Barbe bleu

It's difficult to argue against this, of course we want our politicians to be truthful 99.9% of the time but is it better to put in place an honest guy that will deliver policies to which you are vehemently opposed, or a chancer that you think will deliver policies which you support? I don't think there can ever be a right or a wrong answer to that -each person on the electorate will make their own judgement and that's the way it should be. I think there is a distinction between 'lying' , 'misleading', 'not telling the whole truth' and 'spinning' etc. All various shades of dishonesty and none what we really want to see but if we sack ministers everytime they don't add the small print we might find we have no ministers, ever.

Isn't that the first paragraph exactly the point he is making YF? Nobody sane did think BJ was anything but a chancer but they also thought the alternative was so bad that even a chancer was preferable? I don't see it as a descent to populism so much as a rational choice between very opposing things. That's certainly the way Labour read its and why they have adopted a safety first approach. For the first time in a very long time they haven't gone on the offensive armed with nothing but boomerangs and backward firing guns.

Thank you for taking the time to respond. I'm not going to talk about the other person, as you say life this too short and life can be complicated but I will say something in more general terms. Yes, I can be patronising - sometimes deliberately so. It's not out of any sense of intellectual superiority, its out of frustration. Let me explain... People come on here for any number of reasons. I get that some people come on here because they like to hear people agree with them, that's human nature, as is the need to disagree loudly with people that don't. For others though they come here for a discussion, they like to hear other points of view and to broaden themselves, or to throw something else into the mix. Neither of these things is inherently better than the other and both can exist, so long as there is some form of mutual respect. Its perfectly possible to hear the other side of a discussion, argue strongly against it and for everyone to come out of that conversation thinking they have got what they want out of it. That falls down when basic respect is lost. I saw that with you just a few days ago. I thought it was completely unnecessary for you to be called boring they may well have thought that (i dont btw but that could have been kept to themselves. I also see it everyday with LYB- why he persists is beyond me. And I've seen it with many posters who come and give a view contrary to the prevailing one and then disappear as its not worth the effort. You saw right i can be barbed, but is that so much worse than the litany of abuse we see dished out? Maybe so, maybe not, I'll reflect on that. Is being barbed though out of character for this place? You'd have to do some convincing for me to think it is. At its best this side of the pinkun is wonderful, there is a massive amount of effort that goes into some posts and I have seen better discussion on here than on any news item- exceeding sometimes that in the professional press, i want to continue to be part of that but I don't need to be called things like a 'moron', a 'pompous virtue signaller' , 'ignorant' , a 'sanctimonious prig' or a 'tedious virtue signalling hypocrite' simply because I dared voice the opinion like, for instance, that our town planning and housing system with fundamentally sound as a framework for decision making but needed tweaking and properly resourcing properly to provide the right housing in the right place at the right time. (Appreciate that this is close to straying into territory I am unwilling to tread but it illustrates a point I believe)

It's got to work two ways. You stay out of my way and I will stay out of yours. That way we can both be sure that we have not crossed lines set by the other. Let me be clear, (and I am conscious that there is a wider audience here) I would never make "allegations of mental illness". A person's health is not something about which an allegation can be made. There is nothing in any way wrong or shameful in a person suffering from ill health of any type as the use of a term such as "allegation" might imply. If you have drawn such an inference then I am sorry that I was not clearer in explaining why I was no longer engaging with you, despite the flurry of abuse coming my way. I can see that this episode has caused you not insubstantial upset. Whilst it was my intention to comment on your behaviour on here it was not my intention on here to belittle anyone's suffering, whether or not that applies to you; A person's health, physical or mental, is not 'fair game', even on these pages. I apologise to you if you believed that I was attempting to belittle you, or anyone else. I have heard your point and you have heard loud and clear my views on your 'choice of language' and 'combative' nature in many posts. I am sorry that this is not being said in private but are we agreed?

I composed a private message to you but you have deactivated them. If you want to hear an explanation of my actions then allow messages, if not it might be better for everyone, not least both of us, that no more is said.

I was commenting about minimum wage generally rather than in relation to any one industry in particular.My instinct is to think that @Fen Canary has it about right. I'd imagine that it's a 70-80s Labour Party take on labour relations but I do think it has merit worth considering. Fine lines and careful balances required for sure though I actually have an 18 year old relative who is a minimum wage care worker from near you. I think she has already found her niche, but she knows she cannot stay in her role long term because of the wage and prospects.

I'll answer. Yes, pretty much. We really need to look at minimum wage not as some form of guide rate, but as a point that should rarely be sunk to. If that makes me a socialist then so be it.

Yea. Interesting case but i've aligned with the consensus and filed this under 'don't go there' for good now. Only one of them? Happy to call a truce with you as, though I don't always agree with you, I do see something genuine in everything you say.

.

The hypothesis that the existence of a schrodinger state suits Netanyahu is well worth consideration. Also worth remembering that everyone in Israel does military service and a lot of the big names had long, successful, or long and successful military careers before going into politics. Nothing wrong in such a career path (and maybe we need move of it here) but if you ask a military person where a solution lies it will be very difficult for them to look at the issue through any other sort of lens The comments on how much we are giving away to China and Russia in support of our ally are, I think, important. I hope the US especially has a clear idea of where the 'more harm than good' to other considerations line gets crossed even if they would never tell us mortals where that is.

You can't stop with the abuse can you? You are either that troll we all accused you of being or being a nasty tw*t was hard-wired into you at a young age. Perhaps it's both? You seem to have linked an article from the guardian that is now over 2.5 years old and is actually proof that the current system is delivering but clearly needs tweaks and resourcing, to make it better - which is precisely what I was saying. Frankly I have better things to do than engage with you. I was having a respectful discussion with Gunn show and CM (who certainly has no time for me) until you rock up like spoilt toddler that demands all the attention. To be honest I don't know why I even engaged with you to this point. You are not a developer, planner, architect or surveyor- you have nothing to add to this beyond what the guardian tells you - and i can read that in the guardian. I'm out!

Wind your neck in! If you want people to think you are anything other than a troll account maybe you should avoid hitting the 'abuse' button so quickly. I am quite certain that there is a housing crisis but I don't see it as being the result of inherent flaws with the framework in which town planning operates or in our preference for home ownership over rental arrangements. We solve the problem by: freeing up more land for housing,and yes, this requires honest conversations about what environmental quality gets sacrificed resourcing local authorities so that they can make quality decisions quickly and can enforce existing standards; encouraging government to step in where local councils are paying too much attention to the nimbys Carrying out a bit of streamlining and standardisation of what is required to get permission for new houses. None of this requires a paradigm shift or new law, its just making the best use of the framework that already exists. And your statement about developers having no interest in building affordable starter homes does not survive scrutiny. Government policy already allows local authorities to insist on provision of affordable housing: .https://www.gov.uk/guidance/national-planning-policy-framework/5-delivering-a-sufficient-supply-of-homes You might not see it, but that's because you are not supposed to be able to tell what is affordable and what is market housing

Missed this and covered in above. I'd agree with you that there is a lot of scope in taking offices and similar and converting to residential, but if making that easier were going to be enough we'd have cracked this already as the right to make such a change has existed for 10 years now. In the olden days companies were encouraged to build offices near public transport in the suburbs. There is probably still an oversupply given how we work now but at some point we'll start to have the opposite problem of lots of housing but too few jobs and leisure opportunities to make sustainable places and communities.

Planning permission is generally not needed to convert office blocks to residential. There are rules about how big the units are and there is some light touch scrutiny from local authorities but what you are asking for has largely been in place since 2013. Some places have been allowed to opt out because they were able to demonstrate that the need for offices exceeds the need for housing. Similar but more restrictive rights also exist for non office commercial uses. Like you I think we do need a bit more of this but, assuming that demand and need are not reduced, realistically, and especially in and around London, we are going to have to take some difficult decisions about the balance to be made between environmental protection and housing.

I would agree. Its only a consultation exercise at this point and i guess that it is right to put all options on the table, but I think the government will be on the wrong track if they pursue this. I thought I would share it as a couple of people agreed that there was a need for one and 2 bed flats and this liberalisation would deliver that, albeit at the expense of bigger houses and with all the other impacts.