Mailwatch(ed) Forum

Yug wrote: ↑Sun Apr 02, 2023 12:03 pm Any hints as to who it might be and what they said, so those of us who are allergic to the S*n don't have to click on the link?

A quick hover over the link informs me that the headline says "Ian Austin says Labour needs plan to stop boats".

It is indeed Ian Austin. Or Ian 'fucking' Austin, as we call him round our way.

Oboogie wrote:

Yug wrote: ↑Sun Apr 02, 2023 12:03 pm Any hints as to who it might be and what they said, so those of us who are allergic to the S*n don't have to click on the link?

A quick hover over the link informs me that the headline says "Ian Austin says Labour needs plan to stop boats".

Viewing this on a phone means I can't hover over links, only click (tap) on them.

Besides, we've been through this before, this strange habit some people have of just posting a link, with or without cryptic comments, and leaving the reader to guess what it might be about. It's a bad habit which does nothing to aid communication, and I wish people would just stop it.[/moan]

Rupa Huq



Yeah well done for blocking affordable housing in favour of protecting a fucking car park.

I'm not familiar with the story, can you provide more information?

Was it social housing or private housing with an element of "affordable" housing? How much of the development was affordable and how affordable were they likely to be? A small discount on the market rate for a flat 18 minutes from Bond Street isn't likely to come cheap.

I used to work in the building on the right. That car park is likely highly used by council staff, not just commuters but fleet vehicles and the like.

And this is Ealing, just off the Broadway, a stone's throw from the common. There is no affordable, and these flats wouldn't be, either.

I’m with TWA on this one.

You’re not going to get more affordable places under another scheme. It’s this sort of thing or a car park.

Lots more here. Wherein Rupa Huq opines that flats in London aren't selling, or something.

https://www.architectsjournal.co.uk/new ... f-retrofit

Thanks for sharing, I was genuinely curious. At first glance 50% affordable, albeit without the amount of discount and qualifying criteria being mentioned, seems to trump the "not in keeping with the area" objections.

This garbage sadly trumps every party, probably why I’d never want to be a councillor that and pot holes as a none driver simply don’t energise me.

Anyhow whoever the front bench MP who is who has been accused of sexual assault but wasn’t formally accused so can’t really do much, totally understand the woman’s situation if they are indeed popular.

Though I could really only think of two who would match that on the front bench, in fact it sort of reminded me how good Starmer’s cabinet was considering it’s the women who have shone and the men who have are gay.

I’m referring to this by the way: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-65563918

soulboy wrote: ↑Thu May 11, 2023 10:06 pm Thanks for sharing, I was genuinely curious. At first glance 50% affordable, albeit without the amount of discount and qualifying criteria being mentioned, seems to trump the "not in keeping with the area" objections.

Yeah, it certainly does make a difference, and the more lower priced housing the better, but it is hard to do much better than this, given that the whole of the development will be privately funded. There will also be s106 payments, I would think. The sort of people who benefit from this affordable stuff will be much better off than average, but it's still people who wouldn't be able to afford to live in London, so it's positive. A friend of mine was an architect who got an affordable flat in an earlier scheme. It certainly made a difference to her.

That’s an interesting point re 106 money, my understanding is that it nominally is there for the infrastructure, however as this development is in an established area, so where is the space to build a new school for example

Watchman wrote: ↑Fri May 12, 2023 3:27 pm That’s an interesting point re 106 money, my understanding is that it nominally is there for the infrastructure, however as this development is in an established area, so where is the space to build a new school for example

From the Architects Journal link.

The council had previously approved six buildings by Patel Taylor, ranging from six to 26 storeys and including offices and 477 homes, alongside an eight-storey building, designed by Trehearne Architects, with new civic offices, customer service facilities and a library.

Looking at that again, I'm not so sure whether there'd be s106 money, given the public facilities provided.

On school places, there's some pressure in Ealing now, but generally primary school rolls are predicted to fall quite dramatically.

https://www.onlondon.co.uk/large-fall-i ... -forecast/

Given the number of people who want to live in London, it seems incredible to me that we aren't building everywhere we can so that the existing schools are viable in the future, rather than forcing them to live somewhere else where they might need to build new schools.

Straight talking ex-Labour MP, Chris Mullin, interjects not very helpfully. I agree with Sam Freedman.

Stand up, Mr Byrne. You're about to receive a faceful of fish

A parliamentary investigation has upheld a complaint against a Labour MP for using expenses to help his failed bid to become West Midlands mayor.

An Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority report found "overwhelming evidence" one of Liam Byrne's staff worked on his 2021 campaign while contracted and paid by Parliament.

MPs cannot use taxpayer-funded allowances for political campaigns.

The MP said campaign work by staff had been voluntary or done while on leave.

The report says the Birmingham, Hodge Hill MP will not be asked to repay the funds because of the difficulty in establishing the exact number of hours the staff member worked and also because of the delay in the investigation...

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-bir ... 694307.amp

Geraint Davies

https://labourlist.org/2023/06/labour-m ... legations/

Labour has withdrawn the whip from Geraint Davies and suspended his party membership, while it investigates disputed allegations of “completely unacceptable behaviour” by the MP.

It came after Politico reported multiple accusations this morning of inappropriate sexual behaviour by the Swansea West MP towards women working in politics, which Davies himself said he did not “recognise”.

A party spokesperson said: “These are incredibly serious allegations of completely unacceptable behaviour. We strongly encourage anyone with a complaint to come forward to the Labour party’s investigation.”

“Any complainant will have access to an independent support service who provide confidential and independent guidance and advice from external experts throughout the process.”

"Is this a dagger I see before me?"

With Geraint he would always bring a pencil to the westminister CLP meetings for them to raffle.

You make your own joke.

Baffling how he ever got selected as he seemed to have the charm of a rotting teddy bear, nor am I surprised though heard nothing of these sort of allegations.

Can we set about Neil Coyle (again)? Far be it from me to question the wisdom of the party in this matter, but when you add the sexual harassment to his getting shitfaced and going full on 'yellow peril' in the Strangers' Bar you do start to wonder if perhaps Labour could find a better class of MP for Bermondsey and Old Southwark.

Don't know what the harassment allegations are, but the party were very "understanding" about the other stuff, to say the least. I wonder how popular he is locally, and whether he'll have a problem with reselection even if he got the whip back.