London Irish
Well-known member
My belief is that local factors like the Falmer planning dispute play very little role in the thinking of New Labour's electoral strategy. They have much bigger fish to fry without worrying about how the stadium may marginally affect their prospects in a tiny handful of seats.
We are at the centre of this huge dispute and I think some of us lose some perspective of the importance football plays to other sectors of society. Would stadium campaigners really make any impact as independents in a General Election campaign?
I don't feel any threat of anti-Labour protests would have much of an impact on anyone, Caplin is in trouble anyway and Lepper's seat is too safe. Turner's is a genuine marginal and could arguably be affected by local factors, but he's a perpetual parliamentary rebel and New Labour would do nothing to help him. I genuinely believe they would like to be rid of him so some Blairite clone could be imposed on Kemptown next time round, they have sacrificed seats to get rid of troublemakers before.
But if you discount the theory that Prescott is running scared of Labour's electoral prospects, how do you explain his extraordinary decision to junk the reports of two planning inspectors and load the rest of the inquiry process decisively in our favour?
Was his decision "political"? I can't see how you can come to any other conclusion. I'm not a planning expert, so I'd be grateful for the input of Lord Bracknell or others' views on this, but how do some of the decisions that Prescott reached conform with existing PPG and other legal guidance?
Since when has cost of development played any part in deciding a planning application? The onus is always on the developer to fund his own development costs. Yet, Prescott appears to be saying that if other sites in Brighton are feasible for stadium development but would cost too much to do so, then we can have Falmer.
Isn't this a "political" rather than a strictly planning decision by Prescott? No housing developer or retail developer would be allowed planning permission on a site because others in the locality happened to be too costly to develop - they would have to pay through the nose.
What Prescott has done is to make a "political" decision that a football club has such overwhelming importance to a community that normal planning standards will be lowered to accommodate it. This is right and just, but surely has little precedent in recent planning law.
There are other examples where Prescott has applied political judgments to counter Hoile/Collyer. Forming a judgment whether a political club is of national importance can only be a political decision, what planning precedent is there? Hoile/Collyer thinks football is not important (a "political" or "cultural" judgment), Prescott has gone the other way and is satisfied we have made our case on this, because this part of the inquiry remains closed.
So what is motivating Prescott to bust his ample gut to help us? The 64,000 dollar question.
To me, there are two possible theories - an "optimistic" one where his decision was solely influenced by the wonderful lobbying campaign conducted by thousands of fans, the flowers, the letters, the endless pressure on MPs of all parties. Then, there is the "cynical" theory. Sure, he would have been influenced to some extent by the impressive lobbying, but what influences a New Labour machine politician like Prescott is inside lobbying, having some of your close political allies screaming up and down begging for your help.
In Ivor Caplin and Steve Bassam, we have two supporters of the Albion who are on the inside of New Labour and have the power and influence to doorstep or pick up the phone and speak to anyone about this matter.
I'm leaning towards the view that it was our political connections that has brought victory almost within our grasp.
I've been a member of the local Labour Party for more years than I care to remember and I've opposed the influence of the likes of Caplin and Bassam to "Blairise" Brighton and Hove Labour Party in more meetings that I care to remember. But I have this hunch that they may be the true "heroes" of the campaign to get us Falmer. Much as I hate New Labour cronyism and back-door influence in virtually every corner of British political life, I feel it may have saved my football club from extinction.
Of course I'm guessing. But when 2 million people march in the streets to stop a pathetic and pointless war, and have absolutely no influence, I remain a profound sceptic of how "people power" can concentrate the minds of New Labour - and you can extend this example to many other issues throughout the life of this 7-year government from disabled people's benefits to PFI, you name it, large protests seem to have only made it dig in more stubbornly. Yet "people power" in Brighton has now persuaded Prescott? Excuse my cynicism. We are winning because we have New Labour political fixers on our side.
I have absolutely no doubt that if Michael Howard's lot has been in charge of the ODPM, we would now be heading for the Conference while marooned at Withdean. No Tory, and probably no Liberal Democrat, would override planning law to help out urban-dwelling footy fans beat a bunch of Tory-voting village-dwelling Nimbys. Never has happened, and it never will.
We are at the centre of this huge dispute and I think some of us lose some perspective of the importance football plays to other sectors of society. Would stadium campaigners really make any impact as independents in a General Election campaign?
I don't feel any threat of anti-Labour protests would have much of an impact on anyone, Caplin is in trouble anyway and Lepper's seat is too safe. Turner's is a genuine marginal and could arguably be affected by local factors, but he's a perpetual parliamentary rebel and New Labour would do nothing to help him. I genuinely believe they would like to be rid of him so some Blairite clone could be imposed on Kemptown next time round, they have sacrificed seats to get rid of troublemakers before.
But if you discount the theory that Prescott is running scared of Labour's electoral prospects, how do you explain his extraordinary decision to junk the reports of two planning inspectors and load the rest of the inquiry process decisively in our favour?
Was his decision "political"? I can't see how you can come to any other conclusion. I'm not a planning expert, so I'd be grateful for the input of Lord Bracknell or others' views on this, but how do some of the decisions that Prescott reached conform with existing PPG and other legal guidance?
Since when has cost of development played any part in deciding a planning application? The onus is always on the developer to fund his own development costs. Yet, Prescott appears to be saying that if other sites in Brighton are feasible for stadium development but would cost too much to do so, then we can have Falmer.
Isn't this a "political" rather than a strictly planning decision by Prescott? No housing developer or retail developer would be allowed planning permission on a site because others in the locality happened to be too costly to develop - they would have to pay through the nose.
What Prescott has done is to make a "political" decision that a football club has such overwhelming importance to a community that normal planning standards will be lowered to accommodate it. This is right and just, but surely has little precedent in recent planning law.
There are other examples where Prescott has applied political judgments to counter Hoile/Collyer. Forming a judgment whether a political club is of national importance can only be a political decision, what planning precedent is there? Hoile/Collyer thinks football is not important (a "political" or "cultural" judgment), Prescott has gone the other way and is satisfied we have made our case on this, because this part of the inquiry remains closed.
So what is motivating Prescott to bust his ample gut to help us? The 64,000 dollar question.
To me, there are two possible theories - an "optimistic" one where his decision was solely influenced by the wonderful lobbying campaign conducted by thousands of fans, the flowers, the letters, the endless pressure on MPs of all parties. Then, there is the "cynical" theory. Sure, he would have been influenced to some extent by the impressive lobbying, but what influences a New Labour machine politician like Prescott is inside lobbying, having some of your close political allies screaming up and down begging for your help.
In Ivor Caplin and Steve Bassam, we have two supporters of the Albion who are on the inside of New Labour and have the power and influence to doorstep or pick up the phone and speak to anyone about this matter.
I'm leaning towards the view that it was our political connections that has brought victory almost within our grasp.
I've been a member of the local Labour Party for more years than I care to remember and I've opposed the influence of the likes of Caplin and Bassam to "Blairise" Brighton and Hove Labour Party in more meetings that I care to remember. But I have this hunch that they may be the true "heroes" of the campaign to get us Falmer. Much as I hate New Labour cronyism and back-door influence in virtually every corner of British political life, I feel it may have saved my football club from extinction.
Of course I'm guessing. But when 2 million people march in the streets to stop a pathetic and pointless war, and have absolutely no influence, I remain a profound sceptic of how "people power" can concentrate the minds of New Labour - and you can extend this example to many other issues throughout the life of this 7-year government from disabled people's benefits to PFI, you name it, large protests seem to have only made it dig in more stubbornly. Yet "people power" in Brighton has now persuaded Prescott? Excuse my cynicism. We are winning because we have New Labour political fixers on our side.
I have absolutely no doubt that if Michael Howard's lot has been in charge of the ODPM, we would now be heading for the Conference while marooned at Withdean. No Tory, and probably no Liberal Democrat, would override planning law to help out urban-dwelling footy fans beat a bunch of Tory-voting village-dwelling Nimbys. Never has happened, and it never will.
Last edited:
