|
|
Post by Mortgagehound on Oct 16, 2020 14:27:34 GMT 1
Yeah, hilarious. Serious question though - are you really not concerned about Jenrick taking money intended for deprived areas to be applied instead in his own non-deprived constituency? And hundreds of millions of government funds being given to newly formed, no expertise PPE companies that happen to be owned by Tory party donors, that's just a cue for a cheap joke too? Couple of points if I may: If Jenrick is proven guilty in the matter then he deserves to be punished. But it all appears unproven to me unless you spend your life glued to the Guardian newspaper. Political parties on both sides have been guilty of helping each other and their sponsors, friends , family out for many years. It happens in politics and it happens in business - its a fact of life. Very rarely does someone donate to political parties without wanting something back in return, which applies equally to both Tory and Labour parties. However what saddens me about this board is that it has moved from the topic of Shrewsbury Town Fc and football in general, to increasingly becoming a platform for constant ant-tory vitriol. This thread for example is a one man monologue (Mr Northwestman) against a Tory Minister, started as an attempt to highlight covid breaking trips by Jenrick to his parents, and from that point attempting to find everything under the sun to nail the guy with since. Quite rightly you may say I don't need to read it and believe me I try to avoid, but even threads that start on the subject of football (god forbid) get hijacked into further anti Boris/Anti Tory drivel.......its embarrassing. I appreciate this vitriol comes from a small minority of posters (how else would Boris and Tory Mps have been voted into power if we all shared the same views???) but I think the manner in which posters are 'jumped' upon when they disagree probably ensures such posters decide not to contribute. The number of Town fans visiting and contributing to this board appears to be dropping dramatically, which I am sure is partly due to very little discussion about the subject that should unite us all......the beautiful game. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 16, 2020 14:31:56 GMT 1
Yeah, hilarious. Serious question though - are you really not concerned about Jenrick taking money intended for deprived areas to be applied instead in his own non-deprived constituency? And hundreds of millions of government funds being given to newly formed, no expertise PPE companies that happen to be owned by Tory party donors, that's just a cue for a cheap joke too? Couple of points if I may: If Jenrick is proven guilty in the matter then he deserves to be punished. But it all appears unproven to me unless you spend your life glued to the Guardian newspaper. Political parties on both sides have been guilty of helping each other and their sponsors, friends , family out for many years. It happens in politics and it happens in business - its a fact of life. Very rarely does someone donate to political parties without wanting something back in return, which applies equally to both Tory and Labour parties. However what saddens me about this board is that it has moved from the topic of Shrewsbury Town Fc and football in general, to increasingly becoming a platform for constant ant-tory vitriol. This thread for example is a one man monologue (Mr Northwestman) against a Tory Minister, started as an attempt to highlight covid breaking trips by Jenrick to his parents, and from that point attempting to find everything under the sun to nail the guy with since. Quite rightly you may say I don't need to read it and believe me I try to avoid, but even threads that start on the subject of football (god forbid) get hijacked into further anti Boris/Anti Tory drivel.......its embarrassing. I appreciate this vitriol comes from a small minority of posters (how else would Boris and Tory Mps have been voted into power if we all shared the same views???) but I think the manner in which posters are 'jumped' upon when they disagree probably ensures such posters decide not to contribute. The number of Town fans visiting and contributing to this board appears to be dropping dramatically, which I am sure is partly due to very little discussion about the subject that should unite us all......the beautiful game. In your last ten posts, one was a pop at northwestman in a thread about Macclesfield, and another was to say ‘Boris out’ in a thread about the Doncaster postponement. Practice what you preach I say. |
|
|
|
Post by venceremos on Oct 16, 2020 15:43:54 GMT 1
Yeah, hilarious. Serious question though - are you really not concerned about Jenrick taking money intended for deprived areas to be applied instead in his own non-deprived constituency? And hundreds of millions of government funds being given to newly formed, no expertise PPE companies that happen to be owned by Tory party donors, that's just a cue for a cheap joke too? Couple of points if I may: If Jenrick is proven guilty in the matter then he deserves to be punished. But it all appears unproven to me unless you spend your life glued to the Guardian newspaper. Political parties on both sides have been guilty of helping each other and their sponsors, friends , family out for many years. It happens in politics and it happens in business - its a fact of life. Very rarely does someone donate to political parties without wanting something back in return, which applies equally to both Tory and Labour parties. However what saddens me about this board is that it has moved from the topic of Shrewsbury Town Fc and football in general, to increasingly becoming a platform for constant ant-tory vitriol. This thread for example is a one man monologue (Mr Northwestman) against a Tory Minister, started as an attempt to highlight covid breaking trips by Jenrick to his parents, and from that point attempting to find everything under the sun to nail the guy with since. Quite rightly you may say I don't need to read it and believe me I try to avoid, but even threads that start on the subject of football (god forbid) get hijacked into further anti Boris/Anti Tory drivel.......its embarrassing. I appreciate this vitriol comes from a small minority of posters (how else would Boris and Tory Mps have been voted into power if we all shared the same views???) but I think the manner in which posters are 'jumped' upon when they disagree probably ensures such posters decide not to contribute. The number of Town fans visiting and contributing to this board appears to be dropping dramatically, which I am sure is partly due to very little discussion about the subject that should unite us all......the beautiful game. That's a comfortable point of view to take, that we shouldn't be concerned unless and until someone is proven guilty of something. It's also one that makes it easier for bad things to be done. Did you ever consider that the gap between the concerns of Guardian readers and a minister being found guilty of some wrongdoing is wide enough to drive a coach and horses through? Perhaps you're locked into the idea that the law has to be broken for a minister to be doing wrong. That isn't so. The National Audit Office condemned Jenrick's actions but he hasn't seen fit to explain himself. It might be lawful but don't you think it would be wrong for a minister to favour his own constituency for handouts over far more deprived areas of the country? Isn't there a case to answer when the public auditor cries foul? Shouldn't there be meaningful controls over the awarding of taxpayers' money? Or are you one of those who doesn't want to know when the government is Tory but cries foul over the slightest infringement by other parties? If you don't want anything to do with non-football threads, why do you join in with them? Which football threads have been hijacked into 'anti-Boris/anti-Tory drivel'? If numbers of visitors & posters to b&a are falling, I'd suggest that's because there's not a lot of football-related stuff to talk about and even less concerning STFC, seeing as most of us haven't seen a live game since March and aren't likely to see another for a long time yet. It's hard to get too excited about a virtual season. A quick glance at the front page of b&a shows just 5 out of 38 threads are specifically to do with STFC, the same number as are specifically to do with UK politics. You find that embarrassing? Start some STFC threads then, if you can find anything worth talking about. |
|
|
|
Post by northwestman on Oct 16, 2020 15:57:51 GMT 1
I've collated a significant amount of information on Jenrick over the last few months. All I'm doing is highlighting any questionable activities he may be involved in. Up to Boris (and Cummings) as to whether he retains his services.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 16, 2020 16:45:02 GMT 1
I've collated a significant amount of information on Jenrick over the last few months. All I'm doing is highlighting any questionable activities he may be involved in. Up to Boris (and Cummings) as to whether he retains his services. My view is “ Keep them Coming “ . It doesn’t do a lot for my health and temper mind 😉 If people want to stick their head in the sand and ignore what this government is up to fine . As far as I am concerned and at the risk of being called out for posting drunken rants by some or even posts of hate and envy , I care not a shiny s**te . I will join you whenever I can to highlight what I consider to be the dreadful and deceitful actions of this foul government . Those who disagree can always counter argue that things would be worse under Corbyn . 😂😂 |
|
|
|
Post by northwestman on Oct 16, 2020 16:58:24 GMT 1
So, let's sum up the issues involving Jenrick so far. Updated version.
1. Lying about where his 1st and 2nd homes are situated, thereby breaking the rules.
2. Questions about whether his visit to his parents was justified, or whether it also broke the rules.
3. Misleading claims in his election leaflets.
4. £100,000 expenses claims for rent and council tax for a house in Newark that he rents for £2,000 a month, the bill being met by the taxpayer.
5. False statement at the Daily Briefing about PPE 'set to arrive from Turkey tomorrow'. The 400,000 gowns not only arrived days late but were all deemed to be useless.
6. The £800,000 renovations to his London Townhouse. Questions as to how he obtained planning permission and why he set up a separate Company to pay the bill (VAT rebate?).
7. The Westfield Printworks development.
8. The Holocaust Memorial application.
9. The Sandown Park Racecourse development.
10. The Sittingbourne, Kent development.
11. His links to Israeli billionaire Idan Ofer, who owned a rival Company to Sirius Minerals. Sirius Minerals was denied vital funding by the government.
12. The connections between both Jenrick and his wife to Russian and Ukrainian oligarchs.
13. Donation of £5,000 to Jenrick by Russian businessman Alex Knaster.
14. The algorithm used in his new planning regulations, which seems to have upset many in his own party.
15. Jenrick and a junior minister approving payments to towns in each other’s constituencies from a government fund earmarked for deprived areas. His constituency, Newark, is 270th on the list of the UKs most deprived areas.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 16, 2020 17:31:49 GMT 1
So, let's sum up the issues involving Jenrick so far. Updated version. 1. Lying about where his 1st and 2nd homes are situated, thereby breaking the rules. 2. Questions about whether his visit to his parents was justified, or whether it also broke the rules. 3. Misleading claims in his election leaflets. 4. £100,000 expenses claims for rent and council tax for a house in Newark that he rents for £2,000 a month, the bill being met by the taxpayer. 5. False statement at the Daily Briefing about PPE 'set to arrive from Turkey tomorrow'. The 400,000 gowns not only arrived days late but were all deemed to be useless. 6. The £800,000 renovations to his London Townhouse. Questions as to how he obtained planning permission and why he set up a separate Company to pay the bill (VAT rebate?). 7. The Westfield Printworks development. 8. The Holocaust Memorial application. 9. The Sandown Park Racecourse development. 10. The Sittingbourne, Kent development. 11. His links to Israeli billionaire Idan Ofer, who owned a rival Company to Sirius Minerals. Sirius Minerals was denied vital funding by the government. 12. The connections between both Jenrick and his wife to Russian and Ukrainian oligarchs. 13. Donation of £5,000 to Jenrick by Russian businessman Alex Knaster. 14. The algorithm used in his new planning regulations, which seems to have upset many in his own party. 15. Jenrick and a junior minister approving payments to towns in each other’s constituencies from a government fund earmarked for deprived areas. His constituency, Newark, is 270th on the list of the UKs most deprived areas. It’s alright though because he ‘hasn’t broken the law’. Excellent summary which explains why this thread has stayed near the top of the board ever since it was started many months ago. #JenrickOut |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 16, 2020 19:33:45 GMT 1
Yeah, hilarious. Serious question though - are you really not concerned about Jenrick taking money intended for deprived areas to be applied instead in his own non-deprived constituency? And hundreds of millions of government funds being given to newly formed, no expertise PPE companies that happen to be owned by Tory party donors, that's just a cue for a cheap joke too? Couple of points if I may: If Jenrick is proven guilty in the matter then he deserves to be punished. But it all appears unproven to me unless you spend your life glued to the Guardian newspaper. Political parties on both sides have been guilty of helping each other and their sponsors, friends , family out for many years. It happens in politics and it happens in business - its a fact of life. Very rarely does someone donate to political parties without wanting something back in return, which applies equally to both Tory and Labour parties. However what saddens me about this board is that it has moved from the topic of Shrewsbury Town Fc and football in general, to increasingly becoming a platform for constant ant-tory vitriol. This thread for example is a one man monologue (Mr Northwestman) against a Tory Minister, started as an attempt to highlight covid breaking trips by Jenrick to his parents, and from that point attempting to find everything under the sun to nail the guy with since. Quite rightly you may say I don't need to read it and believe me I try to avoid, but even threads that start on the subject of football (god forbid) get hijacked into further anti Boris/Anti Tory drivel.......its embarrassing. I appreciate this vitriol comes from a small minority of posters (how else would Boris and Tory Mps have been voted into power if we all shared the same views???) but I think the manner in which posters are 'jumped' upon when they disagree probably ensures such posters decide not to contribute. The number of Town fans visiting and contributing to this board appears to be dropping dramatically, which I am sure is partly due to very little discussion about the subject that should unite us all......the beautiful game. The only poster being jumped on in NWM. As for the football, it's just started again, after a near 6 month break. And then, we can only really watch it on a dodgy stream. Also, there are 2 posts on B Teams and plenty of other OT topics. You could always pop on them and talk about drivel if you like. Finally, talking drivel about the Labour Party is obviously ok.... |
|
|
|
Post by northwestman on Oct 25, 2020 10:39:33 GMT 1
I've typed the name 'Jenrick' so many times now that my j and k keys are sticking!
Off to buy a new laptop tomorrow.
|
|
|
|
Post by staffordshrew on Oct 25, 2020 12:04:15 GMT 1
I've typed the name 'Jenrick' so many times now that my j and k keys are sticking! Off to buy a new laptop tomorrow. I had that with the middle keys, write yourself a draft email, copying the letters that don't work from somewhere if you have to, then just cut and paste them from that when you need them. |
|
|
|
Post by darkshrew on Nov 11, 2020 17:22:57 GMT 1
|
|
|
|
Post by northwestman on Nov 11, 2020 17:29:26 GMT 1
Thanks for this! Obviously it comes as no surprise to me as this was already Number 15 on my list of issues involving Jenrick. He never fails to disappoint. |
|
|
|
Post by northwestman on Nov 11, 2020 18:58:44 GMT 1
Robert Jenrick has been accused by MPs of "political bias" after awarding billions to towns in the run up to last year’s election.
The cross-party Commons Public Accounts Committee found that the process for selecting communities to benefit from the £3.6 billion Towns Fund was "not impartial" and risked undermining the integrity of the Civil Service.
The report found ministers in the Ministry for Housing, Communities and Local Government (MHCLG) had picked towns on the basis of "scant" evidence and complained that the reasons given by the MHCLG for not publishing more information about the selection process were "weak and unconvincing”.
While Jeremy Pocklington, the MHCLG permanent secretary, insisted he was satisfied the requirements of "propriety and regularity" had been met, the committee said it was " disappointed" that a summary of his assessment remained unpublished.
t said: "This lack of transparency has fuelled accusations of political bias in the selection process, and has risked the Civil Service's reputation for integrity and impartiality.
"To avoid accusations that Government is selecting towns for political reasons, the department should be upfront and transparent about how it reaches funding decisions as the Towns Fund progresses, particularly the planned competitive round.”
Meg Hillier, the committee chair, said the system gave "every appearance of having been politically motivated”.
The warning comes after Mr Jenrick earlier this year denied having any role in selecting his constituency, Newark, for a £25 million grant under the scheme, despite having boasted about it during last year's general election.
Mr Jenrick said the award had been signed off by the then communities minister Jake Berry, while he had approved a grant for Darwen in Mr Berry's constituency.
The scheme was originally launched "at pace" in July 2019 to provide support struggling towns across England.
Officials in the MHCLG then drew up a ranked priority list of 541 towns based on need and potential for development for ministers to select from.
While the top 40 "high priority" locations were all confirmed, ministers then picked another 61 "medium and low priority" communities from across the rest of the list including one ranked 536th.
They were supposed to record their "rationale" for choosing some towns and not others however the committee said it was "not convinced" by some of the reasons given.
The committee said: “The selection process was not impartial.”
Daily Telegraph.
|
|
|
|
Post by northwestman on Nov 11, 2020 19:02:51 GMT 1
bylinetimes.com/2020/11/11/robert-jenrick-boris-johnsons-government-suppress-key-documents-from-mps-in-constituency-kick-back-scandal/The Government has suppressed a key document outlining how Robert Jenrick, the Communities Secretary, was allowed to award pre-election cash to his own Newark constituency from a massive £3.6 billion regeneration programme for small towns. MPs on the Commons Public Accounts Committee today have condemned as “weak and unconvincing” arguments used by the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government in refusing to hand over to them a document written by Jeremy Pocklington, the ministry’s top official, justifying the decision. Mr Jenrick and his junior minister, Jake Berry, swapped over decisions to award towns in their respective constituencies of Newark and Darwen in Berry’s Rossendale and Darwen constituency some £50m in regeneration money from the national town fund. Mr Berry approved the money for Newark and Mr Jenrick the money for Darwen. They were among 101 towns chosen mainly by ministers out of 541 towns ranked in order of merit by officials as needing help to combat deprivation. Newark was number 270 on the list.
|
|
|
|
Post by northwestman on Nov 15, 2020 15:27:42 GMT 1
Plans to unleash a new generation of homes across England using an "ill conceived" algorithm are being overhauled amid the threat of a seismic rebellion by Conservative MPs.
The Sunday Telegraph understands that a formula used to produce targets for each area is being "rebalanced" to focus on building homes in urban areas, following a major backlash by senior Tories, including Theresa May.
The move represents a significant climbdown by Boris Johnson and Robert Jenrick, the Housing Secretary.
|
|
|
|
Post by northwestman on Nov 20, 2020 13:45:12 GMT 1
bylinetimes.com/2020/11/18/61-pork-barrels-jenrick-funnelled-billions-of-public-money-to-conservative-target-seats/Millions of pounds of taxpayer cash were poured into towns and cities in marginal seats by Robert Jenrick, the Communities Secretary, before the last general election to swing votes to the Conservatives, Byline Times can reveal. An analysis of the controversial £3.6 billion ‘Town Deals’ grants from the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government’s Towns Fund reveals that Jenrick and former Minister Jake Berry did not just swap decisions to give cash to towns in each other’s constituencies, but the whole programme appears to be geared to either gaining or holding seats for Conservative colleagues. Where Conservatives had reasonable majorities, money seems to have been given to the constituencies of selected MPs who backed Boris Johnson or Michael Gove for the leadership of the party in last year’s election race.
|
|
|
|
Post by northwestman on Nov 25, 2020 23:03:12 GMT 1
Key marginal constituencies were targeted during last year’s general election with Facebook adverts placed by the housing department headed by Robert Jenrick. Voters were told that their town would receive significant investment.
At least 100,000 voters saw taxpayer-funded posts alerting them to the £3.6 billion Towns Fund, data suggests.
Under the scheme, 101 deprived towns would benefit from up to £25 million each in government investment.
Mr Jenrick, the housing, communities and local government secretary, and Jake Berry, his junior minister, selected 61 of the towns that would receive funding. Mr Jenrick chose Darwen, part of Mr Berry’s constituency. Mr Berry chose Newark, Mr Jenrick’s constituency.
The adverts ran in the days after the election was called but before purdah, when certain communications are restricted. They encouraged people to use the hashtag #MyTown to share ideas on how to spend money in their area.
The government said that adverts ran for all 101 towns in the scheme but Facebook’s ad library records only 18 such posts. Some 13 of the 18 constituencies in which these ran had been selected for funding by Mr Jenrick and Mr Berry. In ten of them, the number of impressions the adverts got was larger than the majority of the seat.
In Lincoln, where between 5,000 and 6,000 people saw the advert, Labour’s majority was 1,538. The Tories took the seat with a majority of 3,514.
In Newcastle-under-Lyme, Labour’s majority had been 30. Between 7,000 and 8,000 people saw the advert; the Conservatives won the seat with a majority of 7,446.
Mr Jenrick campaigned in both constituencies. In Lincoln he promised that he would “sign off” the town’s deal early next year. In Newcastle-under-Lyme he was forced to defend the town’s £25 million investment to the local press, and said: “It’s not a bribe.”
Last week a report by the public accounts committee found that the fund’s selection process had “every appearance of being politically motivated”. Mr Jenrick is under pressure to publish advice given by civil servants about which towns to choose. He has said such advice is not routinely published and maintains that he followed a “rigorous and robust procedure”.
The Times.
|
|
|
|
Post by northwestman on Nov 30, 2020 12:31:25 GMT 1
Shops are to be allowed to stay open for longer in the run-up to Christmas under a major relaxation of rules announced to help revive High Street stores hammered by coronavirus restrictions.
In an exclusive article for The Telegraph, Robert Jenrick, the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, said he wanted councils to waive rules that restrict shops’ opening hours.
Shops currently have to apply under the town and country planning act if they want to extend their hours beyond 9am to 7pm from Monday to Saturday but it is a process that can take weeks.
Mr Jenrick said he wanted to sweep away such bureaucracy to help shops after months of coronavirus restrictions and increasing competition from online sales.
It means that shops should be able to decide how long and when they open through December and January including the option of 24/7 service to recoup sales lost during the pandemic.
“Today I am going further and announcing a temporary relaxation in shop opening hours this Christmas and through January, asking councils to allow extended hours for shoppers on every high street Monday to Saturday".
Daily Telegraph.
Robert Jenrick has proudly announced that, having closed "non-essential shops" for 4 weeks (since when have clothes and shoes been non-essential?), he's now going to allow shops to open 24 hours a day, seven days a week.
According to SAGE/the Government it's lethal one day if you step over the threshold of a socially distanced shop selling what they consider to be non-essential goods, but the next day it's perfectly safe. In fact, it's so safe that you can do it 24/7.
What a clever virus this is.
I'd be interested to hear Jenrick's proposals for allowing small, private shopkeepers - whose livelihoods have been wrecked by this incompetent, authoritarian Government - to open 24/7. Are they supposed to make their staff (if they have any) work 24/7, breaking employment law in the process? Or is Jenrick proposing to change UK/EU Employment Law?
And I fail to understand why covid secure hostelries are either shut down or have to provide 'substantial meals' to be allowed to serve alcohol, whilst free for all mayhem 24/7 is now to be permitted on the High Street.
|
|
|
|
Post by northwestman on Dec 5, 2020 18:45:21 GMT 1
www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/dec/05/robert-jenrick-controversy-was-factor-in-ethics-advisers-resignationBoris Johnson’s failure to authorise an inquiry into the controversial approval of a £1bn homes project by his housing secretary, Robert Jenrick, also played a role in the recent resignation of the prime minister’s ethics adviser. Alex Allan quit his position last month after the prime minister overruled his advice and cleared the home secretary, Priti Patel, of bullying allegations. Legal and Whitehall sources have revealed, however, that Allan was already concerned that the prime minister had not requested an inquiry to examine the controversy around Jenrick’s backing for a housing development by billionaire Richard Desmond that would help the Tory party donor avoid tax of £45m. After sitting beside Desmond at a fundraising dinner, Jenrick overruled the local authority Tower Hamlets in east London and the government planning inspectorate to give permission for the development. Desmond donated £12,000 to the party a fortnight after permission was granted. Johnson had sole authority to request an inquiry into Jenrick’s conduct when the revelations emerged over the summer, a process that would have been overseen by Allan. Jenrick has denied any wrongdoing or bias but admitted his decision had been “unlawful by reason of apparent bias” Alex Thomas, programme director at the Institute for Government, said the Jenrick and Desmond saga exposed the situation whereby the prime minister has the absolute authority to launch misconduct investigations and also has the final say in their outcomes.
|
|
|
|
Post by Mortgagehound on Dec 5, 2020 19:34:08 GMT 1
Meanwhile Liverpool Mayor Joe Anderson seems to be in a spot of bother.....
|
|
|
|
Post by northwestman on Dec 5, 2020 20:09:34 GMT 1
|
|
|
|
Post by northwestman on Dec 16, 2020 10:08:31 GMT 1
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-55322993Proposals for controversial planning reforms in England have been revised, after new housing targets prompted a backlash amongst many Conservative MPs. A computer-based formula used to decide where houses should be located has been "updated" to focus more on cities and urban areas in the North and Midlands. Ministers said cash for brownfield sites would be distributed more fairly outside London and the South East. Some MPs in southern areas said their areas risked being "concreted over". Shameless party political bias by Jenrick in order to placate Tory M.P.s in the South by targeting the North and the Midlands.
|
|
|
|
Post by darkshrew on Dec 16, 2020 10:24:38 GMT 1
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-55322993Proposals for controversial planning reforms in England have been revised, after new housing targets prompted a backlash amongst many Conservative MPs. A computer-based formula used to decide where houses should be located has been "updated" to focus more on cities and urban areas in the North and Midlands. Ministers said cash for brownfield sites would be distributed more fairly outside London and the South East. Some MPs in southern areas said their areas risked being "concreted over". Shameless party political bias by Jenrick in order to placate Tory M.P.s in the South by targeting the North and the Midlands. The Tories aren't being held to account at all - what is going on ? They seem to be able to do what they want. There is just no sense of shame and no internal discipline any more. |
|
|
|
Post by northwestman on Dec 16, 2020 18:11:17 GMT 1
www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/dec/16/jenrick-mutant-algorithm-win-localism-centralised-planning-u-turnPlanning secretary Robert Jenrick’s climbdown over his planning white paper is welcome. Its core proposal for houses to be built according to a Whitehall formula – the so-called “mutant algorithm” – emerged in August reputedly at the bidding of the building lobby, eager to boost their development land-banks in the south-east. It has collapsed under a barrage of protest from southern Tory constituencies that faced being concreted over and northern cities that Jenrick was going to starve of housing subsidies. The Jenrick formula demanded that every community in England build a precise number of houses dictated by Whitehall, irrespective of local wishes. It was rumoured to be rooted in the medieval principle that a “local need” for housing was determined by local births, marriages, divorces and deaths, as if today’s population did not travel. This was then adjusted by price to yield a “need” figure. The bias towards development in the south-east was massive. It decided house-building should decline by 28% in the north-east but rise by 633% in Kensington.
|
|
|
|
Post by northwestman on Dec 17, 2020 12:21:21 GMT 1
There was a sense of inevitability about Robert Jenrick’s decision to abandon the “mutant algorithm” that was supposed to determine how many houses each local authority in England will have to build. From the moment the housing secretary announced the planned changes, it was clear that there was going to be trouble. The algorithm was designed to ensure not only that the government would meet its target of building 300,000 new homes a year but that they were built where housing pressures are greatest. Those pressures, partly measured by changes in affordability over the last ten years, unsurprisingly turned out to be in affluent Tory suburbs in the southeast.
That answer was never going to satisfy Tory MPs who represent those suburbs. More than 80 had signalled their intention to rebel, including Theresa May, the former prime minister. The rug was further pulled from under Mr Jenrick when it emerged that his boss, Boris Johnson, is opposing a housebuilding project in his Uxbridge and South Ruislip constituency.
The algorithm is therefore to be revised so that it gives a more palatable answer. Instead of building the new homes where people want to live, they will now be built where Tory MPs think they should live. That is in urban areas, preferably in the North. You could call it levelling up.
The Times.
|
|
|
|
Post by northwestman on Dec 20, 2020 13:58:35 GMT 1
The housing secretary, Robert Jenrick, famously spent the 1st national lockdown in Herefordshire with his wife, his three children and, it is understood, his dog, despite his London home being his main residence.
London - Tier 4. Herefordshire - Tier 1. I wonder where the family are at present.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 20, 2020 14:17:44 GMT 1
The housing secretary, Robert Jenrick, famously spent the 1st national lockdown in Herefordshire with his wife, his three children and, it is understood, his dog, despite his London home being his main residence. London - Tier 4. Herefordshire - Tier 1. I wonder where the family are at present. I’m going to go with his 3rd home in the Cayman Isles👍 |
|
|
|
Post by northwestman on Dec 20, 2020 15:07:02 GMT 1
The housing secretary, Robert Jenrick, famously spent the 1st national lockdown in Herefordshire with his wife, his three children and, it is understood, his dog, despite his London home being his main residence. London - Tier 4. Herefordshire - Tier 1. I wonder where the family are at present. I’m going to go with his 3rd home in the Cayman Isles👍 I think that his house in his constituency of Newark is his 4th home. 2 others in London, 1 in Herefordshire. |
|
|
|
Post by northwestman on Dec 23, 2020 15:37:53 GMT 1
propertyindustryeye.com/91879-2/Weston Homes has confirmed that it will challenge Robert Jenrick’s decision to deny planning permission for the £271m Anglia Square redevelopment in Norwich in the High Court. In 2018, the Planning Committee of Norwich City Council voted in favour of the proposed scheme and resolved to grant planning permission. The proposals were then however called in by Jenrick so that he could decide whether or not planning permission should be granted. A public inquiry was held to consider the proposals in detail before a Planning Inspector, who recommended to the secretary of state that planning permission should be granted. But despite both Norwich City Council and his own Inspector being in favour of the proposals Jenrick decided to refuse permission. The High Court will now review his decision.
|
|
|
|
Post by northwestman on Jan 4, 2021 16:58:37 GMT 1
www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9109117/Millions-stuck-fire-trap-homes-Grenfell-blaze-hit-2bn-bill.htmlHomeowners in dangerous buildings are being hit with crippling bills because ministers have 'buried their heads in the sand' since the Grenfell disaster. About four million people are affected, with more than a million flat-owners paying £2.2billion a year for safety measures and extra insurance. The scandal, which has left families stuck in fire traps facing repair bills of up to £115,000, threatens to wreck the housing market as a whole, with the flats becoming unsellable. Legislation to overhaul building and fire safety standards is expected to return to Parliament by the end of the month. The Draft Building Safety Bill, one of two on the issue, leaves leaseholders liable for the cost of fixing historical safety defects. Hundreds of thousands of leaseholders in unsafe flats face average bills of £40,000 – and some of up to £115,000 – to replace dangerous cladding, similar to that found on Grenfell Tower in west London, where an inferno killed 72 people in June 2017. Another on Jenrick's in-tray.
|
|
