This bunch do seem to rack up liars more than most don't they?

presumably it would work that it works currently for work that doesn't need planning permission i.e. an extension less than 3m from the house.

You have to submit a building regs notice for any extension even if it doesn't need planning. You could probably ignore it if you wished, but you could do that with planning permission too. You might be more likely to get caught building without planning permission as I don't think building regs submissions can be checked on council websites in the same way. However it would probably still get asked for if a mortgage surveyor noticed a recent extension.

I don't get how its going to help developers much though. Planning permission isn't difficult or overly expensive as long as you're not in a listed building or proposing to do anything stupid, which is what its supposed to prevent anyway.

If I were a Tory MP in anything other than a gold-plated safe seat I'd be very worried right now. Looks as if the current incumbents have accepted that they'll only be a single-term government and are actively getting their snouts - and those of their mates - as deeply in the trough as possible while it lasts.

It's a concern, especially that thirteen years wasn't enough to wind back even half of the damage that the previous tory administration had wrought and that was through a relative boom, compared to the prevailing economic conditions.

Labour could do worse than look back at the proposals and actions under Attlee and to a lesser extent Gaitskell. There's a dire need for affordable, social housing and with a little imagination, it shouldn't be too difficult to find the investment to finance such projects.

I can't decide whether these morons have detestable faces because we know what they're like, or having a detestable face is a prerequisite of this c*ntlition government

The major problem with the current slump in housing development is nothing whatsoever to do with planning regulations and any developer or government representative who siggests that it is is a liar, plain and simple - they built hundreds of thousands of new houses before 2010 with the current regulations in place and the requirement for a percentage of affordable housing in place - and the builders loved it, it meant that a trenche of their new developments was sold within days, off plan, before even a turf had been turned.

The major problem with the current slump in housing development is plain and simple - buyers, especially first time buyers, can't get the finance - fix that problem and we're back in boom times again.

And part of that issue was the abandonment of the three-times salary 'rule' that kept borrowing affordable and house prices sensible.
In 2000, I was developing mortgage application systems. The writing was on the wall when some of the mid-size banks and building societies we dealt with asked for the massive QI-style klaxon I'd written in that went off when it went over three times to be put up to 3.5. And then 4. And then 5... and so on.
On the back of the amounts people were suddenly able to borrow - regardless of the serviceability of the debt - saw house prices rise inexorably and people treat them more as investments than somewhere to live.

This removal of planning restrictions is yet more supply side economic rubbish from the Tories.

This government doesn't actually "do" anything constructive.

It just comes up with one supply side idea after another. The so called increase in capital projects isn't the government spending money to build stuff to try and get the economy going. It just says it will underwrite loans private companies will take out in order for them to get on and undertake the large capital projects.

There is no guarantee anyone is going to take advantage of these planning restriction being lifted just like there is no guarantee private companies are going to take advantage of the loan guarantee scheme.

Meanwhile the economy continues to stagnate.

Spot on.

The amounts being asked for small residences are now utterly insane.

Two examples (apologies if you've seen me mention them before):

1) Our housing association, shared ownership block of 12 flats, built 17 years ago. Initially £60K – or £30K mortgage and rent. The combination of these was less than the market private rent at the time. Around four to five years ago, one was sold. It had two bedrooms (one a boxroom), no carparking space, but a small garden. Went for £364,000.

2) Development of 72 flats just down the road. Half had to be 'affordable'. Went on the market four years ago (IIRC). A private one-bed flat was £250,000. So an 'affordable' one-bed flat was £125,000. So with your sensible mortgage, you'd need to be a single person on £40K plus – or a couple (with no desire for a family) on £20K plus each. And although the area is getting trendy, this is not bloody Hampstead.

It's absolutely insane.

...........with a Labour government unlikely to repeal any legislation on gaining power, as in 1997, especially trade union reform.

Therein lies the issue. We all* want something different, but where is it?



* - All rational members of society who are interested in things beyond our own self-interests

It is. If the standard hadn't been abandoned, no sub-prime mortgages. No sub-prime mortgages, no collateralised debt obligations... Well, you see where I'm going.
Simplistic, yes, but a massive part of the issue.

Andy Burnham is certainly [isuggesting[/i that they'd repeal NHS legislation.

They're being very cagey at present – possibly because they feel that they might as well let this lot just balls up the entire thing and remind people of what they're like, or possibly because, given their own adherence to neo-liberalism under Blair and, to a far lessor extent, Brown.

Again, Burnham (via Twitter) is agreeing that serious policy change is required – when there'll be any flesh on the bones of that remains to be seen.

Absolutely!



Totally agree.

I suspect more of these are going to come dripping through at a rate which means it could last for months.

New junior transport minister [url=http://road.cc/content/news/65839-new-transport-minister-convicted-2009-careless-driving-incident-left-cyclistinvolved in an incident which left a cyclist with a broken neck[/url. Four penalty points, didn't even have to attend court.

Burnham has said it outright in parliament before now.

Not repealing the previous government's legislation started with Thatcher believe it or not. She didn't repeal the closing of grammar schools for example. Her idea was if you spent all your time undoing what the last lot did you would never get any of your own policies through and I think all government's have adopted this approach ever since. Very little ever gets repealed.

However repealing the NHS legislation rather than making platitudes about reforming it really is Burnham and Labours only option if they want any credibility. It would also be a big vote winner.

Amazing the number of Tories who forget this (the education point in particular) – as well as the fact that it was Thatcher's government that scrapped O levels and replaced them with GCSEs.



Agreed.

I'd go further than that. I'd be letting the privateers know that the work's coming back in house with zero compensation

That is what this government said about the ID card scheme so I don't see why not.

And if your policy is diametrically opposed to the law, that's clearly bonkers.

It's one of the risks you run when investing. See also the railways

The trouble is, though, it's not just a question of having the time ... it's cost as well, destroying or dismantling something is cheaper than rebuilding it.
The current lot are bent on the removal of as much public provision as they can get away with, in the knowledge that, once changed, there won't be the cash, confidence or time to re-provide it.
And the so-called Lib Dems in the cabinet are too cowardly to stand up and say no.
If this lot get a second term, we can say goodbye to the free or universal provision of anything ...from health and education right through to the safety nets of benefits for social casualties ... and hello to a society more divided than it has been since the heyday of Victorian hypocrisy, where being born poor means you stay poor and die young.
The cabinet re-shuffle demonstrates just who Cameron rates highly and they are all shifty in one way or another.

Are you butch enough to have Ed Balls fetch you coffee? www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree ... CMP=twt_gu

Are you butch enough to have Ed Balls fetch you coffee? www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree ... CMP=twt_gu

Quote ="McClennan"Are you butch enough to have Ed Balls fetch you coffee? www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree ... CMP=twt_gu'" It's like anything, be it racism, sexism, homophobia, snobbery or just being a pillock, you can't hide it forever and it eventually gets out. The fact that Cameron comes from a world where someone who gets a coffee is somehow "less" than other people is probably one of the nicer aspects of that public schoolboy b&stard.

Quote ="McClennan"Are you butch enough to have Ed Balls fetch you coffee? www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree ... CMP=twt_gu'" It's like anything, be it racism, sexism, homophobia, snobbery or just being a pillock, you can't hide it forever and it eventually gets out. The fact that Cameron comes from a world where someone who gets a coffee is somehow "less" than other people is probably one of the nicer aspects of that public schoolboy b&stard.