Brexit and the waning days of the United Kingdom

[Sheilbh]

Horrible legislation. Putting a number like "10%" on something like that? A make-work scheme for biodiversity consultants.

Yeah. I think that's my worry with a lot of legislation - and I'm not sure the current Labour leadership are any better on this - is that it all seems to me like a make-work scheme for people who can complete "impact assessments" in various areas (he says, as someone who completes impact assessments ) while the British state and economy just becomes more and more sclerotic.

Again I just wish the conspiracy theories about the Tories being in the pocket of property developers were true

It feels like we've got the worst combination of a state that isn't actually capable of doing much but is regulating a lot at quite a complex and detailed level

[Josquius]

Josq don't tell me you are not seeing the bureaucratic nightmare that such a rule is bound to unleash.

Sure. Quantifying something like that is a nightmare.
Though with vaguer wording the idea that you should contribute more to the environment than you take out seems like a good idea to me.

I've long been down with the idea of better classifying the green belt to differentiate shitty patches of grass from AONBs and bits in between and allow construction there more than is possible today. Though this would be in the broadest possible scopes .

[Tamas]

Josq don't tell me you are not seeing the bureaucratic nightmare that such a rule is bound to unleash.

Sure. Quantifying something like that is a nightmare.
Though with vaguer wording the idea that you should contribute more to the environment than you take out seems like a good idea to me.

I've long been down with the idea of better classifying the green belt to differentiate shitty patches of grass from AONBs and bits in between and allow construction there more than is possible today. Though this would be in the broadest possible scopes .

It is a terrible idea to depend on vaguer wording to make this less hurtful to actually building stuff. Define what you require or do not require it.

[Josquius]

Josq don't tell me you are not seeing the bureaucratic nightmare that such a rule is bound to unleash.

Sure. Quantifying something like that is a nightmare.
Though with vaguer wording the idea that you should contribute more to the environment than you take out seems like a good idea to me.

I've long been down with the idea of better classifying the green belt to differentiate shitty patches of grass from AONBs and bits in between and allow construction there more than is possible today. Though this would be in the broadest possible scopes .

It is a terrible idea to depend on vaguer wording to make this less hurtful to actually building stuff. Define what you require or do not require it.

"you must prove to the planning authority that the proposed development will contribute a net increase to biodiversity.

Examples of this include..."

As I understand it a lot of planning laws are similarly fluffy. Like stuff about maintaining the character of an area.

[Gups]

Josq don't tell me you are not seeing the bureaucratic nightmare that such a rule is bound to unleash.

Sure. Quantifying something like that is a nightmare.
Though with vaguer wording the idea that you should contribute more to the environment than you take out seems like a good idea to me.

I've long been down with the idea of better classifying the green belt to differentiate shitty patches of grass from AONBs and bits in between and allow construction there more than is possible today. Though this would be in the broadest possible scopes .

It is a terrible idea to depend on vaguer wording to make this less hurtful to actually building stuff. Define what you require or do not require it.

"you must prove to the planning authority that the proposed development will contribute a net increase to biodiversity.

Examples of this include..."

As I understand it a lot of planning laws are similarly fluffy. Like stuff about maintaining the character of an area.

Exactly. Keeps us planning lawyers in fine wine

[Barrister]

Exactly. Keeps us planning lawyers in fine wine

Well when you put it that way...

[Sheilbh]

I'm a little worried that the people running the BBC don't seem to know what the BBC is for
https://www.theguardian.com/media/2022/dec/07/bbc-will-go-online-only-by-2030s-says-director-general

He said a challenge is how to reach the millions of Britons – often older, poorer, or in rural areas – who do not have a strong internet connection and could be cut off from an online-only BBC.

Yes, which is why it's probably not a good idea unless the BBC wants to spend the money to connect people.

Still feel like the BBC is struggling to work out what to do about the internet. A bit like moving BBC3 (which is aimed at younger people) online then, following much public pushback, putting it back on broadcast and in place taking BBC4 (older audience) online only. It feels like there's a very real risk of them taking the BBC online only and then reversing course in a panic 9 months later

[The Larch]

It seems that today all the papers have their panties all twisted because of the Harry & Meghan Netflix show. 

[Sheilbh]

Jim Waterson was great on this. Also worth noting his point (made yesterday) that Harry and Meghan either have sued or are suing every British paper except for - as far as we know - the Guardian, Telegraph and FT. Of those three only the Telegraph actually even has a royal correspondent

Media outlets outraged over Meghan and Harry series run wall-to-wall coverage
Jim Waterson
Media editor
Many papers denouncing royal couple for making Netflix documentary use series to pull in readers
Thu 8 Dec 2022 15.06 GMT
First published on Thu 8 Dec 2022 14.22 GMT

The Duke and Duchess of Sussex's Netflix documentary is highly critical of the British media – but the programme is sending millions of readers to the same news outlets they criticise in the film.

Many of the newspapers that have denounced the royal couple for making a Netflix documentary about themselves are also providing wall-to-wall coverage about the contents of the same documentary.

Within two hours of the release of the first episodes, the top 12 stories on MailOnline were all about the couple, complete with pictures, gifs, and screengrabs. The Sun managed seven stories about the couple online within the first two hours.

Articles about the couple drive an enormous numbers of clicks to news websites, making them a top subject for sites that rely on online advertising to make money, with every angle covered. This interest results in intense competition to be the news outlet with the top Google search result for terms such as "Meghan Markle" or "Prince Harry".

The documentary was released at midnight in California – where both Netflix and the couple are based – but this means it came out at 8am in the UK, perfect timing for British news outlets to enjoy a full day of coverage. The Guardian also ran a live blog summarising the claims the couple made in the programme.

Piers Morgan, who lost his job on ITV's Good Morning Britain after refusing to apologise for comments about Meghan, has never let his fixation drop. Despite expressing outrage at the couple's decision to make the documentary, he has no intention of ignoring it. His team have already press-released that he will dedicate the entire hour of his TalkTV programme to the show. The Duchess of Sussex's stepbrother and the former royal butler Paul Burrell have been booked to appear alongside him.

TalkTV promised fury, pointing out that in the past his "fiery opinions" have previously led to him "dramatically walking off air". "So, there's bound to be fireworks as Britain's most outspoken broadcaster gives his uncensored thoughts on the royal pair and their fly-on-the wall series."

In the series Prince Harry says the media criticism can be overwhelming. He claimed the wider royal family felt that criticism of Meghan – after her relationship with the prince became public – was "like a rite of passage". He suggested the royal family failed to account for the "race element" in the coverage of his new girlfriend.

He also explicitly rejected the traditional way that the royal family handled the relationship with royal correspondents at British newspapers and broadcasters: "All royal news goes through the filter of all newspapers within the royal rota, most of which, apart from the Telegraph, happen to be tabloids. It all comes down to control, it's like: 'This family is ours to exploit. Their trauma is our story, and our story and our narrative to control.'"

For the first time there will also be a sense of how many Britons watched the programme, after the independent audience measuring organisation Barb started releasing viewing figures for individual Netflix programmes last month.

Despite scrutiny of the editing techniques used in the programme – such as using stock images of photographers from other events to illustrate sections where the couple talk about the media – there is no easy way for British television viewers to complain.

UK viewers have the ability to raise complaints to the media regulator, Ofcom, if they feel a programme on a traditional broadcaster such as BBC or ITV is substantially misleading. But streaming services operating in the UK such as Netflix are not covered by the same tough rules. Instead, as Ofcom has clarified following a number of complaints, Netflix is overseen by the Dutch media regulator.

Even under the Ofcom code, any breach regarding use of stock images or footage for illustrative purposes would need be considered "materially misreading" to count as a breach of broadcasting rules. There is a relatively high bar for breaches of accuracy in non-news programmes and it would need to be proven that a programme "materially misleads the audience so as to cause harm or offence".

Edit: There are bits of the reporting that I do find a bit weird - like Meghan commenting that the royals shy away from controversy in the causes they champion, or Harry's comment about the press there. Because, at least from the outside, those seem to me pretty obvious and part of the quid pro quo of the royals existing at all in the modern world. Nothing too controversial, nothing too political and wave for the cameras

[HVC]

You can take the royal out of the castle, but you can't take the illegitimate stable boys son out of the royal.

[Valmy]

like Meghan commenting that the royals shy away from controversy in the causes they champion

Well fucking of course. If you want to take some controversial political stance you can't be a royal. Or at least you won't be one for long 

[The Larch]

The Scottish road gritters are out. Some truly magnificent names oot there:

[Gups]

Brilliant

[Barrister]

"Icesweeper Willy".  Who said Scots can't laugh at themselves!

[Sheilbh]

My God the lack of self-awareness

Liz Truss and I 'got carried away' writing mini-budget, admits Kwasi Kwarteng
Sacked chancellor says he and ex-PM failed to consider political and economic consequences


Kwasi Kwarteng says he and Liz Truss 'got carried away' when they were in charge. Photograph: Stefan Rousseau/PA
Harry Taylor
@harrytaylr
Sat 10 Dec 2022 14.31 GMT
Last modified on Sat 10 Dec 2022 16.30 GMT

Kwasi Kwarteng has admitted he and Liz Truss "got carried away" when they wrote the disastrous mini-budget that led to both of them leaving their jobs just weeks after they entered Downing Street.

Kwarteng announced a raft of tax cuts without any reduction in spending in September, which led to the pound crashing against the dollar, pension funds nearly collapsing, a £65bn Bank of England bailout, soaring mortgage costs, and the cost of government borrowing increasing. He also said he would remove the cap on bankers' bonuses.

The MP for Spelthorne, who was sacked by Truss after 38 days, has now said that the then prime minister and her team had lost perspective on the budget and its political or financial consequences.

"People got carried away, myself included," Kwarteng told the Financial Times. "There was no tactical subtlety whatsoever.

"There was a brief moment and the people in charge, myself included, blew it."

The article in the FT quoted an unnamed aide describing Truss, who left Downing Street after 49 days once her position became untenable among Conservative MPs, as "overcaffeinated" in her decision-making process.

"She was in this mode where everything had to be done immediately. I was worried she was going to blow up. She kept on saying she only had two years to do things," before a potential election by January 2025.

Kwarteng said he had urged Truss to "slow down" over reforms, but a cabinet minister told the FT that she felt "invincible, almost regal".

The budget unravelled within minutes of its delivery but worse was to come after Kwarteng signalled in a TV interview that more tax cuts were coming.

The resulting market shock led to Kwarteng being sacked and replaced by Jeremy Hunt. The former health secretary then got rid of two-thirds of the tax cuts in Kwarteng's budget, including to the top rate of income tax.

Three days later, Truss announced her resignation outside No 10.

She reportedly told allies: "I lost a battle, but I haven't lost the war."

The former prime minister is considering launching an economic thinktank, according to an ally. The source told the Times: "She stands by her central argument on the need to grow the economy.

"She'll be making the case."

You very definitely lost the war. The full war has been lost. Also "getting carried away" is when you eat a whole pack of mince pies. It is not# single-handedly causing a market panic and tanking the pound.

And I don't think I've ever read as patronising a description of a PM as "overcaffeinated" - and yet it feels, possibly, fair