Jump to content

McBain

Members
  • Posts

    278
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by McBain

  1. Is it me or is the middle one about the only vaguely credible choice? The other two look like something an old buffer who is a member of an obscure cricket club might insist on wearing on match days
  2. A sad farewell to the old tea-pot lids then
  3. Is the Government going to cover the cost of the ruinous empty business premises tax that is currently still in operation? As for 'art galleries' - they would be pretty small ones. When you said "Ghost Towns" I thought you were referring to those villages that have been identified as potential sites for new nuclear reactor facilities - I imagine that there will be a few "For Sale" signs going up there shortly
  4. Fred the Shred is the local Councillor's role model Big fat protected pension, no penalties for pathetic "work" and the run of the castle.
  5. What's wrong with spending money consulting the electorate Maybe if a bit more of that was done we wouldn't be in quite the mess that we are now
  6. Erm... Greenalls is desperate to shift this site but no-one is likely to buy on the terms that they want (i.e. large deposit up-front with no deferred payments thereafter). Most property companies are only able to offer a derisory deposit followed by payments spread over 5 years or so. Not good...
  7. The Gemini Business Park is perhaps a good indicator of how badly these aspirations can be diluted. The Gemini site was originally going to be an economic generator for the borough but it has degenerated into half a retail part and half a business park, niether one nor the other
  8. Poor taste Omega is looking less like the "high-tech" industrial park and more like a "please anyone come and locate here" type place
  9. National Minimum Wage is currently ?5?73 per hour 28hrs/week @ ?5?73/hr = ?160?44 52 weeks @ ?160?44/week = ?8,342?88 per annum.
  10. Originally posted by FatShaft: I'd rather be a prison Governor on ?120k a year than a dog turd collector
  11. Betraying your allegiance there Paul
  12. End pay for Councillors and you'll only get people genuinely interested in the position
  13. Will the much hyped - but strangely absent - Core Strategy Issues and Options document that Council is late producing touch on the issue of incineration and the potentia locations of such facilities I wonder
  14. Nowt wrong with half-clad lasses stumbling around
  15. Got to agree with Obs in as much that a requirement for new housing doesn't automatically mean there is a need for release of Green Belt land... ...but then some Green Belt land isn't worth protecting anyway but try telling that to some people who see it as holier than Bethlehem.
  16. PM: 'build council houses to meet demand' Allister Hayman, Regen.net, 30 January 2009 The Prime Minister has called for a new generation of council-built homes to help revive the construction industry and meet the Government's housing targets. Speaking at a conference hosted by think-tank New Local Government Network in London Gordon Brown said that town halls had a vital role to play in lifting the UK out of recession and a new council house building programme would be at the core of this strategy. He said that Treasury rules that have stopped councils from building social housing would be relaxed to enable councils to borrow more money and keep more of the proceeds from rents. He said: "In the past we have placed restrictions on local authorities delivering social housing. But today, let me be clear: if local authorities can convince us that they can deliver quickly, and cost effectively, more of the housing that Britain needs, then we will be prepared to give them our full backing and put aside anything that stands in their way." Since the 1980s most social-rented homes have been built by housing associations as Treasury rules have meant councils have had to give back at least 75 percent of the income they receive in rent and sales to the Treasury. Last month the Government said town halls could keep 100 percent of rent on all new social homes but Brown's comments signal an intention to relax the rules further. Government figures show that nearly 4.5 million people are waiting for social housing across across England. Sarah Webb, the Chartered Institute of Housing chief's executive said she welcomed Brown's announcement but warned that there had been a loss of capacity and skills across councils to develop new homes. She said: "The promised changes can provide a much needed boost to housing in these challenging times. [but councils] will need to work quickly to build on existing and forge new partnerships with housing associations, lenders and private housebuilders - time is of the essence" It's only taken more than a decade to realise what has been blindingly obvious Does everyone think that WBC is up to the job of providing and managing its own Affordable Housing The Council certainly has enough land available but I wonder whether there is the political appetite
  17. Yeah - the bigger the yacht the bigger the dick the owner
  18. NO the credit crunch is not over. The remaining developers still with access to funding are likely to be making technical starts on lots of sites in order to preserve indefinitely the planning permission. They can then be safely mothballed until conditions improve.
  19. Paul - since you are a politico you'll have to excuse yourself from the debate since you have a vested interest in "bigging up" the Council Got to agree with Bill in that many "consultation exercises" are undertaken purely to tick a box on the validation list that planners hold so dear. Rarely is consultation undertaken early on in the process when things haven't been decided - it's just too expensive to do things that way.
  20. Cheers DS - it just didn't look right (still doesn't )
  21. Wasn't aware that you had to apply for planning permission to have a bus route established Is this some kind of consultation exercise
  22. Depends on the nature of the road. If it was a cul-de-sac I wouldn't be too keen That's not right is it
  23. Unfortunately there isn't a group in the world that opts for such honesty when trying to gauge public opinion - the design of questionnaires etc. is always carefully designed to ensure that only those issues the interest group wants answers on are addressed; other and potentially embarassing matters are either marginalised or ignored entirely. This is the way Government operates, the way Warrington Council operates and the way almost every other organisation I can think of operates. You'll never see an "honest" question like: What you are far more likely to see is: The old adage "If you don't want the answer, then don't ask the question" is always applicable in politics
  24. Unfortunately Bill such an approach would mean that almost the entire machinery of Government would have to resign if using statistics to support your own arguments were made an offence, as you suggest Still, once you speaka-da-planning-lingo then you can make your case in a similar manner. Instead of talking about possible bad smells and harmful smoke, you could refer to "atmospheric particulates and odours that will have unpredictable and possibly unquantifiable but nevertheless negative impact on residents' physical and mental well being". You could even go the whole hog and start a campaign group called: Cancel Recycling Atmospheric Polluters!
  25. Cue complaints about non-gritting of roads
×
×
  • Create New...