User avatar
By Tubby Isaacs
#111593
Boiler wrote: Thu Jun 04, 2026 2:02 pm If we'd had this at the turn of the last century Alan A. Jackson wouldn't have had anything to write a book* about.
Image

Didn't know he was a writer, but he was very patient putting up with Carol and Bianca.
User avatar
By Tubby Isaacs
#111736
In fairness, it looks like the money will be going to charities in Lewisham. But looks like that isn't quite what he said before the election. I think he'd be advised to base the 20% donation on the original salary.

Bigger problem is that he's promised a load of council housing he isn't going to be able to deliver.
Q: There are 11,000 households in Lewisham on the waiting list for social housing, but we know that developers don’t want to build it. How are you going to address this?

A: I think we need to be tougher on developers and not accept a very low quantum of social housing.
The really obvious one is Lewisham Shopping Centre.
Any sort of objections or concerns around a development that only delivers 6% housing for social rent are interpreted by the Labour Party as being anti-homes and anti-development.
It's interpreted as being anti-homes and anti-development by me as well. I don't doubt that you can get them to increase the number of social homes if this is your only yardstick. But you'll lose other stuff in the development- it's very extensive, with student accommodation, key worker, London living rent housing, plus all the work building a new shopping centre. The balance seems broadly OK to me.
User avatar
By The Weeping Angel
#111859


This is what happens when your politics is all about vibes: you don't think things through and end up proposing to make food more expensive.
User avatar
By Tubby Isaacs
#111863
This is more than likely a loss leader. So the farm and staff are probably not being brilliantly paid, but the shareholders will be swallowing a loss.

It's a reasonable point to say that you want workers and farmers paid better, of course. But you have to allow this makes food more expensive, and have a policy ready to deal with that- benefit rises would be the most obvious.
User avatar
By Boiler
#111867
This was covered by Farming Today around Christmas time, when vegetables were being sold extremely cheaply by the big supermarkets - it is indeed a loss-leader.

Which, if Plankski and his advisors listened to, they would know but no, let's stick to "facts" from social fucking media.
By Youngian
#111870
Even Fenland supermarkets, carrots are ridiculously cheap and abundant in the past couple of years. So are used to plug shortages in the vegetable aisles like the post war Eastern bloc.
User avatar
By Tubby Isaacs
#111876
Boiler wrote: Wed Jun 10, 2026 12:20 am This was covered by Farming Today around Christmas time, when vegetables were being sold extremely cheaply by the big supermarkets - it is indeed a loss-leader.

Which, if Plankski and his advisors listened to, they would know but no, let's stick to "facts" from social fucking media.
The Telegraph shouldn't have put a (justified) summary as if it's a quote, and I hope Polanski complains about that and gets it changed.

But yeah, the site of a bloke pumping out rubbish on social media posing as a defender of truth is a bit nauseating.
  • 1
  • 38
  • 39
  • 40
  • 41
  • 42
Labour Government 2024 - ?

This is respectable progress. Shame that the media[…]

The Greens

This was covered by Farming Today around Chris[…]

Andy Burnham

I've never understood the attraction of start[…]

An article by Jeremy Bowen, one of the few BBC jou[…]