London-based writer. Often climbing.
Bit boring, I thought. Last year’s was better.
I was basically happy with the content, but it needed more hope spots.
I thought we were gonna get away without some wanker this year, but there’s always some wanker.
God will save the King, us peasants have to save ourselves.
First time I’ve ever felt like joining the army.
GOD SAVE THE KING
Problem is that continuing not to invest = austerity. So if he doesn’t announce some new spending or at the very least something that will boost growth somehow, there will be more austerity. Something’s gotta give!
Yeah, it’s a fair point. I think the downside of caps is that it feels like the article is screaming at you!
The Greens very much do run on nimby platforms, including their co-leader, mentioned in the article. And it is just deeply aggravating when they oppose green infrastructure for nimby reasons, whether it wins them votes or not.
Also, lots of words start off as acronyms and then lose that status. ‘Laser’ is a good example: originally ‘Light Amplification by Stimulated Emission of Radiation’, but now always written in lowercase.
Rough sleeping is a specific category of homelessness, meaning people who are sleeping actually outside, on the street. Homelessness can refer more generally to people who are shuttling between different temporary accommodation or couch surfing. Obviously there’s some overlap and people often go from one to the other.
Next they’ll realise giving people food stops them being hungry!
Definitely the right decision. I criticise the Greens a lot for letting their nimbyism trump their environmentalism, so it’s only fair that I praise them embracing their yimby side!
Keep the picture but turn it sideways, then everyone’s happy.
Makes official what we already strongly suspected, I think.
All 72 deaths were due to decades of negligence and in some cases active deception.
Technically, yes, as long as the dog’s not a papist.
Does the position of Chief Mouser to the Cabinet Office transfer to the heir apparent instantaneously or does it require a meeting of the Accession Council? It’s important to get these things right.
‘Don’t make the mistakes I did’?
I’m hoping the reforms they’re talking about here, which include more joined-up thinking, basically, will have that effect even if they don’t invest that much money. But they should also invest the money!
This sounds very promising and it’s clearly in step with the government’s overall policy programme, which suggests it will happen in some form.
I especially like the hint that they’d redirect some of the capital funding earmarked for new roads to walking and cycling, (‘Asked about the £16bn of trunk road projects, […] Haigh said: “We’re looking at all capital projects, and where that money should be best spent.”’).
Ultimately, we’ll have to wait for the outcome of the transport infrastructure spending review before we know whether this is anything to get excited about.
I would hope the government could come to this conclusion through the review it’s already conducting, without the courts forcing it to act. This seems good to keep the pressure on, though.
Man, I hope she does this. It’s not something a future government would realistically undo.
It’s also not the kind of thing that would be obviously life-changing for anyone but it would be a permanent change for the better!