The Appeal Court ruling over polytunnels this week suggests that they will be come more common in Herefordshire. Essentially farmers will find it easier to get planning permission where they are to be erected on land already in agricultural use - although planning permission will still be needed.
It seems a minor change but the visual effect - and the damage to landscapes - can be immense. The Wye Valley is not virgin land. Much is aleady in use for agricultural purposes and it is likely that there will be a significant increase in the effective industrialisation of the countryside.
The cost to the county is likely to be immense. Intensive farming of this type does not provide many local jobs. But tourism, which has real growth potential, will suffer a setback. The image of Herefordshire may well turn to plastic in the eyes of those who do not know the county well.
Thursday, 27 January 2011
Friday, 21 January 2011
Coalition 2 Labour 0
The departure of Alan Johnson in sad personal circumstances has done little to help the credibility of the official opposition.
Ed Miliband's credibility was already strained after his decision to give the now disgraced Phil Woolas a shadow ministerial position and by his appointment of Johnson as Shadow Chancellor, a man who was clearly struggling to master his brief however able he was in other ways.
The lack of talent means that Balls was in some ways the obvious replacement. Even if he is on the thug wing of the Labour Party and can thus shake the Coalition tree a bit harder, he brings baggage.
He is a 'deficit denier', preferring the cosy route of printing money over closing the gap through fiscal stringency. This is the road first of all to dramatically higher interest rates (not least to the government itself) and ultimately of a serious dose of inflation.
Worse still, though, he can be credited with the lax banking deregulation system that brought this country to its knees.
Would anyone want this man in charge of our economy again? I think not.
Ed Miliband's credibility was already strained after his decision to give the now disgraced Phil Woolas a shadow ministerial position and by his appointment of Johnson as Shadow Chancellor, a man who was clearly struggling to master his brief however able he was in other ways.
The lack of talent means that Balls was in some ways the obvious replacement. Even if he is on the thug wing of the Labour Party and can thus shake the Coalition tree a bit harder, he brings baggage.
He is a 'deficit denier', preferring the cosy route of printing money over closing the gap through fiscal stringency. This is the road first of all to dramatically higher interest rates (not least to the government itself) and ultimately of a serious dose of inflation.
Worse still, though, he can be credited with the lax banking deregulation system that brought this country to its knees.
Would anyone want this man in charge of our economy again? I think not.
Tuesday, 18 January 2011
6% rail fare rise: come off it!
News that rail fares will rise by a further 6% - considerably above inflation - will only anger those who have to use the county's railways.
Unreliability and overcrowding are routine experiences for rail users and there is little sign that the fare increase will lead to any improvement.
It does not help that Arrive describe the increase as 'small' - a clear case of insult to injury.
Unreliability and overcrowding are routine experiences for rail users and there is little sign that the fare increase will lead to any improvement.
It does not help that Arrive describe the increase as 'small' - a clear case of insult to injury.
Wednesday, 12 January 2011
Two tribes
The boss of Barclays appeared before MPs yesterday. The Financial Times described it as a dialogue of the deaf and contrasted the atttitude of the City of London with that of the City of Westminster.
This misses the point. The City of London is responsible in theory to shareholders, in practice to the Boards of Directors which agree and indeed receive the billion pound bonuses which so offend the public. The people in Westminster, at the end of the day, represent us. MPs are often criticised, sometimes rightly, for being out of touch. But on this one MPs of all parties are absolutely on the nail.
Diamond was not repentent. He talked offensively about banks being allowed to get on with creating jobs - impervious to the reflection that it is banks which have done so much to destroy jobs.
In fact his performance overall was surprisingly poor from someone so well rewarded: a council chief could have performed much better, as could many others in the public and private sector.
We know that the Coalition Government is wrestling with this problem. The banking levy already imposed is welcome. But if the banks, including the ones I own and you own, do pay bonuses of £7 billion the public will not wear it and will expect their Government to exact retribution.
This misses the point. The City of London is responsible in theory to shareholders, in practice to the Boards of Directors which agree and indeed receive the billion pound bonuses which so offend the public. The people in Westminster, at the end of the day, represent us. MPs are often criticised, sometimes rightly, for being out of touch. But on this one MPs of all parties are absolutely on the nail.
Diamond was not repentent. He talked offensively about banks being allowed to get on with creating jobs - impervious to the reflection that it is banks which have done so much to destroy jobs.
In fact his performance overall was surprisingly poor from someone so well rewarded: a council chief could have performed much better, as could many others in the public and private sector.
We know that the Coalition Government is wrestling with this problem. The banking levy already imposed is welcome. But if the banks, including the ones I own and you own, do pay bonuses of £7 billion the public will not wear it and will expect their Government to exact retribution.
Spare the children
Does it matter if this country locks up a few children? Especially when it is in the right?
Well, yes, it does. Nick Clegg has managed to persuade his Coalition partners that the children of asylum seekers should not be under lock and key like prisoners, a position vindicated in yesterday's judgement:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-beds-bucks-herts-12164411.
But there are many others who are locked up for committing crimes.
Why not, you may ask? It's simple: does a two year old know the difference between right and wrong? Clearly not.
Does a five year old? Probably not.
A ten year old? Oh definitely. But perhaps not the difference between misbehaving and commiting a crime.
It is difficult to know when to stop but in effect we assume that a ten year old can be tried for crimes.
I would argue that we cannot normally be sure about the grasp a ten or even a thirteen year old can have as to the gravity of a particular act or omission and that as a result a completely different set of remedies, quite distinct from the criminal law, is appropriate for those under the age of fourteen. This would bring us into line with most of the rest of the world, which has ages of criminal responsibility of fourteen on average - often higher.
This does not mean that deplorable acts of violence or killing are ignored. Far from it. But it means that the state attempts to repair the damage that the parents or society have inflicted rather than transferring the offenders to a University of crime where they can never get a second chance.
Controversial? Not really: we all agree that children under the age of sixteen cannot know whether a sexual act is appropriate and thus prohibit by law intercourse below that age. Why on earth are all other acts treated as if they were committed by a reasoning mature adult?
Well, yes, it does. Nick Clegg has managed to persuade his Coalition partners that the children of asylum seekers should not be under lock and key like prisoners, a position vindicated in yesterday's judgement:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-beds-bucks-herts-12164411.
But there are many others who are locked up for committing crimes.
Why not, you may ask? It's simple: does a two year old know the difference between right and wrong? Clearly not.
Does a five year old? Probably not.
A ten year old? Oh definitely. But perhaps not the difference between misbehaving and commiting a crime.
It is difficult to know when to stop but in effect we assume that a ten year old can be tried for crimes.
I would argue that we cannot normally be sure about the grasp a ten or even a thirteen year old can have as to the gravity of a particular act or omission and that as a result a completely different set of remedies, quite distinct from the criminal law, is appropriate for those under the age of fourteen. This would bring us into line with most of the rest of the world, which has ages of criminal responsibility of fourteen on average - often higher.
This does not mean that deplorable acts of violence or killing are ignored. Far from it. But it means that the state attempts to repair the damage that the parents or society have inflicted rather than transferring the offenders to a University of crime where they can never get a second chance.
Controversial? Not really: we all agree that children under the age of sixteen cannot know whether a sexual act is appropriate and thus prohibit by law intercourse below that age. Why on earth are all other acts treated as if they were committed by a reasoning mature adult?
Tuesday, 11 January 2011
Labour's chickens come home to roost
A few weeks ago a Labour Shadow Minister, Phil Woolas, was stripped of his seat in the first meeting of an election court for 100 years. This was because he had lied in his election literature about his opponent.
Last week another ex-Labour MP was gaoled for corruption. And today we learn that Eric Illsely, still an MP but not deprived of the whip, has pleaded guilty to false accounting charges (see link below).
Labour has tried to run around pretending to be politically purer than the Coalition Government. It has tried to say that it is the champion of fairness while the Government manages a wrecked economy.
But the truth is painful:
- it is Labour MPs (with or without the whip) who are gaoled or face gaol sentences for corrupt practices
- it is Labour which destroyed the economy, howeer much they may say they faced a global crisis (based of course in the City of London which labour deregulated).
We must, every time we cast a vote or despair over a policy, remember who got us here and what sort of men and women they were and are.
Last week another ex-Labour MP was gaoled for corruption. And today we learn that Eric Illsely, still an MP but not deprived of the whip, has pleaded guilty to false accounting charges (see link below).
Labour has tried to run around pretending to be politically purer than the Coalition Government. It has tried to say that it is the champion of fairness while the Government manages a wrecked economy.
But the truth is painful:
- it is Labour MPs (with or without the whip) who are gaoled or face gaol sentences for corrupt practices
- it is Labour which destroyed the economy, howeer much they may say they faced a global crisis (based of course in the City of London which labour deregulated).
We must, every time we cast a vote or despair over a policy, remember who got us here and what sort of men and women they were and are.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)