolated by an amoral political party, the task then becomes working them until they lap up total shit. The US looks more advanced than the UK in this regard. I suspect a Venn diagram would show a lot of overlap between: pizzagate believers, climate change deniers, 2020 election/6th January truthers, Obama birthers, MAGA supporters, Q Anon, Covid deniers and/or anti-vaxxers, great replacement theory believers, all the Soros stuff. Trump himself has endorsed that entire list.

The single biggest predictor of someone believing a conspiracy theory, is if they already believe a conspiracy theory. That's why when you find one of these people, you discover they believe an unbelievable catalogue of kak (at that point you should take the piss as hard as possible and not attempt to reason with them, for their own good). Increased chance of being racist too, because they're not rational.

This is why GB News exists and why it and Frog Face went full bore on: all the Covid stuff, 15 minute cities, "two tier Keir", all the climate change denial stuff. They're going to chase any conspiracy they think their base will like. The goal is to so thoroughly unhinge their supporters that they'll guzzle down any old pig swill, lick their lips and ask for more. If someone is racist they are particularly vulnerable to this manipulation.

The Tories are aware of it too. It's why Harper went crazy about 15 minute cities at the end of Tory rule and binned cycle lane/pedestrianisation plans. It's why Jenrick is going full great replacement theory. It's why Badenoch went all in on the conspiracies around Starmer covering up rape gangs, even when it was public knowledge this demonstrably wasn't true, then got her arse handed to her by Starmer at PMQs. I'm not convinced the people running the Tories think people who believe in 15 minute cities/great replacement theory adjacent stuff/all the two tier Keir stuff, are reasonable and fully rational people. I think it's more likely they have quite a bit of personal contempt for them and their beliefs, the "mad swivel eyed loons" in the words of team Cameron. They certainly weren't that interested in turning any of the loony stuff into legislation. Polls must show a not insignificant amount of their members and/or potential voters are enjoyers of loony madness, they're not that talented politicians so just say whatever tops those polls. None of them start in the mad positions they end up in.

Tree down in my street, some poor buggers car fecked.

Biffer wrote: Sat Jan 25, 2025 7:56 am Tree down in my street, some poor buggers car fecked.

Starmer OUT!

I read this incredibly disheartening article earlier: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... e-horribly

On the face of it, it's more neoliberal insanity. Giant corporations are already pursuing growth to destruction; we don't need to hitch ourselves to the same wagon and give them free rein just so we can claim a number went up that makes no meaningful difference to the people. It's not a million miles away from the concept of trickle down economics.

Two industries I am very familiar with - the video games industry, and the big tech industry - have been an absolute shitshow for a while now thanks to the psychotic pursuit of endless growth, and their acceleration of self destruction has real impact on a huge number of people. Allowing massive corporate entities to essentially regulate themselves just leads them to extract more wealth from the population in service of the super rich executives and shareholders. It is what they exist to do. It won't stop them fucking everyone over, it won't stop them from creating monopolies and then creating worse products at higher prices, and it won't stop them from treating their own employees as completely disposable.

The more freedom they have, the more they work to ensure they get more freedom and more profits, and sooner or later they have wormed their way in so deep that they cannot be controlled or regulated in any meaningful way and have outsized influence on our political future. You only have to look at the yanks to see that.

This is, on the face of it, an anti-worker and anti-consumer approach that will only increase inequality, even if it does produce "growth" in the shape of bigger profits.

Looks like our Govt's relationship with the US Gov't is about as far from special as possible. Who could possibly be pulling strings in the background...

Trump administration wants ‘regime change’ in the UK as Starmer replaces Trudeau as hate figure

News analysis: The Independent’s political editor David Maddox’s trip to Washington DC for Trump’s inauguration found that the UK/US special relationship has morphed into deep antipathy for the Starmer government from the new White House administration

https://www.independent.co.uk/independe ... 85927.html

tabascoboy wrote: Sun Jan 26, 2025 10:43 am Looks like our Govt's relationship with the US Gov't is about as far from special as possible. Who could possibly be pulling strings in the background...

Trump administration wants ‘regime change’ in the UK as Starmer replaces Trudeau as hate figure

News analysis: The Independent’s political editor David Maddox’s trip to Washington DC for Trump’s inauguration found that the UK/US special relationship has morphed into deep antipathy for the Starmer government from the new White House administration

https://www.independent.co.uk/independe ... 85927.html

https://news.sky.com/story/trump-praise ... s-13296872

The independent article is only about generally unnamed members of trump's "team" and we know Mush doesn't like Starmer.

But in other news and from his own mouth!!

President Donald Trump has praised British prime minister Keir Starmer’s leadership, telling reporters on Saturday his UK counterpart has “done a very good job” and the two leaders have a planned call in the next 24 hours.
The newly inaugurated US president told reporters on board Air Force One that he and Starmer “get along well” despite their divergent political views.
“He’s liberal, which is a bit different from me, but I think he’s a very good person and I think he’s done a very good job thus far,” said Trump, as reported by the BBC.
“He’s represented his country in terms of philosophy … “I may not agree with his philosophy, but I have a very good relationship with him.”

SaintK wrote: Sun Jan 26, 2025 11:09 am But in other news and from his own mouth!!

President Donald Trump has praised British prime minister Keir Starmer’s leadership, telling reporters on Saturday his UK counterpart has “done a very good job” and the two leaders have a planned call in the next 24 hours.
The newly inaugurated US president told reporters on board Air Force One that he and Starmer “get along well” despite their divergent political views.
“He’s liberal, which is a bit different from me, but I think he’s a very good person and I think he’s done a very good job thus far,” said Trump, as reported by the BBC.
“He’s represented his country in terms of philosophy … “I may not agree with his philosophy, but I have a very good relationship with him.”

Arghh! Let’s just give him Denmark and move Ipswich to Gaza or something

Sounds as if the government are going for some heavy infrastructure projects at Heathrow, multiple reservoirs and bringing back the Oxford-Cambridge arc.

Given they could have done this on day one, doing it now suggests that there are a fair number of indicators flashing red.

Welcome news though, providing that there is a path to actually building the things and we’re not about to have another decade of planning haggling and newt surveys

Paddington Bear wrote: Wed Jan 29, 2025 9:06 am Sounds as if the government are going for some heavy infrastructure projects at Heathrow, multiple reservoirs and bringing back the Oxford-Cambridge arc.

Given they could have done this on day one, doing it now suggests that there are a fair number of indicators flashing red.

Welcome news though, providing that there is a path to actually building the things and we’re not about to have another decade of planning haggling and newt surveys

They are, business confidence is very low and jobs are being cut in response the huge NI increase they painted themselves into a corner on with their mental no tax raid promise.

However, all good news if matched with serious planning reform.

I like neeps wrote: Wed Jan 29, 2025 10:07 am

Paddington Bear wrote: Wed Jan 29, 2025 9:06 am Sounds as if the government are going for some heavy infrastructure projects at Heathrow, multiple reservoirs and bringing back the Oxford-Cambridge arc.

Given they could have done this on day one, doing it now suggests that there are a fair number of indicators flashing red.

Welcome news though, providing that there is a path to actually building the things and we’re not about to have another decade of planning haggling and newt surveys

They are, business confidence is very low and jobs are being cut in response the huge NI increase they painted themselves into a corner on with their mental no tax raid promise.

However, all good news if matched with serious planning reform.

Planning system latest - near me the council and a developer want to put in a segregated cycle lane through a new development straight to the nearest station and shops. It is being objected to because the loss of on street parking will cause ‘damage to wildlife’

Paddington Bear wrote: Wed Jan 29, 2025 9:06 am Sounds as if the government are going for some heavy infrastructure projects at Heathrow, multiple reservoirs and bringing back the Oxford-Cambridge arc.

Given they could have done this on day one, doing it now suggests that there are a fair number of indicators flashing red.

Welcome news though, providing that there is a path to actually building the things and we’re not about to have another decade of planning haggling and newt surveys

On that note, Starmer et al have already criticised NIMBYism and want it cut out.

I'm not quite sure what that would mean. I don't think environmental surveys and their identified concerns should be negated, just to be clear.

Paddington Bear wrote: Wed Jan 29, 2025 10:11 am

I like neeps wrote: Wed Jan 29, 2025 10:07 am

Paddington Bear wrote: Wed Jan 29, 2025 9:06 am Sounds as if the government are going for some heavy infrastructure projects at Heathrow, multiple reservoirs and bringing back the Oxford-Cambridge arc.

Given they could have done this on day one, doing it now suggests that there are a fair number of indicators flashing red.

Welcome news though, providing that there is a path to actually building the things and we’re not about to have another decade of planning haggling and newt surveys

They are, business confidence is very low and jobs are being cut in response the huge NI increase they painted themselves into a corner on with their mental no tax raid promise.

However, all good news if matched with serious planning reform.

Planning system latest - near me the council and a developer want to put in a segregated cycle lane through a new development straight to the nearest station and shops. It is being objected to because the loss of on street parking will cause ‘damage to wildlife’

I laugh, but it is ridiculous.

inactionman wrote: Wed Jan 29, 2025 10:12 am

Paddington Bear wrote: Wed Jan 29, 2025 9:06 am Sounds as if the government are going for some heavy infrastructure projects at Heathrow, multiple reservoirs and bringing back the Oxford-Cambridge arc.

Given they could have done this on day one, doing it now suggests that there are a fair number of indicators flashing red.

Welcome news though, providing that there is a path to actually building the things and we’re not about to have another decade of planning haggling and newt surveys

On that note, Starmer et al have already criticised NIMBYism and want it cut out.

I'm not quite sure what that would mean. I don't think environmental surveys and their identified concerns should be negated, just to be clear.

NIMBYs are not the same as objecting on environmental grounds. Most people understand that. Hopefully.

Sandstorm wrote: Wed Jan 29, 2025 10:13 am

inactionman wrote: Wed Jan 29, 2025 10:12 am

Paddington Bear wrote: Wed Jan 29, 2025 9:06 am Sounds as if the government are going for some heavy infrastructure projects at Heathrow, multiple reservoirs and bringing back the Oxford-Cambridge arc.

Given they could have done this on day one, doing it now suggests that there are a fair number of indicators flashing red.

Welcome news though, providing that there is a path to actually building the things and we’re not about to have another decade of planning haggling and newt surveys

On that note, Starmer et al have already criticised NIMBYism and want it cut out.

I'm not quite sure what that would mean. I don't think environmental surveys and their identified concerns should be negated, just to be clear.

NIMBYs are not the same as objecting on environmental grounds. Most people understand that. Hopefully.

It feels like there's an increasingly anti-environmental/conservationist bent to the deployment of the term NIMBY. Possibly somewhat inevitable as those with unreasonable demands spuriously try to use environmental concerns in bad faith.

And I do feel it's being used to blanket anyone who objects to anything for any reason at all. Sure the developers are happy with that, may even be behind it. As far as they're concerned, the less scrutiny paid to their land-banking shenanigans to further artificially constrict supply and improve profits the better.

Sandstorm wrote: Wed Jan 29, 2025 10:13 am

inactionman wrote: Wed Jan 29, 2025 10:12 am

Paddington Bear wrote: Wed Jan 29, 2025 9:06 am Sounds as if the government are going for some heavy infrastructure projects at Heathrow, multiple reservoirs and bringing back the Oxford-Cambridge arc.

Given they could have done this on day one, doing it now suggests that there are a fair number of indicators flashing red.

Welcome news though, providing that there is a path to actually building the things and we’re not about to have another decade of planning haggling and newt surveys

On that note, Starmer et al have already criticised NIMBYism and want it cut out.

I'm not quite sure what that would mean. I don't think environmental surveys and their identified concerns should be negated, just to be clear.

NIMBYs are not the same as objecting on environmental grounds. Most people understand that. Hopefully.

Environmentalism has been coopted as a bulletproof argument by NIMBYs. We’ve lost all sense of balance to how to develop the infrastructure we badly need whilst also boosting conservation efforts etc.

sockwithaticket wrote: Wed Jan 29, 2025 10:23 am

Sandstorm wrote: Wed Jan 29, 2025 10:13 am

inactionman wrote: Wed Jan 29, 2025 10:12 am

On that note, Starmer et al have already criticised NIMBYism and want it cut out.

I'm not quite sure what that would mean. I don't think environmental surveys and their identified concerns should be negated, just to be clear.

NIMBYs are not the same as objecting on environmental grounds. Most people understand that. Hopefully.

It feels like there's an increasingly anti-environmental/conservationist bent to the deployment of the term NIMBY.

And I do feel it's being used to blanket anyone who objects to anything for any reason at all. Sure the developers are happy with that, may even be behind it. As far as they're concerned, the less scrutiny paid to their land-banking shenanigans to further artificially constrict supply and improve profits the better.

I think it cuts both ways - there are those who don't want something to happen and will throw their weight behind any environmental concern that could possibly be raised, whether they truly have merit or not - it's just to gum up the system*. Then there is the opposite, where genuine environmental concerns are diluted by accusations of NIMBYism.



* Many complaints were raised about the rec redevelopment in Bath, many such concerns such as increased traffic, loss of common land and damage to the heritage of the city are well-founded. Some complaints related to the fitting of a hybrid pitch and the impact of microplastics on the local environment,. This doesn't really seem much of a deal-breaker, especially given a hybrid pitch is not astroturf.

Heard the Tory Twat MP for Romford - Andrew Rossindale - ask question at PMQs. He complained bitterly about the ONS population projections for UK suggesting the UK pop is set to grow by nearly 5million in next 10 years saying no one voted for it, the Gov doesn't have a mandate for it and his electorate dont want it. FFS someone should have told him these projections are based on previous years pop and immigration figures and are almost entirely driven by the policies of his own party, including their immigration policies, when in power from 2010 to 2024! Even a basic high school understanding of stats would have been enough to say don't go there .... but he did. I was listening to the radio and thought I had misheard and it was a Labour MP asking the question given it was a clear opportunity to punch Badenough in the ribs. Tory front bench were squirming as he asked the question. Good grief, are they really all this stupid?

Seeing Trump hike tariffs on Mexico and Canada - Starmer and Lammy will have to play an absolute blinder over a four year period to avoid something similar happening, and it’s hard to think of a worse prepared country for it

I hope this goes ahead: https://www.theguardian.com/environment ... -and-wales

Government is going to allow nuclear generators to be built outside of a currently fixed 8 sites. Small modular reactors, the idea being that their "primary" function will be to provide reliable power to datacentres, but I have to imagine they'll supply into the grid too.

As a solid baseline of power, this is brilliant, they can also vary their power levels apparently, so really handy.

Looks like they may try and get some funding from large datacentre/AI companies to help setup the projects so they can be linked in.

Raggs wrote: Thu Feb 06, 2025 10:24 am I hope this goes ahead: https://www.theguardian.com/environment ... -and-wales

Government is going to allow nuclear generators to be built outside of a currently fixed 8 sites. Small modular reactors, the idea being that their "primary" function will be to provide reliable power to datacentres, but I have to imagine they'll supply into the grid too.

As a solid baseline of power, this is brilliant, they can also vary their power levels apparently, so really handy.

Looks like they may try and get some funding from large datacentre/AI companies to help setup the projects so they can be linked in.

Alongside Reeves’ support for major infrastructure projects this is theoretically excellent news, the hope has to he when they say they support it they mean actually forcing spades into the ground rather than a decade spent in the planning system

Paddington Bear wrote: Thu Feb 06, 2025 11:00 am

Raggs wrote: Thu Feb 06, 2025 10:24 am I hope this goes ahead: https://www.theguardian.com/environment ... -and-wales

Government is going to allow nuclear generators to be built outside of a currently fixed 8 sites. Small modular reactors, the idea being that their "primary" function will be to provide reliable power to datacentres, but I have to imagine they'll supply into the grid too.

As a solid baseline of power, this is brilliant, they can also vary their power levels apparently, so really handy.

Looks like they may try and get some funding from large datacentre/AI companies to help setup the projects so they can be linked in.

Alongside Reeves’ support for major infrastructure projects this is theoretically excellent news, the hope has to he when they say they support it they mean actually forcing spades into the ground rather than a decade spent in the planning system

If I recall, 2 of the people they put into high level positions, were planning specialists, getting through red tape etc. I'd assume if they want to get to the timeframe in the article, there'd have to be spades in the ground by the end of their term (and hopefully another term to keep it going).

Raggs wrote: Thu Feb 06, 2025 11:03 am

Paddington Bear wrote: Thu Feb 06, 2025 11:00 am

Raggs wrote: Thu Feb 06, 2025 10:24 am I hope this goes ahead: https://www.theguardian.com/environment ... -and-wales

Government is going to allow nuclear generators to be built outside of a currently fixed 8 sites. Small modular reactors, the idea being that their "primary" function will be to provide reliable power to datacentres, but I have to imagine they'll supply into the grid too.

As a solid baseline of power, this is brilliant, they can also vary their power levels apparently, so really handy.

Looks like they may try and get some funding from large datacentre/AI companies to help setup the projects so they can be linked in.

Alongside Reeves’ support for major infrastructure projects this is theoretically excellent news, the hope has to he when they say they support it they mean actually forcing spades into the ground rather than a decade spent in the planning system

If I recall, 2 of the people they put into high level positions, were planning specialists, getting through red tape etc. I'd assume if they want to get to the timeframe in the article, there'd have to be spades in the ground by the end of their term (and hopefully another term to keep it going).

To be honest this is the bit that worries me - Starmer’s announcement on housebuilding was funding for more planning officers, the better solution is to rip out a dysfunctional system rather than feed more people into it. Major infrastructure projects should be being approved through primary legislation, leaving team newt with nothing but their dick in their hands.

A small scale example of the system not functioning - had a chat with my next door neighbour a couple of days ago who is looking to add a pretty modest extension and has been quoted a minimum of 14 weeks for a decision. This should just be covered by permitted development rights and a design code (we live in a conservation area). Why is this wasting public time and money at all, just let him build it!

Paddington Bear wrote: Thu Feb 06, 2025 11:07 am

Raggs wrote: Thu Feb 06, 2025 11:03 am

Paddington Bear wrote: Thu Feb 06, 2025 11:00 am

Alongside Reeves’ support for major infrastructure projects this is theoretically excellent news, the hope has to he when they say they support it they mean actually forcing spades into the ground rather than a decade spent in the planning system

If I recall, 2 of the people they put into high level positions, were planning specialists, getting through red tape etc. I'd assume if they want to get to the timeframe in the article, there'd have to be spades in the ground by the end of their term (and hopefully another term to keep it going).

To be honest this is the bit that worries me - Starmer’s announcement on housebuilding was funding for more planning officers, the better solution is to rip out a dysfunctional system rather than feed more people into it. Major infrastructure projects should be being approved through primary legislation, leaving team newt with nothing but their dick in their hands.

A small scale example of the system not functioning - had a chat with my next door neighbour a couple of days ago who is looking to add a pretty modest extension and has been quoted a minimum of 14 weeks for a decision. This should just be covered by permitted development rights and a design code (we live in a conservation area). Why is this wasting public time and money at all, just let him build it!

Terrible idea, go to any African Asian or east euro city and see what happens when people are just let to build stuff.

Yeeb wrote: Thu Feb 06, 2025 11:34 am

Paddington Bear wrote: Thu Feb 06, 2025 11:07 am

Raggs wrote: Thu Feb 06, 2025 11:03 am

If I recall, 2 of the people they put into high level positions, were planning specialists, getting through red tape etc. I'd assume if they want to get to the timeframe in the article, there'd have to be spades in the ground by the end of their term (and hopefully another term to keep it going).

To be honest this is the bit that worries me - Starmer’s announcement on housebuilding was funding for more planning officers, the better solution is to rip out a dysfunctional system rather than feed more people into it. Major infrastructure projects should be being approved through primary legislation, leaving team newt with nothing but their dick in their hands.

A small scale example of the system not functioning - had a chat with my next door neighbour a couple of days ago who is looking to add a pretty modest extension and has been quoted a minimum of 14 weeks for a decision. This should just be covered by permitted development rights and a design code (we live in a conservation area). Why is this wasting public time and money at all, just let him build it!

Terrible idea, go to any African Asian or east euro city and see what happens when people are just let to build stuff.

That’s why I said design code. We already have this to some extent, it’s about extending it. Plus our planning system spews out shit outcomes anyway

Paddington Bear wrote: Thu Feb 06, 2025 11:07 am

Raggs wrote: Thu Feb 06, 2025 11:03 am

Paddington Bear wrote: Thu Feb 06, 2025 11:00 am

Alongside Reeves’ support for major infrastructure projects this is theoretically excellent news, the hope has to he when they say they support it they mean actually forcing spades into the ground rather than a decade spent in the planning system

If I recall, 2 of the people they put into high level positions, were planning specialists, getting through red tape etc. I'd assume if they want to get to the timeframe in the article, there'd have to be spades in the ground by the end of their term (and hopefully another term to keep it going).

To be honest this is the bit that worries me - Starmer’s announcement on housebuilding was funding for more planning officers, the better solution is to rip out a dysfunctional system rather than feed more people into it. Major infrastructure projects should be being approved through primary legislation, leaving team newt with nothing but their dick in their hands.

A small scale example of the system not functioning - had a chat with my next door neighbour a couple of days ago who is looking to add a pretty modest extension and has been quoted a minimum of 14 weeks for a decision. This should just be covered by permitted development rights and a design code (we live in a conservation area). Why is this wasting public time and money at all, just let him build it!

Councils and related functions are just slow, I'm afraid. Not great, but getting rid of protections as we've under-resourced councils in the first place doesn't seem appropriate. I've seen some monstrosities in my time, so many lovely buildings in Bath ruined by shitty extensions built when planning control was a fancy foreign idea and property in Bath went for peanuts. I'm glad we've got more rigorous control now, but I do appreciate there is plenty of opportunity for optimising it to allow for sensible development without excessive red tape.

As an aside, I thought you could push back a standard amount within the front profile of the building - does that not work for conservation areas, or is the extension larger than that/outside of the projection of the house?