To be honest once the Democrats lose the House, almost certain, it makes little difference whether the Democrats win 50 or 49 Senate seats.
Biden still has to compromise with the GOP either way to get his budget etc through Congress.
Only difference it might make is on approval of foreign treaties and getting some SC justices he proposes approved, so they might need to be a bit more moderate and less liberal.
That was a betting post, not a political one.
But betting posts advising betting on what other punters rate as most likely is just following the market.
FWIW I've bet on 50 GOP seats.
Which still gives Harris the casting vote.
You have to go back to Bill Clinton to find a President who saw his party lose control of both the House and the Senate in his first midterms (mind you he was still re elected in 1996)
'Levelling up' is dangerous ground for Sunak, given that video of him trumpeting unlevelling up the already high...
That’s not actually what he was saying in the video. But Labour had artfully cut the video to mislead.
He was saying that all deprived areas need support - including deprived rural areas in Kent - not just deprived urban areas
The problem was not him rightly pointing to pockets of deprived rural areas. The probem was that he claimed he had taken money from genuinely shonky areas in the north to give to pockets of deprived rural areas.
Nobody is denying that rural places can't hide poverty. But you can't divert money from places already promised the cash. Or in practice what it's meant is that money has gone to posh Tory areas to sort the small bit that isn't quite as posh as the rest whilst the scum area gets little or nothing.
Stockton on Tees seeing levelling up money spent in Yarm as a prime example. Yes, there are bits of Yarm not as nice as the rest. But relatively these areas are fine - certainly a lot better than chunks of town centre or Newtown wards.
Why do the Tories still have a minister for levelling up? Bottom line up front, Boris Johnson’s glib election promise “we will level up” is undeliverable bollocks.
Once you fathom out the impossible to fathom out “what exactly does it mean? Level up the north to the level of the south? But bits of the south are just as run down as bits of the north and vice versa? And switch to how to do it anyway to delivery something at least, even though you don’t really understand what it means, you realise it’s not about funnelling existing money from this to that, you will just end up hated and stuck in the 20s in the polling, it has to be new money, given to deserving places, fairly, and so that Tiverton in Blue Wall can’t get upset they are just as deserving and being cheated.
After all that, are you now levelling up? Of course not, because it is just pretend the ancient mismatch in scale and wealth between London and the secondary cities their regions can ever be levelled, it always was empty unachievable Johnsonian electioneering bollocks.
Why? Because: (a) Red Wall voters have noticed they are still relatively / actually poor (b) Brexit promised them resources and riches (c) Tories promised them definitely resources and riches (d) They won't take no for an answer
Either this government produces a rabbit out of the hat or the Tory 2019 first timers depart.
(A) is wrong.
Red Wall Tory voters are typically home owners, not impoverished people awaiting resources and riches.
Thanks to the relatively huge success in building new homes up here, compared to the rest of the country, the Red Wall has seen much more people getting on the property ladder rather than the reverse happening as in much of the country.
That's the real reason the non-metropolitan North has been swinging Tory while the South is swinging against the Tories. Because voters here have their own deeds to their very own Barratt Home and similar, rather than rental bills.
(a) is not wrong. A is the reason why we have seen a clearout of Labour councils and Labour MPs in Labour since the Danelaw areas. Try living in the red wall for a while and you will see what they are so upset about./
Incidentally, it wouldn't be a good idea for the Tories to listen to you. Telling people that their lived experience is wrong never works.
Try living in the red wall for a while? Excuse me, I do live in the Red Wall, you don't.
There is new housing estates all over the place. You know, all those homes you keep complaining about because you want to excuse the NIMBY scum? All those new homes have voters.
The Red Wall fell because of construction, because the likes of Barratt etc got people on the property ladder, NOT because poor people suddenly became fed up of Labour not doing anything for them.
You're in Birchwood aren't you? Cheshire daaaaarling.
I've moved around a bit, I'd rather not say where I live if you don't mind, but Birchwood is not a bad example. Warrington North is a safe Labour seat, or used to be, like much of the North West its seen massive construction recently and its trended away from Labour as the share of owner occupier voters in the constituency has risen.
Just like the neighbouring constituency of Leigh. What you'd think of as Leigh is still just as grotty terraced homes as it always was, but its surrounded by new estates of semi-detached homes with gardens and driveways for 2 parking spaces each.
Drive around the new estates of Leigh, versus the old streets of Leigh, and its hardly a surprise voting levels have changed. The voting is changing not because people are suddenly fed up of Labour, but because Leigh itself, much of the North itself, is changing. The houses people are living in - and increasingly owning - are not the same homes that existed thirty years ago.
And constituencies that were predominantly owner occupied in the past, that are now unaffordable and NIMBYs are blocking construction, are seeing trends away from the Tories.
Its housing, stupid.
Again again, I hope your Tory friends go and argue your points on the doorstep. They will be annihilated.
I don't think Bart is presenting an argument why people in Warrington North or Leigh SHOULD vote Tory - he is saying that where there has been a long term shift to owner occupation, especially of new builds - such as Warrington North, Leigh, Blyth, Rother Valley, and dozens of others - there has been a long term shift to the Tories. This seems inarguable to me. I also agree with the implication that the Tories would be well served to try to maximise the number of owner occupiers.
Bingo. You've nailed it completely.
Essentially Britain votes by housing. Renters as a class tend to vote Labour. Owned outright tend to vote Tory. Owned with a mortgage, are the swing voters, who in recent years have voted Tory but in Blair's time voted Labour.
In much of the country renting has become more common, but in parts of the North owner occupiers have become more common due to vast amounts of new builds. That has meant more Tory voters, but since those voters have mortgages they're not safe Tory.
The idea that the North swung Tory because voters were pissed off and angry misses the transformation in housing that has happened. Drive around the North outside the cities, and yes if you're here you're driving to get around, and there has been major new housing developments and those developments lead to new owner occupiers which changes how people think about voting.
There have been suggestions of this voting-by-housing-tenure hypothesis before. It is interesting and believable, but I don't know of studies that examine it carefully. Do you?
I've seen many studies on it before, none to hand, but this excellent chart is in the article I linked to above and sums it up well.
The vast construction in the Red Wall, one of the only places in the country where there has been a semi-reasonable amount of construction, has led to home ownership rates here moving from Labour levels to Tory levels. The seats then swung accordingly.
Home ownership and GE2019 As in previous years, homeowners were more likely to vote Conservative in the 2019 election. According to Ipsos MORI’s figures, 57% of voters who owned their home outright voted Conservative, as did 43% of people with mortgages. By contrast, 45% of social renters and 46% of private renters voted Labour.
The 2011 Census tells us how many homeowners were in each constituency. At the time, around 64% of UK households owned their home, either outright or with a mortgage. 315 of the Conservatives’ 365 seats (86%) had home ownership levels above this average, compared with 53 of Labour’s 202 seats (26%). Nine of the Lib Dems’ 11 seats had above-average home ownership levels (82%).
86% above average ownership for Tories, 26% for Labour.
Home ownership is far and away what affects voting in this country. NIMBY scum like our Essicks Massiv that wants to invade Scotland, or the first son of Abraham, are doing their level best to discourage people from voting Tory.
That's a bit jarring, seeing "scum" affixed to NIMBYs. Don't think I've ever come across it before. Really quite unusual.
When the world owes you a 5 bed detached des res, waiting to collect can get to you.
Especially if deleting the pampering of Tory-approved standard nuclear families under the current IHT regulations, and imposing wealth tax on landed property, are active subjects for discussion to remedy the chaos of the last few years.
Only 9% of voters want IHT to rise, the lowest of any tax.
Though yes wealth taxes on million pound plus properties might not be too unpopular if Labour proposes them (outside of a few central London Labour target seats like Kensington and Cities of London and Westminster)
That's nonsense. Most families don't have IHT to worry about.
Thanks in large part to Osborne's IHT tax cut for married couples raising their threshold up to £1 million, given the average UK property price is now £367,760 with Rightmove, over the £325,000 IHT threshold
That is nonsense you are tdalking. Married couples would each only have one half of the house value to worry about, allowing for the interchange between couples. And 180K is a LOT LESS than 325K.
But we have to pamper Tories who are too mean to look after themselves.
'Levelling up' is dangerous ground for Sunak, given that video of him trumpeting unlevelling up the already high...
That’s not actually what he was saying in the video. But Labour had artfully cut the video to mislead.
He was saying that all deprived areas need support - including deprived rural areas in Kent - not just deprived urban areas
The problem was not him rightly pointing to pockets of deprived rural areas. The probem was that he claimed he had taken money from genuinely shonky areas in the north to give to pockets of deprived rural areas.
Nobody is denying that rural places can't hide poverty. But you can't divert money from places already promised the cash. Or in practice what it's meant is that money has gone to posh Tory areas to sort the small bit that isn't quite as posh as the rest whilst the scum area gets little or nothing.
Stockton on Tees seeing levelling up money spent in Yarm as a prime example. Yes, there are bits of Yarm not as nice as the rest. But relatively these areas are fine - certainly a lot better than chunks of town centre or Newtown wards.
Why do the Tories still have a minister for levelling up? Bottom line up front, Boris Johnson’s glib election promise “we will level up” is undeliverable bollocks.
Once you fathom out the impossible to fathom out “what exactly does it mean? Level up the north to the level of the south? But bits of the south are just as run down as bits of the north and vice versa? And switch to how to do it anyway to delivery something at least, even though you don’t really understand what it means, you realise it’s not about funnelling existing money from this to that, you will just end up hated and stuck in the 20s in the polling, it has to be new money, given to deserving places, fairly, and so that Tiverton in Blue Wall can’t get upset they are just as deserving and being cheated.
After all that, are you now levelling up? Of course not, because it is just pretend the ancient mismatch in scale and wealth between London and the secondary cities their regions can ever be levelled, it always was empty unachievable Johnsonian electioneering bollocks.
Why? Because: (a) Red Wall voters have noticed they are still relatively / actually poor (b) Brexit promised them resources and riches (c) Tories promised them definitely resources and riches (d) They won't take no for an answer
Either this government produces a rabbit out of the hat or the Tory 2019 first timers depart.
(A) is wrong.
Red Wall Tory voters are typically home owners, not impoverished people awaiting resources and riches.
Thanks to the relatively huge success in building new homes up here, compared to the rest of the country, the Red Wall has seen much more people getting on the property ladder rather than the reverse happening as in much of the country.
That's the real reason the non-metropolitan North has been swinging Tory while the South is swinging against the Tories. Because voters here have their own deeds to their very own Barratt Home and similar, rather than rental bills.
(a) is not wrong. A is the reason why we have seen a clearout of Labour councils and Labour MPs in Labour since the Danelaw areas. Try living in the red wall for a while and you will see what they are so upset about./
Incidentally, it wouldn't be a good idea for the Tories to listen to you. Telling people that their lived experience is wrong never works.
Try living in the red wall for a while? Excuse me, I do live in the Red Wall, you don't.
There is new housing estates all over the place. You know, all those homes you keep complaining about because you want to excuse the NIMBY scum? All those new homes have voters.
The Red Wall fell because of construction, because the likes of Barratt etc got people on the property ladder, NOT because poor people suddenly became fed up of Labour not doing anything for them.
You're in Birchwood aren't you? Cheshire daaaaarling.
I've moved around a bit, I'd rather not say where I live if you don't mind, but Birchwood is not a bad example. Warrington North is a safe Labour seat, or used to be, like much of the North West its seen massive construction recently and its trended away from Labour as the share of owner occupier voters in the constituency has risen.
Just like the neighbouring constituency of Leigh. What you'd think of as Leigh is still just as grotty terraced homes as it always was, but its surrounded by new estates of semi-detached homes with gardens and driveways for 2 parking spaces each.
Drive around the new estates of Leigh, versus the old streets of Leigh, and its hardly a surprise voting levels have changed. The voting is changing not because people are suddenly fed up of Labour, but because Leigh itself, much of the North itself, is changing. The houses people are living in - and increasingly owning - are not the same homes that existed thirty years ago.
And constituencies that were predominantly owner occupied in the past, that are now unaffordable and NIMBYs are blocking construction, are seeing trends away from the Tories.
Its housing, stupid.
Again again, I hope your Tory friends go and argue your points on the doorstep. They will be annihilated.
I don't think Bart is presenting an argument why people in Warrington North or Leigh SHOULD vote Tory - he is saying that where there has been a long term shift to owner occupation, especially of new builds - such as Warrington North, Leigh, Blyth, Rother Valley, and dozens of others - there has been a long term shift to the Tories. This seems inarguable to me. I also agree with the implication that the Tories would be well served to try to maximise the number of owner occupiers.
Bingo. You've nailed it completely.
Essentially Britain votes by housing. Renters as a class tend to vote Labour. Owned outright tend to vote Tory. Owned with a mortgage, are the swing voters, who in recent years have voted Tory but in Blair's time voted Labour.
In much of the country renting has become more common, but in parts of the North owner occupiers have become more common due to vast amounts of new builds. That has meant more Tory voters, but since those voters have mortgages they're not safe Tory.
The idea that the North swung Tory because voters were pissed off and angry misses the transformation in housing that has happened. Drive around the North outside the cities, and yes if you're here you're driving to get around, and there has been major new housing developments and those developments lead to new owner occupiers which changes how people think about voting.
There have been suggestions of this voting-by-housing-tenure hypothesis before. It is interesting and believable, but I don't know of studies that examine it carefully. Do you?
I've seen many studies on it before, none to hand, but this excellent chart is in the article I linked to above and sums it up well.
The vast construction in the Red Wall, one of the only places in the country where there has been a semi-reasonable amount of construction, has led to home ownership rates here moving from Labour levels to Tory levels. The seats then swung accordingly.
Home ownership and GE2019 As in previous years, homeowners were more likely to vote Conservative in the 2019 election. According to Ipsos MORI’s figures, 57% of voters who owned their home outright voted Conservative, as did 43% of people with mortgages. By contrast, 45% of social renters and 46% of private renters voted Labour.
The 2011 Census tells us how many homeowners were in each constituency. At the time, around 64% of UK households owned their home, either outright or with a mortgage. 315 of the Conservatives’ 365 seats (86%) had home ownership levels above this average, compared with 53 of Labour’s 202 seats (26%). Nine of the Lib Dems’ 11 seats had above-average home ownership levels (82%).
86% above average ownership for Tories, 26% for Labour.
Home ownership is far and away what affects voting in this country. NIMBY scum like our Essicks Massiv that wants to invade Scotland, or the first son of Abraham, are doing their level best to discourage people from voting Tory.
That's a bit jarring, seeing "scum" affixed to NIMBYs. Don't think I've ever come across it before. Really quite unusual.
When the world owes you a 5 bed detached des res, waiting to collect can get to you.
Especially if deleting the pampering of Tory-approved standard nuclear families under the current IHT regulations, and imposing wealth tax on landed property, are active subjects for discussion to remedy the chaos of the last few years.
Only 9% of voters want IHT to rise, the lowest of any tax.
Though yes wealth taxes on million pound plus properties might not be too unpopular if Labour proposes them (outside of a few central London Labour target seats like Kensington and Cities of London and Westminster)
No, it says 9% of voters included inheritance tax in the top three taxes they want held constant.
Obviously people want taxes on other, higher-income people to go up, though they also love the public services those people pay for by building businesses in the UK or working in jobs that are created in the UK, so it's a bit of a bind.
Belgium has a big welfare state by taxing ordinary people at 30% from euro one. The average Brit wants to pay something like 10%, so of course they get less stuff from government.
So does Sweden have a big welfare state but also no inheritance tax at all.
There are also examples in Europe of lower tax, lower spend nations than the UK eg Switzerland
In fact, the main reason you are worried about IHT is that your Topry voters will be bribed with our money so they don't have to spend their own savings on looking after themselves. Using that purpose for savings is what ordinary self-respecting civilised non-selfish citizens used to.
Preserving property and inheritance is a core Tory value. Why should Tories care what non Tories like you think about it?
'Levelling up' is dangerous ground for Sunak, given that video of him trumpeting unlevelling up the already high...
That’s not actually what he was saying in the video. But Labour had artfully cut the video to mislead.
He was saying that all deprived areas need support - including deprived rural areas in Kent - not just deprived urban areas
The problem was not him rightly pointing to pockets of deprived rural areas. The probem was that he claimed he had taken money from genuinely shonky areas in the north to give to pockets of deprived rural areas.
Nobody is denying that rural places can't hide poverty. But you can't divert money from places already promised the cash. Or in practice what it's meant is that money has gone to posh Tory areas to sort the small bit that isn't quite as posh as the rest whilst the scum area gets little or nothing.
Stockton on Tees seeing levelling up money spent in Yarm as a prime example. Yes, there are bits of Yarm not as nice as the rest. But relatively these areas are fine - certainly a lot better than chunks of town centre or Newtown wards.
Why do the Tories still have a minister for levelling up? Bottom line up front, Boris Johnson’s glib election promise “we will level up” is undeliverable bollocks.
Once you fathom out the impossible to fathom out “what exactly does it mean? Level up the north to the level of the south? But bits of the south are just as run down as bits of the north and vice versa? And switch to how to do it anyway to delivery something at least, even though you don’t really understand what it means, you realise it’s not about funnelling existing money from this to that, you will just end up hated and stuck in the 20s in the polling, it has to be new money, given to deserving places, fairly, and so that Tiverton in Blue Wall can’t get upset they are just as deserving and being cheated.
After all that, are you now levelling up? Of course not, because it is just pretend the ancient mismatch in scale and wealth between London and the secondary cities their regions can ever be levelled, it always was empty unachievable Johnsonian electioneering bollocks.
Why? Because: (a) Red Wall voters have noticed they are still relatively / actually poor (b) Brexit promised them resources and riches (c) Tories promised them definitely resources and riches (d) They won't take no for an answer
Either this government produces a rabbit out of the hat or the Tory 2019 first timers depart.
(A) is wrong.
Red Wall Tory voters are typically home owners, not impoverished people awaiting resources and riches.
Thanks to the relatively huge success in building new homes up here, compared to the rest of the country, the Red Wall has seen much more people getting on the property ladder rather than the reverse happening as in much of the country.
That's the real reason the non-metropolitan North has been swinging Tory while the South is swinging against the Tories. Because voters here have their own deeds to their very own Barratt Home and similar, rather than rental bills.
(a) is not wrong. A is the reason why we have seen a clearout of Labour councils and Labour MPs in Labour since the Danelaw areas. Try living in the red wall for a while and you will see what they are so upset about./
Incidentally, it wouldn't be a good idea for the Tories to listen to you. Telling people that their lived experience is wrong never works.
Try living in the red wall for a while? Excuse me, I do live in the Red Wall, you don't.
There is new housing estates all over the place. You know, all those homes you keep complaining about because you want to excuse the NIMBY scum? All those new homes have voters.
The Red Wall fell because of construction, because the likes of Barratt etc got people on the property ladder, NOT because poor people suddenly became fed up of Labour not doing anything for them.
You're in Birchwood aren't you? Cheshire daaaaarling.
I've moved around a bit, I'd rather not say where I live if you don't mind, but Birchwood is not a bad example. Warrington North is a safe Labour seat, or used to be, like much of the North West its seen massive construction recently and its trended away from Labour as the share of owner occupier voters in the constituency has risen.
Just like the neighbouring constituency of Leigh. What you'd think of as Leigh is still just as grotty terraced homes as it always was, but its surrounded by new estates of semi-detached homes with gardens and driveways for 2 parking spaces each.
Drive around the new estates of Leigh, versus the old streets of Leigh, and its hardly a surprise voting levels have changed. The voting is changing not because people are suddenly fed up of Labour, but because Leigh itself, much of the North itself, is changing. The houses people are living in - and increasingly owning - are not the same homes that existed thirty years ago.
And constituencies that were predominantly owner occupied in the past, that are now unaffordable and NIMBYs are blocking construction, are seeing trends away from the Tories.
Its housing, stupid.
Again again, I hope your Tory friends go and argue your points on the doorstep. They will be annihilated.
I don't think Bart is presenting an argument why people in Warrington North or Leigh SHOULD vote Tory - he is saying that where there has been a long term shift to owner occupation, especially of new builds - such as Warrington North, Leigh, Blyth, Rother Valley, and dozens of others - there has been a long term shift to the Tories. This seems inarguable to me. I also agree with the implication that the Tories would be well served to try to maximise the number of owner occupiers.
Bingo. You've nailed it completely.
Essentially Britain votes by housing. Renters as a class tend to vote Labour. Owned outright tend to vote Tory. Owned with a mortgage, are the swing voters, who in recent years have voted Tory but in Blair's time voted Labour.
In much of the country renting has become more common, but in parts of the North owner occupiers have become more common due to vast amounts of new builds. That has meant more Tory voters, but since those voters have mortgages they're not safe Tory.
The idea that the North swung Tory because voters were pissed off and angry misses the transformation in housing that has happened. Drive around the North outside the cities, and yes if you're here you're driving to get around, and there has been major new housing developments and those developments lead to new owner occupiers which changes how people think about voting.
There have been suggestions of this voting-by-housing-tenure hypothesis before. It is interesting and believable, but I don't know of studies that examine it carefully. Do you?
I've seen many studies on it before, none to hand, but this excellent chart is in the article I linked to above and sums it up well.
The vast construction in the Red Wall, one of the only places in the country where there has been a semi-reasonable amount of construction, has led to home ownership rates here moving from Labour levels to Tory levels. The seats then swung accordingly.
Home ownership and GE2019 As in previous years, homeowners were more likely to vote Conservative in the 2019 election. According to Ipsos MORI’s figures, 57% of voters who owned their home outright voted Conservative, as did 43% of people with mortgages. By contrast, 45% of social renters and 46% of private renters voted Labour.
The 2011 Census tells us how many homeowners were in each constituency. At the time, around 64% of UK households owned their home, either outright or with a mortgage. 315 of the Conservatives’ 365 seats (86%) had home ownership levels above this average, compared with 53 of Labour’s 202 seats (26%). Nine of the Lib Dems’ 11 seats had above-average home ownership levels (82%).
86% above average ownership for Tories, 26% for Labour.
Home ownership is far and away what affects voting in this country. NIMBY scum like our Essicks Massiv that wants to invade Scotland, or the first son of Abraham, are doing their level best to discourage people from voting Tory.
So 82% of LD seats have above average home ownership levels too.
Yes we need more affordable housing, especially in brownbelt areas of London where home ownership is at its lowest and Labour has gained lots of former Conservative seats.
Build all over the greenbelt however and you will see lots of formerly safe Conservative seats like Chesham and Amersham go Liberal Democrat
You say that like its a bad thing.
Better to have people engaged in society and able to have their own home, even if some vote Lib Dem, than unable to afford their own home and voting to tear down society by voting for Labour.
BREAKING: Immigration minister Robert Jenrick tells @SophyRidgeSky a judicial review has been launched against the Home Office over overcrowding of migrants at Manston.
Interestingly sources claimed that when Suella Braverman asked for a second opinion on legal advice that said it was against the HO statutory duty not to release people quicker from Manston, she thought 2nd opinion could help protect HO in case of a judicial review. https://twitter.com/anushkaasthana/status/1587871557849944066
'Levelling up' is dangerous ground for Sunak, given that video of him trumpeting unlevelling up the already high...
That’s not actually what he was saying in the video. But Labour had artfully cut the video to mislead.
He was saying that all deprived areas need support - including deprived rural areas in Kent - not just deprived urban areas
The problem was not him rightly pointing to pockets of deprived rural areas. The probem was that he claimed he had taken money from genuinely shonky areas in the north to give to pockets of deprived rural areas.
Nobody is denying that rural places can't hide poverty. But you can't divert money from places already promised the cash. Or in practice what it's meant is that money has gone to posh Tory areas to sort the small bit that isn't quite as posh as the rest whilst the scum area gets little or nothing.
Stockton on Tees seeing levelling up money spent in Yarm as a prime example. Yes, there are bits of Yarm not as nice as the rest. But relatively these areas are fine - certainly a lot better than chunks of town centre or Newtown wards.
Why do the Tories still have a minister for levelling up? Bottom line up front, Boris Johnson’s glib election promise “we will level up” is undeliverable bollocks.
Once you fathom out the impossible to fathom out “what exactly does it mean? Level up the north to the level of the south? But bits of the south are just as run down as bits of the north and vice versa? And switch to how to do it anyway to delivery something at least, even though you don’t really understand what it means, you realise it’s not about funnelling existing money from this to that, you will just end up hated and stuck in the 20s in the polling, it has to be new money, given to deserving places, fairly, and so that Tiverton in Blue Wall can’t get upset they are just as deserving and being cheated.
After all that, are you now levelling up? Of course not, because it is just pretend the ancient mismatch in scale and wealth between London and the secondary cities their regions can ever be levelled, it always was empty unachievable Johnsonian electioneering bollocks.
Why? Because: (a) Red Wall voters have noticed they are still relatively / actually poor (b) Brexit promised them resources and riches (c) Tories promised them definitely resources and riches (d) They won't take no for an answer
Either this government produces a rabbit out of the hat or the Tory 2019 first timers depart.
(A) is wrong.
Red Wall Tory voters are typically home owners, not impoverished people awaiting resources and riches.
Thanks to the relatively huge success in building new homes up here, compared to the rest of the country, the Red Wall has seen much more people getting on the property ladder rather than the reverse happening as in much of the country.
That's the real reason the non-metropolitan North has been swinging Tory while the South is swinging against the Tories. Because voters here have their own deeds to their very own Barratt Home and similar, rather than rental bills.
(a) is not wrong. A is the reason why we have seen a clearout of Labour councils and Labour MPs in Labour since the Danelaw areas. Try living in the red wall for a while and you will see what they are so upset about./
Incidentally, it wouldn't be a good idea for the Tories to listen to you. Telling people that their lived experience is wrong never works.
Try living in the red wall for a while? Excuse me, I do live in the Red Wall, you don't.
There is new housing estates all over the place. You know, all those homes you keep complaining about because you want to excuse the NIMBY scum? All those new homes have voters.
The Red Wall fell because of construction, because the likes of Barratt etc got people on the property ladder, NOT because poor people suddenly became fed up of Labour not doing anything for them.
You're in Birchwood aren't you? Cheshire daaaaarling.
I've moved around a bit, I'd rather not say where I live if you don't mind, but Birchwood is not a bad example. Warrington North is a safe Labour seat, or used to be, like much of the North West its seen massive construction recently and its trended away from Labour as the share of owner occupier voters in the constituency has risen.
Just like the neighbouring constituency of Leigh. What you'd think of as Leigh is still just as grotty terraced homes as it always was, but its surrounded by new estates of semi-detached homes with gardens and driveways for 2 parking spaces each.
Drive around the new estates of Leigh, versus the old streets of Leigh, and its hardly a surprise voting levels have changed. The voting is changing not because people are suddenly fed up of Labour, but because Leigh itself, much of the North itself, is changing. The houses people are living in - and increasingly owning - are not the same homes that existed thirty years ago.
And constituencies that were predominantly owner occupied in the past, that are now unaffordable and NIMBYs are blocking construction, are seeing trends away from the Tories.
Its housing, stupid.
Again again, I hope your Tory friends go and argue your points on the doorstep. They will be annihilated.
I don't think Bart is presenting an argument why people in Warrington North or Leigh SHOULD vote Tory - he is saying that where there has been a long term shift to owner occupation, especially of new builds - such as Warrington North, Leigh, Blyth, Rother Valley, and dozens of others - there has been a long term shift to the Tories. This seems inarguable to me. I also agree with the implication that the Tories would be well served to try to maximise the number of owner occupiers.
Bingo. You've nailed it completely.
Essentially Britain votes by housing. Renters as a class tend to vote Labour. Owned outright tend to vote Tory. Owned with a mortgage, are the swing voters, who in recent years have voted Tory but in Blair's time voted Labour.
In much of the country renting has become more common, but in parts of the North owner occupiers have become more common due to vast amounts of new builds. That has meant more Tory voters, but since those voters have mortgages they're not safe Tory.
The idea that the North swung Tory because voters were pissed off and angry misses the transformation in housing that has happened. Drive around the North outside the cities, and yes if you're here you're driving to get around, and there has been major new housing developments and those developments lead to new owner occupiers which changes how people think about voting.
There have been suggestions of this voting-by-housing-tenure hypothesis before. It is interesting and believable, but I don't know of studies that examine it carefully. Do you?
I've seen many studies on it before, none to hand, but this excellent chart is in the article I linked to above and sums it up well.
The vast construction in the Red Wall, one of the only places in the country where there has been a semi-reasonable amount of construction, has led to home ownership rates here moving from Labour levels to Tory levels. The seats then swung accordingly.
Home ownership and GE2019 As in previous years, homeowners were more likely to vote Conservative in the 2019 election. According to Ipsos MORI’s figures, 57% of voters who owned their home outright voted Conservative, as did 43% of people with mortgages. By contrast, 45% of social renters and 46% of private renters voted Labour.
The 2011 Census tells us how many homeowners were in each constituency. At the time, around 64% of UK households owned their home, either outright or with a mortgage. 315 of the Conservatives’ 365 seats (86%) had home ownership levels above this average, compared with 53 of Labour’s 202 seats (26%). Nine of the Lib Dems’ 11 seats had above-average home ownership levels (82%).
86% above average ownership for Tories, 26% for Labour.
Home ownership is far and away what affects voting in this country. NIMBY scum like our Essicks Massiv that wants to invade Scotland, or the first son of Abraham, are doing their level best to discourage people from voting Tory.
That's a bit jarring, seeing "scum" affixed to NIMBYs. Don't think I've ever come across it before. Really quite unusual.
When the world owes you a 5 bed detached des res, waiting to collect can get to you.
Especially if deleting the pampering of Tory-approved standard nuclear families under the current IHT regulations, and imposing wealth tax on landed property, are active subjects for discussion to remedy the chaos of the last few years.
Only 9% of voters want IHT to rise, the lowest of any tax.
Though yes wealth taxes on million pound plus properties might not be too unpopular if Labour proposes them (outside of a few central London Labour target seats like Kensington and Cities of London and Westminster)
No, it says 9% of voters included inheritance tax in the top three taxes they want held constant.
Obviously people want taxes on other, higher-income people to go up, though they also love the public services those people pay for by building businesses in the UK or working in jobs that are created in the UK, so it's a bit of a bind.
Belgium has a big welfare state by taxing ordinary people at 30% from euro one. The average Brit wants to pay something like 10%, so of course they get less stuff from government.
So does Sweden have a big welfare state but also no inheritance tax at all.
There are also examples in Europe of lower tax, lower spend nations than the UK eg Switzerland
In fact, the main reason you are worried about IHT is that your Topry voters will be bribed with our money so they don't have to spend their own savings on looking after themselves. Using that purpose for savings is what ordinary self-respecting civilised non-selfish citizens used to.
Preserving property and inheritance is a core Tory value. Why should Tories care what non Tories like you think about it?
Because you're deliberately parasitising on most of society, which don't have enough to leave to get to the 325K limit [edit] and will not get anywhere where they have to worry abotu the Special Allowance For Publicly Subsidising Tory Voting Sponging Pensioners And Their Greedy Offspring.
'Levelling up' is dangerous ground for Sunak, given that video of him trumpeting unlevelling up the already high...
That’s not actually what he was saying in the video. But Labour had artfully cut the video to mislead.
He was saying that all deprived areas need support - including deprived rural areas in Kent - not just deprived urban areas
The problem was not him rightly pointing to pockets of deprived rural areas. The probem was that he claimed he had taken money from genuinely shonky areas in the north to give to pockets of deprived rural areas.
Nobody is denying that rural places can't hide poverty. But you can't divert money from places already promised the cash. Or in practice what it's meant is that money has gone to posh Tory areas to sort the small bit that isn't quite as posh as the rest whilst the scum area gets little or nothing.
Stockton on Tees seeing levelling up money spent in Yarm as a prime example. Yes, there are bits of Yarm not as nice as the rest. But relatively these areas are fine - certainly a lot better than chunks of town centre or Newtown wards.
Why do the Tories still have a minister for levelling up? Bottom line up front, Boris Johnson’s glib election promise “we will level up” is undeliverable bollocks.
Once you fathom out the impossible to fathom out “what exactly does it mean? Level up the north to the level of the south? But bits of the south are just as run down as bits of the north and vice versa? And switch to how to do it anyway to delivery something at least, even though you don’t really understand what it means, you realise it’s not about funnelling existing money from this to that, you will just end up hated and stuck in the 20s in the polling, it has to be new money, given to deserving places, fairly, and so that Tiverton in Blue Wall can’t get upset they are just as deserving and being cheated.
After all that, are you now levelling up? Of course not, because it is just pretend the ancient mismatch in scale and wealth between London and the secondary cities their regions can ever be levelled, it always was empty unachievable Johnsonian electioneering bollocks.
Why? Because: (a) Red Wall voters have noticed they are still relatively / actually poor (b) Brexit promised them resources and riches (c) Tories promised them definitely resources and riches (d) They won't take no for an answer
Either this government produces a rabbit out of the hat or the Tory 2019 first timers depart.
(A) is wrong.
Red Wall Tory voters are typically home owners, not impoverished people awaiting resources and riches.
Thanks to the relatively huge success in building new homes up here, compared to the rest of the country, the Red Wall has seen much more people getting on the property ladder rather than the reverse happening as in much of the country.
That's the real reason the non-metropolitan North has been swinging Tory while the South is swinging against the Tories. Because voters here have their own deeds to their very own Barratt Home and similar, rather than rental bills.
(a) is not wrong. A is the reason why we have seen a clearout of Labour councils and Labour MPs in Labour since the Danelaw areas. Try living in the red wall for a while and you will see what they are so upset about./
Incidentally, it wouldn't be a good idea for the Tories to listen to you. Telling people that their lived experience is wrong never works.
Try living in the red wall for a while? Excuse me, I do live in the Red Wall, you don't.
There is new housing estates all over the place. You know, all those homes you keep complaining about because you want to excuse the NIMBY scum? All those new homes have voters.
The Red Wall fell because of construction, because the likes of Barratt etc got people on the property ladder, NOT because poor people suddenly became fed up of Labour not doing anything for them.
You're in Birchwood aren't you? Cheshire daaaaarling.
I've moved around a bit, I'd rather not say where I live if you don't mind, but Birchwood is not a bad example. Warrington North is a safe Labour seat, or used to be, like much of the North West its seen massive construction recently and its trended away from Labour as the share of owner occupier voters in the constituency has risen.
Just like the neighbouring constituency of Leigh. What you'd think of as Leigh is still just as grotty terraced homes as it always was, but its surrounded by new estates of semi-detached homes with gardens and driveways for 2 parking spaces each.
Drive around the new estates of Leigh, versus the old streets of Leigh, and its hardly a surprise voting levels have changed. The voting is changing not because people are suddenly fed up of Labour, but because Leigh itself, much of the North itself, is changing. The houses people are living in - and increasingly owning - are not the same homes that existed thirty years ago.
And constituencies that were predominantly owner occupied in the past, that are now unaffordable and NIMBYs are blocking construction, are seeing trends away from the Tories.
Its housing, stupid.
Again again, I hope your Tory friends go and argue your points on the doorstep. They will be annihilated.
I don't think Bart is presenting an argument why people in Warrington North or Leigh SHOULD vote Tory - he is saying that where there has been a long term shift to owner occupation, especially of new builds - such as Warrington North, Leigh, Blyth, Rother Valley, and dozens of others - there has been a long term shift to the Tories. This seems inarguable to me. I also agree with the implication that the Tories would be well served to try to maximise the number of owner occupiers.
Bingo. You've nailed it completely.
Essentially Britain votes by housing. Renters as a class tend to vote Labour. Owned outright tend to vote Tory. Owned with a mortgage, are the swing voters, who in recent years have voted Tory but in Blair's time voted Labour.
In much of the country renting has become more common, but in parts of the North owner occupiers have become more common due to vast amounts of new builds. That has meant more Tory voters, but since those voters have mortgages they're not safe Tory.
The idea that the North swung Tory because voters were pissed off and angry misses the transformation in housing that has happened. Drive around the North outside the cities, and yes if you're here you're driving to get around, and there has been major new housing developments and those developments lead to new owner occupiers which changes how people think about voting.
There have been suggestions of this voting-by-housing-tenure hypothesis before. It is interesting and believable, but I don't know of studies that examine it carefully. Do you?
I've seen many studies on it before, none to hand, but this excellent chart is in the article I linked to above and sums it up well.
The vast construction in the Red Wall, one of the only places in the country where there has been a semi-reasonable amount of construction, has led to home ownership rates here moving from Labour levels to Tory levels. The seats then swung accordingly.
Home ownership and GE2019 As in previous years, homeowners were more likely to vote Conservative in the 2019 election. According to Ipsos MORI’s figures, 57% of voters who owned their home outright voted Conservative, as did 43% of people with mortgages. By contrast, 45% of social renters and 46% of private renters voted Labour.
The 2011 Census tells us how many homeowners were in each constituency. At the time, around 64% of UK households owned their home, either outright or with a mortgage. 315 of the Conservatives’ 365 seats (86%) had home ownership levels above this average, compared with 53 of Labour’s 202 seats (26%). Nine of the Lib Dems’ 11 seats had above-average home ownership levels (82%).
86% above average ownership for Tories, 26% for Labour.
Home ownership is far and away what affects voting in this country. NIMBY scum like our Essicks Massiv that wants to invade Scotland, or the first son of Abraham, are doing their level best to discourage people from voting Tory.
That's a bit jarring, seeing "scum" affixed to NIMBYs. Don't think I've ever come across it before. Really quite unusual.
When the world owes you a 5 bed detached des res, waiting to collect can get to you.
Especially if deleting the pampering of Tory-approved standard nuclear families under the current IHT regulations, and imposing wealth tax on landed property, are active subjects for discussion to remedy the chaos of the last few years.
Only 9% of voters want IHT to rise, the lowest of any tax.
Though yes wealth taxes on million pound plus properties might not be too unpopular if Labour proposes them (outside of a few central London Labour target seats like Kensington and Cities of London and Westminster)
No, it says 9% of voters included inheritance tax in the top three taxes they want held constant.
Obviously people want taxes on other, higher-income people to go up, though they also love the public services those people pay for by building businesses in the UK or working in jobs that are created in the UK, so it's a bit of a bind.
Belgium has a big welfare state by taxing ordinary people at 30% from euro one. The average Brit wants to pay something like 10%, so of course they get less stuff from government.
So does Sweden have a big welfare state but also no inheritance tax at all.
There are also examples in Europe of lower tax, lower spend nations than the UK eg Switzerland
There are countries which eat dog, but that doesn't mean it would go down well in Epping High Street.
Yes. Neither Switzerland's reliance on foreign labour and savings, nor Sweden's reliance on household borrowing and lack of financial returns to education and skills, would work in a British semi-D town.
BREAKING: Immigration minister Robert Jenrick tells @SophyRidgeSky a judicial review has been launched against the Home Office over overcrowding of migrants at Manston.
Interestingly sources claimed that when Suella Braverman asked for a second opinion on legal advice that said it was against the HO statutory duty not to release people quicker from Manston, she thought 2nd opinion could help protect HO in case of a judicial review. https://twitter.com/anushkaasthana/status/1587871557849944066
These lawyers are determined that not a single illegal migrant should be deported.
BREAKING: Immigration minister Robert Jenrick tells @SophyRidgeSky a judicial review has been launched against the Home Office over overcrowding of migrants at Manston.
Interestingly sources claimed that when Suella Braverman asked for a second opinion on legal advice that said it was against the HO statutory duty not to release people quicker from Manston, she thought 2nd opinion could help protect HO in case of a judicial review. https://twitter.com/anushkaasthana/status/1587871557849944066
These lawyers are determined that not a single illegal migrant should be deported.
Why are they bothering? The HO seems to be doing their job for them already.
'Levelling up' is dangerous ground for Sunak, given that video of him trumpeting unlevelling up the already high...
That’s not actually what he was saying in the video. But Labour had artfully cut the video to mislead.
He was saying that all deprived areas need support - including deprived rural areas in Kent - not just deprived urban areas
The problem was not him rightly pointing to pockets of deprived rural areas. The probem was that he claimed he had taken money from genuinely shonky areas in the north to give to pockets of deprived rural areas.
Nobody is denying that rural places can't hide poverty. But you can't divert money from places already promised the cash. Or in practice what it's meant is that money has gone to posh Tory areas to sort the small bit that isn't quite as posh as the rest whilst the scum area gets little or nothing.
Stockton on Tees seeing levelling up money spent in Yarm as a prime example. Yes, there are bits of Yarm not as nice as the rest. But relatively these areas are fine - certainly a lot better than chunks of town centre or Newtown wards.
Why do the Tories still have a minister for levelling up? Bottom line up front, Boris Johnson’s glib election promise “we will level up” is undeliverable bollocks.
Once you fathom out the impossible to fathom out “what exactly does it mean? Level up the north to the level of the south? But bits of the south are just as run down as bits of the north and vice versa? And switch to how to do it anyway to delivery something at least, even though you don’t really understand what it means, you realise it’s not about funnelling existing money from this to that, you will just end up hated and stuck in the 20s in the polling, it has to be new money, given to deserving places, fairly, and so that Tiverton in Blue Wall can’t get upset they are just as deserving and being cheated.
After all that, are you now levelling up? Of course not, because it is just pretend the ancient mismatch in scale and wealth between London and the secondary cities their regions can ever be levelled, it always was empty unachievable Johnsonian electioneering bollocks.
Why? Because: (a) Red Wall voters have noticed they are still relatively / actually poor (b) Brexit promised them resources and riches (c) Tories promised them definitely resources and riches (d) They won't take no for an answer
Either this government produces a rabbit out of the hat or the Tory 2019 first timers depart.
(A) is wrong.
Red Wall Tory voters are typically home owners, not impoverished people awaiting resources and riches.
Thanks to the relatively huge success in building new homes up here, compared to the rest of the country, the Red Wall has seen much more people getting on the property ladder rather than the reverse happening as in much of the country.
That's the real reason the non-metropolitan North has been swinging Tory while the South is swinging against the Tories. Because voters here have their own deeds to their very own Barratt Home and similar, rather than rental bills.
(a) is not wrong. A is the reason why we have seen a clearout of Labour councils and Labour MPs in Labour since the Danelaw areas. Try living in the red wall for a while and you will see what they are so upset about./
Incidentally, it wouldn't be a good idea for the Tories to listen to you. Telling people that their lived experience is wrong never works.
Try living in the red wall for a while? Excuse me, I do live in the Red Wall, you don't.
There is new housing estates all over the place. You know, all those homes you keep complaining about because you want to excuse the NIMBY scum? All those new homes have voters.
The Red Wall fell because of construction, because the likes of Barratt etc got people on the property ladder, NOT because poor people suddenly became fed up of Labour not doing anything for them.
You're in Birchwood aren't you? Cheshire daaaaarling.
I've moved around a bit, I'd rather not say where I live if you don't mind, but Birchwood is not a bad example. Warrington North is a safe Labour seat, or used to be, like much of the North West its seen massive construction recently and its trended away from Labour as the share of owner occupier voters in the constituency has risen.
Just like the neighbouring constituency of Leigh. What you'd think of as Leigh is still just as grotty terraced homes as it always was, but its surrounded by new estates of semi-detached homes with gardens and driveways for 2 parking spaces each.
Drive around the new estates of Leigh, versus the old streets of Leigh, and its hardly a surprise voting levels have changed. The voting is changing not because people are suddenly fed up of Labour, but because Leigh itself, much of the North itself, is changing. The houses people are living in - and increasingly owning - are not the same homes that existed thirty years ago.
And constituencies that were predominantly owner occupied in the past, that are now unaffordable and NIMBYs are blocking construction, are seeing trends away from the Tories.
Its housing, stupid.
Again again, I hope your Tory friends go and argue your points on the doorstep. They will be annihilated.
I don't think Bart is presenting an argument why people in Warrington North or Leigh SHOULD vote Tory - he is saying that where there has been a long term shift to owner occupation, especially of new builds - such as Warrington North, Leigh, Blyth, Rother Valley, and dozens of others - there has been a long term shift to the Tories. This seems inarguable to me. I also agree with the implication that the Tories would be well served to try to maximise the number of owner occupiers.
Bingo. You've nailed it completely.
Essentially Britain votes by housing. Renters as a class tend to vote Labour. Owned outright tend to vote Tory. Owned with a mortgage, are the swing voters, who in recent years have voted Tory but in Blair's time voted Labour.
In much of the country renting has become more common, but in parts of the North owner occupiers have become more common due to vast amounts of new builds. That has meant more Tory voters, but since those voters have mortgages they're not safe Tory.
The idea that the North swung Tory because voters were pissed off and angry misses the transformation in housing that has happened. Drive around the North outside the cities, and yes if you're here you're driving to get around, and there has been major new housing developments and those developments lead to new owner occupiers which changes how people think about voting.
There have been suggestions of this voting-by-housing-tenure hypothesis before. It is interesting and believable, but I don't know of studies that examine it carefully. Do you?
I've seen many studies on it before, none to hand, but this excellent chart is in the article I linked to above and sums it up well.
The vast construction in the Red Wall, one of the only places in the country where there has been a semi-reasonable amount of construction, has led to home ownership rates here moving from Labour levels to Tory levels. The seats then swung accordingly.
Home ownership and GE2019 As in previous years, homeowners were more likely to vote Conservative in the 2019 election. According to Ipsos MORI’s figures, 57% of voters who owned their home outright voted Conservative, as did 43% of people with mortgages. By contrast, 45% of social renters and 46% of private renters voted Labour.
The 2011 Census tells us how many homeowners were in each constituency. At the time, around 64% of UK households owned their home, either outright or with a mortgage. 315 of the Conservatives’ 365 seats (86%) had home ownership levels above this average, compared with 53 of Labour’s 202 seats (26%). Nine of the Lib Dems’ 11 seats had above-average home ownership levels (82%).
86% above average ownership for Tories, 26% for Labour.
Home ownership is far and away what affects voting in this country. NIMBY scum like our Essicks Massiv that wants to invade Scotland, or the first son of Abraham, are doing their level best to discourage people from voting Tory.
That's a bit jarring, seeing "scum" affixed to NIMBYs. Don't think I've ever come across it before. Really quite unusual.
When the world owes you a 5 bed detached des res, waiting to collect can get to you.
Especially if deleting the pampering of Tory-approved standard nuclear families under the current IHT regulations, and imposing wealth tax on landed property, are active subjects for discussion to remedy the chaos of the last few years.
Only 9% of voters want IHT to rise, the lowest of any tax.
Though yes wealth taxes on million pound plus properties might not be too unpopular if Labour proposes them (outside of a few central London Labour target seats like Kensington and Cities of London and Westminster)
No, it says 9% of voters included inheritance tax in the top three taxes they want held constant.
Obviously people want taxes on other, higher-income people to go up, though they also love the public services those people pay for by building businesses in the UK or working in jobs that are created in the UK, so it's a bit of a bind.
Belgium has a big welfare state by taxing ordinary people at 30% from euro one. The average Brit wants to pay something like 10%, so of course they get less stuff from government.
So does Sweden have a big welfare state but also no inheritance tax at all.
There are also examples in Europe of lower tax, lower spend nations than the UK eg Switzerland
In fact, the main reason you are worried about IHT is that your Topry voters will be bribed with our money so they don't have to spend their own savings on looking after themselves. Using that purpose for savings is what ordinary self-respecting civilised non-selfish citizens used to.
Preserving property and inheritance is a core Tory value. Why should Tories care what non Tories like you think about it?
Because you're deliberately parasitising on most of society, which don't have enough to leave to get to the 325K limit [edit] and will not get anywhere where they have to worry abotu the Special Allowance For Publicly Subsidising Tory Voting Sponging Pensioners And Their Greedy Offspring.
In London the average sold property price is £740,597, in Surrey the average house price is £620,686, so it is not just the rich but average voters in London and the Home Counties hit by higher IHT
'Levelling up' is dangerous ground for Sunak, given that video of him trumpeting unlevelling up the already high...
That’s not actually what he was saying in the video. But Labour had artfully cut the video to mislead.
He was saying that all deprived areas need support - including deprived rural areas in Kent - not just deprived urban areas
The problem was not him rightly pointing to pockets of deprived rural areas. The probem was that he claimed he had taken money from genuinely shonky areas in the north to give to pockets of deprived rural areas.
Nobody is denying that rural places can't hide poverty. But you can't divert money from places already promised the cash. Or in practice what it's meant is that money has gone to posh Tory areas to sort the small bit that isn't quite as posh as the rest whilst the scum area gets little or nothing.
Stockton on Tees seeing levelling up money spent in Yarm as a prime example. Yes, there are bits of Yarm not as nice as the rest. But relatively these areas are fine - certainly a lot better than chunks of town centre or Newtown wards.
Why do the Tories still have a minister for levelling up? Bottom line up front, Boris Johnson’s glib election promise “we will level up” is undeliverable bollocks.
Once you fathom out the impossible to fathom out “what exactly does it mean? Level up the north to the level of the south? But bits of the south are just as run down as bits of the north and vice versa? And switch to how to do it anyway to delivery something at least, even though you don’t really understand what it means, you realise it’s not about funnelling existing money from this to that, you will just end up hated and stuck in the 20s in the polling, it has to be new money, given to deserving places, fairly, and so that Tiverton in Blue Wall can’t get upset they are just as deserving and being cheated.
After all that, are you now levelling up? Of course not, because it is just pretend the ancient mismatch in scale and wealth between London and the secondary cities their regions can ever be levelled, it always was empty unachievable Johnsonian electioneering bollocks.
Why? Because: (a) Red Wall voters have noticed they are still relatively / actually poor (b) Brexit promised them resources and riches (c) Tories promised them definitely resources and riches (d) They won't take no for an answer
Either this government produces a rabbit out of the hat or the Tory 2019 first timers depart.
(A) is wrong.
Red Wall Tory voters are typically home owners, not impoverished people awaiting resources and riches.
Thanks to the relatively huge success in building new homes up here, compared to the rest of the country, the Red Wall has seen much more people getting on the property ladder rather than the reverse happening as in much of the country.
That's the real reason the non-metropolitan North has been swinging Tory while the South is swinging against the Tories. Because voters here have their own deeds to their very own Barratt Home and similar, rather than rental bills.
(a) is not wrong. A is the reason why we have seen a clearout of Labour councils and Labour MPs in Labour since the Danelaw areas. Try living in the red wall for a while and you will see what they are so upset about./
Incidentally, it wouldn't be a good idea for the Tories to listen to you. Telling people that their lived experience is wrong never works.
Try living in the red wall for a while? Excuse me, I do live in the Red Wall, you don't.
There is new housing estates all over the place. You know, all those homes you keep complaining about because you want to excuse the NIMBY scum? All those new homes have voters.
The Red Wall fell because of construction, because the likes of Barratt etc got people on the property ladder, NOT because poor people suddenly became fed up of Labour not doing anything for them.
You're in Birchwood aren't you? Cheshire daaaaarling.
I've moved around a bit, I'd rather not say where I live if you don't mind, but Birchwood is not a bad example. Warrington North is a safe Labour seat, or used to be, like much of the North West its seen massive construction recently and its trended away from Labour as the share of owner occupier voters in the constituency has risen.
Just like the neighbouring constituency of Leigh. What you'd think of as Leigh is still just as grotty terraced homes as it always was, but its surrounded by new estates of semi-detached homes with gardens and driveways for 2 parking spaces each.
Drive around the new estates of Leigh, versus the old streets of Leigh, and its hardly a surprise voting levels have changed. The voting is changing not because people are suddenly fed up of Labour, but because Leigh itself, much of the North itself, is changing. The houses people are living in - and increasingly owning - are not the same homes that existed thirty years ago.
And constituencies that were predominantly owner occupied in the past, that are now unaffordable and NIMBYs are blocking construction, are seeing trends away from the Tories.
Its housing, stupid.
Again again, I hope your Tory friends go and argue your points on the doorstep. They will be annihilated.
I don't think Bart is presenting an argument why people in Warrington North or Leigh SHOULD vote Tory - he is saying that where there has been a long term shift to owner occupation, especially of new builds - such as Warrington North, Leigh, Blyth, Rother Valley, and dozens of others - there has been a long term shift to the Tories. This seems inarguable to me. I also agree with the implication that the Tories would be well served to try to maximise the number of owner occupiers.
Bingo. You've nailed it completely.
Essentially Britain votes by housing. Renters as a class tend to vote Labour. Owned outright tend to vote Tory. Owned with a mortgage, are the swing voters, who in recent years have voted Tory but in Blair's time voted Labour.
In much of the country renting has become more common, but in parts of the North owner occupiers have become more common due to vast amounts of new builds. That has meant more Tory voters, but since those voters have mortgages they're not safe Tory.
The idea that the North swung Tory because voters were pissed off and angry misses the transformation in housing that has happened. Drive around the North outside the cities, and yes if you're here you're driving to get around, and there has been major new housing developments and those developments lead to new owner occupiers which changes how people think about voting.
There have been suggestions of this voting-by-housing-tenure hypothesis before. It is interesting and believable, but I don't know of studies that examine it carefully. Do you?
I've seen many studies on it before, none to hand, but this excellent chart is in the article I linked to above and sums it up well.
The vast construction in the Red Wall, one of the only places in the country where there has been a semi-reasonable amount of construction, has led to home ownership rates here moving from Labour levels to Tory levels. The seats then swung accordingly.
Home ownership and GE2019 As in previous years, homeowners were more likely to vote Conservative in the 2019 election. According to Ipsos MORI’s figures, 57% of voters who owned their home outright voted Conservative, as did 43% of people with mortgages. By contrast, 45% of social renters and 46% of private renters voted Labour.
The 2011 Census tells us how many homeowners were in each constituency. At the time, around 64% of UK households owned their home, either outright or with a mortgage. 315 of the Conservatives’ 365 seats (86%) had home ownership levels above this average, compared with 53 of Labour’s 202 seats (26%). Nine of the Lib Dems’ 11 seats had above-average home ownership levels (82%).
86% above average ownership for Tories, 26% for Labour.
Home ownership is far and away what affects voting in this country. NIMBY scum like our Essicks Massiv that wants to invade Scotland, or the first son of Abraham, are doing their level best to discourage people from voting Tory.
That's a bit jarring, seeing "scum" affixed to NIMBYs. Don't think I've ever come across it before. Really quite unusual.
When the world owes you a 5 bed detached des res, waiting to collect can get to you.
Especially if deleting the pampering of Tory-approved standard nuclear families under the current IHT regulations, and imposing wealth tax on landed property, are active subjects for discussion to remedy the chaos of the last few years.
Only 9% of voters want IHT to rise, the lowest of any tax.
Though yes wealth taxes on million pound plus properties might not be too unpopular if Labour proposes them (outside of a few central London Labour target seats like Kensington and Cities of London and Westminster)
No, it says 9% of voters included inheritance tax in the top three taxes they want held constant.
Obviously people want taxes on other, higher-income people to go up, though they also love the public services those people pay for by building businesses in the UK or working in jobs that are created in the UK, so it's a bit of a bind.
Belgium has a big welfare state by taxing ordinary people at 30% from euro one. The average Brit wants to pay something like 10%, so of course they get less stuff from government.
So does Sweden have a big welfare state but also no inheritance tax at all.
There are also examples in Europe of lower tax, lower spend nations than the UK eg Switzerland
There are countries which eat dog, but that doesn't mean it would go down well in Epping High Street.
Yes. Neither Switzerland's reliance on foreign labour and savings, nor Sweden's reliance on household borrowing and lack of financial returns to education and skills, would work in a British semi-D town.
Plenty of foreign immigrant labour and borrowing in the UK at the moment
'Levelling up' is dangerous ground for Sunak, given that video of him trumpeting unlevelling up the already high...
That’s not actually what he was saying in the video. But Labour had artfully cut the video to mislead.
He was saying that all deprived areas need support - including deprived rural areas in Kent - not just deprived urban areas
The problem was not him rightly pointing to pockets of deprived rural areas. The probem was that he claimed he had taken money from genuinely shonky areas in the north to give to pockets of deprived rural areas.
Nobody is denying that rural places can't hide poverty. But you can't divert money from places already promised the cash. Or in practice what it's meant is that money has gone to posh Tory areas to sort the small bit that isn't quite as posh as the rest whilst the scum area gets little or nothing.
Stockton on Tees seeing levelling up money spent in Yarm as a prime example. Yes, there are bits of Yarm not as nice as the rest. But relatively these areas are fine - certainly a lot better than chunks of town centre or Newtown wards.
Why do the Tories still have a minister for levelling up? Bottom line up front, Boris Johnson’s glib election promise “we will level up” is undeliverable bollocks.
Once you fathom out the impossible to fathom out “what exactly does it mean? Level up the north to the level of the south? But bits of the south are just as run down as bits of the north and vice versa? And switch to how to do it anyway to delivery something at least, even though you don’t really understand what it means, you realise it’s not about funnelling existing money from this to that, you will just end up hated and stuck in the 20s in the polling, it has to be new money, given to deserving places, fairly, and so that Tiverton in Blue Wall can’t get upset they are just as deserving and being cheated.
After all that, are you now levelling up? Of course not, because it is just pretend the ancient mismatch in scale and wealth between London and the secondary cities their regions can ever be levelled, it always was empty unachievable Johnsonian electioneering bollocks.
Why? Because: (a) Red Wall voters have noticed they are still relatively / actually poor (b) Brexit promised them resources and riches (c) Tories promised them definitely resources and riches (d) They won't take no for an answer
Either this government produces a rabbit out of the hat or the Tory 2019 first timers depart.
(A) is wrong.
Red Wall Tory voters are typically home owners, not impoverished people awaiting resources and riches.
Thanks to the relatively huge success in building new homes up here, compared to the rest of the country, the Red Wall has seen much more people getting on the property ladder rather than the reverse happening as in much of the country.
That's the real reason the non-metropolitan North has been swinging Tory while the South is swinging against the Tories. Because voters here have their own deeds to their very own Barratt Home and similar, rather than rental bills.
(a) is not wrong. A is the reason why we have seen a clearout of Labour councils and Labour MPs in Labour since the Danelaw areas. Try living in the red wall for a while and you will see what they are so upset about./
Incidentally, it wouldn't be a good idea for the Tories to listen to you. Telling people that their lived experience is wrong never works.
Try living in the red wall for a while? Excuse me, I do live in the Red Wall, you don't.
There is new housing estates all over the place. You know, all those homes you keep complaining about because you want to excuse the NIMBY scum? All those new homes have voters.
The Red Wall fell because of construction, because the likes of Barratt etc got people on the property ladder, NOT because poor people suddenly became fed up of Labour not doing anything for them.
You're in Birchwood aren't you? Cheshire daaaaarling.
I've moved around a bit, I'd rather not say where I live if you don't mind, but Birchwood is not a bad example. Warrington North is a safe Labour seat, or used to be, like much of the North West its seen massive construction recently and its trended away from Labour as the share of owner occupier voters in the constituency has risen.
Just like the neighbouring constituency of Leigh. What you'd think of as Leigh is still just as grotty terraced homes as it always was, but its surrounded by new estates of semi-detached homes with gardens and driveways for 2 parking spaces each.
Drive around the new estates of Leigh, versus the old streets of Leigh, and its hardly a surprise voting levels have changed. The voting is changing not because people are suddenly fed up of Labour, but because Leigh itself, much of the North itself, is changing. The houses people are living in - and increasingly owning - are not the same homes that existed thirty years ago.
And constituencies that were predominantly owner occupied in the past, that are now unaffordable and NIMBYs are blocking construction, are seeing trends away from the Tories.
Its housing, stupid.
Again again, I hope your Tory friends go and argue your points on the doorstep. They will be annihilated.
I don't think Bart is presenting an argument why people in Warrington North or Leigh SHOULD vote Tory - he is saying that where there has been a long term shift to owner occupation, especially of new builds - such as Warrington North, Leigh, Blyth, Rother Valley, and dozens of others - there has been a long term shift to the Tories. This seems inarguable to me. I also agree with the implication that the Tories would be well served to try to maximise the number of owner occupiers.
Bingo. You've nailed it completely.
Essentially Britain votes by housing. Renters as a class tend to vote Labour. Owned outright tend to vote Tory. Owned with a mortgage, are the swing voters, who in recent years have voted Tory but in Blair's time voted Labour.
In much of the country renting has become more common, but in parts of the North owner occupiers have become more common due to vast amounts of new builds. That has meant more Tory voters, but since those voters have mortgages they're not safe Tory.
The idea that the North swung Tory because voters were pissed off and angry misses the transformation in housing that has happened. Drive around the North outside the cities, and yes if you're here you're driving to get around, and there has been major new housing developments and those developments lead to new owner occupiers which changes how people think about voting.
There have been suggestions of this voting-by-housing-tenure hypothesis before. It is interesting and believable, but I don't know of studies that examine it carefully. Do you?
I've seen many studies on it before, none to hand, but this excellent chart is in the article I linked to above and sums it up well.
The vast construction in the Red Wall, one of the only places in the country where there has been a semi-reasonable amount of construction, has led to home ownership rates here moving from Labour levels to Tory levels. The seats then swung accordingly.
Home ownership and GE2019 As in previous years, homeowners were more likely to vote Conservative in the 2019 election. According to Ipsos MORI’s figures, 57% of voters who owned their home outright voted Conservative, as did 43% of people with mortgages. By contrast, 45% of social renters and 46% of private renters voted Labour.
The 2011 Census tells us how many homeowners were in each constituency. At the time, around 64% of UK households owned their home, either outright or with a mortgage. 315 of the Conservatives’ 365 seats (86%) had home ownership levels above this average, compared with 53 of Labour’s 202 seats (26%). Nine of the Lib Dems’ 11 seats had above-average home ownership levels (82%).
86% above average ownership for Tories, 26% for Labour.
Home ownership is far and away what affects voting in this country. NIMBY scum like our Essicks Massiv that wants to invade Scotland, or the first son of Abraham, are doing their level best to discourage people from voting Tory.
That's a bit jarring, seeing "scum" affixed to NIMBYs. Don't think I've ever come across it before. Really quite unusual.
When the world owes you a 5 bed detached des res, waiting to collect can get to you.
Especially if deleting the pampering of Tory-approved standard nuclear families under the current IHT regulations, and imposing wealth tax on landed property, are active subjects for discussion to remedy the chaos of the last few years.
Only 9% of voters want IHT to rise, the lowest of any tax.
Though yes wealth taxes on million pound plus properties might not be too unpopular if Labour proposes them (outside of a few central London Labour target seats like Kensington and Cities of London and Westminster)
No, it says 9% of voters included inheritance tax in the top three taxes they want held constant.
Obviously people want taxes on other, higher-income people to go up, though they also love the public services those people pay for by building businesses in the UK or working in jobs that are created in the UK, so it's a bit of a bind.
Belgium has a big welfare state by taxing ordinary people at 30% from euro one. The average Brit wants to pay something like 10%, so of course they get less stuff from government.
So does Sweden have a big welfare state but also no inheritance tax at all.
There are also examples in Europe of lower tax, lower spend nations than the UK eg Switzerland
In fact, the main reason you are worried about IHT is that your Topry voters will be bribed with our money so they don't have to spend their own savings on looking after themselves. Using that purpose for savings is what ordinary self-respecting civilised non-selfish citizens used to.
Preserving property and inheritance is a core Tory value. Why should Tories care what non Tories like you think about it?
But Hyufdy, that was about preserving the landed estates of the genuinely rich, not the bottom-feeding beneficiaries of a stupid property boom with a 3 bed semi in a shit London suburb. That is, both it was a shit, classist and amoral principle, AND it was entirely different from the principle you think it was anyway. And hereditary tories are turning away from you in droves. And not coming back.
That thread someone posted on the last thread about Albanian asylum seekers..
It's absurd
It says that Albanians still make up just a "small minority" of the total
They're ONE IN SIX
Of all the asylum seekers from all of the world coming to this country
From a country of fewer than three million people
A country that's one thousand five hundred miles away
That's an ENORMOUS minority
They should be less than one percent of asylum seekers in this country, especially since they have freedom to go anywhere in the EU without a dangerous boat crossing
From what are Albanians claiming asylum? I'm not saying I'd want to live there, but it is not ravaged by war, natural disasters or genocidal dictators. Surely once they're identified by Albanian it shoud be relatively easy to send them back (or to Rwanda, if that is preferred).
and are also no slouches when it comes to organ harvesting. Lovely blokes.
Albania's great. Great mountainous scenery, friendly people, great food and wine, Ottoman architecture and that Hoxha-ist cold war backstory. But no money. More Albanians live outside the country than in. I was a bit worried about safety given their reputation in Western Europe, but it seemed very safe, I think most of the criminals have left for richer pickings elsewhere
We had a really great family holiday there. The scenery was beautiful, the people were among the friendliest I've ever encountered - especially to children, it was quite cheap and felt very safe. I'd highly recommend it.
BREAKING: Immigration minister Robert Jenrick tells @SophyRidgeSky a judicial review has been launched against the Home Office over overcrowding of migrants at Manston.
Interestingly sources claimed that when Suella Braverman asked for a second opinion on legal advice that said it was against the HO statutory duty not to release people quicker from Manston, she thought 2nd opinion could help protect HO in case of a judicial review. https://twitter.com/anushkaasthana/status/1587871557849944066
These lawyers are determined that not a single illegal migrant should be deported.
As opposed to the current regime, under which not a single illegal migrant is deported.
'Levelling up' is dangerous ground for Sunak, given that video of him trumpeting unlevelling up the already high...
That’s not actually what he was saying in the video. But Labour had artfully cut the video to mislead.
He was saying that all deprived areas need support - including deprived rural areas in Kent - not just deprived urban areas
The problem was not him rightly pointing to pockets of deprived rural areas. The probem was that he claimed he had taken money from genuinely shonky areas in the north to give to pockets of deprived rural areas.
Nobody is denying that rural places can't hide poverty. But you can't divert money from places already promised the cash. Or in practice what it's meant is that money has gone to posh Tory areas to sort the small bit that isn't quite as posh as the rest whilst the scum area gets little or nothing.
Stockton on Tees seeing levelling up money spent in Yarm as a prime example. Yes, there are bits of Yarm not as nice as the rest. But relatively these areas are fine - certainly a lot better than chunks of town centre or Newtown wards.
Why do the Tories still have a minister for levelling up? Bottom line up front, Boris Johnson’s glib election promise “we will level up” is undeliverable bollocks.
Once you fathom out the impossible to fathom out “what exactly does it mean? Level up the north to the level of the south? But bits of the south are just as run down as bits of the north and vice versa? And switch to how to do it anyway to delivery something at least, even though you don’t really understand what it means, you realise it’s not about funnelling existing money from this to that, you will just end up hated and stuck in the 20s in the polling, it has to be new money, given to deserving places, fairly, and so that Tiverton in Blue Wall can’t get upset they are just as deserving and being cheated.
After all that, are you now levelling up? Of course not, because it is just pretend the ancient mismatch in scale and wealth between London and the secondary cities their regions can ever be levelled, it always was empty unachievable Johnsonian electioneering bollocks.
Why? Because: (a) Red Wall voters have noticed they are still relatively / actually poor (b) Brexit promised them resources and riches (c) Tories promised them definitely resources and riches (d) They won't take no for an answer
Either this government produces a rabbit out of the hat or the Tory 2019 first timers depart.
(A) is wrong.
Red Wall Tory voters are typically home owners, not impoverished people awaiting resources and riches.
Thanks to the relatively huge success in building new homes up here, compared to the rest of the country, the Red Wall has seen much more people getting on the property ladder rather than the reverse happening as in much of the country.
That's the real reason the non-metropolitan North has been swinging Tory while the South is swinging against the Tories. Because voters here have their own deeds to their very own Barratt Home and similar, rather than rental bills.
(a) is not wrong. A is the reason why we have seen a clearout of Labour councils and Labour MPs in Labour since the Danelaw areas. Try living in the red wall for a while and you will see what they are so upset about./
Incidentally, it wouldn't be a good idea for the Tories to listen to you. Telling people that their lived experience is wrong never works.
Try living in the red wall for a while? Excuse me, I do live in the Red Wall, you don't.
There is new housing estates all over the place. You know, all those homes you keep complaining about because you want to excuse the NIMBY scum? All those new homes have voters.
The Red Wall fell because of construction, because the likes of Barratt etc got people on the property ladder, NOT because poor people suddenly became fed up of Labour not doing anything for them.
You're in Birchwood aren't you? Cheshire daaaaarling.
I've moved around a bit, I'd rather not say where I live if you don't mind, but Birchwood is not a bad example. Warrington North is a safe Labour seat, or used to be, like much of the North West its seen massive construction recently and its trended away from Labour as the share of owner occupier voters in the constituency has risen.
Just like the neighbouring constituency of Leigh. What you'd think of as Leigh is still just as grotty terraced homes as it always was, but its surrounded by new estates of semi-detached homes with gardens and driveways for 2 parking spaces each.
Drive around the new estates of Leigh, versus the old streets of Leigh, and its hardly a surprise voting levels have changed. The voting is changing not because people are suddenly fed up of Labour, but because Leigh itself, much of the North itself, is changing. The houses people are living in - and increasingly owning - are not the same homes that existed thirty years ago.
And constituencies that were predominantly owner occupied in the past, that are now unaffordable and NIMBYs are blocking construction, are seeing trends away from the Tories.
Its housing, stupid.
Again again, I hope your Tory friends go and argue your points on the doorstep. They will be annihilated.
I don't think Bart is presenting an argument why people in Warrington North or Leigh SHOULD vote Tory - he is saying that where there has been a long term shift to owner occupation, especially of new builds - such as Warrington North, Leigh, Blyth, Rother Valley, and dozens of others - there has been a long term shift to the Tories. This seems inarguable to me. I also agree with the implication that the Tories would be well served to try to maximise the number of owner occupiers.
Bingo. You've nailed it completely.
Essentially Britain votes by housing. Renters as a class tend to vote Labour. Owned outright tend to vote Tory. Owned with a mortgage, are the swing voters, who in recent years have voted Tory but in Blair's time voted Labour.
In much of the country renting has become more common, but in parts of the North owner occupiers have become more common due to vast amounts of new builds. That has meant more Tory voters, but since those voters have mortgages they're not safe Tory.
The idea that the North swung Tory because voters were pissed off and angry misses the transformation in housing that has happened. Drive around the North outside the cities, and yes if you're here you're driving to get around, and there has been major new housing developments and those developments lead to new owner occupiers which changes how people think about voting.
There have been suggestions of this voting-by-housing-tenure hypothesis before. It is interesting and believable, but I don't know of studies that examine it carefully. Do you?
I've seen many studies on it before, none to hand, but this excellent chart is in the article I linked to above and sums it up well.
The vast construction in the Red Wall, one of the only places in the country where there has been a semi-reasonable amount of construction, has led to home ownership rates here moving from Labour levels to Tory levels. The seats then swung accordingly.
Home ownership and GE2019 As in previous years, homeowners were more likely to vote Conservative in the 2019 election. According to Ipsos MORI’s figures, 57% of voters who owned their home outright voted Conservative, as did 43% of people with mortgages. By contrast, 45% of social renters and 46% of private renters voted Labour.
The 2011 Census tells us how many homeowners were in each constituency. At the time, around 64% of UK households owned their home, either outright or with a mortgage. 315 of the Conservatives’ 365 seats (86%) had home ownership levels above this average, compared with 53 of Labour’s 202 seats (26%). Nine of the Lib Dems’ 11 seats had above-average home ownership levels (82%).
86% above average ownership for Tories, 26% for Labour.
Home ownership is far and away what affects voting in this country. NIMBY scum like our Essicks Massiv that wants to invade Scotland, or the first son of Abraham, are doing their level best to discourage people from voting Tory.
So 82% of LD seats have above average home ownership levels too.
Yes we need more affordable housing, especially in brownbelt areas of London where home ownership is at its lowest and Labour has gained lots of former Conservative seats.
Build all over the greenbelt however and you will see lots of formerly safe Conservative seats like Chesham and Amersham go Liberal Democrat
You say that like its a bad thing.
Better to have people engaged in society and able to have their own home, even if some vote Lib Dem, than unable to afford their own home and voting to tear down society by voting for Labour.
No, we don't want to build all over our greenbelt when the Home Counties already have a 70% owner occupier rate anyway and are largely safe Tory just to send voters to the LDs.
London with only 50% owner occupier rate and lots of Labour seats and Tory marginals vulnerable to Labour does certainly need more affordable homes to buy, the South East less so
'Levelling up' is dangerous ground for Sunak, given that video of him trumpeting unlevelling up the already high...
That’s not actually what he was saying in the video. But Labour had artfully cut the video to mislead.
He was saying that all deprived areas need support - including deprived rural areas in Kent - not just deprived urban areas
The problem was not him rightly pointing to pockets of deprived rural areas. The probem was that he claimed he had taken money from genuinely shonky areas in the north to give to pockets of deprived rural areas.
Nobody is denying that rural places can't hide poverty. But you can't divert money from places already promised the cash. Or in practice what it's meant is that money has gone to posh Tory areas to sort the small bit that isn't quite as posh as the rest whilst the scum area gets little or nothing.
Stockton on Tees seeing levelling up money spent in Yarm as a prime example. Yes, there are bits of Yarm not as nice as the rest. But relatively these areas are fine - certainly a lot better than chunks of town centre or Newtown wards.
Why do the Tories still have a minister for levelling up? Bottom line up front, Boris Johnson’s glib election promise “we will level up” is undeliverable bollocks.
Once you fathom out the impossible to fathom out “what exactly does it mean? Level up the north to the level of the south? But bits of the south are just as run down as bits of the north and vice versa? And switch to how to do it anyway to delivery something at least, even though you don’t really understand what it means, you realise it’s not about funnelling existing money from this to that, you will just end up hated and stuck in the 20s in the polling, it has to be new money, given to deserving places, fairly, and so that Tiverton in Blue Wall can’t get upset they are just as deserving and being cheated.
After all that, are you now levelling up? Of course not, because it is just pretend the ancient mismatch in scale and wealth between London and the secondary cities their regions can ever be levelled, it always was empty unachievable Johnsonian electioneering bollocks.
Why? Because: (a) Red Wall voters have noticed they are still relatively / actually poor (b) Brexit promised them resources and riches (c) Tories promised them definitely resources and riches (d) They won't take no for an answer
Either this government produces a rabbit out of the hat or the Tory 2019 first timers depart.
(A) is wrong.
Red Wall Tory voters are typically home owners, not impoverished people awaiting resources and riches.
Thanks to the relatively huge success in building new homes up here, compared to the rest of the country, the Red Wall has seen much more people getting on the property ladder rather than the reverse happening as in much of the country.
That's the real reason the non-metropolitan North has been swinging Tory while the South is swinging against the Tories. Because voters here have their own deeds to their very own Barratt Home and similar, rather than rental bills.
(a) is not wrong. A is the reason why we have seen a clearout of Labour councils and Labour MPs in Labour since the Danelaw areas. Try living in the red wall for a while and you will see what they are so upset about./
Incidentally, it wouldn't be a good idea for the Tories to listen to you. Telling people that their lived experience is wrong never works.
Try living in the red wall for a while? Excuse me, I do live in the Red Wall, you don't.
There is new housing estates all over the place. You know, all those homes you keep complaining about because you want to excuse the NIMBY scum? All those new homes have voters.
The Red Wall fell because of construction, because the likes of Barratt etc got people on the property ladder, NOT because poor people suddenly became fed up of Labour not doing anything for them.
You're in Birchwood aren't you? Cheshire daaaaarling.
I've moved around a bit, I'd rather not say where I live if you don't mind, but Birchwood is not a bad example. Warrington North is a safe Labour seat, or used to be, like much of the North West its seen massive construction recently and its trended away from Labour as the share of owner occupier voters in the constituency has risen.
Just like the neighbouring constituency of Leigh. What you'd think of as Leigh is still just as grotty terraced homes as it always was, but its surrounded by new estates of semi-detached homes with gardens and driveways for 2 parking spaces each.
Drive around the new estates of Leigh, versus the old streets of Leigh, and its hardly a surprise voting levels have changed. The voting is changing not because people are suddenly fed up of Labour, but because Leigh itself, much of the North itself, is changing. The houses people are living in - and increasingly owning - are not the same homes that existed thirty years ago.
And constituencies that were predominantly owner occupied in the past, that are now unaffordable and NIMBYs are blocking construction, are seeing trends away from the Tories.
Its housing, stupid.
Again again, I hope your Tory friends go and argue your points on the doorstep. They will be annihilated.
I don't think Bart is presenting an argument why people in Warrington North or Leigh SHOULD vote Tory - he is saying that where there has been a long term shift to owner occupation, especially of new builds - such as Warrington North, Leigh, Blyth, Rother Valley, and dozens of others - there has been a long term shift to the Tories. This seems inarguable to me. I also agree with the implication that the Tories would be well served to try to maximise the number of owner occupiers.
Bingo. You've nailed it completely.
Essentially Britain votes by housing. Renters as a class tend to vote Labour. Owned outright tend to vote Tory. Owned with a mortgage, are the swing voters, who in recent years have voted Tory but in Blair's time voted Labour.
In much of the country renting has become more common, but in parts of the North owner occupiers have become more common due to vast amounts of new builds. That has meant more Tory voters, but since those voters have mortgages they're not safe Tory.
The idea that the North swung Tory because voters were pissed off and angry misses the transformation in housing that has happened. Drive around the North outside the cities, and yes if you're here you're driving to get around, and there has been major new housing developments and those developments lead to new owner occupiers which changes how people think about voting.
There have been suggestions of this voting-by-housing-tenure hypothesis before. It is interesting and believable, but I don't know of studies that examine it carefully. Do you?
I've seen many studies on it before, none to hand, but this excellent chart is in the article I linked to above and sums it up well.
The vast construction in the Red Wall, one of the only places in the country where there has been a semi-reasonable amount of construction, has led to home ownership rates here moving from Labour levels to Tory levels. The seats then swung accordingly.
Home ownership and GE2019 As in previous years, homeowners were more likely to vote Conservative in the 2019 election. According to Ipsos MORI’s figures, 57% of voters who owned their home outright voted Conservative, as did 43% of people with mortgages. By contrast, 45% of social renters and 46% of private renters voted Labour.
The 2011 Census tells us how many homeowners were in each constituency. At the time, around 64% of UK households owned their home, either outright or with a mortgage. 315 of the Conservatives’ 365 seats (86%) had home ownership levels above this average, compared with 53 of Labour’s 202 seats (26%). Nine of the Lib Dems’ 11 seats had above-average home ownership levels (82%).
86% above average ownership for Tories, 26% for Labour.
Home ownership is far and away what affects voting in this country. NIMBY scum like our Essicks Massiv that wants to invade Scotland, or the first son of Abraham, are doing their level best to discourage people from voting Tory.
That's a bit jarring, seeing "scum" affixed to NIMBYs. Don't think I've ever come across it before. Really quite unusual.
When the world owes you a 5 bed detached des res, waiting to collect can get to you.
Especially if deleting the pampering of Tory-approved standard nuclear families under the current IHT regulations, and imposing wealth tax on landed property, are active subjects for discussion to remedy the chaos of the last few years.
Only 9% of voters want IHT to rise, the lowest of any tax.
Though yes wealth taxes on million pound plus properties might not be too unpopular if Labour proposes them (outside of a few central London Labour target seats like Kensington and Cities of London and Westminster)
No, it says 9% of voters included inheritance tax in the top three taxes they want held constant.
Obviously people want taxes on other, higher-income people to go up, though they also love the public services those people pay for by building businesses in the UK or working in jobs that are created in the UK, so it's a bit of a bind.
Belgium has a big welfare state by taxing ordinary people at 30% from euro one. The average Brit wants to pay something like 10%, so of course they get less stuff from government.
So does Sweden have a big welfare state but also no inheritance tax at all.
There are also examples in Europe of lower tax, lower spend nations than the UK eg Switzerland
In fact, the main reason you are worried about IHT is that your Topry voters will be bribed with our money so they don't have to spend their own savings on looking after themselves. Using that purpose for savings is what ordinary self-respecting civilised non-selfish citizens used to.
Preserving property and inheritance is a core Tory value. Why should Tories care what non Tories like you think about it?
But Hyufdy, that was about preserving the landed estates of the genuinely rich, not the bottom-feeding beneficiaries of a stupid property boom with a 3 bed semi in a shit London suburb. That is, both it was a shit, classist and amoral principle, AND it was entirely different from the principle you think it was anyway. And hereditary tories are turning away from you in droves. And not coming back.
Seats like Chingford in London or Bromley are only Tory still mainly because of the property boom and the value of their 3 bed semi, however there are also too many renting there, hence more affordable homes needed in London
'Levelling up' is dangerous ground for Sunak, given that video of him trumpeting unlevelling up the already high...
That’s not actually what he was saying in the video. But Labour had artfully cut the video to mislead.
He was saying that all deprived areas need support - including deprived rural areas in Kent - not just deprived urban areas
The problem was not him rightly pointing to pockets of deprived rural areas. The probem was that he claimed he had taken money from genuinely shonky areas in the north to give to pockets of deprived rural areas.
Nobody is denying that rural places can't hide poverty. But you can't divert money from places already promised the cash. Or in practice what it's meant is that money has gone to posh Tory areas to sort the small bit that isn't quite as posh as the rest whilst the scum area gets little or nothing.
Stockton on Tees seeing levelling up money spent in Yarm as a prime example. Yes, there are bits of Yarm not as nice as the rest. But relatively these areas are fine - certainly a lot better than chunks of town centre or Newtown wards.
Why do the Tories still have a minister for levelling up? Bottom line up front, Boris Johnson’s glib election promise “we will level up” is undeliverable bollocks.
Once you fathom out the impossible to fathom out “what exactly does it mean? Level up the north to the level of the south? But bits of the south are just as run down as bits of the north and vice versa? And switch to how to do it anyway to delivery something at least, even though you don’t really understand what it means, you realise it’s not about funnelling existing money from this to that, you will just end up hated and stuck in the 20s in the polling, it has to be new money, given to deserving places, fairly, and so that Tiverton in Blue Wall can’t get upset they are just as deserving and being cheated.
After all that, are you now levelling up? Of course not, because it is just pretend the ancient mismatch in scale and wealth between London and the secondary cities their regions can ever be levelled, it always was empty unachievable Johnsonian electioneering bollocks.
Why? Because: (a) Red Wall voters have noticed they are still relatively / actually poor (b) Brexit promised them resources and riches (c) Tories promised them definitely resources and riches (d) They won't take no for an answer
Either this government produces a rabbit out of the hat or the Tory 2019 first timers depart.
(A) is wrong.
Red Wall Tory voters are typically home owners, not impoverished people awaiting resources and riches.
Thanks to the relatively huge success in building new homes up here, compared to the rest of the country, the Red Wall has seen much more people getting on the property ladder rather than the reverse happening as in much of the country.
That's the real reason the non-metropolitan North has been swinging Tory while the South is swinging against the Tories. Because voters here have their own deeds to their very own Barratt Home and similar, rather than rental bills.
(a) is not wrong. A is the reason why we have seen a clearout of Labour councils and Labour MPs in Labour since the Danelaw areas. Try living in the red wall for a while and you will see what they are so upset about./
Incidentally, it wouldn't be a good idea for the Tories to listen to you. Telling people that their lived experience is wrong never works.
Try living in the red wall for a while? Excuse me, I do live in the Red Wall, you don't.
There is new housing estates all over the place. You know, all those homes you keep complaining about because you want to excuse the NIMBY scum? All those new homes have voters.
The Red Wall fell because of construction, because the likes of Barratt etc got people on the property ladder, NOT because poor people suddenly became fed up of Labour not doing anything for them.
You're in Birchwood aren't you? Cheshire daaaaarling.
I've moved around a bit, I'd rather not say where I live if you don't mind, but Birchwood is not a bad example. Warrington North is a safe Labour seat, or used to be, like much of the North West its seen massive construction recently and its trended away from Labour as the share of owner occupier voters in the constituency has risen.
Just like the neighbouring constituency of Leigh. What you'd think of as Leigh is still just as grotty terraced homes as it always was, but its surrounded by new estates of semi-detached homes with gardens and driveways for 2 parking spaces each.
Drive around the new estates of Leigh, versus the old streets of Leigh, and its hardly a surprise voting levels have changed. The voting is changing not because people are suddenly fed up of Labour, but because Leigh itself, much of the North itself, is changing. The houses people are living in - and increasingly owning - are not the same homes that existed thirty years ago.
And constituencies that were predominantly owner occupied in the past, that are now unaffordable and NIMBYs are blocking construction, are seeing trends away from the Tories.
Its housing, stupid.
Again again, I hope your Tory friends go and argue your points on the doorstep. They will be annihilated.
I don't think Bart is presenting an argument why people in Warrington North or Leigh SHOULD vote Tory - he is saying that where there has been a long term shift to owner occupation, especially of new builds - such as Warrington North, Leigh, Blyth, Rother Valley, and dozens of others - there has been a long term shift to the Tories. This seems inarguable to me. I also agree with the implication that the Tories would be well served to try to maximise the number of owner occupiers.
Bingo. You've nailed it completely.
Essentially Britain votes by housing. Renters as a class tend to vote Labour. Owned outright tend to vote Tory. Owned with a mortgage, are the swing voters, who in recent years have voted Tory but in Blair's time voted Labour.
In much of the country renting has become more common, but in parts of the North owner occupiers have become more common due to vast amounts of new builds. That has meant more Tory voters, but since those voters have mortgages they're not safe Tory.
The idea that the North swung Tory because voters were pissed off and angry misses the transformation in housing that has happened. Drive around the North outside the cities, and yes if you're here you're driving to get around, and there has been major new housing developments and those developments lead to new owner occupiers which changes how people think about voting.
There have been suggestions of this voting-by-housing-tenure hypothesis before. It is interesting and believable, but I don't know of studies that examine it carefully. Do you?
I've seen many studies on it before, none to hand, but this excellent chart is in the article I linked to above and sums it up well.
The vast construction in the Red Wall, one of the only places in the country where there has been a semi-reasonable amount of construction, has led to home ownership rates here moving from Labour levels to Tory levels. The seats then swung accordingly.
Home ownership and GE2019 As in previous years, homeowners were more likely to vote Conservative in the 2019 election. According to Ipsos MORI’s figures, 57% of voters who owned their home outright voted Conservative, as did 43% of people with mortgages. By contrast, 45% of social renters and 46% of private renters voted Labour.
The 2011 Census tells us how many homeowners were in each constituency. At the time, around 64% of UK households owned their home, either outright or with a mortgage. 315 of the Conservatives’ 365 seats (86%) had home ownership levels above this average, compared with 53 of Labour’s 202 seats (26%). Nine of the Lib Dems’ 11 seats had above-average home ownership levels (82%).
86% above average ownership for Tories, 26% for Labour.
Home ownership is far and away what affects voting in this country. NIMBY scum like our Essicks Massiv that wants to invade Scotland, or the first son of Abraham, are doing their level best to discourage people from voting Tory.
That's a bit jarring, seeing "scum" affixed to NIMBYs. Don't think I've ever come across it before. Really quite unusual.
When the world owes you a 5 bed detached des res, waiting to collect can get to you.
Especially if deleting the pampering of Tory-approved standard nuclear families under the current IHT regulations, and imposing wealth tax on landed property, are active subjects for discussion to remedy the chaos of the last few years.
Only 9% of voters want IHT to rise, the lowest of any tax.
Though yes wealth taxes on million pound plus properties might not be too unpopular if Labour proposes them (outside of a few central London Labour target seats like Kensington and Cities of London and Westminster)
No, it says 9% of voters included inheritance tax in the top three taxes they want held constant.
Obviously people want taxes on other, higher-income people to go up, though they also love the public services those people pay for by building businesses in the UK or working in jobs that are created in the UK, so it's a bit of a bind.
Belgium has a big welfare state by taxing ordinary people at 30% from euro one. The average Brit wants to pay something like 10%, so of course they get less stuff from government.
So does Sweden have a big welfare state but also no inheritance tax at all.
There are also examples in Europe of lower tax, lower spend nations than the UK eg Switzerland
In fact, the main reason you are worried about IHT is that your Topry voters will be bribed with our money so they don't have to spend their own savings on looking after themselves. Using that purpose for savings is what ordinary self-respecting civilised non-selfish citizens used to.
Preserving property and inheritance is a core Tory value. Why should Tories care what non Tories like you think about it?
Because you're deliberately parasitising on most of society, which don't have enough to leave to get to the 325K limit [edit] and will not get anywhere where they have to worry abotu the Special Allowance For Publicly Subsidising Tory Voting Sponging Pensioners And Their Greedy Offspring.
In London the average sold property price is £740,597, in Surrey the average house price is £620,686, so it is not just the rich but average voters in London and the Home Counties hit by higher IHT
(a) that every voter is a home-owner. Many are not. (B) that every home-owner actually has 100% equity without any mortgage. Many are not.
(Of course, both are heavily biased toward the Tories, but they would be for you. Or perhaps Labour and LD and Green voters are not human beings?)
So you are mixing up three different populations and talking bollocks because you trhink it makes your argument look better. Actually, it makes it look even worse.
Anyway, that's enough bollock-toasting to stock a French charcuterie for one evening, so I'm going to go off and read a nice new book. And I suggest you buy yourself a train set and try out the logical operation of points and sidings.
Pennsylvania looks like being very close and because of state laws the mail in votes will be counted later . This means theres likely to be the same drama as in 2020.
The Dems have a huge lead in mail in votes by 70 to 20 over the GOP.
The massive advantage the Dems have in Pennsylvania is that the Republican governor candidate is nuts.
'Levelling up' is dangerous ground for Sunak, given that video of him trumpeting unlevelling up the already high...
That’s not actually what he was saying in the video. But Labour had artfully cut the video to mislead.
He was saying that all deprived areas need support - including deprived rural areas in Kent - not just deprived urban areas
The problem was not him rightly pointing to pockets of deprived rural areas. The probem was that he claimed he had taken money from genuinely shonky areas in the north to give to pockets of deprived rural areas.
Nobody is denying that rural places can't hide poverty. But you can't divert money from places already promised the cash. Or in practice what it's meant is that money has gone to posh Tory areas to sort the small bit that isn't quite as posh as the rest whilst the scum area gets little or nothing.
Stockton on Tees seeing levelling up money spent in Yarm as a prime example. Yes, there are bits of Yarm not as nice as the rest. But relatively these areas are fine - certainly a lot better than chunks of town centre or Newtown wards.
Why do the Tories still have a minister for levelling up? Bottom line up front, Boris Johnson’s glib election promise “we will level up” is undeliverable bollocks.
Once you fathom out the impossible to fathom out “what exactly does it mean? Level up the north to the level of the south? But bits of the south are just as run down as bits of the north and vice versa? And switch to how to do it anyway to delivery something at least, even though you don’t really understand what it means, you realise it’s not about funnelling existing money from this to that, you will just end up hated and stuck in the 20s in the polling, it has to be new money, given to deserving places, fairly, and so that Tiverton in Blue Wall can’t get upset they are just as deserving and being cheated.
After all that, are you now levelling up? Of course not, because it is just pretend the ancient mismatch in scale and wealth between London and the secondary cities their regions can ever be levelled, it always was empty unachievable Johnsonian electioneering bollocks.
Why? Because: (a) Red Wall voters have noticed they are still relatively / actually poor (b) Brexit promised them resources and riches (c) Tories promised them definitely resources and riches (d) They won't take no for an answer
Either this government produces a rabbit out of the hat or the Tory 2019 first timers depart.
(A) is wrong.
Red Wall Tory voters are typically home owners, not impoverished people awaiting resources and riches.
Thanks to the relatively huge success in building new homes up here, compared to the rest of the country, the Red Wall has seen much more people getting on the property ladder rather than the reverse happening as in much of the country.
That's the real reason the non-metropolitan North has been swinging Tory while the South is swinging against the Tories. Because voters here have their own deeds to their very own Barratt Home and similar, rather than rental bills.
(a) is not wrong. A is the reason why we have seen a clearout of Labour councils and Labour MPs in Labour since the Danelaw areas. Try living in the red wall for a while and you will see what they are so upset about./
Incidentally, it wouldn't be a good idea for the Tories to listen to you. Telling people that their lived experience is wrong never works.
Try living in the red wall for a while? Excuse me, I do live in the Red Wall, you don't.
There is new housing estates all over the place. You know, all those homes you keep complaining about because you want to excuse the NIMBY scum? All those new homes have voters.
The Red Wall fell because of construction, because the likes of Barratt etc got people on the property ladder, NOT because poor people suddenly became fed up of Labour not doing anything for them.
You're in Birchwood aren't you? Cheshire daaaaarling.
I've moved around a bit, I'd rather not say where I live if you don't mind, but Birchwood is not a bad example. Warrington North is a safe Labour seat, or used to be, like much of the North West its seen massive construction recently and its trended away from Labour as the share of owner occupier voters in the constituency has risen.
Just like the neighbouring constituency of Leigh. What you'd think of as Leigh is still just as grotty terraced homes as it always was, but its surrounded by new estates of semi-detached homes with gardens and driveways for 2 parking spaces each.
Drive around the new estates of Leigh, versus the old streets of Leigh, and its hardly a surprise voting levels have changed. The voting is changing not because people are suddenly fed up of Labour, but because Leigh itself, much of the North itself, is changing. The houses people are living in - and increasingly owning - are not the same homes that existed thirty years ago.
And constituencies that were predominantly owner occupied in the past, that are now unaffordable and NIMBYs are blocking construction, are seeing trends away from the Tories.
Its housing, stupid.
Again again, I hope your Tory friends go and argue your points on the doorstep. They will be annihilated.
I don't think Bart is presenting an argument why people in Warrington North or Leigh SHOULD vote Tory - he is saying that where there has been a long term shift to owner occupation, especially of new builds - such as Warrington North, Leigh, Blyth, Rother Valley, and dozens of others - there has been a long term shift to the Tories. This seems inarguable to me. I also agree with the implication that the Tories would be well served to try to maximise the number of owner occupiers.
Bingo. You've nailed it completely.
Essentially Britain votes by housing. Renters as a class tend to vote Labour. Owned outright tend to vote Tory. Owned with a mortgage, are the swing voters, who in recent years have voted Tory but in Blair's time voted Labour.
In much of the country renting has become more common, but in parts of the North owner occupiers have become more common due to vast amounts of new builds. That has meant more Tory voters, but since those voters have mortgages they're not safe Tory.
The idea that the North swung Tory because voters were pissed off and angry misses the transformation in housing that has happened. Drive around the North outside the cities, and yes if you're here you're driving to get around, and there has been major new housing developments and those developments lead to new owner occupiers which changes how people think about voting.
There have been suggestions of this voting-by-housing-tenure hypothesis before. It is interesting and believable, but I don't know of studies that examine it carefully. Do you?
I've seen many studies on it before, none to hand, but this excellent chart is in the article I linked to above and sums it up well.
The vast construction in the Red Wall, one of the only places in the country where there has been a semi-reasonable amount of construction, has led to home ownership rates here moving from Labour levels to Tory levels. The seats then swung accordingly.
Home ownership and GE2019 As in previous years, homeowners were more likely to vote Conservative in the 2019 election. According to Ipsos MORI’s figures, 57% of voters who owned their home outright voted Conservative, as did 43% of people with mortgages. By contrast, 45% of social renters and 46% of private renters voted Labour.
The 2011 Census tells us how many homeowners were in each constituency. At the time, around 64% of UK households owned their home, either outright or with a mortgage. 315 of the Conservatives’ 365 seats (86%) had home ownership levels above this average, compared with 53 of Labour’s 202 seats (26%). Nine of the Lib Dems’ 11 seats had above-average home ownership levels (82%).
86% above average ownership for Tories, 26% for Labour.
Home ownership is far and away what affects voting in this country. NIMBY scum like our Essicks Massiv that wants to invade Scotland, or the first son of Abraham, are doing their level best to discourage people from voting Tory.
That's a bit jarring, seeing "scum" affixed to NIMBYs. Don't think I've ever come across it before. Really quite unusual.
When the world owes you a 5 bed detached des res, waiting to collect can get to you.
Especially if deleting the pampering of Tory-approved standard nuclear families under the current IHT regulations, and imposing wealth tax on landed property, are active subjects for discussion to remedy the chaos of the last few years.
Only 9% of voters want IHT to rise, the lowest of any tax.
Though yes wealth taxes on million pound plus properties might not be too unpopular if Labour proposes them (outside of a few central London Labour target seats like Kensington and Cities of London and Westminster)
No, it says 9% of voters included inheritance tax in the top three taxes they want held constant.
Obviously people want taxes on other, higher-income people to go up, though they also love the public services those people pay for by building businesses in the UK or working in jobs that are created in the UK, so it's a bit of a bind.
Belgium has a big welfare state by taxing ordinary people at 30% from euro one. The average Brit wants to pay something like 10%, so of course they get less stuff from government.
So does Sweden have a big welfare state but also no inheritance tax at all.
There are also examples in Europe of lower tax, lower spend nations than the UK eg Switzerland
In fact, the main reason you are worried about IHT is that your Topry voters will be bribed with our money so they don't have to spend their own savings on looking after themselves. Using that purpose for savings is what ordinary self-respecting civilised non-selfish citizens used to.
Preserving property and inheritance is a core Tory value. Why should Tories care what non Tories like you think about it?
Because you're deliberately parasitising on most of society, which don't have enough to leave to get to the 325K limit [edit] and will not get anywhere where they have to worry abotu the Special Allowance For Publicly Subsidising Tory Voting Sponging Pensioners And Their Greedy Offspring.
In London the average sold property price is £740,597, in Surrey the average house price is £620,686, so it is not just the rich but average voters in London and the Home Counties hit by higher IHT
(a) that every voter is a home-owner. Many are not. (B) that every home-owner actually has 100% equity without any mortgage. Many are not.
(Of course, both are heavily biased toward the Tories, but they would be for you. Or perhaps Labour and LD and Green voters are not human beings?)
So you are mixing up three different populations and talking bollocks because you trhink it makes your argument look better. Actually, it makes it look even worse.
Anyway, that's enough bollock-toasting to stock a French charcuterie for one evening, so I'm going to go off and read a nice new book. And I suggest you buy yourself a train set and try out the logical operation of points and sidings.
65% are home owners, by the time they are near death most will have paid off their mortgage.
'Levelling up' is dangerous ground for Sunak, given that video of him trumpeting unlevelling up the already high...
That’s not actually what he was saying in the video. But Labour had artfully cut the video to mislead.
He was saying that all deprived areas need support - including deprived rural areas in Kent - not just deprived urban areas
The problem was not him rightly pointing to pockets of deprived rural areas. The probem was that he claimed he had taken money from genuinely shonky areas in the north to give to pockets of deprived rural areas.
Nobody is denying that rural places can't hide poverty. But you can't divert money from places already promised the cash. Or in practice what it's meant is that money has gone to posh Tory areas to sort the small bit that isn't quite as posh as the rest whilst the scum area gets little or nothing.
Stockton on Tees seeing levelling up money spent in Yarm as a prime example. Yes, there are bits of Yarm not as nice as the rest. But relatively these areas are fine - certainly a lot better than chunks of town centre or Newtown wards.
Why do the Tories still have a minister for levelling up? Bottom line up front, Boris Johnson’s glib election promise “we will level up” is undeliverable bollocks.
Once you fathom out the impossible to fathom out “what exactly does it mean? Level up the north to the level of the south? But bits of the south are just as run down as bits of the north and vice versa? And switch to how to do it anyway to delivery something at least, even though you don’t really understand what it means, you realise it’s not about funnelling existing money from this to that, you will just end up hated and stuck in the 20s in the polling, it has to be new money, given to deserving places, fairly, and so that Tiverton in Blue Wall can’t get upset they are just as deserving and being cheated.
After all that, are you now levelling up? Of course not, because it is just pretend the ancient mismatch in scale and wealth between London and the secondary cities their regions can ever be levelled, it always was empty unachievable Johnsonian electioneering bollocks.
Why? Because: (a) Red Wall voters have noticed they are still relatively / actually poor (b) Brexit promised them resources and riches (c) Tories promised them definitely resources and riches (d) They won't take no for an answer
Either this government produces a rabbit out of the hat or the Tory 2019 first timers depart.
(A) is wrong.
Red Wall Tory voters are typically home owners, not impoverished people awaiting resources and riches.
Thanks to the relatively huge success in building new homes up here, compared to the rest of the country, the Red Wall has seen much more people getting on the property ladder rather than the reverse happening as in much of the country.
That's the real reason the non-metropolitan North has been swinging Tory while the South is swinging against the Tories. Because voters here have their own deeds to their very own Barratt Home and similar, rather than rental bills.
(a) is not wrong. A is the reason why we have seen a clearout of Labour councils and Labour MPs in Labour since the Danelaw areas. Try living in the red wall for a while and you will see what they are so upset about./
Incidentally, it wouldn't be a good idea for the Tories to listen to you. Telling people that their lived experience is wrong never works.
Try living in the red wall for a while? Excuse me, I do live in the Red Wall, you don't.
There is new housing estates all over the place. You know, all those homes you keep complaining about because you want to excuse the NIMBY scum? All those new homes have voters.
The Red Wall fell because of construction, because the likes of Barratt etc got people on the property ladder, NOT because poor people suddenly became fed up of Labour not doing anything for them.
You're in Birchwood aren't you? Cheshire daaaaarling.
I've moved around a bit, I'd rather not say where I live if you don't mind, but Birchwood is not a bad example. Warrington North is a safe Labour seat, or used to be, like much of the North West its seen massive construction recently and its trended away from Labour as the share of owner occupier voters in the constituency has risen.
Just like the neighbouring constituency of Leigh. What you'd think of as Leigh is still just as grotty terraced homes as it always was, but its surrounded by new estates of semi-detached homes with gardens and driveways for 2 parking spaces each.
Drive around the new estates of Leigh, versus the old streets of Leigh, and its hardly a surprise voting levels have changed. The voting is changing not because people are suddenly fed up of Labour, but because Leigh itself, much of the North itself, is changing. The houses people are living in - and increasingly owning - are not the same homes that existed thirty years ago.
And constituencies that were predominantly owner occupied in the past, that are now unaffordable and NIMBYs are blocking construction, are seeing trends away from the Tories.
Its housing, stupid.
Again again, I hope your Tory friends go and argue your points on the doorstep. They will be annihilated.
I don't think Bart is presenting an argument why people in Warrington North or Leigh SHOULD vote Tory - he is saying that where there has been a long term shift to owner occupation, especially of new builds - such as Warrington North, Leigh, Blyth, Rother Valley, and dozens of others - there has been a long term shift to the Tories. This seems inarguable to me. I also agree with the implication that the Tories would be well served to try to maximise the number of owner occupiers.
Bingo. You've nailed it completely.
Essentially Britain votes by housing. Renters as a class tend to vote Labour. Owned outright tend to vote Tory. Owned with a mortgage, are the swing voters, who in recent years have voted Tory but in Blair's time voted Labour.
In much of the country renting has become more common, but in parts of the North owner occupiers have become more common due to vast amounts of new builds. That has meant more Tory voters, but since those voters have mortgages they're not safe Tory.
The idea that the North swung Tory because voters were pissed off and angry misses the transformation in housing that has happened. Drive around the North outside the cities, and yes if you're here you're driving to get around, and there has been major new housing developments and those developments lead to new owner occupiers which changes how people think about voting.
There have been suggestions of this voting-by-housing-tenure hypothesis before. It is interesting and believable, but I don't know of studies that examine it carefully. Do you?
I've seen many studies on it before, none to hand, but this excellent chart is in the article I linked to above and sums it up well.
The vast construction in the Red Wall, one of the only places in the country where there has been a semi-reasonable amount of construction, has led to home ownership rates here moving from Labour levels to Tory levels. The seats then swung accordingly.
Home ownership and GE2019 As in previous years, homeowners were more likely to vote Conservative in the 2019 election. According to Ipsos MORI’s figures, 57% of voters who owned their home outright voted Conservative, as did 43% of people with mortgages. By contrast, 45% of social renters and 46% of private renters voted Labour.
The 2011 Census tells us how many homeowners were in each constituency. At the time, around 64% of UK households owned their home, either outright or with a mortgage. 315 of the Conservatives’ 365 seats (86%) had home ownership levels above this average, compared with 53 of Labour’s 202 seats (26%). Nine of the Lib Dems’ 11 seats had above-average home ownership levels (82%).
86% above average ownership for Tories, 26% for Labour.
Home ownership is far and away what affects voting in this country. NIMBY scum like our Essicks Massiv that wants to invade Scotland, or the first son of Abraham, are doing their level best to discourage people from voting Tory.
That's a bit jarring, seeing "scum" affixed to NIMBYs. Don't think I've ever come across it before. Really quite unusual.
When the world owes you a 5 bed detached des res, waiting to collect can get to you.
Especially if deleting the pampering of Tory-approved standard nuclear families under the current IHT regulations, and imposing wealth tax on landed property, are active subjects for discussion to remedy the chaos of the last few years.
Only 9% of voters want IHT to rise, the lowest of any tax.
Though yes wealth taxes on million pound plus properties might not be too unpopular if Labour proposes them (outside of a few central London Labour target seats like Kensington and Cities of London and Westminster)
No, it says 9% of voters included inheritance tax in the top three taxes they want held constant.
Obviously people want taxes on other, higher-income people to go up, though they also love the public services those people pay for by building businesses in the UK or working in jobs that are created in the UK, so it's a bit of a bind.
Belgium has a big welfare state by taxing ordinary people at 30% from euro one. The average Brit wants to pay something like 10%, so of course they get less stuff from government.
So does Sweden have a big welfare state but also no inheritance tax at all.
There are also examples in Europe of lower tax, lower spend nations than the UK eg Switzerland
In fact, the main reason you are worried about IHT is that your Topry voters will be bribed with our money so they don't have to spend their own savings on looking after themselves. Using that purpose for savings is what ordinary self-respecting civilised non-selfish citizens used to.
Preserving property and inheritance is a core Tory value. Why should Tories care what non Tories like you think about it?
Because you're deliberately parasitising on most of society, which don't have enough to leave to get to the 325K limit [edit] and will not get anywhere where they have to worry abotu the Special Allowance For Publicly Subsidising Tory Voting Sponging Pensioners And Their Greedy Offspring.
In London the average sold property price is £740,597, in Surrey the average house price is £620,686, so it is not just the rich but average voters in London and the Home Counties hit by higher IHT
(a) that every voter is a home-owner. Many are not. (B) that every home-owner actually has 100% equity without any mortgage. Many are not.
(Of course, both are heavily biased toward the Tories, but they would be for you. Or perhaps Labour and LD and Green voters are not human beings?)
So you are mixing up three different populations and talking bollocks because you trhink it makes your argument look better. Actually, it makes it look even worse.
Anyway, that's enough bollock-toasting to stock a French charcuterie for one evening, so I'm going to go off and read a nice new book. And I suggest you buy yourself a train set and try out the logical operation of points and sidings.
65% are home owners, by the time they are near death most will have paid off their mortgage.
YOu think so, the way things are going? Are already? We're not in the 1970s any more. Or the 1950s.
'Levelling up' is dangerous ground for Sunak, given that video of him trumpeting unlevelling up the already high...
That’s not actually what he was saying in the video. But Labour had artfully cut the video to mislead.
He was saying that all deprived areas need support - including deprived rural areas in Kent - not just deprived urban areas
The problem was not him rightly pointing to pockets of deprived rural areas. The probem was that he claimed he had taken money from genuinely shonky areas in the north to give to pockets of deprived rural areas.
Nobody is denying that rural places can't hide poverty. But you can't divert money from places already promised the cash. Or in practice what it's meant is that money has gone to posh Tory areas to sort the small bit that isn't quite as posh as the rest whilst the scum area gets little or nothing.
Stockton on Tees seeing levelling up money spent in Yarm as a prime example. Yes, there are bits of Yarm not as nice as the rest. But relatively these areas are fine - certainly a lot better than chunks of town centre or Newtown wards.
Why do the Tories still have a minister for levelling up? Bottom line up front, Boris Johnson’s glib election promise “we will level up” is undeliverable bollocks.
Once you fathom out the impossible to fathom out “what exactly does it mean? Level up the north to the level of the south? But bits of the south are just as run down as bits of the north and vice versa? And switch to how to do it anyway to delivery something at least, even though you don’t really understand what it means, you realise it’s not about funnelling existing money from this to that, you will just end up hated and stuck in the 20s in the polling, it has to be new money, given to deserving places, fairly, and so that Tiverton in Blue Wall can’t get upset they are just as deserving and being cheated.
After all that, are you now levelling up? Of course not, because it is just pretend the ancient mismatch in scale and wealth between London and the secondary cities their regions can ever be levelled, it always was empty unachievable Johnsonian electioneering bollocks.
Why? Because: (a) Red Wall voters have noticed they are still relatively / actually poor (b) Brexit promised them resources and riches (c) Tories promised them definitely resources and riches (d) They won't take no for an answer
Either this government produces a rabbit out of the hat or the Tory 2019 first timers depart.
(A) is wrong.
Red Wall Tory voters are typically home owners, not impoverished people awaiting resources and riches.
Thanks to the relatively huge success in building new homes up here, compared to the rest of the country, the Red Wall has seen much more people getting on the property ladder rather than the reverse happening as in much of the country.
That's the real reason the non-metropolitan North has been swinging Tory while the South is swinging against the Tories. Because voters here have their own deeds to their very own Barratt Home and similar, rather than rental bills.
(a) is not wrong. A is the reason why we have seen a clearout of Labour councils and Labour MPs in Labour since the Danelaw areas. Try living in the red wall for a while and you will see what they are so upset about./
Incidentally, it wouldn't be a good idea for the Tories to listen to you. Telling people that their lived experience is wrong never works.
Try living in the red wall for a while? Excuse me, I do live in the Red Wall, you don't.
There is new housing estates all over the place. You know, all those homes you keep complaining about because you want to excuse the NIMBY scum? All those new homes have voters.
The Red Wall fell because of construction, because the likes of Barratt etc got people on the property ladder, NOT because poor people suddenly became fed up of Labour not doing anything for them.
You're in Birchwood aren't you? Cheshire daaaaarling.
I've moved around a bit, I'd rather not say where I live if you don't mind, but Birchwood is not a bad example. Warrington North is a safe Labour seat, or used to be, like much of the North West its seen massive construction recently and its trended away from Labour as the share of owner occupier voters in the constituency has risen.
Just like the neighbouring constituency of Leigh. What you'd think of as Leigh is still just as grotty terraced homes as it always was, but its surrounded by new estates of semi-detached homes with gardens and driveways for 2 parking spaces each.
Drive around the new estates of Leigh, versus the old streets of Leigh, and its hardly a surprise voting levels have changed. The voting is changing not because people are suddenly fed up of Labour, but because Leigh itself, much of the North itself, is changing. The houses people are living in - and increasingly owning - are not the same homes that existed thirty years ago.
And constituencies that were predominantly owner occupied in the past, that are now unaffordable and NIMBYs are blocking construction, are seeing trends away from the Tories.
Its housing, stupid.
Again again, I hope your Tory friends go and argue your points on the doorstep. They will be annihilated.
I don't think Bart is presenting an argument why people in Warrington North or Leigh SHOULD vote Tory - he is saying that where there has been a long term shift to owner occupation, especially of new builds - such as Warrington North, Leigh, Blyth, Rother Valley, and dozens of others - there has been a long term shift to the Tories. This seems inarguable to me. I also agree with the implication that the Tories would be well served to try to maximise the number of owner occupiers.
Bingo. You've nailed it completely.
Essentially Britain votes by housing. Renters as a class tend to vote Labour. Owned outright tend to vote Tory. Owned with a mortgage, are the swing voters, who in recent years have voted Tory but in Blair's time voted Labour.
In much of the country renting has become more common, but in parts of the North owner occupiers have become more common due to vast amounts of new builds. That has meant more Tory voters, but since those voters have mortgages they're not safe Tory.
The idea that the North swung Tory because voters were pissed off and angry misses the transformation in housing that has happened. Drive around the North outside the cities, and yes if you're here you're driving to get around, and there has been major new housing developments and those developments lead to new owner occupiers which changes how people think about voting.
There have been suggestions of this voting-by-housing-tenure hypothesis before. It is interesting and believable, but I don't know of studies that examine it carefully. Do you?
I've seen many studies on it before, none to hand, but this excellent chart is in the article I linked to above and sums it up well.
The vast construction in the Red Wall, one of the only places in the country where there has been a semi-reasonable amount of construction, has led to home ownership rates here moving from Labour levels to Tory levels. The seats then swung accordingly.
Home ownership and GE2019 As in previous years, homeowners were more likely to vote Conservative in the 2019 election. According to Ipsos MORI’s figures, 57% of voters who owned their home outright voted Conservative, as did 43% of people with mortgages. By contrast, 45% of social renters and 46% of private renters voted Labour.
The 2011 Census tells us how many homeowners were in each constituency. At the time, around 64% of UK households owned their home, either outright or with a mortgage. 315 of the Conservatives’ 365 seats (86%) had home ownership levels above this average, compared with 53 of Labour’s 202 seats (26%). Nine of the Lib Dems’ 11 seats had above-average home ownership levels (82%).
86% above average ownership for Tories, 26% for Labour.
Home ownership is far and away what affects voting in this country. NIMBY scum like our Essicks Massiv that wants to invade Scotland, or the first son of Abraham, are doing their level best to discourage people from voting Tory.
That's a bit jarring, seeing "scum" affixed to NIMBYs. Don't think I've ever come across it before. Really quite unusual.
When the world owes you a 5 bed detached des res, waiting to collect can get to you.
Especially if deleting the pampering of Tory-approved standard nuclear families under the current IHT regulations, and imposing wealth tax on landed property, are active subjects for discussion to remedy the chaos of the last few years.
Only 9% of voters want IHT to rise, the lowest of any tax.
Though yes wealth taxes on million pound plus properties might not be too unpopular if Labour proposes them (outside of a few central London Labour target seats like Kensington and Cities of London and Westminster)
No, it says 9% of voters included inheritance tax in the top three taxes they want held constant.
Obviously people want taxes on other, higher-income people to go up, though they also love the public services those people pay for by building businesses in the UK or working in jobs that are created in the UK, so it's a bit of a bind.
Belgium has a big welfare state by taxing ordinary people at 30% from euro one. The average Brit wants to pay something like 10%, so of course they get less stuff from government.
So does Sweden have a big welfare state but also no inheritance tax at all.
There are also examples in Europe of lower tax, lower spend nations than the UK eg Switzerland
In fact, the main reason you are worried about IHT is that your Topry voters will be bribed with our money so they don't have to spend their own savings on looking after themselves. Using that purpose for savings is what ordinary self-respecting civilised non-selfish citizens used to.
Preserving property and inheritance is a core Tory value. Why should Tories care what non Tories like you think about it?
Because you're deliberately parasitising on most of society, which don't have enough to leave to get to the 325K limit [edit] and will not get anywhere where they have to worry abotu the Special Allowance For Publicly Subsidising Tory Voting Sponging Pensioners And Their Greedy Offspring.
In London the average sold property price is £740,597, in Surrey the average house price is £620,686, so it is not just the rich but average voters in London and the Home Counties hit by higher IHT
(a) that every voter is a home-owner. Many are not. (B) that every home-owner actually has 100% equity without any mortgage. Many are not.
(Of course, both are heavily biased toward the Tories, but they would be for you. Or perhaps Labour and LD and Green voters are not human beings?)
So you are mixing up three different populations and talking bollocks because you trhink it makes your argument look better. Actually, it makes it look even worse.
Anyway, that's enough bollock-toasting to stock a French charcuterie for one evening, so I'm going to go off and read a nice new book. And I suggest you buy yourself a train set and try out the logical operation of points and sidings.
65% are home owners, by the time they are near death most will have paid off their mortgage.
And in any case who gives a shit about Tory voters iun the Home Counties? They ought t be taxed on their unearned gains.
'Levelling up' is dangerous ground for Sunak, given that video of him trumpeting unlevelling up the already high...
That’s not actually what he was saying in the video. But Labour had artfully cut the video to mislead.
He was saying that all deprived areas need support - including deprived rural areas in Kent - not just deprived urban areas
The problem was not him rightly pointing to pockets of deprived rural areas. The probem was that he claimed he had taken money from genuinely shonky areas in the north to give to pockets of deprived rural areas.
Nobody is denying that rural places can't hide poverty. But you can't divert money from places already promised the cash. Or in practice what it's meant is that money has gone to posh Tory areas to sort the small bit that isn't quite as posh as the rest whilst the scum area gets little or nothing.
Stockton on Tees seeing levelling up money spent in Yarm as a prime example. Yes, there are bits of Yarm not as nice as the rest. But relatively these areas are fine - certainly a lot better than chunks of town centre or Newtown wards.
Why do the Tories still have a minister for levelling up? Bottom line up front, Boris Johnson’s glib election promise “we will level up” is undeliverable bollocks.
Once you fathom out the impossible to fathom out “what exactly does it mean? Level up the north to the level of the south? But bits of the south are just as run down as bits of the north and vice versa? And switch to how to do it anyway to delivery something at least, even though you don’t really understand what it means, you realise it’s not about funnelling existing money from this to that, you will just end up hated and stuck in the 20s in the polling, it has to be new money, given to deserving places, fairly, and so that Tiverton in Blue Wall can’t get upset they are just as deserving and being cheated.
After all that, are you now levelling up? Of course not, because it is just pretend the ancient mismatch in scale and wealth between London and the secondary cities their regions can ever be levelled, it always was empty unachievable Johnsonian electioneering bollocks.
Why? Because: (a) Red Wall voters have noticed they are still relatively / actually poor (b) Brexit promised them resources and riches (c) Tories promised them definitely resources and riches (d) They won't take no for an answer
Either this government produces a rabbit out of the hat or the Tory 2019 first timers depart.
(A) is wrong.
Red Wall Tory voters are typically home owners, not impoverished people awaiting resources and riches.
Thanks to the relatively huge success in building new homes up here, compared to the rest of the country, the Red Wall has seen much more people getting on the property ladder rather than the reverse happening as in much of the country.
That's the real reason the non-metropolitan North has been swinging Tory while the South is swinging against the Tories. Because voters here have their own deeds to their very own Barratt Home and similar, rather than rental bills.
(a) is not wrong. A is the reason why we have seen a clearout of Labour councils and Labour MPs in Labour since the Danelaw areas. Try living in the red wall for a while and you will see what they are so upset about./
Incidentally, it wouldn't be a good idea for the Tories to listen to you. Telling people that their lived experience is wrong never works.
Try living in the red wall for a while? Excuse me, I do live in the Red Wall, you don't.
There is new housing estates all over the place. You know, all those homes you keep complaining about because you want to excuse the NIMBY scum? All those new homes have voters.
The Red Wall fell because of construction, because the likes of Barratt etc got people on the property ladder, NOT because poor people suddenly became fed up of Labour not doing anything for them.
You're in Birchwood aren't you? Cheshire daaaaarling.
I've moved around a bit, I'd rather not say where I live if you don't mind, but Birchwood is not a bad example. Warrington North is a safe Labour seat, or used to be, like much of the North West its seen massive construction recently and its trended away from Labour as the share of owner occupier voters in the constituency has risen.
Just like the neighbouring constituency of Leigh. What you'd think of as Leigh is still just as grotty terraced homes as it always was, but its surrounded by new estates of semi-detached homes with gardens and driveways for 2 parking spaces each.
Drive around the new estates of Leigh, versus the old streets of Leigh, and its hardly a surprise voting levels have changed. The voting is changing not because people are suddenly fed up of Labour, but because Leigh itself, much of the North itself, is changing. The houses people are living in - and increasingly owning - are not the same homes that existed thirty years ago.
And constituencies that were predominantly owner occupied in the past, that are now unaffordable and NIMBYs are blocking construction, are seeing trends away from the Tories.
Its housing, stupid.
Again again, I hope your Tory friends go and argue your points on the doorstep. They will be annihilated.
I don't think Bart is presenting an argument why people in Warrington North or Leigh SHOULD vote Tory - he is saying that where there has been a long term shift to owner occupation, especially of new builds - such as Warrington North, Leigh, Blyth, Rother Valley, and dozens of others - there has been a long term shift to the Tories. This seems inarguable to me. I also agree with the implication that the Tories would be well served to try to maximise the number of owner occupiers.
Bingo. You've nailed it completely.
Essentially Britain votes by housing. Renters as a class tend to vote Labour. Owned outright tend to vote Tory. Owned with a mortgage, are the swing voters, who in recent years have voted Tory but in Blair's time voted Labour.
In much of the country renting has become more common, but in parts of the North owner occupiers have become more common due to vast amounts of new builds. That has meant more Tory voters, but since those voters have mortgages they're not safe Tory.
The idea that the North swung Tory because voters were pissed off and angry misses the transformation in housing that has happened. Drive around the North outside the cities, and yes if you're here you're driving to get around, and there has been major new housing developments and those developments lead to new owner occupiers which changes how people think about voting.
There have been suggestions of this voting-by-housing-tenure hypothesis before. It is interesting and believable, but I don't know of studies that examine it carefully. Do you?
I've seen many studies on it before, none to hand, but this excellent chart is in the article I linked to above and sums it up well.
The vast construction in the Red Wall, one of the only places in the country where there has been a semi-reasonable amount of construction, has led to home ownership rates here moving from Labour levels to Tory levels. The seats then swung accordingly.
Home ownership and GE2019 As in previous years, homeowners were more likely to vote Conservative in the 2019 election. According to Ipsos MORI’s figures, 57% of voters who owned their home outright voted Conservative, as did 43% of people with mortgages. By contrast, 45% of social renters and 46% of private renters voted Labour.
The 2011 Census tells us how many homeowners were in each constituency. At the time, around 64% of UK households owned their home, either outright or with a mortgage. 315 of the Conservatives’ 365 seats (86%) had home ownership levels above this average, compared with 53 of Labour’s 202 seats (26%). Nine of the Lib Dems’ 11 seats had above-average home ownership levels (82%).
86% above average ownership for Tories, 26% for Labour.
Home ownership is far and away what affects voting in this country. NIMBY scum like our Essicks Massiv that wants to invade Scotland, or the first son of Abraham, are doing their level best to discourage people from voting Tory.
That's a bit jarring, seeing "scum" affixed to NIMBYs. Don't think I've ever come across it before. Really quite unusual.
When the world owes you a 5 bed detached des res, waiting to collect can get to you.
Especially if deleting the pampering of Tory-approved standard nuclear families under the current IHT regulations, and imposing wealth tax on landed property, are active subjects for discussion to remedy the chaos of the last few years.
Only 9% of voters want IHT to rise, the lowest of any tax.
Though yes wealth taxes on million pound plus properties might not be too unpopular if Labour proposes them (outside of a few central London Labour target seats like Kensington and Cities of London and Westminster)
No, it says 9% of voters included inheritance tax in the top three taxes they want held constant.
Obviously people want taxes on other, higher-income people to go up, though they also love the public services those people pay for by building businesses in the UK or working in jobs that are created in the UK, so it's a bit of a bind.
Belgium has a big welfare state by taxing ordinary people at 30% from euro one. The average Brit wants to pay something like 10%, so of course they get less stuff from government.
So does Sweden have a big welfare state but also no inheritance tax at all.
There are also examples in Europe of lower tax, lower spend nations than the UK eg Switzerland
In fact, the main reason you are worried about IHT is that your Topry voters will be bribed with our money so they don't have to spend their own savings on looking after themselves. Using that purpose for savings is what ordinary self-respecting civilised non-selfish citizens used to.
Preserving property and inheritance is a core Tory value. Why should Tories care what non Tories like you think about it?
Because you're deliberately parasitising on most of society, which don't have enough to leave to get to the 325K limit [edit] and will not get anywhere where they have to worry abotu the Special Allowance For Publicly Subsidising Tory Voting Sponging Pensioners And Their Greedy Offspring.
In London the average sold property price is £740,597, in Surrey the average house price is £620,686, so it is not just the rich but average voters in London and the Home Counties hit by higher IHT
(a) that every voter is a home-owner. Many are not. (B) that every home-owner actually has 100% equity without any mortgage. Many are not.
(Of course, both are heavily biased toward the Tories, but they would be for you. Or perhaps Labour and LD and Green voters are not human beings?)
So you are mixing up three different populations and talking bollocks because you trhink it makes your argument look better. Actually, it makes it look even worse.
Anyway, that's enough bollock-toasting to stock a French charcuterie for one evening, so I'm going to go off and read a nice new book. And I suggest you buy yourself a train set and try out the logical operation of points and sidings.
65% are home owners, by the time they are near death most will have paid off their mortgage.
YOu think so, the way things are going? Are already? We're not in the 1970s any more. Or the 1950s.
In the 1950s fewer owned their own property than now
'Levelling up' is dangerous ground for Sunak, given that video of him trumpeting unlevelling up the already high...
That’s not actually what he was saying in the video. But Labour had artfully cut the video to mislead.
He was saying that all deprived areas need support - including deprived rural areas in Kent - not just deprived urban areas
The problem was not him rightly pointing to pockets of deprived rural areas. The probem was that he claimed he had taken money from genuinely shonky areas in the north to give to pockets of deprived rural areas.
Nobody is denying that rural places can't hide poverty. But you can't divert money from places already promised the cash. Or in practice what it's meant is that money has gone to posh Tory areas to sort the small bit that isn't quite as posh as the rest whilst the scum area gets little or nothing.
Stockton on Tees seeing levelling up money spent in Yarm as a prime example. Yes, there are bits of Yarm not as nice as the rest. But relatively these areas are fine - certainly a lot better than chunks of town centre or Newtown wards.
Why do the Tories still have a minister for levelling up? Bottom line up front, Boris Johnson’s glib election promise “we will level up” is undeliverable bollocks.
Once you fathom out the impossible to fathom out “what exactly does it mean? Level up the north to the level of the south? But bits of the south are just as run down as bits of the north and vice versa? And switch to how to do it anyway to delivery something at least, even though you don’t really understand what it means, you realise it’s not about funnelling existing money from this to that, you will just end up hated and stuck in the 20s in the polling, it has to be new money, given to deserving places, fairly, and so that Tiverton in Blue Wall can’t get upset they are just as deserving and being cheated.
After all that, are you now levelling up? Of course not, because it is just pretend the ancient mismatch in scale and wealth between London and the secondary cities their regions can ever be levelled, it always was empty unachievable Johnsonian electioneering bollocks.
Why? Because: (a) Red Wall voters have noticed they are still relatively / actually poor (b) Brexit promised them resources and riches (c) Tories promised them definitely resources and riches (d) They won't take no for an answer
Either this government produces a rabbit out of the hat or the Tory 2019 first timers depart.
(A) is wrong.
Red Wall Tory voters are typically home owners, not impoverished people awaiting resources and riches.
Thanks to the relatively huge success in building new homes up here, compared to the rest of the country, the Red Wall has seen much more people getting on the property ladder rather than the reverse happening as in much of the country.
That's the real reason the non-metropolitan North has been swinging Tory while the South is swinging against the Tories. Because voters here have their own deeds to their very own Barratt Home and similar, rather than rental bills.
(a) is not wrong. A is the reason why we have seen a clearout of Labour councils and Labour MPs in Labour since the Danelaw areas. Try living in the red wall for a while and you will see what they are so upset about./
Incidentally, it wouldn't be a good idea for the Tories to listen to you. Telling people that their lived experience is wrong never works.
Try living in the red wall for a while? Excuse me, I do live in the Red Wall, you don't.
There is new housing estates all over the place. You know, all those homes you keep complaining about because you want to excuse the NIMBY scum? All those new homes have voters.
The Red Wall fell because of construction, because the likes of Barratt etc got people on the property ladder, NOT because poor people suddenly became fed up of Labour not doing anything for them.
You're in Birchwood aren't you? Cheshire daaaaarling.
I've moved around a bit, I'd rather not say where I live if you don't mind, but Birchwood is not a bad example. Warrington North is a safe Labour seat, or used to be, like much of the North West its seen massive construction recently and its trended away from Labour as the share of owner occupier voters in the constituency has risen.
Just like the neighbouring constituency of Leigh. What you'd think of as Leigh is still just as grotty terraced homes as it always was, but its surrounded by new estates of semi-detached homes with gardens and driveways for 2 parking spaces each.
Drive around the new estates of Leigh, versus the old streets of Leigh, and its hardly a surprise voting levels have changed. The voting is changing not because people are suddenly fed up of Labour, but because Leigh itself, much of the North itself, is changing. The houses people are living in - and increasingly owning - are not the same homes that existed thirty years ago.
And constituencies that were predominantly owner occupied in the past, that are now unaffordable and NIMBYs are blocking construction, are seeing trends away from the Tories.
Its housing, stupid.
Again again, I hope your Tory friends go and argue your points on the doorstep. They will be annihilated.
I don't think Bart is presenting an argument why people in Warrington North or Leigh SHOULD vote Tory - he is saying that where there has been a long term shift to owner occupation, especially of new builds - such as Warrington North, Leigh, Blyth, Rother Valley, and dozens of others - there has been a long term shift to the Tories. This seems inarguable to me. I also agree with the implication that the Tories would be well served to try to maximise the number of owner occupiers.
Bingo. You've nailed it completely.
Essentially Britain votes by housing. Renters as a class tend to vote Labour. Owned outright tend to vote Tory. Owned with a mortgage, are the swing voters, who in recent years have voted Tory but in Blair's time voted Labour.
In much of the country renting has become more common, but in parts of the North owner occupiers have become more common due to vast amounts of new builds. That has meant more Tory voters, but since those voters have mortgages they're not safe Tory.
The idea that the North swung Tory because voters were pissed off and angry misses the transformation in housing that has happened. Drive around the North outside the cities, and yes if you're here you're driving to get around, and there has been major new housing developments and those developments lead to new owner occupiers which changes how people think about voting.
There have been suggestions of this voting-by-housing-tenure hypothesis before. It is interesting and believable, but I don't know of studies that examine it carefully. Do you?
I've seen many studies on it before, none to hand, but this excellent chart is in the article I linked to above and sums it up well.
The vast construction in the Red Wall, one of the only places in the country where there has been a semi-reasonable amount of construction, has led to home ownership rates here moving from Labour levels to Tory levels. The seats then swung accordingly.
Home ownership and GE2019 As in previous years, homeowners were more likely to vote Conservative in the 2019 election. According to Ipsos MORI’s figures, 57% of voters who owned their home outright voted Conservative, as did 43% of people with mortgages. By contrast, 45% of social renters and 46% of private renters voted Labour.
The 2011 Census tells us how many homeowners were in each constituency. At the time, around 64% of UK households owned their home, either outright or with a mortgage. 315 of the Conservatives’ 365 seats (86%) had home ownership levels above this average, compared with 53 of Labour’s 202 seats (26%). Nine of the Lib Dems’ 11 seats had above-average home ownership levels (82%).
86% above average ownership for Tories, 26% for Labour.
Home ownership is far and away what affects voting in this country. NIMBY scum like our Essicks Massiv that wants to invade Scotland, or the first son of Abraham, are doing their level best to discourage people from voting Tory.
That's a bit jarring, seeing "scum" affixed to NIMBYs. Don't think I've ever come across it before. Really quite unusual.
When the world owes you a 5 bed detached des res, waiting to collect can get to you.
Especially if deleting the pampering of Tory-approved standard nuclear families under the current IHT regulations, and imposing wealth tax on landed property, are active subjects for discussion to remedy the chaos of the last few years.
Only 9% of voters want IHT to rise, the lowest of any tax.
Though yes wealth taxes on million pound plus properties might not be too unpopular if Labour proposes them (outside of a few central London Labour target seats like Kensington and Cities of London and Westminster)
No, it says 9% of voters included inheritance tax in the top three taxes they want held constant.
Obviously people want taxes on other, higher-income people to go up, though they also love the public services those people pay for by building businesses in the UK or working in jobs that are created in the UK, so it's a bit of a bind.
Belgium has a big welfare state by taxing ordinary people at 30% from euro one. The average Brit wants to pay something like 10%, so of course they get less stuff from government.
So does Sweden have a big welfare state but also no inheritance tax at all.
There are also examples in Europe of lower tax, lower spend nations than the UK eg Switzerland
In fact, the main reason you are worried about IHT is that your Topry voters will be bribed with our money so they don't have to spend their own savings on looking after themselves. Using that purpose for savings is what ordinary self-respecting civilised non-selfish citizens used to.
Preserving property and inheritance is a core Tory value. Why should Tories care what non Tories like you think about it?
Because you're deliberately parasitising on most of society, which don't have enough to leave to get to the 325K limit [edit] and will not get anywhere where they have to worry abotu the Special Allowance For Publicly Subsidising Tory Voting Sponging Pensioners And Their Greedy Offspring.
In London the average sold property price is £740,597, in Surrey the average house price is £620,686, so it is not just the rich but average voters in London and the Home Counties hit by higher IHT
(a) that every voter is a home-owner. Many are not. (B) that every home-owner actually has 100% equity without any mortgage. Many are not.
(Of course, both are heavily biased toward the Tories, but they would be for you. Or perhaps Labour and LD and Green voters are not human beings?)
So you are mixing up three different populations and talking bollocks because you trhink it makes your argument look better. Actually, it makes it look even worse.
Anyway, that's enough bollock-toasting to stock a French charcuterie for one evening, so I'm going to go off and read a nice new book. And I suggest you buy yourself a train set and try out the logical operation of points and sidings.
65% are home owners, by the time they are near death most will have paid off their mortgage.
YOu think so, the way things are going? Are already? We're not in the 1970s any more. Or the 1950s.
In the 1950s fewer owned their own property than now
Look at the repo statistics in a year or two. Thanks entirely to youir party.
I've worked and stayed over in both Cork and Waterford.
Can't say I was blown over by the experience.
Standard of pubs in Cork is very uneven. But we won't be living in the city. So the change to a rural area might end up being larger than the change of country.
'Levelling up' is dangerous ground for Sunak, given that video of him trumpeting unlevelling up the already high...
That’s not actually what he was saying in the video. But Labour had artfully cut the video to mislead.
He was saying that all deprived areas need support - including deprived rural areas in Kent - not just deprived urban areas
The problem was not him rightly pointing to pockets of deprived rural areas. The probem was that he claimed he had taken money from genuinely shonky areas in the north to give to pockets of deprived rural areas.
Nobody is denying that rural places can't hide poverty. But you can't divert money from places already promised the cash. Or in practice what it's meant is that money has gone to posh Tory areas to sort the small bit that isn't quite as posh as the rest whilst the scum area gets little or nothing.
Stockton on Tees seeing levelling up money spent in Yarm as a prime example. Yes, there are bits of Yarm not as nice as the rest. But relatively these areas are fine - certainly a lot better than chunks of town centre or Newtown wards.
Why do the Tories still have a minister for levelling up? Bottom line up front, Boris Johnson’s glib election promise “we will level up” is undeliverable bollocks.
Once you fathom out the impossible to fathom out “what exactly does it mean? Level up the north to the level of the south? But bits of the south are just as run down as bits of the north and vice versa? And switch to how to do it anyway to delivery something at least, even though you don’t really understand what it means, you realise it’s not about funnelling existing money from this to that, you will just end up hated and stuck in the 20s in the polling, it has to be new money, given to deserving places, fairly, and so that Tiverton in Blue Wall can’t get upset they are just as deserving and being cheated.
After all that, are you now levelling up? Of course not, because it is just pretend the ancient mismatch in scale and wealth between London and the secondary cities their regions can ever be levelled, it always was empty unachievable Johnsonian electioneering bollocks.
Why? Because: (a) Red Wall voters have noticed they are still relatively / actually poor (b) Brexit promised them resources and riches (c) Tories promised them definitely resources and riches (d) They won't take no for an answer
Either this government produces a rabbit out of the hat or the Tory 2019 first timers depart.
(A) is wrong.
Red Wall Tory voters are typically home owners, not impoverished people awaiting resources and riches.
Thanks to the relatively huge success in building new homes up here, compared to the rest of the country, the Red Wall has seen much more people getting on the property ladder rather than the reverse happening as in much of the country.
That's the real reason the non-metropolitan North has been swinging Tory while the South is swinging against the Tories. Because voters here have their own deeds to their very own Barratt Home and similar, rather than rental bills.
(a) is not wrong. A is the reason why we have seen a clearout of Labour councils and Labour MPs in Labour since the Danelaw areas. Try living in the red wall for a while and you will see what they are so upset about./
Incidentally, it wouldn't be a good idea for the Tories to listen to you. Telling people that their lived experience is wrong never works.
Try living in the red wall for a while? Excuse me, I do live in the Red Wall, you don't.
There is new housing estates all over the place. You know, all those homes you keep complaining about because you want to excuse the NIMBY scum? All those new homes have voters.
The Red Wall fell because of construction, because the likes of Barratt etc got people on the property ladder, NOT because poor people suddenly became fed up of Labour not doing anything for them.
You're in Birchwood aren't you? Cheshire daaaaarling.
I've moved around a bit, I'd rather not say where I live if you don't mind, but Birchwood is not a bad example. Warrington North is a safe Labour seat, or used to be, like much of the North West its seen massive construction recently and its trended away from Labour as the share of owner occupier voters in the constituency has risen.
Just like the neighbouring constituency of Leigh. What you'd think of as Leigh is still just as grotty terraced homes as it always was, but its surrounded by new estates of semi-detached homes with gardens and driveways for 2 parking spaces each.
Drive around the new estates of Leigh, versus the old streets of Leigh, and its hardly a surprise voting levels have changed. The voting is changing not because people are suddenly fed up of Labour, but because Leigh itself, much of the North itself, is changing. The houses people are living in - and increasingly owning - are not the same homes that existed thirty years ago.
And constituencies that were predominantly owner occupied in the past, that are now unaffordable and NIMBYs are blocking construction, are seeing trends away from the Tories.
Its housing, stupid.
Again again, I hope your Tory friends go and argue your points on the doorstep. They will be annihilated.
I don't think Bart is presenting an argument why people in Warrington North or Leigh SHOULD vote Tory - he is saying that where there has been a long term shift to owner occupation, especially of new builds - such as Warrington North, Leigh, Blyth, Rother Valley, and dozens of others - there has been a long term shift to the Tories. This seems inarguable to me. I also agree with the implication that the Tories would be well served to try to maximise the number of owner occupiers.
Bingo. You've nailed it completely.
Essentially Britain votes by housing. Renters as a class tend to vote Labour. Owned outright tend to vote Tory. Owned with a mortgage, are the swing voters, who in recent years have voted Tory but in Blair's time voted Labour.
In much of the country renting has become more common, but in parts of the North owner occupiers have become more common due to vast amounts of new builds. That has meant more Tory voters, but since those voters have mortgages they're not safe Tory.
The idea that the North swung Tory because voters were pissed off and angry misses the transformation in housing that has happened. Drive around the North outside the cities, and yes if you're here you're driving to get around, and there has been major new housing developments and those developments lead to new owner occupiers which changes how people think about voting.
There have been suggestions of this voting-by-housing-tenure hypothesis before. It is interesting and believable, but I don't know of studies that examine it carefully. Do you?
I've seen many studies on it before, none to hand, but this excellent chart is in the article I linked to above and sums it up well.
The vast construction in the Red Wall, one of the only places in the country where there has been a semi-reasonable amount of construction, has led to home ownership rates here moving from Labour levels to Tory levels. The seats then swung accordingly.
Home ownership and GE2019 As in previous years, homeowners were more likely to vote Conservative in the 2019 election. According to Ipsos MORI’s figures, 57% of voters who owned their home outright voted Conservative, as did 43% of people with mortgages. By contrast, 45% of social renters and 46% of private renters voted Labour.
The 2011 Census tells us how many homeowners were in each constituency. At the time, around 64% of UK households owned their home, either outright or with a mortgage. 315 of the Conservatives’ 365 seats (86%) had home ownership levels above this average, compared with 53 of Labour’s 202 seats (26%). Nine of the Lib Dems’ 11 seats had above-average home ownership levels (82%).
86% above average ownership for Tories, 26% for Labour.
Home ownership is far and away what affects voting in this country. NIMBY scum like our Essicks Massiv that wants to invade Scotland, or the first son of Abraham, are doing their level best to discourage people from voting Tory.
That's a bit jarring, seeing "scum" affixed to NIMBYs. Don't think I've ever come across it before. Really quite unusual.
When the world owes you a 5 bed detached des res, waiting to collect can get to you.
Especially if deleting the pampering of Tory-approved standard nuclear families under the current IHT regulations, and imposing wealth tax on landed property, are active subjects for discussion to remedy the chaos of the last few years.
Only 9% of voters want IHT to rise, the lowest of any tax.
Though yes wealth taxes on million pound plus properties might not be too unpopular if Labour proposes them (outside of a few central London Labour target seats like Kensington and Cities of London and Westminster)
No, it says 9% of voters included inheritance tax in the top three taxes they want held constant.
Obviously people want taxes on other, higher-income people to go up, though they also love the public services those people pay for by building businesses in the UK or working in jobs that are created in the UK, so it's a bit of a bind.
Belgium has a big welfare state by taxing ordinary people at 30% from euro one. The average Brit wants to pay something like 10%, so of course they get less stuff from government.
So does Sweden have a big welfare state but also no inheritance tax at all.
There are also examples in Europe of lower tax, lower spend nations than the UK eg Switzerland
In fact, the main reason you are worried about IHT is that your Topry voters will be bribed with our money so they don't have to spend their own savings on looking after themselves. Using that purpose for savings is what ordinary self-respecting civilised non-selfish citizens used to.
Preserving property and inheritance is a core Tory value. Why should Tories care what non Tories like you think about it?
Because you're deliberately parasitising on most of society, which don't have enough to leave to get to the 325K limit [edit] and will not get anywhere where they have to worry abotu the Special Allowance For Publicly Subsidising Tory Voting Sponging Pensioners And Their Greedy Offspring.
In London the average sold property price is £740,597, in Surrey the average house price is £620,686, so it is not just the rich but average voters in London and the Home Counties hit by higher IHT
(a) that every voter is a home-owner. Many are not. (B) that every home-owner actually has 100% equity without any mortgage. Many are not.
(Of course, both are heavily biased toward the Tories, but they would be for you. Or perhaps Labour and LD and Green voters are not human beings?)
So you are mixing up three different populations and talking bollocks because you trhink it makes your argument look better. Actually, it makes it look even worse.
Anyway, that's enough bollock-toasting to stock a French charcuterie for one evening, so I'm going to go off and read a nice new book. And I suggest you buy yourself a train set and try out the logical operation of points and sidings.
65% are home owners, by the time they are near death most will have paid off their mortgage.
YOu think so, the way things are going? Are already? We're not in the 1970s any more. Or the 1950s.
In the 1950s fewer owned their own property than now
Look at the repo statistics in a year or two. Thanks entirely to youir party.
Well those facing repo will need an inheritance and parental support even more won't they! Hopefully though most will avoid falling behind on their mortgage (and Rishi is not responsible for Truss and Kwarteng's errors)
Did anyone see the Newsnight report last night re Moroccans trying to get into the tiny Spanish territory of Melilla in North Africa.
The Spanish were far, far tougher than we are - live firing, many people killed, Moroccans stuck in a tiny pen with dead bodies etc.
As always, the rhetoric is very different from what actually happens. Braverman is strong on rhetoric but bottom line is we all know she isn't actually going to do anything.
Meanwhile the Spanish take a very different approach.
'Levelling up' is dangerous ground for Sunak, given that video of him trumpeting unlevelling up the already high...
That’s not actually what he was saying in the video. But Labour had artfully cut the video to mislead.
He was saying that all deprived areas need support - including deprived rural areas in Kent - not just deprived urban areas
The problem was not him rightly pointing to pockets of deprived rural areas. The probem was that he claimed he had taken money from genuinely shonky areas in the north to give to pockets of deprived rural areas.
Nobody is denying that rural places can't hide poverty. But you can't divert money from places already promised the cash. Or in practice what it's meant is that money has gone to posh Tory areas to sort the small bit that isn't quite as posh as the rest whilst the scum area gets little or nothing.
Stockton on Tees seeing levelling up money spent in Yarm as a prime example. Yes, there are bits of Yarm not as nice as the rest. But relatively these areas are fine - certainly a lot better than chunks of town centre or Newtown wards.
Why do the Tories still have a minister for levelling up? Bottom line up front, Boris Johnson’s glib election promise “we will level up” is undeliverable bollocks.
Once you fathom out the impossible to fathom out “what exactly does it mean? Level up the north to the level of the south? But bits of the south are just as run down as bits of the north and vice versa? And switch to how to do it anyway to delivery something at least, even though you don’t really understand what it means, you realise it’s not about funnelling existing money from this to that, you will just end up hated and stuck in the 20s in the polling, it has to be new money, given to deserving places, fairly, and so that Tiverton in Blue Wall can’t get upset they are just as deserving and being cheated.
After all that, are you now levelling up? Of course not, because it is just pretend the ancient mismatch in scale and wealth between London and the secondary cities their regions can ever be levelled, it always was empty unachievable Johnsonian electioneering bollocks.
Why? Because: (a) Red Wall voters have noticed they are still relatively / actually poor (b) Brexit promised them resources and riches (c) Tories promised them definitely resources and riches (d) They won't take no for an answer
Either this government produces a rabbit out of the hat or the Tory 2019 first timers depart.
(A) is wrong.
Red Wall Tory voters are typically home owners, not impoverished people awaiting resources and riches.
Thanks to the relatively huge success in building new homes up here, compared to the rest of the country, the Red Wall has seen much more people getting on the property ladder rather than the reverse happening as in much of the country.
That's the real reason the non-metropolitan North has been swinging Tory while the South is swinging against the Tories. Because voters here have their own deeds to their very own Barratt Home and similar, rather than rental bills.
(a) is not wrong. A is the reason why we have seen a clearout of Labour councils and Labour MPs in Labour since the Danelaw areas. Try living in the red wall for a while and you will see what they are so upset about./
Incidentally, it wouldn't be a good idea for the Tories to listen to you. Telling people that their lived experience is wrong never works.
Try living in the red wall for a while? Excuse me, I do live in the Red Wall, you don't.
There is new housing estates all over the place. You know, all those homes you keep complaining about because you want to excuse the NIMBY scum? All those new homes have voters.
The Red Wall fell because of construction, because the likes of Barratt etc got people on the property ladder, NOT because poor people suddenly became fed up of Labour not doing anything for them.
You're in Birchwood aren't you? Cheshire daaaaarling.
I've moved around a bit, I'd rather not say where I live if you don't mind, but Birchwood is not a bad example. Warrington North is a safe Labour seat, or used to be, like much of the North West its seen massive construction recently and its trended away from Labour as the share of owner occupier voters in the constituency has risen.
Just like the neighbouring constituency of Leigh. What you'd think of as Leigh is still just as grotty terraced homes as it always was, but its surrounded by new estates of semi-detached homes with gardens and driveways for 2 parking spaces each.
Drive around the new estates of Leigh, versus the old streets of Leigh, and its hardly a surprise voting levels have changed. The voting is changing not because people are suddenly fed up of Labour, but because Leigh itself, much of the North itself, is changing. The houses people are living in - and increasingly owning - are not the same homes that existed thirty years ago.
And constituencies that were predominantly owner occupied in the past, that are now unaffordable and NIMBYs are blocking construction, are seeing trends away from the Tories.
Its housing, stupid.
Again again, I hope your Tory friends go and argue your points on the doorstep. They will be annihilated.
I don't think Bart is presenting an argument why people in Warrington North or Leigh SHOULD vote Tory - he is saying that where there has been a long term shift to owner occupation, especially of new builds - such as Warrington North, Leigh, Blyth, Rother Valley, and dozens of others - there has been a long term shift to the Tories. This seems inarguable to me. I also agree with the implication that the Tories would be well served to try to maximise the number of owner occupiers.
Bingo. You've nailed it completely.
Essentially Britain votes by housing. Renters as a class tend to vote Labour. Owned outright tend to vote Tory. Owned with a mortgage, are the swing voters, who in recent years have voted Tory but in Blair's time voted Labour.
In much of the country renting has become more common, but in parts of the North owner occupiers have become more common due to vast amounts of new builds. That has meant more Tory voters, but since those voters have mortgages they're not safe Tory.
The idea that the North swung Tory because voters were pissed off and angry misses the transformation in housing that has happened. Drive around the North outside the cities, and yes if you're here you're driving to get around, and there has been major new housing developments and those developments lead to new owner occupiers which changes how people think about voting.
There have been suggestions of this voting-by-housing-tenure hypothesis before. It is interesting and believable, but I don't know of studies that examine it carefully. Do you?
I've seen many studies on it before, none to hand, but this excellent chart is in the article I linked to above and sums it up well.
The vast construction in the Red Wall, one of the only places in the country where there has been a semi-reasonable amount of construction, has led to home ownership rates here moving from Labour levels to Tory levels. The seats then swung accordingly.
Home ownership and GE2019 As in previous years, homeowners were more likely to vote Conservative in the 2019 election. According to Ipsos MORI’s figures, 57% of voters who owned their home outright voted Conservative, as did 43% of people with mortgages. By contrast, 45% of social renters and 46% of private renters voted Labour.
The 2011 Census tells us how many homeowners were in each constituency. At the time, around 64% of UK households owned their home, either outright or with a mortgage. 315 of the Conservatives’ 365 seats (86%) had home ownership levels above this average, compared with 53 of Labour’s 202 seats (26%). Nine of the Lib Dems’ 11 seats had above-average home ownership levels (82%).
86% above average ownership for Tories, 26% for Labour.
Home ownership is far and away what affects voting in this country. NIMBY scum like our Essicks Massiv that wants to invade Scotland, or the first son of Abraham, are doing their level best to discourage people from voting Tory.
That's a bit jarring, seeing "scum" affixed to NIMBYs. Don't think I've ever come across it before. Really quite unusual.
When the world owes you a 5 bed detached des res, waiting to collect can get to you.
Especially if deleting the pampering of Tory-approved standard nuclear families under the current IHT regulations, and imposing wealth tax on landed property, are active subjects for discussion to remedy the chaos of the last few years.
Only 9% of voters want IHT to rise, the lowest of any tax.
Though yes wealth taxes on million pound plus properties might not be too unpopular if Labour proposes them (outside of a few central London Labour target seats like Kensington and Cities of London and Westminster)
How on earth can you have misread that so badly. They want IHT to increase in preference to all normal taxes eg income tax, vat, fuel duty, council tax, stamp duty, ni. The only taxes they prefer to increase more than IHT are higher and top rate income tax, CGT and Corp Tax. And of course that is what you would expect. They don't want taxes increased that they pay but do want taxes increased on richer people.
The converse is true re taxes they don't want increased which is where you got the 9% from but you completely misunderstood the table. 50% don't want income tax increased compared to only 9% who don't want IHT to rise. Similarly Vat, fuel duty, ni, council tax etc compared to IHT.
'Levelling up' is dangerous ground for Sunak, given that video of him trumpeting unlevelling up the already high...
That’s not actually what he was saying in the video. But Labour had artfully cut the video to mislead.
He was saying that all deprived areas need support - including deprived rural areas in Kent - not just deprived urban areas
The problem was not him rightly pointing to pockets of deprived rural areas. The probem was that he claimed he had taken money from genuinely shonky areas in the north to give to pockets of deprived rural areas.
Nobody is denying that rural places can't hide poverty. But you can't divert money from places already promised the cash. Or in practice what it's meant is that money has gone to posh Tory areas to sort the small bit that isn't quite as posh as the rest whilst the scum area gets little or nothing.
Stockton on Tees seeing levelling up money spent in Yarm as a prime example. Yes, there are bits of Yarm not as nice as the rest. But relatively these areas are fine - certainly a lot better than chunks of town centre or Newtown wards.
Why do the Tories still have a minister for levelling up? Bottom line up front, Boris Johnson’s glib election promise “we will level up” is undeliverable bollocks.
Once you fathom out the impossible to fathom out “what exactly does it mean? Level up the north to the level of the south? But bits of the south are just as run down as bits of the north and vice versa? And switch to how to do it anyway to delivery something at least, even though you don’t really understand what it means, you realise it’s not about funnelling existing money from this to that, you will just end up hated and stuck in the 20s in the polling, it has to be new money, given to deserving places, fairly, and so that Tiverton in Blue Wall can’t get upset they are just as deserving and being cheated.
After all that, are you now levelling up? Of course not, because it is just pretend the ancient mismatch in scale and wealth between London and the secondary cities their regions can ever be levelled, it always was empty unachievable Johnsonian electioneering bollocks.
Why? Because: (a) Red Wall voters have noticed they are still relatively / actually poor (b) Brexit promised them resources and riches (c) Tories promised them definitely resources and riches (d) They won't take no for an answer
Either this government produces a rabbit out of the hat or the Tory 2019 first timers depart.
(A) is wrong.
Red Wall Tory voters are typically home owners, not impoverished people awaiting resources and riches.
Thanks to the relatively huge success in building new homes up here, compared to the rest of the country, the Red Wall has seen much more people getting on the property ladder rather than the reverse happening as in much of the country.
That's the real reason the non-metropolitan North has been swinging Tory while the South is swinging against the Tories. Because voters here have their own deeds to their very own Barratt Home and similar, rather than rental bills.
(a) is not wrong. A is the reason why we have seen a clearout of Labour councils and Labour MPs in Labour since the Danelaw areas. Try living in the red wall for a while and you will see what they are so upset about./
Incidentally, it wouldn't be a good idea for the Tories to listen to you. Telling people that their lived experience is wrong never works.
Try living in the red wall for a while? Excuse me, I do live in the Red Wall, you don't.
There is new housing estates all over the place. You know, all those homes you keep complaining about because you want to excuse the NIMBY scum? All those new homes have voters.
The Red Wall fell because of construction, because the likes of Barratt etc got people on the property ladder, NOT because poor people suddenly became fed up of Labour not doing anything for them.
You're in Birchwood aren't you? Cheshire daaaaarling.
I've moved around a bit, I'd rather not say where I live if you don't mind, but Birchwood is not a bad example. Warrington North is a safe Labour seat, or used to be, like much of the North West its seen massive construction recently and its trended away from Labour as the share of owner occupier voters in the constituency has risen.
Just like the neighbouring constituency of Leigh. What you'd think of as Leigh is still just as grotty terraced homes as it always was, but its surrounded by new estates of semi-detached homes with gardens and driveways for 2 parking spaces each.
Drive around the new estates of Leigh, versus the old streets of Leigh, and its hardly a surprise voting levels have changed. The voting is changing not because people are suddenly fed up of Labour, but because Leigh itself, much of the North itself, is changing. The houses people are living in - and increasingly owning - are not the same homes that existed thirty years ago.
And constituencies that were predominantly owner occupied in the past, that are now unaffordable and NIMBYs are blocking construction, are seeing trends away from the Tories.
Its housing, stupid.
Again again, I hope your Tory friends go and argue your points on the doorstep. They will be annihilated.
I don't think Bart is presenting an argument why people in Warrington North or Leigh SHOULD vote Tory - he is saying that where there has been a long term shift to owner occupation, especially of new builds - such as Warrington North, Leigh, Blyth, Rother Valley, and dozens of others - there has been a long term shift to the Tories. This seems inarguable to me. I also agree with the implication that the Tories would be well served to try to maximise the number of owner occupiers.
Bingo. You've nailed it completely.
Essentially Britain votes by housing. Renters as a class tend to vote Labour. Owned outright tend to vote Tory. Owned with a mortgage, are the swing voters, who in recent years have voted Tory but in Blair's time voted Labour.
In much of the country renting has become more common, but in parts of the North owner occupiers have become more common due to vast amounts of new builds. That has meant more Tory voters, but since those voters have mortgages they're not safe Tory.
The idea that the North swung Tory because voters were pissed off and angry misses the transformation in housing that has happened. Drive around the North outside the cities, and yes if you're here you're driving to get around, and there has been major new housing developments and those developments lead to new owner occupiers which changes how people think about voting.
There have been suggestions of this voting-by-housing-tenure hypothesis before. It is interesting and believable, but I don't know of studies that examine it carefully. Do you?
I've seen many studies on it before, none to hand, but this excellent chart is in the article I linked to above and sums it up well.
The vast construction in the Red Wall, one of the only places in the country where there has been a semi-reasonable amount of construction, has led to home ownership rates here moving from Labour levels to Tory levels. The seats then swung accordingly.
Home ownership and GE2019 As in previous years, homeowners were more likely to vote Conservative in the 2019 election. According to Ipsos MORI’s figures, 57% of voters who owned their home outright voted Conservative, as did 43% of people with mortgages. By contrast, 45% of social renters and 46% of private renters voted Labour.
The 2011 Census tells us how many homeowners were in each constituency. At the time, around 64% of UK households owned their home, either outright or with a mortgage. 315 of the Conservatives’ 365 seats (86%) had home ownership levels above this average, compared with 53 of Labour’s 202 seats (26%). Nine of the Lib Dems’ 11 seats had above-average home ownership levels (82%).
86% above average ownership for Tories, 26% for Labour.
Home ownership is far and away what affects voting in this country. NIMBY scum like our Essicks Massiv that wants to invade Scotland, or the first son of Abraham, are doing their level best to discourage people from voting Tory.
That's a bit jarring, seeing "scum" affixed to NIMBYs. Don't think I've ever come across it before. Really quite unusual.
When the world owes you a 5 bed detached des res, waiting to collect can get to you.
Especially if deleting the pampering of Tory-approved standard nuclear families under the current IHT regulations, and imposing wealth tax on landed property, are active subjects for discussion to remedy the chaos of the last few years.
Only 9% of voters want IHT to rise, the lowest of any tax.
Though yes wealth taxes on million pound plus properties might not be too unpopular if Labour proposes them (outside of a few central London Labour target seats like Kensington and Cities of London and Westminster)
No, it says 9% of voters included inheritance tax in the top three taxes they want held constant.
Obviously people want taxes on other, higher-income people to go up, though they also love the public services those people pay for by building businesses in the UK or working in jobs that are created in the UK, so it's a bit of a bind.
Belgium has a big welfare state by taxing ordinary people at 30% from euro one. The average Brit wants to pay something like 10%, so of course they get less stuff from government.
So does Sweden have a big welfare state but also no inheritance tax at all.
There are also examples in Europe of lower tax, lower spend nations than the UK eg Switzerland
In fact, the main reason you are worried about IHT is that your Topry voters will be bribed with our money so they don't have to spend their own savings on looking after themselves. Using that purpose for savings is what ordinary self-respecting civilised non-selfish citizens used to.
Preserving property and inheritance is a core Tory value. Why should Tories care what non Tories like you think about it?
Because you're deliberately parasitising on most of society, which don't have enough to leave to get to the 325K limit [edit] and will not get anywhere where they have to worry abotu the Special Allowance For Publicly Subsidising Tory Voting Sponging Pensioners And Their Greedy Offspring.
In London the average sold property price is £740,597, in Surrey the average house price is £620,686, so it is not just the rich but average voters in London and the Home Counties hit by higher IHT
(a) that every voter is a home-owner. Many are not. (B) that every home-owner actually has 100% equity without any mortgage. Many are not.
(Of course, both are heavily biased toward the Tories, but they would be for you. Or perhaps Labour and LD and Green voters are not human beings?)
So you are mixing up three different populations and talking bollocks because you trhink it makes your argument look better. Actually, it makes it look even worse.
Anyway, that's enough bollock-toasting to stock a French charcuterie for one evening, so I'm going to go off and read a nice new book. And I suggest you buy yourself a train set and try out the logical operation of points and sidings.
65% are home owners, by the time they are near death most will have paid off their mortgage.
YOu think so, the way things are going? Are already? We're not in the 1970s any more. Or the 1950s.
In the 1950s fewer owned their own property than now
Look at the repo statistics in a year or two. Thanks entirely to youir party.
Well those facing repo will need an inheritance and parental support even more won't they! Hopefully though most will avoid falling behind on their mortgage (and Rishi is not responsible for Truss and Kwarteng's errors)
With any luck,. their parents will have been heavily taxed on their unearned capital gains.
Did anyone see the Newsnight report last night re Moroccans trying to get into the tiny Spanish territory of Melilla in North Africa.
The Spanish were far, far tougher than we are - live firing, many people killed, Moroccans stuck in a tiny pen with dead bodies etc.
As always, the rhetoric is very different from what actually happens. Braverman is strong on rhetoric but bottom line is we all know she isn't actually going to do anything.
Meanwhile the Spanish take a very different approach.
Though of course the asylum seekers largely need to come via boats across the Mediterranean before they get here, so the Mediterranean coast countries are where the toughest approach is needed (not that I condone live firing on asylum seekers)
'Levelling up' is dangerous ground for Sunak, given that video of him trumpeting unlevelling up the already high...
That’s not actually what he was saying in the video. But Labour had artfully cut the video to mislead.
He was saying that all deprived areas need support - including deprived rural areas in Kent - not just deprived urban areas
The problem was not him rightly pointing to pockets of deprived rural areas. The probem was that he claimed he had taken money from genuinely shonky areas in the north to give to pockets of deprived rural areas.
Nobody is denying that rural places can't hide poverty. But you can't divert money from places already promised the cash. Or in practice what it's meant is that money has gone to posh Tory areas to sort the small bit that isn't quite as posh as the rest whilst the scum area gets little or nothing.
Stockton on Tees seeing levelling up money spent in Yarm as a prime example. Yes, there are bits of Yarm not as nice as the rest. But relatively these areas are fine - certainly a lot better than chunks of town centre or Newtown wards.
Why do the Tories still have a minister for levelling up? Bottom line up front, Boris Johnson’s glib election promise “we will level up” is undeliverable bollocks.
Once you fathom out the impossible to fathom out “what exactly does it mean? Level up the north to the level of the south? But bits of the south are just as run down as bits of the north and vice versa? And switch to how to do it anyway to delivery something at least, even though you don’t really understand what it means, you realise it’s not about funnelling existing money from this to that, you will just end up hated and stuck in the 20s in the polling, it has to be new money, given to deserving places, fairly, and so that Tiverton in Blue Wall can’t get upset they are just as deserving and being cheated.
After all that, are you now levelling up? Of course not, because it is just pretend the ancient mismatch in scale and wealth between London and the secondary cities their regions can ever be levelled, it always was empty unachievable Johnsonian electioneering bollocks.
Why? Because: (a) Red Wall voters have noticed they are still relatively / actually poor (b) Brexit promised them resources and riches (c) Tories promised them definitely resources and riches (d) They won't take no for an answer
Either this government produces a rabbit out of the hat or the Tory 2019 first timers depart.
(A) is wrong.
Red Wall Tory voters are typically home owners, not impoverished people awaiting resources and riches.
Thanks to the relatively huge success in building new homes up here, compared to the rest of the country, the Red Wall has seen much more people getting on the property ladder rather than the reverse happening as in much of the country.
That's the real reason the non-metropolitan North has been swinging Tory while the South is swinging against the Tories. Because voters here have their own deeds to their very own Barratt Home and similar, rather than rental bills.
(a) is not wrong. A is the reason why we have seen a clearout of Labour councils and Labour MPs in Labour since the Danelaw areas. Try living in the red wall for a while and you will see what they are so upset about./
Incidentally, it wouldn't be a good idea for the Tories to listen to you. Telling people that their lived experience is wrong never works.
Try living in the red wall for a while? Excuse me, I do live in the Red Wall, you don't.
There is new housing estates all over the place. You know, all those homes you keep complaining about because you want to excuse the NIMBY scum? All those new homes have voters.
The Red Wall fell because of construction, because the likes of Barratt etc got people on the property ladder, NOT because poor people suddenly became fed up of Labour not doing anything for them.
You're in Birchwood aren't you? Cheshire daaaaarling.
I've moved around a bit, I'd rather not say where I live if you don't mind, but Birchwood is not a bad example. Warrington North is a safe Labour seat, or used to be, like much of the North West its seen massive construction recently and its trended away from Labour as the share of owner occupier voters in the constituency has risen.
Just like the neighbouring constituency of Leigh. What you'd think of as Leigh is still just as grotty terraced homes as it always was, but its surrounded by new estates of semi-detached homes with gardens and driveways for 2 parking spaces each.
Drive around the new estates of Leigh, versus the old streets of Leigh, and its hardly a surprise voting levels have changed. The voting is changing not because people are suddenly fed up of Labour, but because Leigh itself, much of the North itself, is changing. The houses people are living in - and increasingly owning - are not the same homes that existed thirty years ago.
And constituencies that were predominantly owner occupied in the past, that are now unaffordable and NIMBYs are blocking construction, are seeing trends away from the Tories.
Its housing, stupid.
Again again, I hope your Tory friends go and argue your points on the doorstep. They will be annihilated.
I don't think Bart is presenting an argument why people in Warrington North or Leigh SHOULD vote Tory - he is saying that where there has been a long term shift to owner occupation, especially of new builds - such as Warrington North, Leigh, Blyth, Rother Valley, and dozens of others - there has been a long term shift to the Tories. This seems inarguable to me. I also agree with the implication that the Tories would be well served to try to maximise the number of owner occupiers.
Bingo. You've nailed it completely.
Essentially Britain votes by housing. Renters as a class tend to vote Labour. Owned outright tend to vote Tory. Owned with a mortgage, are the swing voters, who in recent years have voted Tory but in Blair's time voted Labour.
In much of the country renting has become more common, but in parts of the North owner occupiers have become more common due to vast amounts of new builds. That has meant more Tory voters, but since those voters have mortgages they're not safe Tory.
The idea that the North swung Tory because voters were pissed off and angry misses the transformation in housing that has happened. Drive around the North outside the cities, and yes if you're here you're driving to get around, and there has been major new housing developments and those developments lead to new owner occupiers which changes how people think about voting.
There have been suggestions of this voting-by-housing-tenure hypothesis before. It is interesting and believable, but I don't know of studies that examine it carefully. Do you?
I've seen many studies on it before, none to hand, but this excellent chart is in the article I linked to above and sums it up well.
The vast construction in the Red Wall, one of the only places in the country where there has been a semi-reasonable amount of construction, has led to home ownership rates here moving from Labour levels to Tory levels. The seats then swung accordingly.
Home ownership and GE2019 As in previous years, homeowners were more likely to vote Conservative in the 2019 election. According to Ipsos MORI’s figures, 57% of voters who owned their home outright voted Conservative, as did 43% of people with mortgages. By contrast, 45% of social renters and 46% of private renters voted Labour.
The 2011 Census tells us how many homeowners were in each constituency. At the time, around 64% of UK households owned their home, either outright or with a mortgage. 315 of the Conservatives’ 365 seats (86%) had home ownership levels above this average, compared with 53 of Labour’s 202 seats (26%). Nine of the Lib Dems’ 11 seats had above-average home ownership levels (82%).
86% above average ownership for Tories, 26% for Labour.
Home ownership is far and away what affects voting in this country. NIMBY scum like our Essicks Massiv that wants to invade Scotland, or the first son of Abraham, are doing their level best to discourage people from voting Tory.
That's a bit jarring, seeing "scum" affixed to NIMBYs. Don't think I've ever come across it before. Really quite unusual.
When the world owes you a 5 bed detached des res, waiting to collect can get to you.
Especially if deleting the pampering of Tory-approved standard nuclear families under the current IHT regulations, and imposing wealth tax on landed property, are active subjects for discussion to remedy the chaos of the last few years.
Only 9% of voters want IHT to rise, the lowest of any tax.
Though yes wealth taxes on million pound plus properties might not be too unpopular if Labour proposes them (outside of a few central London Labour target seats like Kensington and Cities of London and Westminster)
No, it says 9% of voters included inheritance tax in the top three taxes they want held constant.
Obviously people want taxes on other, higher-income people to go up, though they also love the public services those people pay for by building businesses in the UK or working in jobs that are created in the UK, so it's a bit of a bind.
Belgium has a big welfare state by taxing ordinary people at 30% from euro one. The average Brit wants to pay something like 10%, so of course they get less stuff from government.
So does Sweden have a big welfare state but also no inheritance tax at all.
There are also examples in Europe of lower tax, lower spend nations than the UK eg Switzerland
In fact, the main reason you are worried about IHT is that your Topry voters will be bribed with our money so they don't have to spend their own savings on looking after themselves. Using that purpose for savings is what ordinary self-respecting civilised non-selfish citizens used to.
Preserving property and inheritance is a core Tory value. Why should Tories care what non Tories like you think about it?
Because you're deliberately parasitising on most of society, which don't have enough to leave to get to the 325K limit [edit] and will not get anywhere where they have to worry abotu the Special Allowance For Publicly Subsidising Tory Voting Sponging Pensioners And Their Greedy Offspring.
In London the average sold property price is £740,597, in Surrey the average house price is £620,686, so it is not just the rich but average voters in London and the Home Counties hit by higher IHT
(a) that every voter is a home-owner. Many are not. (B) that every home-owner actually has 100% equity without any mortgage. Many are not.
(Of course, both are heavily biased toward the Tories, but they would be for you. Or perhaps Labour and LD and Green voters are not human beings?)
So you are mixing up three different populations and talking bollocks because you trhink it makes your argument look better. Actually, it makes it look even worse.
Anyway, that's enough bollock-toasting to stock a French charcuterie for one evening, so I'm going to go off and read a nice new book. And I suggest you buy yourself a train set and try out the logical operation of points and sidings.
65% are home owners, by the time they are near death most will have paid off their mortgage.
YOu think so, the way things are going? Are already? We're not in the 1970s any more. Or the 1950s.
In the 1950s fewer owned their own property than now
Look at the repo statistics in a year or two. Thanks entirely to youir party.
Well those facing repo will need an inheritance and parental support even more won't they! Hopefully though most will avoid falling behind on their mortgage (and Rishi is not responsible for Truss and Kwarteng's errors)
With any luck,. their parents will have been heavily taxed on their unearned capital gains.
Well a socialist like you would say that wouldn't you, tax everything is your philosophy
'Levelling up' is dangerous ground for Sunak, given that video of him trumpeting unlevelling up the already high...
That’s not actually what he was saying in the video. But Labour had artfully cut the video to mislead.
He was saying that all deprived areas need support - including deprived rural areas in Kent - not just deprived urban areas
The problem was not him rightly pointing to pockets of deprived rural areas. The probem was that he claimed he had taken money from genuinely shonky areas in the north to give to pockets of deprived rural areas.
Nobody is denying that rural places can't hide poverty. But you can't divert money from places already promised the cash. Or in practice what it's meant is that money has gone to posh Tory areas to sort the small bit that isn't quite as posh as the rest whilst the scum area gets little or nothing.
Stockton on Tees seeing levelling up money spent in Yarm as a prime example. Yes, there are bits of Yarm not as nice as the rest. But relatively these areas are fine - certainly a lot better than chunks of town centre or Newtown wards.
Why do the Tories still have a minister for levelling up? Bottom line up front, Boris Johnson’s glib election promise “we will level up” is undeliverable bollocks.
Once you fathom out the impossible to fathom out “what exactly does it mean? Level up the north to the level of the south? But bits of the south are just as run down as bits of the north and vice versa? And switch to how to do it anyway to delivery something at least, even though you don’t really understand what it means, you realise it’s not about funnelling existing money from this to that, you will just end up hated and stuck in the 20s in the polling, it has to be new money, given to deserving places, fairly, and so that Tiverton in Blue Wall can’t get upset they are just as deserving and being cheated.
After all that, are you now levelling up? Of course not, because it is just pretend the ancient mismatch in scale and wealth between London and the secondary cities their regions can ever be levelled, it always was empty unachievable Johnsonian electioneering bollocks.
Why? Because: (a) Red Wall voters have noticed they are still relatively / actually poor (b) Brexit promised them resources and riches (c) Tories promised them definitely resources and riches (d) They won't take no for an answer
Either this government produces a rabbit out of the hat or the Tory 2019 first timers depart.
(A) is wrong.
Red Wall Tory voters are typically home owners, not impoverished people awaiting resources and riches.
Thanks to the relatively huge success in building new homes up here, compared to the rest of the country, the Red Wall has seen much more people getting on the property ladder rather than the reverse happening as in much of the country.
That's the real reason the non-metropolitan North has been swinging Tory while the South is swinging against the Tories. Because voters here have their own deeds to their very own Barratt Home and similar, rather than rental bills.
(a) is not wrong. A is the reason why we have seen a clearout of Labour councils and Labour MPs in Labour since the Danelaw areas. Try living in the red wall for a while and you will see what they are so upset about./
Incidentally, it wouldn't be a good idea for the Tories to listen to you. Telling people that their lived experience is wrong never works.
Try living in the red wall for a while? Excuse me, I do live in the Red Wall, you don't.
There is new housing estates all over the place. You know, all those homes you keep complaining about because you want to excuse the NIMBY scum? All those new homes have voters.
The Red Wall fell because of construction, because the likes of Barratt etc got people on the property ladder, NOT because poor people suddenly became fed up of Labour not doing anything for them.
You're in Birchwood aren't you? Cheshire daaaaarling.
I've moved around a bit, I'd rather not say where I live if you don't mind, but Birchwood is not a bad example. Warrington North is a safe Labour seat, or used to be, like much of the North West its seen massive construction recently and its trended away from Labour as the share of owner occupier voters in the constituency has risen.
Just like the neighbouring constituency of Leigh. What you'd think of as Leigh is still just as grotty terraced homes as it always was, but its surrounded by new estates of semi-detached homes with gardens and driveways for 2 parking spaces each.
Drive around the new estates of Leigh, versus the old streets of Leigh, and its hardly a surprise voting levels have changed. The voting is changing not because people are suddenly fed up of Labour, but because Leigh itself, much of the North itself, is changing. The houses people are living in - and increasingly owning - are not the same homes that existed thirty years ago.
And constituencies that were predominantly owner occupied in the past, that are now unaffordable and NIMBYs are blocking construction, are seeing trends away from the Tories.
Its housing, stupid.
Again again, I hope your Tory friends go and argue your points on the doorstep. They will be annihilated.
I don't think Bart is presenting an argument why people in Warrington North or Leigh SHOULD vote Tory - he is saying that where there has been a long term shift to owner occupation, especially of new builds - such as Warrington North, Leigh, Blyth, Rother Valley, and dozens of others - there has been a long term shift to the Tories. This seems inarguable to me. I also agree with the implication that the Tories would be well served to try to maximise the number of owner occupiers.
Bingo. You've nailed it completely.
Essentially Britain votes by housing. Renters as a class tend to vote Labour. Owned outright tend to vote Tory. Owned with a mortgage, are the swing voters, who in recent years have voted Tory but in Blair's time voted Labour.
In much of the country renting has become more common, but in parts of the North owner occupiers have become more common due to vast amounts of new builds. That has meant more Tory voters, but since those voters have mortgages they're not safe Tory.
The idea that the North swung Tory because voters were pissed off and angry misses the transformation in housing that has happened. Drive around the North outside the cities, and yes if you're here you're driving to get around, and there has been major new housing developments and those developments lead to new owner occupiers which changes how people think about voting.
There have been suggestions of this voting-by-housing-tenure hypothesis before. It is interesting and believable, but I don't know of studies that examine it carefully. Do you?
I've seen many studies on it before, none to hand, but this excellent chart is in the article I linked to above and sums it up well.
The vast construction in the Red Wall, one of the only places in the country where there has been a semi-reasonable amount of construction, has led to home ownership rates here moving from Labour levels to Tory levels. The seats then swung accordingly.
Home ownership and GE2019 As in previous years, homeowners were more likely to vote Conservative in the 2019 election. According to Ipsos MORI’s figures, 57% of voters who owned their home outright voted Conservative, as did 43% of people with mortgages. By contrast, 45% of social renters and 46% of private renters voted Labour.
The 2011 Census tells us how many homeowners were in each constituency. At the time, around 64% of UK households owned their home, either outright or with a mortgage. 315 of the Conservatives’ 365 seats (86%) had home ownership levels above this average, compared with 53 of Labour’s 202 seats (26%). Nine of the Lib Dems’ 11 seats had above-average home ownership levels (82%).
86% above average ownership for Tories, 26% for Labour.
Home ownership is far and away what affects voting in this country. NIMBY scum like our Essicks Massiv that wants to invade Scotland, or the first son of Abraham, are doing their level best to discourage people from voting Tory.
That's a bit jarring, seeing "scum" affixed to NIMBYs. Don't think I've ever come across it before. Really quite unusual.
When the world owes you a 5 bed detached des res, waiting to collect can get to you.
Especially if deleting the pampering of Tory-approved standard nuclear families under the current IHT regulations, and imposing wealth tax on landed property, are active subjects for discussion to remedy the chaos of the last few years.
Only 9% of voters want IHT to rise, the lowest of any tax.
Though yes wealth taxes on million pound plus properties might not be too unpopular if Labour proposes them (outside of a few central London Labour target seats like Kensington and Cities of London and Westminster)
How on earth can you have misread that so badly. They want IHT to increase in preference to all normal taxes eg income tax, vat, fuel duty, council tax, stamp duty, ni. The only taxes they prefer to increase more than IHT are higher and top rate income tax, CGT and Corp Tax. And of course that is what you would expect. They don't want taxes increased that they pay but do want taxes increased on richer people.
The converse is true re taxes they don't want increased which is where you got the 9% from but you completely misunderstood the table. 50% don't want income tax increased compared to only 9% who don't want IHT to rise. Similarly Vat, fuel duty, ni, council tax etc compared to IHT.
Quite - rather few people actually pay IHT anyway. So that makes excellent sense. Unless you are a Home Counties Tory voter who is obsessed with his unearned capital gains, or his parents'.
'Levelling up' is dangerous ground for Sunak, given that video of him trumpeting unlevelling up the already high...
That’s not actually what he was saying in the video. But Labour had artfully cut the video to mislead.
He was saying that all deprived areas need support - including deprived rural areas in Kent - not just deprived urban areas
The problem was not him rightly pointing to pockets of deprived rural areas. The probem was that he claimed he had taken money from genuinely shonky areas in the north to give to pockets of deprived rural areas.
Nobody is denying that rural places can't hide poverty. But you can't divert money from places already promised the cash. Or in practice what it's meant is that money has gone to posh Tory areas to sort the small bit that isn't quite as posh as the rest whilst the scum area gets little or nothing.
Stockton on Tees seeing levelling up money spent in Yarm as a prime example. Yes, there are bits of Yarm not as nice as the rest. But relatively these areas are fine - certainly a lot better than chunks of town centre or Newtown wards.
Why do the Tories still have a minister for levelling up? Bottom line up front, Boris Johnson’s glib election promise “we will level up” is undeliverable bollocks.
Once you fathom out the impossible to fathom out “what exactly does it mean? Level up the north to the level of the south? But bits of the south are just as run down as bits of the north and vice versa? And switch to how to do it anyway to delivery something at least, even though you don’t really understand what it means, you realise it’s not about funnelling existing money from this to that, you will just end up hated and stuck in the 20s in the polling, it has to be new money, given to deserving places, fairly, and so that Tiverton in Blue Wall can’t get upset they are just as deserving and being cheated.
After all that, are you now levelling up? Of course not, because it is just pretend the ancient mismatch in scale and wealth between London and the secondary cities their regions can ever be levelled, it always was empty unachievable Johnsonian electioneering bollocks.
Why? Because: (a) Red Wall voters have noticed they are still relatively / actually poor (b) Brexit promised them resources and riches (c) Tories promised them definitely resources and riches (d) They won't take no for an answer
Either this government produces a rabbit out of the hat or the Tory 2019 first timers depart.
(A) is wrong.
Red Wall Tory voters are typically home owners, not impoverished people awaiting resources and riches.
Thanks to the relatively huge success in building new homes up here, compared to the rest of the country, the Red Wall has seen much more people getting on the property ladder rather than the reverse happening as in much of the country.
That's the real reason the non-metropolitan North has been swinging Tory while the South is swinging against the Tories. Because voters here have their own deeds to their very own Barratt Home and similar, rather than rental bills.
(a) is not wrong. A is the reason why we have seen a clearout of Labour councils and Labour MPs in Labour since the Danelaw areas. Try living in the red wall for a while and you will see what they are so upset about./
Incidentally, it wouldn't be a good idea for the Tories to listen to you. Telling people that their lived experience is wrong never works.
Try living in the red wall for a while? Excuse me, I do live in the Red Wall, you don't.
There is new housing estates all over the place. You know, all those homes you keep complaining about because you want to excuse the NIMBY scum? All those new homes have voters.
The Red Wall fell because of construction, because the likes of Barratt etc got people on the property ladder, NOT because poor people suddenly became fed up of Labour not doing anything for them.
You're in Birchwood aren't you? Cheshire daaaaarling.
I've moved around a bit, I'd rather not say where I live if you don't mind, but Birchwood is not a bad example. Warrington North is a safe Labour seat, or used to be, like much of the North West its seen massive construction recently and its trended away from Labour as the share of owner occupier voters in the constituency has risen.
Just like the neighbouring constituency of Leigh. What you'd think of as Leigh is still just as grotty terraced homes as it always was, but its surrounded by new estates of semi-detached homes with gardens and driveways for 2 parking spaces each.
Drive around the new estates of Leigh, versus the old streets of Leigh, and its hardly a surprise voting levels have changed. The voting is changing not because people are suddenly fed up of Labour, but because Leigh itself, much of the North itself, is changing. The houses people are living in - and increasingly owning - are not the same homes that existed thirty years ago.
And constituencies that were predominantly owner occupied in the past, that are now unaffordable and NIMBYs are blocking construction, are seeing trends away from the Tories.
Its housing, stupid.
Again again, I hope your Tory friends go and argue your points on the doorstep. They will be annihilated.
I don't think Bart is presenting an argument why people in Warrington North or Leigh SHOULD vote Tory - he is saying that where there has been a long term shift to owner occupation, especially of new builds - such as Warrington North, Leigh, Blyth, Rother Valley, and dozens of others - there has been a long term shift to the Tories. This seems inarguable to me. I also agree with the implication that the Tories would be well served to try to maximise the number of owner occupiers.
Bingo. You've nailed it completely.
Essentially Britain votes by housing. Renters as a class tend to vote Labour. Owned outright tend to vote Tory. Owned with a mortgage, are the swing voters, who in recent years have voted Tory but in Blair's time voted Labour.
In much of the country renting has become more common, but in parts of the North owner occupiers have become more common due to vast amounts of new builds. That has meant more Tory voters, but since those voters have mortgages they're not safe Tory.
The idea that the North swung Tory because voters were pissed off and angry misses the transformation in housing that has happened. Drive around the North outside the cities, and yes if you're here you're driving to get around, and there has been major new housing developments and those developments lead to new owner occupiers which changes how people think about voting.
There have been suggestions of this voting-by-housing-tenure hypothesis before. It is interesting and believable, but I don't know of studies that examine it carefully. Do you?
I've seen many studies on it before, none to hand, but this excellent chart is in the article I linked to above and sums it up well.
The vast construction in the Red Wall, one of the only places in the country where there has been a semi-reasonable amount of construction, has led to home ownership rates here moving from Labour levels to Tory levels. The seats then swung accordingly.
Home ownership and GE2019 As in previous years, homeowners were more likely to vote Conservative in the 2019 election. According to Ipsos MORI’s figures, 57% of voters who owned their home outright voted Conservative, as did 43% of people with mortgages. By contrast, 45% of social renters and 46% of private renters voted Labour.
The 2011 Census tells us how many homeowners were in each constituency. At the time, around 64% of UK households owned their home, either outright or with a mortgage. 315 of the Conservatives’ 365 seats (86%) had home ownership levels above this average, compared with 53 of Labour’s 202 seats (26%). Nine of the Lib Dems’ 11 seats had above-average home ownership levels (82%).
86% above average ownership for Tories, 26% for Labour.
Home ownership is far and away what affects voting in this country. NIMBY scum like our Essicks Massiv that wants to invade Scotland, or the first son of Abraham, are doing their level best to discourage people from voting Tory.
That's a bit jarring, seeing "scum" affixed to NIMBYs. Don't think I've ever come across it before. Really quite unusual.
When the world owes you a 5 bed detached des res, waiting to collect can get to you.
Especially if deleting the pampering of Tory-approved standard nuclear families under the current IHT regulations, and imposing wealth tax on landed property, are active subjects for discussion to remedy the chaos of the last few years.
Only 9% of voters want IHT to rise, the lowest of any tax.
Though yes wealth taxes on million pound plus properties might not be too unpopular if Labour proposes them (outside of a few central London Labour target seats like Kensington and Cities of London and Westminster)
No, it says 9% of voters included inheritance tax in the top three taxes they want held constant.
Obviously people want taxes on other, higher-income people to go up, though they also love the public services those people pay for by building businesses in the UK or working in jobs that are created in the UK, so it's a bit of a bind.
Belgium has a big welfare state by taxing ordinary people at 30% from euro one. The average Brit wants to pay something like 10%, so of course they get less stuff from government.
So does Sweden have a big welfare state but also no inheritance tax at all.
There are also examples in Europe of lower tax, lower spend nations than the UK eg Switzerland
In fact, the main reason you are worried about IHT is that your Topry voters will be bribed with our money so they don't have to spend their own savings on looking after themselves. Using that purpose for savings is what ordinary self-respecting civilised non-selfish citizens used to.
Preserving property and inheritance is a core Tory value. Why should Tories care what non Tories like you think about it?
Because you're deliberately parasitising on most of society, which don't have enough to leave to get to the 325K limit [edit] and will not get anywhere where they have to worry abotu the Special Allowance For Publicly Subsidising Tory Voting Sponging Pensioners And Their Greedy Offspring.
In London the average sold property price is £740,597, in Surrey the average house price is £620,686, so it is not just the rich but average voters in London and the Home Counties hit by higher IHT
(a) that every voter is a home-owner. Many are not. (B) that every home-owner actually has 100% equity without any mortgage. Many are not.
(Of course, both are heavily biased toward the Tories, but they would be for you. Or perhaps Labour and LD and Green voters are not human beings?)
So you are mixing up three different populations and talking bollocks because you trhink it makes your argument look better. Actually, it makes it look even worse.
Anyway, that's enough bollock-toasting to stock a French charcuterie for one evening, so I'm going to go off and read a nice new book. And I suggest you buy yourself a train set and try out the logical operation of points and sidings.
65% are home owners, by the time they are near death most will have paid off their mortgage.
YOu think so, the way things are going? Are already? We're not in the 1970s any more. Or the 1950s.
In the 1950s fewer owned their own property than now
Look at the repo statistics in a year or two. Thanks entirely to youir party.
Well those facing repo will need an inheritance and parental support even more won't they! Hopefully though most will avoid falling behind on their mortgage (and Rishi is not responsible for Truss and Kwarteng's errors)
With any luck,. their parents will have been heavily taxed on their unearned capital gains.
Well a socialist like you would say that wouldn't you, tax everything is your philosophy
I'm not a socialist. But you ought to start worrying when your party has got centrist dads such as I saying such things for want of any other alternative.
'Levelling up' is dangerous ground for Sunak, given that video of him trumpeting unlevelling up the already high...
That’s not actually what he was saying in the video. But Labour had artfully cut the video to mislead.
He was saying that all deprived areas need support - including deprived rural areas in Kent - not just deprived urban areas
The problem was not him rightly pointing to pockets of deprived rural areas. The probem was that he claimed he had taken money from genuinely shonky areas in the north to give to pockets of deprived rural areas.
Nobody is denying that rural places can't hide poverty. But you can't divert money from places already promised the cash. Or in practice what it's meant is that money has gone to posh Tory areas to sort the small bit that isn't quite as posh as the rest whilst the scum area gets little or nothing.
Stockton on Tees seeing levelling up money spent in Yarm as a prime example. Yes, there are bits of Yarm not as nice as the rest. But relatively these areas are fine - certainly a lot better than chunks of town centre or Newtown wards.
Why do the Tories still have a minister for levelling up? Bottom line up front, Boris Johnson’s glib election promise “we will level up” is undeliverable bollocks.
Once you fathom out the impossible to fathom out “what exactly does it mean? Level up the north to the level of the south? But bits of the south are just as run down as bits of the north and vice versa? And switch to how to do it anyway to delivery something at least, even though you don’t really understand what it means, you realise it’s not about funnelling existing money from this to that, you will just end up hated and stuck in the 20s in the polling, it has to be new money, given to deserving places, fairly, and so that Tiverton in Blue Wall can’t get upset they are just as deserving and being cheated.
After all that, are you now levelling up? Of course not, because it is just pretend the ancient mismatch in scale and wealth between London and the secondary cities their regions can ever be levelled, it always was empty unachievable Johnsonian electioneering bollocks.
Why? Because: (a) Red Wall voters have noticed they are still relatively / actually poor (b) Brexit promised them resources and riches (c) Tories promised them definitely resources and riches (d) They won't take no for an answer
Either this government produces a rabbit out of the hat or the Tory 2019 first timers depart.
(A) is wrong.
Red Wall Tory voters are typically home owners, not impoverished people awaiting resources and riches.
Thanks to the relatively huge success in building new homes up here, compared to the rest of the country, the Red Wall has seen much more people getting on the property ladder rather than the reverse happening as in much of the country.
That's the real reason the non-metropolitan North has been swinging Tory while the South is swinging against the Tories. Because voters here have their own deeds to their very own Barratt Home and similar, rather than rental bills.
(a) is not wrong. A is the reason why we have seen a clearout of Labour councils and Labour MPs in Labour since the Danelaw areas. Try living in the red wall for a while and you will see what they are so upset about./
Incidentally, it wouldn't be a good idea for the Tories to listen to you. Telling people that their lived experience is wrong never works.
Try living in the red wall for a while? Excuse me, I do live in the Red Wall, you don't.
There is new housing estates all over the place. You know, all those homes you keep complaining about because you want to excuse the NIMBY scum? All those new homes have voters.
The Red Wall fell because of construction, because the likes of Barratt etc got people on the property ladder, NOT because poor people suddenly became fed up of Labour not doing anything for them.
You're in Birchwood aren't you? Cheshire daaaaarling.
I've moved around a bit, I'd rather not say where I live if you don't mind, but Birchwood is not a bad example. Warrington North is a safe Labour seat, or used to be, like much of the North West its seen massive construction recently and its trended away from Labour as the share of owner occupier voters in the constituency has risen.
Just like the neighbouring constituency of Leigh. What you'd think of as Leigh is still just as grotty terraced homes as it always was, but its surrounded by new estates of semi-detached homes with gardens and driveways for 2 parking spaces each.
Drive around the new estates of Leigh, versus the old streets of Leigh, and its hardly a surprise voting levels have changed. The voting is changing not because people are suddenly fed up of Labour, but because Leigh itself, much of the North itself, is changing. The houses people are living in - and increasingly owning - are not the same homes that existed thirty years ago.
And constituencies that were predominantly owner occupied in the past, that are now unaffordable and NIMBYs are blocking construction, are seeing trends away from the Tories.
Its housing, stupid.
Again again, I hope your Tory friends go and argue your points on the doorstep. They will be annihilated.
I don't think Bart is presenting an argument why people in Warrington North or Leigh SHOULD vote Tory - he is saying that where there has been a long term shift to owner occupation, especially of new builds - such as Warrington North, Leigh, Blyth, Rother Valley, and dozens of others - there has been a long term shift to the Tories. This seems inarguable to me. I also agree with the implication that the Tories would be well served to try to maximise the number of owner occupiers.
Bingo. You've nailed it completely.
Essentially Britain votes by housing. Renters as a class tend to vote Labour. Owned outright tend to vote Tory. Owned with a mortgage, are the swing voters, who in recent years have voted Tory but in Blair's time voted Labour.
In much of the country renting has become more common, but in parts of the North owner occupiers have become more common due to vast amounts of new builds. That has meant more Tory voters, but since those voters have mortgages they're not safe Tory.
The idea that the North swung Tory because voters were pissed off and angry misses the transformation in housing that has happened. Drive around the North outside the cities, and yes if you're here you're driving to get around, and there has been major new housing developments and those developments lead to new owner occupiers which changes how people think about voting.
There have been suggestions of this voting-by-housing-tenure hypothesis before. It is interesting and believable, but I don't know of studies that examine it carefully. Do you?
I've seen many studies on it before, none to hand, but this excellent chart is in the article I linked to above and sums it up well.
The vast construction in the Red Wall, one of the only places in the country where there has been a semi-reasonable amount of construction, has led to home ownership rates here moving from Labour levels to Tory levels. The seats then swung accordingly.
Home ownership and GE2019 As in previous years, homeowners were more likely to vote Conservative in the 2019 election. According to Ipsos MORI’s figures, 57% of voters who owned their home outright voted Conservative, as did 43% of people with mortgages. By contrast, 45% of social renters and 46% of private renters voted Labour.
The 2011 Census tells us how many homeowners were in each constituency. At the time, around 64% of UK households owned their home, either outright or with a mortgage. 315 of the Conservatives’ 365 seats (86%) had home ownership levels above this average, compared with 53 of Labour’s 202 seats (26%). Nine of the Lib Dems’ 11 seats had above-average home ownership levels (82%).
86% above average ownership for Tories, 26% for Labour.
Home ownership is far and away what affects voting in this country. NIMBY scum like our Essicks Massiv that wants to invade Scotland, or the first son of Abraham, are doing their level best to discourage people from voting Tory.
That's a bit jarring, seeing "scum" affixed to NIMBYs. Don't think I've ever come across it before. Really quite unusual.
When the world owes you a 5 bed detached des res, waiting to collect can get to you.
Especially if deleting the pampering of Tory-approved standard nuclear families under the current IHT regulations, and imposing wealth tax on landed property, are active subjects for discussion to remedy the chaos of the last few years.
Only 9% of voters want IHT to rise, the lowest of any tax.
Though yes wealth taxes on million pound plus properties might not be too unpopular if Labour proposes them (outside of a few central London Labour target seats like Kensington and Cities of London and Westminster)
How on earth can you have misread that so badly. They want IHT to increase in preference to all normal taxes eg income tax, vat, fuel duty, council tax, stamp duty, ni. The only taxes they prefer to increase more than IHT are higher and top rate income tax, CGT and Corp Tax. And of course that is what you would expect. They don't want taxes increased that they pay but do want taxes increased on richer people.
The converse is true re taxes they don't want increased which is where you got the 9% from but you completely misunderstood the table. 50% don't want income tax increased compared to only 9% who don't want IHT to rise. Similarly Vat, fuel duty, ni, council tax etc compared to IHT.
Just 12% want higher IHT compared to 52% wanting a higher top income tax rate, 47% higher corporation tax, 33% higher capital gains tax and 29% a rise in the higher rate of income tax
'Levelling up' is dangerous ground for Sunak, given that video of him trumpeting unlevelling up the already high...
That’s not actually what he was saying in the video. But Labour had artfully cut the video to mislead.
He was saying that all deprived areas need support - including deprived rural areas in Kent - not just deprived urban areas
The problem was not him rightly pointing to pockets of deprived rural areas. The probem was that he claimed he had taken money from genuinely shonky areas in the north to give to pockets of deprived rural areas.
Nobody is denying that rural places can't hide poverty. But you can't divert money from places already promised the cash. Or in practice what it's meant is that money has gone to posh Tory areas to sort the small bit that isn't quite as posh as the rest whilst the scum area gets little or nothing.
Stockton on Tees seeing levelling up money spent in Yarm as a prime example. Yes, there are bits of Yarm not as nice as the rest. But relatively these areas are fine - certainly a lot better than chunks of town centre or Newtown wards.
Why do the Tories still have a minister for levelling up? Bottom line up front, Boris Johnson’s glib election promise “we will level up” is undeliverable bollocks.
Once you fathom out the impossible to fathom out “what exactly does it mean? Level up the north to the level of the south? But bits of the south are just as run down as bits of the north and vice versa? And switch to how to do it anyway to delivery something at least, even though you don’t really understand what it means, you realise it’s not about funnelling existing money from this to that, you will just end up hated and stuck in the 20s in the polling, it has to be new money, given to deserving places, fairly, and so that Tiverton in Blue Wall can’t get upset they are just as deserving and being cheated.
After all that, are you now levelling up? Of course not, because it is just pretend the ancient mismatch in scale and wealth between London and the secondary cities their regions can ever be levelled, it always was empty unachievable Johnsonian electioneering bollocks.
Why? Because: (a) Red Wall voters have noticed they are still relatively / actually poor (b) Brexit promised them resources and riches (c) Tories promised them definitely resources and riches (d) They won't take no for an answer
Either this government produces a rabbit out of the hat or the Tory 2019 first timers depart.
(A) is wrong.
Red Wall Tory voters are typically home owners, not impoverished people awaiting resources and riches.
Thanks to the relatively huge success in building new homes up here, compared to the rest of the country, the Red Wall has seen much more people getting on the property ladder rather than the reverse happening as in much of the country.
That's the real reason the non-metropolitan North has been swinging Tory while the South is swinging against the Tories. Because voters here have their own deeds to their very own Barratt Home and similar, rather than rental bills.
(a) is not wrong. A is the reason why we have seen a clearout of Labour councils and Labour MPs in Labour since the Danelaw areas. Try living in the red wall for a while and you will see what they are so upset about./
Incidentally, it wouldn't be a good idea for the Tories to listen to you. Telling people that their lived experience is wrong never works.
Try living in the red wall for a while? Excuse me, I do live in the Red Wall, you don't.
There is new housing estates all over the place. You know, all those homes you keep complaining about because you want to excuse the NIMBY scum? All those new homes have voters.
The Red Wall fell because of construction, because the likes of Barratt etc got people on the property ladder, NOT because poor people suddenly became fed up of Labour not doing anything for them.
You're in Birchwood aren't you? Cheshire daaaaarling.
I've moved around a bit, I'd rather not say where I live if you don't mind, but Birchwood is not a bad example. Warrington North is a safe Labour seat, or used to be, like much of the North West its seen massive construction recently and its trended away from Labour as the share of owner occupier voters in the constituency has risen.
Just like the neighbouring constituency of Leigh. What you'd think of as Leigh is still just as grotty terraced homes as it always was, but its surrounded by new estates of semi-detached homes with gardens and driveways for 2 parking spaces each.
Drive around the new estates of Leigh, versus the old streets of Leigh, and its hardly a surprise voting levels have changed. The voting is changing not because people are suddenly fed up of Labour, but because Leigh itself, much of the North itself, is changing. The houses people are living in - and increasingly owning - are not the same homes that existed thirty years ago.
And constituencies that were predominantly owner occupied in the past, that are now unaffordable and NIMBYs are blocking construction, are seeing trends away from the Tories.
Its housing, stupid.
Again again, I hope your Tory friends go and argue your points on the doorstep. They will be annihilated.
I don't think Bart is presenting an argument why people in Warrington North or Leigh SHOULD vote Tory - he is saying that where there has been a long term shift to owner occupation, especially of new builds - such as Warrington North, Leigh, Blyth, Rother Valley, and dozens of others - there has been a long term shift to the Tories. This seems inarguable to me. I also agree with the implication that the Tories would be well served to try to maximise the number of owner occupiers.
Bingo. You've nailed it completely.
Essentially Britain votes by housing. Renters as a class tend to vote Labour. Owned outright tend to vote Tory. Owned with a mortgage, are the swing voters, who in recent years have voted Tory but in Blair's time voted Labour.
In much of the country renting has become more common, but in parts of the North owner occupiers have become more common due to vast amounts of new builds. That has meant more Tory voters, but since those voters have mortgages they're not safe Tory.
The idea that the North swung Tory because voters were pissed off and angry misses the transformation in housing that has happened. Drive around the North outside the cities, and yes if you're here you're driving to get around, and there has been major new housing developments and those developments lead to new owner occupiers which changes how people think about voting.
There have been suggestions of this voting-by-housing-tenure hypothesis before. It is interesting and believable, but I don't know of studies that examine it carefully. Do you?
I've seen many studies on it before, none to hand, but this excellent chart is in the article I linked to above and sums it up well.
The vast construction in the Red Wall, one of the only places in the country where there has been a semi-reasonable amount of construction, has led to home ownership rates here moving from Labour levels to Tory levels. The seats then swung accordingly.
Home ownership and GE2019 As in previous years, homeowners were more likely to vote Conservative in the 2019 election. According to Ipsos MORI’s figures, 57% of voters who owned their home outright voted Conservative, as did 43% of people with mortgages. By contrast, 45% of social renters and 46% of private renters voted Labour.
The 2011 Census tells us how many homeowners were in each constituency. At the time, around 64% of UK households owned their home, either outright or with a mortgage. 315 of the Conservatives’ 365 seats (86%) had home ownership levels above this average, compared with 53 of Labour’s 202 seats (26%). Nine of the Lib Dems’ 11 seats had above-average home ownership levels (82%).
86% above average ownership for Tories, 26% for Labour.
Home ownership is far and away what affects voting in this country. NIMBY scum like our Essicks Massiv that wants to invade Scotland, or the first son of Abraham, are doing their level best to discourage people from voting Tory.
That's a bit jarring, seeing "scum" affixed to NIMBYs. Don't think I've ever come across it before. Really quite unusual.
When the world owes you a 5 bed detached des res, waiting to collect can get to you.
Especially if deleting the pampering of Tory-approved standard nuclear families under the current IHT regulations, and imposing wealth tax on landed property, are active subjects for discussion to remedy the chaos of the last few years.
Only 9% of voters want IHT to rise, the lowest of any tax.
Though yes wealth taxes on million pound plus properties might not be too unpopular if Labour proposes them (outside of a few central London Labour target seats like Kensington and Cities of London and Westminster)
No, it says 9% of voters included inheritance tax in the top three taxes they want held constant.
Obviously people want taxes on other, higher-income people to go up, though they also love the public services those people pay for by building businesses in the UK or working in jobs that are created in the UK, so it's a bit of a bind.
Belgium has a big welfare state by taxing ordinary people at 30% from euro one. The average Brit wants to pay something like 10%, so of course they get less stuff from government.
So does Sweden have a big welfare state but also no inheritance tax at all.
There are also examples in Europe of lower tax, lower spend nations than the UK eg Switzerland
In fact, the main reason you are worried about IHT is that your Topry voters will be bribed with our money so they don't have to spend their own savings on looking after themselves. Using that purpose for savings is what ordinary self-respecting civilised non-selfish citizens used to.
Preserving property and inheritance is a core Tory value. Why should Tories care what non Tories like you think about it?
Because you're deliberately parasitising on most of society, which don't have enough to leave to get to the 325K limit [edit] and will not get anywhere where they have to worry abotu the Special Allowance For Publicly Subsidising Tory Voting Sponging Pensioners And Their Greedy Offspring.
In London the average sold property price is £740,597, in Surrey the average house price is £620,686, so it is not just the rich but average voters in London and the Home Counties hit by higher IHT
'Levelling up' is dangerous ground for Sunak, given that video of him trumpeting unlevelling up the already high...
That’s not actually what he was saying in the video. But Labour had artfully cut the video to mislead.
He was saying that all deprived areas need support - including deprived rural areas in Kent - not just deprived urban areas
The problem was not him rightly pointing to pockets of deprived rural areas. The probem was that he claimed he had taken money from genuinely shonky areas in the north to give to pockets of deprived rural areas.
Nobody is denying that rural places can't hide poverty. But you can't divert money from places already promised the cash. Or in practice what it's meant is that money has gone to posh Tory areas to sort the small bit that isn't quite as posh as the rest whilst the scum area gets little or nothing.
Stockton on Tees seeing levelling up money spent in Yarm as a prime example. Yes, there are bits of Yarm not as nice as the rest. But relatively these areas are fine - certainly a lot better than chunks of town centre or Newtown wards.
Why do the Tories still have a minister for levelling up? Bottom line up front, Boris Johnson’s glib election promise “we will level up” is undeliverable bollocks.
Once you fathom out the impossible to fathom out “what exactly does it mean? Level up the north to the level of the south? But bits of the south are just as run down as bits of the north and vice versa? And switch to how to do it anyway to delivery something at least, even though you don’t really understand what it means, you realise it’s not about funnelling existing money from this to that, you will just end up hated and stuck in the 20s in the polling, it has to be new money, given to deserving places, fairly, and so that Tiverton in Blue Wall can’t get upset they are just as deserving and being cheated.
After all that, are you now levelling up? Of course not, because it is just pretend the ancient mismatch in scale and wealth between London and the secondary cities their regions can ever be levelled, it always was empty unachievable Johnsonian electioneering bollocks.
Why? Because: (a) Red Wall voters have noticed they are still relatively / actually poor (b) Brexit promised them resources and riches (c) Tories promised them definitely resources and riches (d) They won't take no for an answer
Either this government produces a rabbit out of the hat or the Tory 2019 first timers depart.
(A) is wrong.
Red Wall Tory voters are typically home owners, not impoverished people awaiting resources and riches.
Thanks to the relatively huge success in building new homes up here, compared to the rest of the country, the Red Wall has seen much more people getting on the property ladder rather than the reverse happening as in much of the country.
That's the real reason the non-metropolitan North has been swinging Tory while the South is swinging against the Tories. Because voters here have their own deeds to their very own Barratt Home and similar, rather than rental bills.
(a) is not wrong. A is the reason why we have seen a clearout of Labour councils and Labour MPs in Labour since the Danelaw areas. Try living in the red wall for a while and you will see what they are so upset about./
Incidentally, it wouldn't be a good idea for the Tories to listen to you. Telling people that their lived experience is wrong never works.
Try living in the red wall for a while? Excuse me, I do live in the Red Wall, you don't.
There is new housing estates all over the place. You know, all those homes you keep complaining about because you want to excuse the NIMBY scum? All those new homes have voters.
The Red Wall fell because of construction, because the likes of Barratt etc got people on the property ladder, NOT because poor people suddenly became fed up of Labour not doing anything for them.
You're in Birchwood aren't you? Cheshire daaaaarling.
I've moved around a bit, I'd rather not say where I live if you don't mind, but Birchwood is not a bad example. Warrington North is a safe Labour seat, or used to be, like much of the North West its seen massive construction recently and its trended away from Labour as the share of owner occupier voters in the constituency has risen.
Just like the neighbouring constituency of Leigh. What you'd think of as Leigh is still just as grotty terraced homes as it always was, but its surrounded by new estates of semi-detached homes with gardens and driveways for 2 parking spaces each.
Drive around the new estates of Leigh, versus the old streets of Leigh, and its hardly a surprise voting levels have changed. The voting is changing not because people are suddenly fed up of Labour, but because Leigh itself, much of the North itself, is changing. The houses people are living in - and increasingly owning - are not the same homes that existed thirty years ago.
And constituencies that were predominantly owner occupied in the past, that are now unaffordable and NIMBYs are blocking construction, are seeing trends away from the Tories.
Its housing, stupid.
Again again, I hope your Tory friends go and argue your points on the doorstep. They will be annihilated.
I don't think Bart is presenting an argument why people in Warrington North or Leigh SHOULD vote Tory - he is saying that where there has been a long term shift to owner occupation, especially of new builds - such as Warrington North, Leigh, Blyth, Rother Valley, and dozens of others - there has been a long term shift to the Tories. This seems inarguable to me. I also agree with the implication that the Tories would be well served to try to maximise the number of owner occupiers.
Bingo. You've nailed it completely.
Essentially Britain votes by housing. Renters as a class tend to vote Labour. Owned outright tend to vote Tory. Owned with a mortgage, are the swing voters, who in recent years have voted Tory but in Blair's time voted Labour.
In much of the country renting has become more common, but in parts of the North owner occupiers have become more common due to vast amounts of new builds. That has meant more Tory voters, but since those voters have mortgages they're not safe Tory.
The idea that the North swung Tory because voters were pissed off and angry misses the transformation in housing that has happened. Drive around the North outside the cities, and yes if you're here you're driving to get around, and there has been major new housing developments and those developments lead to new owner occupiers which changes how people think about voting.
There have been suggestions of this voting-by-housing-tenure hypothesis before. It is interesting and believable, but I don't know of studies that examine it carefully. Do you?
I've seen many studies on it before, none to hand, but this excellent chart is in the article I linked to above and sums it up well.
The vast construction in the Red Wall, one of the only places in the country where there has been a semi-reasonable amount of construction, has led to home ownership rates here moving from Labour levels to Tory levels. The seats then swung accordingly.
Home ownership and GE2019 As in previous years, homeowners were more likely to vote Conservative in the 2019 election. According to Ipsos MORI’s figures, 57% of voters who owned their home outright voted Conservative, as did 43% of people with mortgages. By contrast, 45% of social renters and 46% of private renters voted Labour.
The 2011 Census tells us how many homeowners were in each constituency. At the time, around 64% of UK households owned their home, either outright or with a mortgage. 315 of the Conservatives’ 365 seats (86%) had home ownership levels above this average, compared with 53 of Labour’s 202 seats (26%). Nine of the Lib Dems’ 11 seats had above-average home ownership levels (82%).
86% above average ownership for Tories, 26% for Labour.
Home ownership is far and away what affects voting in this country. NIMBY scum like our Essicks Massiv that wants to invade Scotland, or the first son of Abraham, are doing their level best to discourage people from voting Tory.
That's a bit jarring, seeing "scum" affixed to NIMBYs. Don't think I've ever come across it before. Really quite unusual.
When the world owes you a 5 bed detached des res, waiting to collect can get to you.
Especially if deleting the pampering of Tory-approved standard nuclear families under the current IHT regulations, and imposing wealth tax on landed property, are active subjects for discussion to remedy the chaos of the last few years.
Only 9% of voters want IHT to rise, the lowest of any tax.
Though yes wealth taxes on million pound plus properties might not be too unpopular if Labour proposes them (outside of a few central London Labour target seats like Kensington and Cities of London and Westminster)
No, it says 9% of voters included inheritance tax in the top three taxes they want held constant.
Obviously people want taxes on other, higher-income people to go up, though they also love the public services those people pay for by building businesses in the UK or working in jobs that are created in the UK, so it's a bit of a bind.
Belgium has a big welfare state by taxing ordinary people at 30% from euro one. The average Brit wants to pay something like 10%, so of course they get less stuff from government.
So does Sweden have a big welfare state but also no inheritance tax at all.
There are also examples in Europe of lower tax, lower spend nations than the UK eg Switzerland
In fact, the main reason you are worried about IHT is that your Topry voters will be bribed with our money so they don't have to spend their own savings on looking after themselves. Using that purpose for savings is what ordinary self-respecting civilised non-selfish citizens used to.
Preserving property and inheritance is a core Tory value. Why should Tories care what non Tories like you think about it?
Because you're deliberately parasitising on most of society, which don't have enough to leave to get to the 325K limit [edit] and will not get anywhere where they have to worry abotu the Special Allowance For Publicly Subsidising Tory Voting Sponging Pensioners And Their Greedy Offspring.
In London the average sold property price is £740,597, in Surrey the average house price is £620,686, so it is not just the rich but average voters in London and the Home Counties hit by higher IHT
(a) that every voter is a home-owner. Many are not. (B) that every home-owner actually has 100% equity without any mortgage. Many are not.
(Of course, both are heavily biased toward the Tories, but they would be for you. Or perhaps Labour and LD and Green voters are not human beings?)
So you are mixing up three different populations and talking bollocks because you trhink it makes your argument look better. Actually, it makes it look even worse.
Anyway, that's enough bollock-toasting to stock a French charcuterie for one evening, so I'm going to go off and read a nice new book. And I suggest you buy yourself a train set and try out the logical operation of points and sidings.
65% are home owners, by the time they are near death most will have paid off their mortgage.
YOu think so, the way things are going? Are already? We're not in the 1970s any more. Or the 1950s.
In the 1950s fewer owned their own property than now
Look at the repo statistics in a year or two. Thanks entirely to youir party.
Well those facing repo will need an inheritance and parental support even more won't they! Hopefully though most will avoid falling behind on their mortgage (and Rishi is not responsible for Truss and Kwarteng's errors)
With any luck,. their parents will have been heavily taxed on their unearned capital gains.
Well a socialist like you would say that wouldn't you, tax everything is your philosophy
I'm not a socialist. But you ought to start worrying when your party has got centrist dads such as I saying such things for want of any other alternative.
You are hard left Scottish nationalist, a million miles from centrist dad
'Levelling up' is dangerous ground for Sunak, given that video of him trumpeting unlevelling up the already high...
That’s not actually what he was saying in the video. But Labour had artfully cut the video to mislead.
He was saying that all deprived areas need support - including deprived rural areas in Kent - not just deprived urban areas
The problem was not him rightly pointing to pockets of deprived rural areas. The probem was that he claimed he had taken money from genuinely shonky areas in the north to give to pockets of deprived rural areas.
Nobody is denying that rural places can't hide poverty. But you can't divert money from places already promised the cash. Or in practice what it's meant is that money has gone to posh Tory areas to sort the small bit that isn't quite as posh as the rest whilst the scum area gets little or nothing.
Stockton on Tees seeing levelling up money spent in Yarm as a prime example. Yes, there are bits of Yarm not as nice as the rest. But relatively these areas are fine - certainly a lot better than chunks of town centre or Newtown wards.
Why do the Tories still have a minister for levelling up? Bottom line up front, Boris Johnson’s glib election promise “we will level up” is undeliverable bollocks.
Once you fathom out the impossible to fathom out “what exactly does it mean? Level up the north to the level of the south? But bits of the south are just as run down as bits of the north and vice versa? And switch to how to do it anyway to delivery something at least, even though you don’t really understand what it means, you realise it’s not about funnelling existing money from this to that, you will just end up hated and stuck in the 20s in the polling, it has to be new money, given to deserving places, fairly, and so that Tiverton in Blue Wall can’t get upset they are just as deserving and being cheated.
After all that, are you now levelling up? Of course not, because it is just pretend the ancient mismatch in scale and wealth between London and the secondary cities their regions can ever be levelled, it always was empty unachievable Johnsonian electioneering bollocks.
Why? Because: (a) Red Wall voters have noticed they are still relatively / actually poor (b) Brexit promised them resources and riches (c) Tories promised them definitely resources and riches (d) They won't take no for an answer
Either this government produces a rabbit out of the hat or the Tory 2019 first timers depart.
(A) is wrong.
Red Wall Tory voters are typically home owners, not impoverished people awaiting resources and riches.
Thanks to the relatively huge success in building new homes up here, compared to the rest of the country, the Red Wall has seen much more people getting on the property ladder rather than the reverse happening as in much of the country.
That's the real reason the non-metropolitan North has been swinging Tory while the South is swinging against the Tories. Because voters here have their own deeds to their very own Barratt Home and similar, rather than rental bills.
(a) is not wrong. A is the reason why we have seen a clearout of Labour councils and Labour MPs in Labour since the Danelaw areas. Try living in the red wall for a while and you will see what they are so upset about./
Incidentally, it wouldn't be a good idea for the Tories to listen to you. Telling people that their lived experience is wrong never works.
Try living in the red wall for a while? Excuse me, I do live in the Red Wall, you don't.
There is new housing estates all over the place. You know, all those homes you keep complaining about because you want to excuse the NIMBY scum? All those new homes have voters.
The Red Wall fell because of construction, because the likes of Barratt etc got people on the property ladder, NOT because poor people suddenly became fed up of Labour not doing anything for them.
You're in Birchwood aren't you? Cheshire daaaaarling.
I've moved around a bit, I'd rather not say where I live if you don't mind, but Birchwood is not a bad example. Warrington North is a safe Labour seat, or used to be, like much of the North West its seen massive construction recently and its trended away from Labour as the share of owner occupier voters in the constituency has risen.
Just like the neighbouring constituency of Leigh. What you'd think of as Leigh is still just as grotty terraced homes as it always was, but its surrounded by new estates of semi-detached homes with gardens and driveways for 2 parking spaces each.
Drive around the new estates of Leigh, versus the old streets of Leigh, and its hardly a surprise voting levels have changed. The voting is changing not because people are suddenly fed up of Labour, but because Leigh itself, much of the North itself, is changing. The houses people are living in - and increasingly owning - are not the same homes that existed thirty years ago.
And constituencies that were predominantly owner occupied in the past, that are now unaffordable and NIMBYs are blocking construction, are seeing trends away from the Tories.
Its housing, stupid.
Again again, I hope your Tory friends go and argue your points on the doorstep. They will be annihilated.
I don't think Bart is presenting an argument why people in Warrington North or Leigh SHOULD vote Tory - he is saying that where there has been a long term shift to owner occupation, especially of new builds - such as Warrington North, Leigh, Blyth, Rother Valley, and dozens of others - there has been a long term shift to the Tories. This seems inarguable to me. I also agree with the implication that the Tories would be well served to try to maximise the number of owner occupiers.
Bingo. You've nailed it completely.
Essentially Britain votes by housing. Renters as a class tend to vote Labour. Owned outright tend to vote Tory. Owned with a mortgage, are the swing voters, who in recent years have voted Tory but in Blair's time voted Labour.
In much of the country renting has become more common, but in parts of the North owner occupiers have become more common due to vast amounts of new builds. That has meant more Tory voters, but since those voters have mortgages they're not safe Tory.
The idea that the North swung Tory because voters were pissed off and angry misses the transformation in housing that has happened. Drive around the North outside the cities, and yes if you're here you're driving to get around, and there has been major new housing developments and those developments lead to new owner occupiers which changes how people think about voting.
There have been suggestions of this voting-by-housing-tenure hypothesis before. It is interesting and believable, but I don't know of studies that examine it carefully. Do you?
I've seen many studies on it before, none to hand, but this excellent chart is in the article I linked to above and sums it up well.
The vast construction in the Red Wall, one of the only places in the country where there has been a semi-reasonable amount of construction, has led to home ownership rates here moving from Labour levels to Tory levels. The seats then swung accordingly.
Home ownership and GE2019 As in previous years, homeowners were more likely to vote Conservative in the 2019 election. According to Ipsos MORI’s figures, 57% of voters who owned their home outright voted Conservative, as did 43% of people with mortgages. By contrast, 45% of social renters and 46% of private renters voted Labour.
The 2011 Census tells us how many homeowners were in each constituency. At the time, around 64% of UK households owned their home, either outright or with a mortgage. 315 of the Conservatives’ 365 seats (86%) had home ownership levels above this average, compared with 53 of Labour’s 202 seats (26%). Nine of the Lib Dems’ 11 seats had above-average home ownership levels (82%).
86% above average ownership for Tories, 26% for Labour.
Home ownership is far and away what affects voting in this country. NIMBY scum like our Essicks Massiv that wants to invade Scotland, or the first son of Abraham, are doing their level best to discourage people from voting Tory.
That's a bit jarring, seeing "scum" affixed to NIMBYs. Don't think I've ever come across it before. Really quite unusual.
When the world owes you a 5 bed detached des res, waiting to collect can get to you.
Especially if deleting the pampering of Tory-approved standard nuclear families under the current IHT regulations, and imposing wealth tax on landed property, are active subjects for discussion to remedy the chaos of the last few years.
Only 9% of voters want IHT to rise, the lowest of any tax.
Though yes wealth taxes on million pound plus properties might not be too unpopular if Labour proposes them (outside of a few central London Labour target seats like Kensington and Cities of London and Westminster)
No, it says 9% of voters included inheritance tax in the top three taxes they want held constant.
Obviously people want taxes on other, higher-income people to go up, though they also love the public services those people pay for by building businesses in the UK or working in jobs that are created in the UK, so it's a bit of a bind.
Belgium has a big welfare state by taxing ordinary people at 30% from euro one. The average Brit wants to pay something like 10%, so of course they get less stuff from government.
So does Sweden have a big welfare state but also no inheritance tax at all.
There are also examples in Europe of lower tax, lower spend nations than the UK eg Switzerland
In fact, the main reason you are worried about IHT is that your Topry voters will be bribed with our money so they don't have to spend their own savings on looking after themselves. Using that purpose for savings is what ordinary self-respecting civilised non-selfish citizens used to.
Preserving property and inheritance is a core Tory value. Why should Tories care what non Tories like you think about it?
The reason the Tories survived the widening of the franchise is that they held out the promise to the rest of the population that they could also join the property-owning class, and so have assets that would need protecting from Socialists.
The danger from your attitude is that it narrows the base of people who would support Tories from a growing group who have assets and those who hope to have assets in the future, to only a declining share of the population who still have assets, and no-one else because they've all lost hope that it will be possible.
'Levelling up' is dangerous ground for Sunak, given that video of him trumpeting unlevelling up the already high...
That’s not actually what he was saying in the video. But Labour had artfully cut the video to mislead.
He was saying that all deprived areas need support - including deprived rural areas in Kent - not just deprived urban areas
The problem was not him rightly pointing to pockets of deprived rural areas. The probem was that he claimed he had taken money from genuinely shonky areas in the north to give to pockets of deprived rural areas.
Nobody is denying that rural places can't hide poverty. But you can't divert money from places already promised the cash. Or in practice what it's meant is that money has gone to posh Tory areas to sort the small bit that isn't quite as posh as the rest whilst the scum area gets little or nothing.
Stockton on Tees seeing levelling up money spent in Yarm as a prime example. Yes, there are bits of Yarm not as nice as the rest. But relatively these areas are fine - certainly a lot better than chunks of town centre or Newtown wards.
Why do the Tories still have a minister for levelling up? Bottom line up front, Boris Johnson’s glib election promise “we will level up” is undeliverable bollocks.
Once you fathom out the impossible to fathom out “what exactly does it mean? Level up the north to the level of the south? But bits of the south are just as run down as bits of the north and vice versa? And switch to how to do it anyway to delivery something at least, even though you don’t really understand what it means, you realise it’s not about funnelling existing money from this to that, you will just end up hated and stuck in the 20s in the polling, it has to be new money, given to deserving places, fairly, and so that Tiverton in Blue Wall can’t get upset they are just as deserving and being cheated.
After all that, are you now levelling up? Of course not, because it is just pretend the ancient mismatch in scale and wealth between London and the secondary cities their regions can ever be levelled, it always was empty unachievable Johnsonian electioneering bollocks.
Why? Because: (a) Red Wall voters have noticed they are still relatively / actually poor (b) Brexit promised them resources and riches (c) Tories promised them definitely resources and riches (d) They won't take no for an answer
Either this government produces a rabbit out of the hat or the Tory 2019 first timers depart.
(A) is wrong.
Red Wall Tory voters are typically home owners, not impoverished people awaiting resources and riches.
Thanks to the relatively huge success in building new homes up here, compared to the rest of the country, the Red Wall has seen much more people getting on the property ladder rather than the reverse happening as in much of the country.
That's the real reason the non-metropolitan North has been swinging Tory while the South is swinging against the Tories. Because voters here have their own deeds to their very own Barratt Home and similar, rather than rental bills.
(a) is not wrong. A is the reason why we have seen a clearout of Labour councils and Labour MPs in Labour since the Danelaw areas. Try living in the red wall for a while and you will see what they are so upset about./
Incidentally, it wouldn't be a good idea for the Tories to listen to you. Telling people that their lived experience is wrong never works.
Try living in the red wall for a while? Excuse me, I do live in the Red Wall, you don't.
There is new housing estates all over the place. You know, all those homes you keep complaining about because you want to excuse the NIMBY scum? All those new homes have voters.
The Red Wall fell because of construction, because the likes of Barratt etc got people on the property ladder, NOT because poor people suddenly became fed up of Labour not doing anything for them.
You're in Birchwood aren't you? Cheshire daaaaarling.
I've moved around a bit, I'd rather not say where I live if you don't mind, but Birchwood is not a bad example. Warrington North is a safe Labour seat, or used to be, like much of the North West its seen massive construction recently and its trended away from Labour as the share of owner occupier voters in the constituency has risen.
Just like the neighbouring constituency of Leigh. What you'd think of as Leigh is still just as grotty terraced homes as it always was, but its surrounded by new estates of semi-detached homes with gardens and driveways for 2 parking spaces each.
Drive around the new estates of Leigh, versus the old streets of Leigh, and its hardly a surprise voting levels have changed. The voting is changing not because people are suddenly fed up of Labour, but because Leigh itself, much of the North itself, is changing. The houses people are living in - and increasingly owning - are not the same homes that existed thirty years ago.
And constituencies that were predominantly owner occupied in the past, that are now unaffordable and NIMBYs are blocking construction, are seeing trends away from the Tories.
Its housing, stupid.
Again again, I hope your Tory friends go and argue your points on the doorstep. They will be annihilated.
I don't think Bart is presenting an argument why people in Warrington North or Leigh SHOULD vote Tory - he is saying that where there has been a long term shift to owner occupation, especially of new builds - such as Warrington North, Leigh, Blyth, Rother Valley, and dozens of others - there has been a long term shift to the Tories. This seems inarguable to me. I also agree with the implication that the Tories would be well served to try to maximise the number of owner occupiers.
Bingo. You've nailed it completely.
Essentially Britain votes by housing. Renters as a class tend to vote Labour. Owned outright tend to vote Tory. Owned with a mortgage, are the swing voters, who in recent years have voted Tory but in Blair's time voted Labour.
In much of the country renting has become more common, but in parts of the North owner occupiers have become more common due to vast amounts of new builds. That has meant more Tory voters, but since those voters have mortgages they're not safe Tory.
The idea that the North swung Tory because voters were pissed off and angry misses the transformation in housing that has happened. Drive around the North outside the cities, and yes if you're here you're driving to get around, and there has been major new housing developments and those developments lead to new owner occupiers which changes how people think about voting.
There have been suggestions of this voting-by-housing-tenure hypothesis before. It is interesting and believable, but I don't know of studies that examine it carefully. Do you?
I've seen many studies on it before, none to hand, but this excellent chart is in the article I linked to above and sums it up well.
The vast construction in the Red Wall, one of the only places in the country where there has been a semi-reasonable amount of construction, has led to home ownership rates here moving from Labour levels to Tory levels. The seats then swung accordingly.
Home ownership and GE2019 As in previous years, homeowners were more likely to vote Conservative in the 2019 election. According to Ipsos MORI’s figures, 57% of voters who owned their home outright voted Conservative, as did 43% of people with mortgages. By contrast, 45% of social renters and 46% of private renters voted Labour.
The 2011 Census tells us how many homeowners were in each constituency. At the time, around 64% of UK households owned their home, either outright or with a mortgage. 315 of the Conservatives’ 365 seats (86%) had home ownership levels above this average, compared with 53 of Labour’s 202 seats (26%). Nine of the Lib Dems’ 11 seats had above-average home ownership levels (82%).
86% above average ownership for Tories, 26% for Labour.
Home ownership is far and away what affects voting in this country. NIMBY scum like our Essicks Massiv that wants to invade Scotland, or the first son of Abraham, are doing their level best to discourage people from voting Tory.
That's a bit jarring, seeing "scum" affixed to NIMBYs. Don't think I've ever come across it before. Really quite unusual.
When the world owes you a 5 bed detached des res, waiting to collect can get to you.
Especially if deleting the pampering of Tory-approved standard nuclear families under the current IHT regulations, and imposing wealth tax on landed property, are active subjects for discussion to remedy the chaos of the last few years.
Only 9% of voters want IHT to rise, the lowest of any tax.
Though yes wealth taxes on million pound plus properties might not be too unpopular if Labour proposes them (outside of a few central London Labour target seats like Kensington and Cities of London and Westminster)
No, it says 9% of voters included inheritance tax in the top three taxes they want held constant.
Obviously people want taxes on other, higher-income people to go up, though they also love the public services those people pay for by building businesses in the UK or working in jobs that are created in the UK, so it's a bit of a bind.
Belgium has a big welfare state by taxing ordinary people at 30% from euro one. The average Brit wants to pay something like 10%, so of course they get less stuff from government.
So does Sweden have a big welfare state but also no inheritance tax at all.
There are also examples in Europe of lower tax, lower spend nations than the UK eg Switzerland
In fact, the main reason you are worried about IHT is that your Topry voters will be bribed with our money so they don't have to spend their own savings on looking after themselves. Using that purpose for savings is what ordinary self-respecting civilised non-selfish citizens used to.
Preserving property and inheritance is a core Tory value. Why should Tories care what non Tories like you think about it?
Because you're deliberately parasitising on most of society, which don't have enough to leave to get to the 325K limit [edit] and will not get anywhere where they have to worry abotu the Special Allowance For Publicly Subsidising Tory Voting Sponging Pensioners And Their Greedy Offspring.
In London the average sold property price is £740,597, in Surrey the average house price is £620,686, so it is not just the rich but average voters in London and the Home Counties hit by higher IHT
'Levelling up' is dangerous ground for Sunak, given that video of him trumpeting unlevelling up the already high...
That’s not actually what he was saying in the video. But Labour had artfully cut the video to mislead.
He was saying that all deprived areas need support - including deprived rural areas in Kent - not just deprived urban areas
The problem was not him rightly pointing to pockets of deprived rural areas. The probem was that he claimed he had taken money from genuinely shonky areas in the north to give to pockets of deprived rural areas.
Nobody is denying that rural places can't hide poverty. But you can't divert money from places already promised the cash. Or in practice what it's meant is that money has gone to posh Tory areas to sort the small bit that isn't quite as posh as the rest whilst the scum area gets little or nothing.
Stockton on Tees seeing levelling up money spent in Yarm as a prime example. Yes, there are bits of Yarm not as nice as the rest. But relatively these areas are fine - certainly a lot better than chunks of town centre or Newtown wards.
Why do the Tories still have a minister for levelling up? Bottom line up front, Boris Johnson’s glib election promise “we will level up” is undeliverable bollocks.
Once you fathom out the impossible to fathom out “what exactly does it mean? Level up the north to the level of the south? But bits of the south are just as run down as bits of the north and vice versa? And switch to how to do it anyway to delivery something at least, even though you don’t really understand what it means, you realise it’s not about funnelling existing money from this to that, you will just end up hated and stuck in the 20s in the polling, it has to be new money, given to deserving places, fairly, and so that Tiverton in Blue Wall can’t get upset they are just as deserving and being cheated.
After all that, are you now levelling up? Of course not, because it is just pretend the ancient mismatch in scale and wealth between London and the secondary cities their regions can ever be levelled, it always was empty unachievable Johnsonian electioneering bollocks.
Why? Because: (a) Red Wall voters have noticed they are still relatively / actually poor (b) Brexit promised them resources and riches (c) Tories promised them definitely resources and riches (d) They won't take no for an answer
Either this government produces a rabbit out of the hat or the Tory 2019 first timers depart.
(A) is wrong.
Red Wall Tory voters are typically home owners, not impoverished people awaiting resources and riches.
Thanks to the relatively huge success in building new homes up here, compared to the rest of the country, the Red Wall has seen much more people getting on the property ladder rather than the reverse happening as in much of the country.
That's the real reason the non-metropolitan North has been swinging Tory while the South is swinging against the Tories. Because voters here have their own deeds to their very own Barratt Home and similar, rather than rental bills.
(a) is not wrong. A is the reason why we have seen a clearout of Labour councils and Labour MPs in Labour since the Danelaw areas. Try living in the red wall for a while and you will see what they are so upset about./
Incidentally, it wouldn't be a good idea for the Tories to listen to you. Telling people that their lived experience is wrong never works.
Try living in the red wall for a while? Excuse me, I do live in the Red Wall, you don't.
There is new housing estates all over the place. You know, all those homes you keep complaining about because you want to excuse the NIMBY scum? All those new homes have voters.
The Red Wall fell because of construction, because the likes of Barratt etc got people on the property ladder, NOT because poor people suddenly became fed up of Labour not doing anything for them.
You're in Birchwood aren't you? Cheshire daaaaarling.
I've moved around a bit, I'd rather not say where I live if you don't mind, but Birchwood is not a bad example. Warrington North is a safe Labour seat, or used to be, like much of the North West its seen massive construction recently and its trended away from Labour as the share of owner occupier voters in the constituency has risen.
Just like the neighbouring constituency of Leigh. What you'd think of as Leigh is still just as grotty terraced homes as it always was, but its surrounded by new estates of semi-detached homes with gardens and driveways for 2 parking spaces each.
Drive around the new estates of Leigh, versus the old streets of Leigh, and its hardly a surprise voting levels have changed. The voting is changing not because people are suddenly fed up of Labour, but because Leigh itself, much of the North itself, is changing. The houses people are living in - and increasingly owning - are not the same homes that existed thirty years ago.
And constituencies that were predominantly owner occupied in the past, that are now unaffordable and NIMBYs are blocking construction, are seeing trends away from the Tories.
Its housing, stupid.
Again again, I hope your Tory friends go and argue your points on the doorstep. They will be annihilated.
I don't think Bart is presenting an argument why people in Warrington North or Leigh SHOULD vote Tory - he is saying that where there has been a long term shift to owner occupation, especially of new builds - such as Warrington North, Leigh, Blyth, Rother Valley, and dozens of others - there has been a long term shift to the Tories. This seems inarguable to me. I also agree with the implication that the Tories would be well served to try to maximise the number of owner occupiers.
Bingo. You've nailed it completely.
Essentially Britain votes by housing. Renters as a class tend to vote Labour. Owned outright tend to vote Tory. Owned with a mortgage, are the swing voters, who in recent years have voted Tory but in Blair's time voted Labour.
In much of the country renting has become more common, but in parts of the North owner occupiers have become more common due to vast amounts of new builds. That has meant more Tory voters, but since those voters have mortgages they're not safe Tory.
The idea that the North swung Tory because voters were pissed off and angry misses the transformation in housing that has happened. Drive around the North outside the cities, and yes if you're here you're driving to get around, and there has been major new housing developments and those developments lead to new owner occupiers which changes how people think about voting.
There have been suggestions of this voting-by-housing-tenure hypothesis before. It is interesting and believable, but I don't know of studies that examine it carefully. Do you?
I've seen many studies on it before, none to hand, but this excellent chart is in the article I linked to above and sums it up well.
The vast construction in the Red Wall, one of the only places in the country where there has been a semi-reasonable amount of construction, has led to home ownership rates here moving from Labour levels to Tory levels. The seats then swung accordingly.
Home ownership and GE2019 As in previous years, homeowners were more likely to vote Conservative in the 2019 election. According to Ipsos MORI’s figures, 57% of voters who owned their home outright voted Conservative, as did 43% of people with mortgages. By contrast, 45% of social renters and 46% of private renters voted Labour.
The 2011 Census tells us how many homeowners were in each constituency. At the time, around 64% of UK households owned their home, either outright or with a mortgage. 315 of the Conservatives’ 365 seats (86%) had home ownership levels above this average, compared with 53 of Labour’s 202 seats (26%). Nine of the Lib Dems’ 11 seats had above-average home ownership levels (82%).
86% above average ownership for Tories, 26% for Labour.
Home ownership is far and away what affects voting in this country. NIMBY scum like our Essicks Massiv that wants to invade Scotland, or the first son of Abraham, are doing their level best to discourage people from voting Tory.
That's a bit jarring, seeing "scum" affixed to NIMBYs. Don't think I've ever come across it before. Really quite unusual.
When the world owes you a 5 bed detached des res, waiting to collect can get to you.
Especially if deleting the pampering of Tory-approved standard nuclear families under the current IHT regulations, and imposing wealth tax on landed property, are active subjects for discussion to remedy the chaos of the last few years.
Only 9% of voters want IHT to rise, the lowest of any tax.
Though yes wealth taxes on million pound plus properties might not be too unpopular if Labour proposes them (outside of a few central London Labour target seats like Kensington and Cities of London and Westminster)
No, it says 9% of voters included inheritance tax in the top three taxes they want held constant.
Obviously people want taxes on other, higher-income people to go up, though they also love the public services those people pay for by building businesses in the UK or working in jobs that are created in the UK, so it's a bit of a bind.
Belgium has a big welfare state by taxing ordinary people at 30% from euro one. The average Brit wants to pay something like 10%, so of course they get less stuff from government.
So does Sweden have a big welfare state but also no inheritance tax at all.
There are also examples in Europe of lower tax, lower spend nations than the UK eg Switzerland
In fact, the main reason you are worried about IHT is that your Topry voters will be bribed with our money so they don't have to spend their own savings on looking after themselves. Using that purpose for savings is what ordinary self-respecting civilised non-selfish citizens used to.
Preserving property and inheritance is a core Tory value. Why should Tories care what non Tories like you think about it?
The reason the Tories survived the widening of the franchise is that they held out the promise to the rest of the population that they could also join the property-owning class, and so have assets that would need protecting from Socialists.
The danger from your attitude is that it narrows the base of people who would support Tories from a growing group who have assets and those who hope to have assets in the future, to only a declining share of the population who still have assets, and no-one else because they've all lost hope that it will be possible.
Rubbish, the majority of the population have assets and property and inheritances to pass on.
Yes we can expand property ownership by building more affordable housing in areas with high levels of renters like London, not reducing property ownership via higher IHT. We could also cut immigration to reduce pressure on housing
Unless Cortez is the reincarnation of Harry Reid...
The Dems can hold Nevada if, and only if, they can motivate lots of women to come out and vote on the issue of abortion.
That's perfectly possible: look at the Kansas result, to see that people really do care. But it does require the Dems to make the election an abortion referendum.
Which thr Dems being idiots are basically refusing to do so.
Did anyone see the Newsnight report last night re Moroccans trying to get into the tiny Spanish territory of Melilla in North Africa.
The Spanish were far, far tougher than we are - live firing, many people killed, Moroccans stuck in a tiny pen with dead bodies etc.
As always, the rhetoric is very different from what actually happens. Braverman is strong on rhetoric but bottom line is we all know she isn't actually going to do anything.
Meanwhile the Spanish take a very different approach.
Though of course the asylum seekers largely need to come via boats across the Mediterranean before they get here, so the Mediterranean coast countries are where the toughest approach is needed (not that I condone live firing on asylum seekers)
The Spanish police have been murdering illegal immigrants into Ceuta and Melilla (who are by no means all Moroccan) for years. They also (the police in those territories) frequently carry out street robberies.
It's very interesting - and it reinforces my view of what's going on - that British TV reports this, all of a sudden.
Has there been a dearth of former ministers saying they'll appear on reality shows maybe?
"Properly tough", "unlike not doing anything, which has been the softie British approach until now" is exactly what viewers are supposed to think. It'll probably be in the Express, Sun, Torygraph, and Daily Heil if it hasn't been already.
In this context, the term "invasion" is in the same semantic field as "shoot".
Price of the Tories winning most seats at the next GE is 2.74 at Betfair. Value.
'Levelling up' is dangerous ground for Sunak, given that video of him trumpeting unlevelling up the already high...
That’s not actually what he was saying in the video. But Labour had artfully cut the video to mislead.
He was saying that all deprived areas need support - including deprived rural areas in Kent - not just deprived urban areas
The problem was not him rightly pointing to pockets of deprived rural areas. The probem was that he claimed he had taken money from genuinely shonky areas in the north to give to pockets of deprived rural areas.
Nobody is denying that rural places can't hide poverty. But you can't divert money from places already promised the cash. Or in practice what it's meant is that money has gone to posh Tory areas to sort the small bit that isn't quite as posh as the rest whilst the scum area gets little or nothing.
Stockton on Tees seeing levelling up money spent in Yarm as a prime example. Yes, there are bits of Yarm not as nice as the rest. But relatively these areas are fine - certainly a lot better than chunks of town centre or Newtown wards.
Why do the Tories still have a minister for levelling up? Bottom line up front, Boris Johnson’s glib election promise “we will level up” is undeliverable bollocks.
Once you fathom out the impossible to fathom out “what exactly does it mean? Level up the north to the level of the south? But bits of the south are just as run down as bits of the north and vice versa? And switch to how to do it anyway to delivery something at least, even though you don’t really understand what it means, you realise it’s not about funnelling existing money from this to that, you will just end up hated and stuck in the 20s in the polling, it has to be new money, given to deserving places, fairly, and so that Tiverton in Blue Wall can’t get upset they are just as deserving and being cheated.
After all that, are you now levelling up? Of course not, because it is just pretend the ancient mismatch in scale and wealth between London and the secondary cities their regions can ever be levelled, it always was empty unachievable Johnsonian electioneering bollocks.
Why? Because: (a) Red Wall voters have noticed they are still relatively / actually poor (b) Brexit promised them resources and riches (c) Tories promised them definitely resources and riches (d) They won't take no for an answer
Either this government produces a rabbit out of the hat or the Tory 2019 first timers depart.
(A) is wrong.
Red Wall Tory voters are typically home owners, not impoverished people awaiting resources and riches.
Thanks to the relatively huge success in building new homes up here, compared to the rest of the country, the Red Wall has seen much more people getting on the property ladder rather than the reverse happening as in much of the country.
That's the real reason the non-metropolitan North has been swinging Tory while the South is swinging against the Tories. Because voters here have their own deeds to their very own Barratt Home and similar, rather than rental bills.
(a) is not wrong. A is the reason why we have seen a clearout of Labour councils and Labour MPs in Labour since the Danelaw areas. Try living in the red wall for a while and you will see what they are so upset about./
Incidentally, it wouldn't be a good idea for the Tories to listen to you. Telling people that their lived experience is wrong never works.
Try living in the red wall for a while? Excuse me, I do live in the Red Wall, you don't.
There is new housing estates all over the place. You know, all those homes you keep complaining about because you want to excuse the NIMBY scum? All those new homes have voters.
The Red Wall fell because of construction, because the likes of Barratt etc got people on the property ladder, NOT because poor people suddenly became fed up of Labour not doing anything for them.
You're in Birchwood aren't you? Cheshire daaaaarling.
I've moved around a bit, I'd rather not say where I live if you don't mind, but Birchwood is not a bad example. Warrington North is a safe Labour seat, or used to be, like much of the North West its seen massive construction recently and its trended away from Labour as the share of owner occupier voters in the constituency has risen.
Just like the neighbouring constituency of Leigh. What you'd think of as Leigh is still just as grotty terraced homes as it always was, but its surrounded by new estates of semi-detached homes with gardens and driveways for 2 parking spaces each.
Drive around the new estates of Leigh, versus the old streets of Leigh, and its hardly a surprise voting levels have changed. The voting is changing not because people are suddenly fed up of Labour, but because Leigh itself, much of the North itself, is changing. The houses people are living in - and increasingly owning - are not the same homes that existed thirty years ago.
And constituencies that were predominantly owner occupied in the past, that are now unaffordable and NIMBYs are blocking construction, are seeing trends away from the Tories.
Its housing, stupid.
Again again, I hope your Tory friends go and argue your points on the doorstep. They will be annihilated.
I don't think Bart is presenting an argument why people in Warrington North or Leigh SHOULD vote Tory - he is saying that where there has been a long term shift to owner occupation, especially of new builds - such as Warrington North, Leigh, Blyth, Rother Valley, and dozens of others - there has been a long term shift to the Tories. This seems inarguable to me. I also agree with the implication that the Tories would be well served to try to maximise the number of owner occupiers.
Bingo. You've nailed it completely.
Essentially Britain votes by housing. Renters as a class tend to vote Labour. Owned outright tend to vote Tory. Owned with a mortgage, are the swing voters, who in recent years have voted Tory but in Blair's time voted Labour.
In much of the country renting has become more common, but in parts of the North owner occupiers have become more common due to vast amounts of new builds. That has meant more Tory voters, but since those voters have mortgages they're not safe Tory.
The idea that the North swung Tory because voters were pissed off and angry misses the transformation in housing that has happened. Drive around the North outside the cities, and yes if you're here you're driving to get around, and there has been major new housing developments and those developments lead to new owner occupiers which changes how people think about voting.
There have been suggestions of this voting-by-housing-tenure hypothesis before. It is interesting and believable, but I don't know of studies that examine it carefully. Do you?
I've seen many studies on it before, none to hand, but this excellent chart is in the article I linked to above and sums it up well.
The vast construction in the Red Wall, one of the only places in the country where there has been a semi-reasonable amount of construction, has led to home ownership rates here moving from Labour levels to Tory levels. The seats then swung accordingly.
Home ownership and GE2019 As in previous years, homeowners were more likely to vote Conservative in the 2019 election. According to Ipsos MORI’s figures, 57% of voters who owned their home outright voted Conservative, as did 43% of people with mortgages. By contrast, 45% of social renters and 46% of private renters voted Labour.
The 2011 Census tells us how many homeowners were in each constituency. At the time, around 64% of UK households owned their home, either outright or with a mortgage. 315 of the Conservatives’ 365 seats (86%) had home ownership levels above this average, compared with 53 of Labour’s 202 seats (26%). Nine of the Lib Dems’ 11 seats had above-average home ownership levels (82%).
86% above average ownership for Tories, 26% for Labour.
Home ownership is far and away what affects voting in this country. NIMBY scum like our Essicks Massiv that wants to invade Scotland, or the first son of Abraham, are doing their level best to discourage people from voting Tory.
That's a bit jarring, seeing "scum" affixed to NIMBYs. Don't think I've ever come across it before. Really quite unusual.
When the world owes you a 5 bed detached des res, waiting to collect can get to you.
Especially if deleting the pampering of Tory-approved standard nuclear families under the current IHT regulations, and imposing wealth tax on landed property, are active subjects for discussion to remedy the chaos of the last few years.
Only 9% of voters want IHT to rise, the lowest of any tax.
Though yes wealth taxes on million pound plus properties might not be too unpopular if Labour proposes them (outside of a few central London Labour target seats like Kensington and Cities of London and Westminster)
No, it says 9% of voters included inheritance tax in the top three taxes they want held constant.
Obviously people want taxes on other, higher-income people to go up, though they also love the public services those people pay for by building businesses in the UK or working in jobs that are created in the UK, so it's a bit of a bind.
Belgium has a big welfare state by taxing ordinary people at 30% from euro one. The average Brit wants to pay something like 10%, so of course they get less stuff from government.
So does Sweden have a big welfare state but also no inheritance tax at all.
There are also examples in Europe of lower tax, lower spend nations than the UK eg Switzerland
In fact, the main reason you are worried about IHT is that your Topry voters will be bribed with our money so they don't have to spend their own savings on looking after themselves. Using that purpose for savings is what ordinary self-respecting civilised non-selfish citizens used to.
Preserving property and inheritance is a core Tory value. Why should Tories care what non Tories like you think about it?
Because you're deliberately parasitising on most of society, which don't have enough to leave to get to the 325K limit [edit] and will not get anywhere where they have to worry abotu the Special Allowance For Publicly Subsidising Tory Voting Sponging Pensioners And Their Greedy Offspring.
In London the average sold property price is £740,597, in Surrey the average house price is £620,686, so it is not just the rich but average voters in London and the Home Counties hit by higher IHT
(a) that every voter is a home-owner. Many are not. (B) that every home-owner actually has 100% equity without any mortgage. Many are not.
(Of course, both are heavily biased toward the Tories, but they would be for you. Or perhaps Labour and LD and Green voters are not human beings?)
So you are mixing up three different populations and talking bollocks because you trhink it makes your argument look better. Actually, it makes it look even worse.
Anyway, that's enough bollock-toasting to stock a French charcuterie for one evening, so I'm going to go off and read a nice new book. And I suggest you buy yourself a train set and try out the logical operation of points and sidings.
65% are home owners, by the time they are near death most will have paid off their mortgage.
YOu think so, the way things are going? Are already? We're not in the 1970s any more. Or the 1950s.
In the 1950s fewer owned their own property than now
Look at the repo statistics in a year or two. Thanks entirely to youir party.
Well those facing repo will need an inheritance and parental support even more won't they! Hopefully though most will avoid falling behind on their mortgage (and Rishi is not responsible for Truss and Kwarteng's errors)
With any luck,. their parents will have been heavily taxed on their unearned capital gains.
Well a socialist like you would say that wouldn't you, tax everything is your philosophy
I'm not a socialist. But you ought to start worrying when your party has got centrist dads such as I saying such things for want of any other alternative.
You are hard left Scottish nationalist, a million miles from centrist dad
If you can't tell the difference between me and Tommy Sheridan, you're not much of a commenter on PB.
'Levelling up' is dangerous ground for Sunak, given that video of him trumpeting unlevelling up the already high...
That’s not actually what he was saying in the video. But Labour had artfully cut the video to mislead.
He was saying that all deprived areas need support - including deprived rural areas in Kent - not just deprived urban areas
The problem was not him rightly pointing to pockets of deprived rural areas. The probem was that he claimed he had taken money from genuinely shonky areas in the north to give to pockets of deprived rural areas.
Nobody is denying that rural places can't hide poverty. But you can't divert money from places already promised the cash. Or in practice what it's meant is that money has gone to posh Tory areas to sort the small bit that isn't quite as posh as the rest whilst the scum area gets little or nothing.
Stockton on Tees seeing levelling up money spent in Yarm as a prime example. Yes, there are bits of Yarm not as nice as the rest. But relatively these areas are fine - certainly a lot better than chunks of town centre or Newtown wards.
Why do the Tories still have a minister for levelling up? Bottom line up front, Boris Johnson’s glib election promise “we will level up” is undeliverable bollocks.
Once you fathom out the impossible to fathom out “what exactly does it mean? Level up the north to the level of the south? But bits of the south are just as run down as bits of the north and vice versa? And switch to how to do it anyway to delivery something at least, even though you don’t really understand what it means, you realise it’s not about funnelling existing money from this to that, you will just end up hated and stuck in the 20s in the polling, it has to be new money, given to deserving places, fairly, and so that Tiverton in Blue Wall can’t get upset they are just as deserving and being cheated.
After all that, are you now levelling up? Of course not, because it is just pretend the ancient mismatch in scale and wealth between London and the secondary cities their regions can ever be levelled, it always was empty unachievable Johnsonian electioneering bollocks.
Why? Because: (a) Red Wall voters have noticed they are still relatively / actually poor (b) Brexit promised them resources and riches (c) Tories promised them definitely resources and riches (d) They won't take no for an answer
Either this government produces a rabbit out of the hat or the Tory 2019 first timers depart.
(A) is wrong.
Red Wall Tory voters are typically home owners, not impoverished people awaiting resources and riches.
Thanks to the relatively huge success in building new homes up here, compared to the rest of the country, the Red Wall has seen much more people getting on the property ladder rather than the reverse happening as in much of the country.
That's the real reason the non-metropolitan North has been swinging Tory while the South is swinging against the Tories. Because voters here have their own deeds to their very own Barratt Home and similar, rather than rental bills.
(a) is not wrong. A is the reason why we have seen a clearout of Labour councils and Labour MPs in Labour since the Danelaw areas. Try living in the red wall for a while and you will see what they are so upset about./
Incidentally, it wouldn't be a good idea for the Tories to listen to you. Telling people that their lived experience is wrong never works.
Try living in the red wall for a while? Excuse me, I do live in the Red Wall, you don't.
There is new housing estates all over the place. You know, all those homes you keep complaining about because you want to excuse the NIMBY scum? All those new homes have voters.
The Red Wall fell because of construction, because the likes of Barratt etc got people on the property ladder, NOT because poor people suddenly became fed up of Labour not doing anything for them.
You're in Birchwood aren't you? Cheshire daaaaarling.
I've moved around a bit, I'd rather not say where I live if you don't mind, but Birchwood is not a bad example. Warrington North is a safe Labour seat, or used to be, like much of the North West its seen massive construction recently and its trended away from Labour as the share of owner occupier voters in the constituency has risen.
Just like the neighbouring constituency of Leigh. What you'd think of as Leigh is still just as grotty terraced homes as it always was, but its surrounded by new estates of semi-detached homes with gardens and driveways for 2 parking spaces each.
Drive around the new estates of Leigh, versus the old streets of Leigh, and its hardly a surprise voting levels have changed. The voting is changing not because people are suddenly fed up of Labour, but because Leigh itself, much of the North itself, is changing. The houses people are living in - and increasingly owning - are not the same homes that existed thirty years ago.
And constituencies that were predominantly owner occupied in the past, that are now unaffordable and NIMBYs are blocking construction, are seeing trends away from the Tories.
Its housing, stupid.
Again again, I hope your Tory friends go and argue your points on the doorstep. They will be annihilated.
I don't think Bart is presenting an argument why people in Warrington North or Leigh SHOULD vote Tory - he is saying that where there has been a long term shift to owner occupation, especially of new builds - such as Warrington North, Leigh, Blyth, Rother Valley, and dozens of others - there has been a long term shift to the Tories. This seems inarguable to me. I also agree with the implication that the Tories would be well served to try to maximise the number of owner occupiers.
Bingo. You've nailed it completely.
Essentially Britain votes by housing. Renters as a class tend to vote Labour. Owned outright tend to vote Tory. Owned with a mortgage, are the swing voters, who in recent years have voted Tory but in Blair's time voted Labour.
In much of the country renting has become more common, but in parts of the North owner occupiers have become more common due to vast amounts of new builds. That has meant more Tory voters, but since those voters have mortgages they're not safe Tory.
The idea that the North swung Tory because voters were pissed off and angry misses the transformation in housing that has happened. Drive around the North outside the cities, and yes if you're here you're driving to get around, and there has been major new housing developments and those developments lead to new owner occupiers which changes how people think about voting.
There have been suggestions of this voting-by-housing-tenure hypothesis before. It is interesting and believable, but I don't know of studies that examine it carefully. Do you?
I've seen many studies on it before, none to hand, but this excellent chart is in the article I linked to above and sums it up well.
The vast construction in the Red Wall, one of the only places in the country where there has been a semi-reasonable amount of construction, has led to home ownership rates here moving from Labour levels to Tory levels. The seats then swung accordingly.
Home ownership and GE2019 As in previous years, homeowners were more likely to vote Conservative in the 2019 election. According to Ipsos MORI’s figures, 57% of voters who owned their home outright voted Conservative, as did 43% of people with mortgages. By contrast, 45% of social renters and 46% of private renters voted Labour.
The 2011 Census tells us how many homeowners were in each constituency. At the time, around 64% of UK households owned their home, either outright or with a mortgage. 315 of the Conservatives’ 365 seats (86%) had home ownership levels above this average, compared with 53 of Labour’s 202 seats (26%). Nine of the Lib Dems’ 11 seats had above-average home ownership levels (82%).
86% above average ownership for Tories, 26% for Labour.
Home ownership is far and away what affects voting in this country. NIMBY scum like our Essicks Massiv that wants to invade Scotland, or the first son of Abraham, are doing their level best to discourage people from voting Tory.
So 82% of LD seats have above average home ownership levels too.
Yes we need more affordable housing, especially in brownbelt areas of London where home ownership is at its lowest and Labour has gained lots of former Conservative seats.
Build all over the greenbelt however and you will see lots of formerly safe Conservative seats like Chesham and Amersham go Liberal Democrat
You say that like its a bad thing.
Better to have people engaged in society and able to have their own home, even if some vote Lib Dem, than unable to afford their own home and voting to tear down society by voting for Labour.
No, we don't want to build all over our greenbelt when the Home Counties already have a 70% owner occupier rate anyway and are largely safe Tory just to send voters to the LDs.
London with only 50% owner occupier rate and lots of Labour seats and Tory marginals vulnerable to Labour does certainly need more affordable homes to buy, the South East less so
London is a part of the South East. If people working in London are going to have semi detached homes and gardens, the place to do so, is in the South East.
A very large proportion of people living in the SE outside of London already do work in London. That's generally for those who have a home, how they can afford to pay for it, so no pulling up the ladder after you and saying "you're not my problem, piss off and don't get a home near me" is not a solution.
'Levelling up' is dangerous ground for Sunak, given that video of him trumpeting unlevelling up the already high...
That’s not actually what he was saying in the video. But Labour had artfully cut the video to mislead.
He was saying that all deprived areas need support - including deprived rural areas in Kent - not just deprived urban areas
The problem was not him rightly pointing to pockets of deprived rural areas. The probem was that he claimed he had taken money from genuinely shonky areas in the north to give to pockets of deprived rural areas.
Nobody is denying that rural places can't hide poverty. But you can't divert money from places already promised the cash. Or in practice what it's meant is that money has gone to posh Tory areas to sort the small bit that isn't quite as posh as the rest whilst the scum area gets little or nothing.
Stockton on Tees seeing levelling up money spent in Yarm as a prime example. Yes, there are bits of Yarm not as nice as the rest. But relatively these areas are fine - certainly a lot better than chunks of town centre or Newtown wards.
Why do the Tories still have a minister for levelling up? Bottom line up front, Boris Johnson’s glib election promise “we will level up” is undeliverable bollocks.
Once you fathom out the impossible to fathom out “what exactly does it mean? Level up the north to the level of the south? But bits of the south are just as run down as bits of the north and vice versa? And switch to how to do it anyway to delivery something at least, even though you don’t really understand what it means, you realise it’s not about funnelling existing money from this to that, you will just end up hated and stuck in the 20s in the polling, it has to be new money, given to deserving places, fairly, and so that Tiverton in Blue Wall can’t get upset they are just as deserving and being cheated.
After all that, are you now levelling up? Of course not, because it is just pretend the ancient mismatch in scale and wealth between London and the secondary cities their regions can ever be levelled, it always was empty unachievable Johnsonian electioneering bollocks.
Why? Because: (a) Red Wall voters have noticed they are still relatively / actually poor (b) Brexit promised them resources and riches (c) Tories promised them definitely resources and riches (d) They won't take no for an answer
Either this government produces a rabbit out of the hat or the Tory 2019 first timers depart.
(A) is wrong.
Red Wall Tory voters are typically home owners, not impoverished people awaiting resources and riches.
Thanks to the relatively huge success in building new homes up here, compared to the rest of the country, the Red Wall has seen much more people getting on the property ladder rather than the reverse happening as in much of the country.
That's the real reason the non-metropolitan North has been swinging Tory while the South is swinging against the Tories. Because voters here have their own deeds to their very own Barratt Home and similar, rather than rental bills.
(a) is not wrong. A is the reason why we have seen a clearout of Labour councils and Labour MPs in Labour since the Danelaw areas. Try living in the red wall for a while and you will see what they are so upset about./
Incidentally, it wouldn't be a good idea for the Tories to listen to you. Telling people that their lived experience is wrong never works.
Try living in the red wall for a while? Excuse me, I do live in the Red Wall, you don't.
There is new housing estates all over the place. You know, all those homes you keep complaining about because you want to excuse the NIMBY scum? All those new homes have voters.
The Red Wall fell because of construction, because the likes of Barratt etc got people on the property ladder, NOT because poor people suddenly became fed up of Labour not doing anything for them.
You're in Birchwood aren't you? Cheshire daaaaarling.
I've moved around a bit, I'd rather not say where I live if you don't mind, but Birchwood is not a bad example. Warrington North is a safe Labour seat, or used to be, like much of the North West its seen massive construction recently and its trended away from Labour as the share of owner occupier voters in the constituency has risen.
Just like the neighbouring constituency of Leigh. What you'd think of as Leigh is still just as grotty terraced homes as it always was, but its surrounded by new estates of semi-detached homes with gardens and driveways for 2 parking spaces each.
Drive around the new estates of Leigh, versus the old streets of Leigh, and its hardly a surprise voting levels have changed. The voting is changing not because people are suddenly fed up of Labour, but because Leigh itself, much of the North itself, is changing. The houses people are living in - and increasingly owning - are not the same homes that existed thirty years ago.
And constituencies that were predominantly owner occupied in the past, that are now unaffordable and NIMBYs are blocking construction, are seeing trends away from the Tories.
Its housing, stupid.
Again again, I hope your Tory friends go and argue your points on the doorstep. They will be annihilated.
I don't think Bart is presenting an argument why people in Warrington North or Leigh SHOULD vote Tory - he is saying that where there has been a long term shift to owner occupation, especially of new builds - such as Warrington North, Leigh, Blyth, Rother Valley, and dozens of others - there has been a long term shift to the Tories. This seems inarguable to me. I also agree with the implication that the Tories would be well served to try to maximise the number of owner occupiers.
Bingo. You've nailed it completely.
Essentially Britain votes by housing. Renters as a class tend to vote Labour. Owned outright tend to vote Tory. Owned with a mortgage, are the swing voters, who in recent years have voted Tory but in Blair's time voted Labour.
In much of the country renting has become more common, but in parts of the North owner occupiers have become more common due to vast amounts of new builds. That has meant more Tory voters, but since those voters have mortgages they're not safe Tory.
The idea that the North swung Tory because voters were pissed off and angry misses the transformation in housing that has happened. Drive around the North outside the cities, and yes if you're here you're driving to get around, and there has been major new housing developments and those developments lead to new owner occupiers which changes how people think about voting.
There have been suggestions of this voting-by-housing-tenure hypothesis before. It is interesting and believable, but I don't know of studies that examine it carefully. Do you?
I've seen many studies on it before, none to hand, but this excellent chart is in the article I linked to above and sums it up well.
The vast construction in the Red Wall, one of the only places in the country where there has been a semi-reasonable amount of construction, has led to home ownership rates here moving from Labour levels to Tory levels. The seats then swung accordingly.
Home ownership and GE2019 As in previous years, homeowners were more likely to vote Conservative in the 2019 election. According to Ipsos MORI’s figures, 57% of voters who owned their home outright voted Conservative, as did 43% of people with mortgages. By contrast, 45% of social renters and 46% of private renters voted Labour.
The 2011 Census tells us how many homeowners were in each constituency. At the time, around 64% of UK households owned their home, either outright or with a mortgage. 315 of the Conservatives’ 365 seats (86%) had home ownership levels above this average, compared with 53 of Labour’s 202 seats (26%). Nine of the Lib Dems’ 11 seats had above-average home ownership levels (82%).
86% above average ownership for Tories, 26% for Labour.
Home ownership is far and away what affects voting in this country. NIMBY scum like our Essicks Massiv that wants to invade Scotland, or the first son of Abraham, are doing their level best to discourage people from voting Tory.
That's a bit jarring, seeing "scum" affixed to NIMBYs. Don't think I've ever come across it before. Really quite unusual.
When the world owes you a 5 bed detached des res, waiting to collect can get to you.
Especially if deleting the pampering of Tory-approved standard nuclear families under the current IHT regulations, and imposing wealth tax on landed property, are active subjects for discussion to remedy the chaos of the last few years.
Only 9% of voters want IHT to rise, the lowest of any tax.
Though yes wealth taxes on million pound plus properties might not be too unpopular if Labour proposes them (outside of a few central London Labour target seats like Kensington and Cities of London and Westminster)
No, it says 9% of voters included inheritance tax in the top three taxes they want held constant.
Obviously people want taxes on other, higher-income people to go up, though they also love the public services those people pay for by building businesses in the UK or working in jobs that are created in the UK, so it's a bit of a bind.
Belgium has a big welfare state by taxing ordinary people at 30% from euro one. The average Brit wants to pay something like 10%, so of course they get less stuff from government.
So does Sweden have a big welfare state but also no inheritance tax at all.
There are also examples in Europe of lower tax, lower spend nations than the UK eg Switzerland
In fact, the main reason you are worried about IHT is that your Topry voters will be bribed with our money so they don't have to spend their own savings on looking after themselves. Using that purpose for savings is what ordinary self-respecting civilised non-selfish citizens used to.
Preserving property and inheritance is a core Tory value. Why should Tories care what non Tories like you think about it?
Because you're deliberately parasitising on most of society, which don't have enough to leave to get to the 325K limit [edit] and will not get anywhere where they have to worry abotu the Special Allowance For Publicly Subsidising Tory Voting Sponging Pensioners And Their Greedy Offspring.
In London the average sold property price is £740,597, in Surrey the average house price is £620,686, so it is not just the rich but average voters in London and the Home Counties hit by higher IHT
'Levelling up' is dangerous ground for Sunak, given that video of him trumpeting unlevelling up the already high...
That’s not actually what he was saying in the video. But Labour had artfully cut the video to mislead.
He was saying that all deprived areas need support - including deprived rural areas in Kent - not just deprived urban areas
The problem was not him rightly pointing to pockets of deprived rural areas. The probem was that he claimed he had taken money from genuinely shonky areas in the north to give to pockets of deprived rural areas.
Nobody is denying that rural places can't hide poverty. But you can't divert money from places already promised the cash. Or in practice what it's meant is that money has gone to posh Tory areas to sort the small bit that isn't quite as posh as the rest whilst the scum area gets little or nothing.
Stockton on Tees seeing levelling up money spent in Yarm as a prime example. Yes, there are bits of Yarm not as nice as the rest. But relatively these areas are fine - certainly a lot better than chunks of town centre or Newtown wards.
Why do the Tories still have a minister for levelling up? Bottom line up front, Boris Johnson’s glib election promise “we will level up” is undeliverable bollocks.
Once you fathom out the impossible to fathom out “what exactly does it mean? Level up the north to the level of the south? But bits of the south are just as run down as bits of the north and vice versa? And switch to how to do it anyway to delivery something at least, even though you don’t really understand what it means, you realise it’s not about funnelling existing money from this to that, you will just end up hated and stuck in the 20s in the polling, it has to be new money, given to deserving places, fairly, and so that Tiverton in Blue Wall can’t get upset they are just as deserving and being cheated.
After all that, are you now levelling up? Of course not, because it is just pretend the ancient mismatch in scale and wealth between London and the secondary cities their regions can ever be levelled, it always was empty unachievable Johnsonian electioneering bollocks.
Why? Because: (a) Red Wall voters have noticed they are still relatively / actually poor (b) Brexit promised them resources and riches (c) Tories promised them definitely resources and riches (d) They won't take no for an answer
Either this government produces a rabbit out of the hat or the Tory 2019 first timers depart.
(A) is wrong.
Red Wall Tory voters are typically home owners, not impoverished people awaiting resources and riches.
Thanks to the relatively huge success in building new homes up here, compared to the rest of the country, the Red Wall has seen much more people getting on the property ladder rather than the reverse happening as in much of the country.
That's the real reason the non-metropolitan North has been swinging Tory while the South is swinging against the Tories. Because voters here have their own deeds to their very own Barratt Home and similar, rather than rental bills.
(a) is not wrong. A is the reason why we have seen a clearout of Labour councils and Labour MPs in Labour since the Danelaw areas. Try living in the red wall for a while and you will see what they are so upset about./
Incidentally, it wouldn't be a good idea for the Tories to listen to you. Telling people that their lived experience is wrong never works.
Try living in the red wall for a while? Excuse me, I do live in the Red Wall, you don't.
There is new housing estates all over the place. You know, all those homes you keep complaining about because you want to excuse the NIMBY scum? All those new homes have voters.
The Red Wall fell because of construction, because the likes of Barratt etc got people on the property ladder, NOT because poor people suddenly became fed up of Labour not doing anything for them.
You're in Birchwood aren't you? Cheshire daaaaarling.
I've moved around a bit, I'd rather not say where I live if you don't mind, but Birchwood is not a bad example. Warrington North is a safe Labour seat, or used to be, like much of the North West its seen massive construction recently and its trended away from Labour as the share of owner occupier voters in the constituency has risen.
Just like the neighbouring constituency of Leigh. What you'd think of as Leigh is still just as grotty terraced homes as it always was, but its surrounded by new estates of semi-detached homes with gardens and driveways for 2 parking spaces each.
Drive around the new estates of Leigh, versus the old streets of Leigh, and its hardly a surprise voting levels have changed. The voting is changing not because people are suddenly fed up of Labour, but because Leigh itself, much of the North itself, is changing. The houses people are living in - and increasingly owning - are not the same homes that existed thirty years ago.
And constituencies that were predominantly owner occupied in the past, that are now unaffordable and NIMBYs are blocking construction, are seeing trends away from the Tories.
Its housing, stupid.
Again again, I hope your Tory friends go and argue your points on the doorstep. They will be annihilated.
I don't think Bart is presenting an argument why people in Warrington North or Leigh SHOULD vote Tory - he is saying that where there has been a long term shift to owner occupation, especially of new builds - such as Warrington North, Leigh, Blyth, Rother Valley, and dozens of others - there has been a long term shift to the Tories. This seems inarguable to me. I also agree with the implication that the Tories would be well served to try to maximise the number of owner occupiers.
Bingo. You've nailed it completely.
Essentially Britain votes by housing. Renters as a class tend to vote Labour. Owned outright tend to vote Tory. Owned with a mortgage, are the swing voters, who in recent years have voted Tory but in Blair's time voted Labour.
In much of the country renting has become more common, but in parts of the North owner occupiers have become more common due to vast amounts of new builds. That has meant more Tory voters, but since those voters have mortgages they're not safe Tory.
The idea that the North swung Tory because voters were pissed off and angry misses the transformation in housing that has happened. Drive around the North outside the cities, and yes if you're here you're driving to get around, and there has been major new housing developments and those developments lead to new owner occupiers which changes how people think about voting.
There have been suggestions of this voting-by-housing-tenure hypothesis before. It is interesting and believable, but I don't know of studies that examine it carefully. Do you?
I've seen many studies on it before, none to hand, but this excellent chart is in the article I linked to above and sums it up well.
The vast construction in the Red Wall, one of the only places in the country where there has been a semi-reasonable amount of construction, has led to home ownership rates here moving from Labour levels to Tory levels. The seats then swung accordingly.
Home ownership and GE2019 As in previous years, homeowners were more likely to vote Conservative in the 2019 election. According to Ipsos MORI’s figures, 57% of voters who owned their home outright voted Conservative, as did 43% of people with mortgages. By contrast, 45% of social renters and 46% of private renters voted Labour.
The 2011 Census tells us how many homeowners were in each constituency. At the time, around 64% of UK households owned their home, either outright or with a mortgage. 315 of the Conservatives’ 365 seats (86%) had home ownership levels above this average, compared with 53 of Labour’s 202 seats (26%). Nine of the Lib Dems’ 11 seats had above-average home ownership levels (82%).
86% above average ownership for Tories, 26% for Labour.
Home ownership is far and away what affects voting in this country. NIMBY scum like our Essicks Massiv that wants to invade Scotland, or the first son of Abraham, are doing their level best to discourage people from voting Tory.
That's a bit jarring, seeing "scum" affixed to NIMBYs. Don't think I've ever come across it before. Really quite unusual.
When the world owes you a 5 bed detached des res, waiting to collect can get to you.
Especially if deleting the pampering of Tory-approved standard nuclear families under the current IHT regulations, and imposing wealth tax on landed property, are active subjects for discussion to remedy the chaos of the last few years.
Only 9% of voters want IHT to rise, the lowest of any tax.
Though yes wealth taxes on million pound plus properties might not be too unpopular if Labour proposes them (outside of a few central London Labour target seats like Kensington and Cities of London and Westminster)
How on earth can you have misread that so badly. They want IHT to increase in preference to all normal taxes eg income tax, vat, fuel duty, council tax, stamp duty, ni. The only taxes they prefer to increase more than IHT are higher and top rate income tax, CGT and Corp Tax. And of course that is what you would expect. They don't want taxes increased that they pay but do want taxes increased on richer people.
The converse is true re taxes they don't want increased which is where you got the 9% from but you completely misunderstood the table. 50% don't want income tax increased compared to only 9% who don't want IHT to rise. Similarly Vat, fuel duty, ni, council tax etc compared to IHT.
Just 12% want higher IHT compared to 52% wanting a higher top income tax rate, 47% higher corporation tax, 33% higher capital gains tax and 29% a rise in the higher rate of income tax
Yep. Would you now like to show the rest of the figures so as not to mislead. That is they prefer higher IHT compared to all the other taxes. You know the ones we all pay every day. So it was completely untrue that it was bottom of the list isn't it. It was actually nearer the top of the list wasn't it and only under the taxes richer people pay. Same goes for the other table.
You either don't understand the tables or are deliberately misleading. Daft as we can all see the tables.
'Levelling up' is dangerous ground for Sunak, given that video of him trumpeting unlevelling up the already high...
That’s not actually what he was saying in the video. But Labour had artfully cut the video to mislead.
He was saying that all deprived areas need support - including deprived rural areas in Kent - not just deprived urban areas
The problem was not him rightly pointing to pockets of deprived rural areas. The probem was that he claimed he had taken money from genuinely shonky areas in the north to give to pockets of deprived rural areas.
Nobody is denying that rural places can't hide poverty. But you can't divert money from places already promised the cash. Or in practice what it's meant is that money has gone to posh Tory areas to sort the small bit that isn't quite as posh as the rest whilst the scum area gets little or nothing.
Stockton on Tees seeing levelling up money spent in Yarm as a prime example. Yes, there are bits of Yarm not as nice as the rest. But relatively these areas are fine - certainly a lot better than chunks of town centre or Newtown wards.
Why do the Tories still have a minister for levelling up? Bottom line up front, Boris Johnson’s glib election promise “we will level up” is undeliverable bollocks.
Once you fathom out the impossible to fathom out “what exactly does it mean? Level up the north to the level of the south? But bits of the south are just as run down as bits of the north and vice versa? And switch to how to do it anyway to delivery something at least, even though you don’t really understand what it means, you realise it’s not about funnelling existing money from this to that, you will just end up hated and stuck in the 20s in the polling, it has to be new money, given to deserving places, fairly, and so that Tiverton in Blue Wall can’t get upset they are just as deserving and being cheated.
After all that, are you now levelling up? Of course not, because it is just pretend the ancient mismatch in scale and wealth between London and the secondary cities their regions can ever be levelled, it always was empty unachievable Johnsonian electioneering bollocks.
Why? Because: (a) Red Wall voters have noticed they are still relatively / actually poor (b) Brexit promised them resources and riches (c) Tories promised them definitely resources and riches (d) They won't take no for an answer
Either this government produces a rabbit out of the hat or the Tory 2019 first timers depart.
(A) is wrong.
Red Wall Tory voters are typically home owners, not impoverished people awaiting resources and riches.
Thanks to the relatively huge success in building new homes up here, compared to the rest of the country, the Red Wall has seen much more people getting on the property ladder rather than the reverse happening as in much of the country.
That's the real reason the non-metropolitan North has been swinging Tory while the South is swinging against the Tories. Because voters here have their own deeds to their very own Barratt Home and similar, rather than rental bills.
(a) is not wrong. A is the reason why we have seen a clearout of Labour councils and Labour MPs in Labour since the Danelaw areas. Try living in the red wall for a while and you will see what they are so upset about./
Incidentally, it wouldn't be a good idea for the Tories to listen to you. Telling people that their lived experience is wrong never works.
Try living in the red wall for a while? Excuse me, I do live in the Red Wall, you don't.
There is new housing estates all over the place. You know, all those homes you keep complaining about because you want to excuse the NIMBY scum? All those new homes have voters.
The Red Wall fell because of construction, because the likes of Barratt etc got people on the property ladder, NOT because poor people suddenly became fed up of Labour not doing anything for them.
You're in Birchwood aren't you? Cheshire daaaaarling.
I've moved around a bit, I'd rather not say where I live if you don't mind, but Birchwood is not a bad example. Warrington North is a safe Labour seat, or used to be, like much of the North West its seen massive construction recently and its trended away from Labour as the share of owner occupier voters in the constituency has risen.
Just like the neighbouring constituency of Leigh. What you'd think of as Leigh is still just as grotty terraced homes as it always was, but its surrounded by new estates of semi-detached homes with gardens and driveways for 2 parking spaces each.
Drive around the new estates of Leigh, versus the old streets of Leigh, and its hardly a surprise voting levels have changed. The voting is changing not because people are suddenly fed up of Labour, but because Leigh itself, much of the North itself, is changing. The houses people are living in - and increasingly owning - are not the same homes that existed thirty years ago.
And constituencies that were predominantly owner occupied in the past, that are now unaffordable and NIMBYs are blocking construction, are seeing trends away from the Tories.
Its housing, stupid.
Again again, I hope your Tory friends go and argue your points on the doorstep. They will be annihilated.
I don't think Bart is presenting an argument why people in Warrington North or Leigh SHOULD vote Tory - he is saying that where there has been a long term shift to owner occupation, especially of new builds - such as Warrington North, Leigh, Blyth, Rother Valley, and dozens of others - there has been a long term shift to the Tories. This seems inarguable to me. I also agree with the implication that the Tories would be well served to try to maximise the number of owner occupiers.
Bingo. You've nailed it completely.
Essentially Britain votes by housing. Renters as a class tend to vote Labour. Owned outright tend to vote Tory. Owned with a mortgage, are the swing voters, who in recent years have voted Tory but in Blair's time voted Labour.
In much of the country renting has become more common, but in parts of the North owner occupiers have become more common due to vast amounts of new builds. That has meant more Tory voters, but since those voters have mortgages they're not safe Tory.
The idea that the North swung Tory because voters were pissed off and angry misses the transformation in housing that has happened. Drive around the North outside the cities, and yes if you're here you're driving to get around, and there has been major new housing developments and those developments lead to new owner occupiers which changes how people think about voting.
There have been suggestions of this voting-by-housing-tenure hypothesis before. It is interesting and believable, but I don't know of studies that examine it carefully. Do you?
I've seen many studies on it before, none to hand, but this excellent chart is in the article I linked to above and sums it up well.
The vast construction in the Red Wall, one of the only places in the country where there has been a semi-reasonable amount of construction, has led to home ownership rates here moving from Labour levels to Tory levels. The seats then swung accordingly.
Home ownership and GE2019 As in previous years, homeowners were more likely to vote Conservative in the 2019 election. According to Ipsos MORI’s figures, 57% of voters who owned their home outright voted Conservative, as did 43% of people with mortgages. By contrast, 45% of social renters and 46% of private renters voted Labour.
The 2011 Census tells us how many homeowners were in each constituency. At the time, around 64% of UK households owned their home, either outright or with a mortgage. 315 of the Conservatives’ 365 seats (86%) had home ownership levels above this average, compared with 53 of Labour’s 202 seats (26%). Nine of the Lib Dems’ 11 seats had above-average home ownership levels (82%).
86% above average ownership for Tories, 26% for Labour.
Home ownership is far and away what affects voting in this country. NIMBY scum like our Essicks Massiv that wants to invade Scotland, or the first son of Abraham, are doing their level best to discourage people from voting Tory.
That's a bit jarring, seeing "scum" affixed to NIMBYs. Don't think I've ever come across it before. Really quite unusual.
When the world owes you a 5 bed detached des res, waiting to collect can get to you.
Especially if deleting the pampering of Tory-approved standard nuclear families under the current IHT regulations, and imposing wealth tax on landed property, are active subjects for discussion to remedy the chaos of the last few years.
Only 9% of voters want IHT to rise, the lowest of any tax.
Though yes wealth taxes on million pound plus properties might not be too unpopular if Labour proposes them (outside of a few central London Labour target seats like Kensington and Cities of London and Westminster)
No, it says 9% of voters included inheritance tax in the top three taxes they want held constant.
Obviously people want taxes on other, higher-income people to go up, though they also love the public services those people pay for by building businesses in the UK or working in jobs that are created in the UK, so it's a bit of a bind.
Belgium has a big welfare state by taxing ordinary people at 30% from euro one. The average Brit wants to pay something like 10%, so of course they get less stuff from government.
So does Sweden have a big welfare state but also no inheritance tax at all.
There are also examples in Europe of lower tax, lower spend nations than the UK eg Switzerland
In fact, the main reason you are worried about IHT is that your Topry voters will be bribed with our money so they don't have to spend their own savings on looking after themselves. Using that purpose for savings is what ordinary self-respecting civilised non-selfish citizens used to.
Preserving property and inheritance is a core Tory value. Why should Tories care what non Tories like you think about it?
The reason the Tories survived the widening of the franchise is that they held out the promise to the rest of the population that they could also join the property-owning class, and so have assets that would need protecting from Socialists.
The danger from your attitude is that it narrows the base of people who would support Tories from a growing group who have assets and those who hope to have assets in the future, to only a declining share of the population who still have assets, and no-one else because they've all lost hope that it will be possible.
Rubbish, the majority of the population have assets and property and inheritances to pass on.
Yes we can expand property ownership by building more affordable housing in areas with high levels of renters like London, not reducing property ownership via higher IHT. We could also cut immigration to reduce pressure on housing
But not as much as 325K per person - let alone 500K under the Tory-pampering allowances.
'Levelling up' is dangerous ground for Sunak, given that video of him trumpeting unlevelling up the already high...
That’s not actually what he was saying in the video. But Labour had artfully cut the video to mislead.
He was saying that all deprived areas need support - including deprived rural areas in Kent - not just deprived urban areas
The problem was not him rightly pointing to pockets of deprived rural areas. The probem was that he claimed he had taken money from genuinely shonky areas in the north to give to pockets of deprived rural areas.
Nobody is denying that rural places can't hide poverty. But you can't divert money from places already promised the cash. Or in practice what it's meant is that money has gone to posh Tory areas to sort the small bit that isn't quite as posh as the rest whilst the scum area gets little or nothing.
Stockton on Tees seeing levelling up money spent in Yarm as a prime example. Yes, there are bits of Yarm not as nice as the rest. But relatively these areas are fine - certainly a lot better than chunks of town centre or Newtown wards.
Why do the Tories still have a minister for levelling up? Bottom line up front, Boris Johnson’s glib election promise “we will level up” is undeliverable bollocks.
Once you fathom out the impossible to fathom out “what exactly does it mean? Level up the north to the level of the south? But bits of the south are just as run down as bits of the north and vice versa? And switch to how to do it anyway to delivery something at least, even though you don’t really understand what it means, you realise it’s not about funnelling existing money from this to that, you will just end up hated and stuck in the 20s in the polling, it has to be new money, given to deserving places, fairly, and so that Tiverton in Blue Wall can’t get upset they are just as deserving and being cheated.
After all that, are you now levelling up? Of course not, because it is just pretend the ancient mismatch in scale and wealth between London and the secondary cities their regions can ever be levelled, it always was empty unachievable Johnsonian electioneering bollocks.
Why? Because: (a) Red Wall voters have noticed they are still relatively / actually poor (b) Brexit promised them resources and riches (c) Tories promised them definitely resources and riches (d) They won't take no for an answer
Either this government produces a rabbit out of the hat or the Tory 2019 first timers depart.
(A) is wrong.
Red Wall Tory voters are typically home owners, not impoverished people awaiting resources and riches.
Thanks to the relatively huge success in building new homes up here, compared to the rest of the country, the Red Wall has seen much more people getting on the property ladder rather than the reverse happening as in much of the country.
That's the real reason the non-metropolitan North has been swinging Tory while the South is swinging against the Tories. Because voters here have their own deeds to their very own Barratt Home and similar, rather than rental bills.
(a) is not wrong. A is the reason why we have seen a clearout of Labour councils and Labour MPs in Labour since the Danelaw areas. Try living in the red wall for a while and you will see what they are so upset about./
Incidentally, it wouldn't be a good idea for the Tories to listen to you. Telling people that their lived experience is wrong never works.
Try living in the red wall for a while? Excuse me, I do live in the Red Wall, you don't.
There is new housing estates all over the place. You know, all those homes you keep complaining about because you want to excuse the NIMBY scum? All those new homes have voters.
The Red Wall fell because of construction, because the likes of Barratt etc got people on the property ladder, NOT because poor people suddenly became fed up of Labour not doing anything for them.
You're in Birchwood aren't you? Cheshire daaaaarling.
I've moved around a bit, I'd rather not say where I live if you don't mind, but Birchwood is not a bad example. Warrington North is a safe Labour seat, or used to be, like much of the North West its seen massive construction recently and its trended away from Labour as the share of owner occupier voters in the constituency has risen.
Just like the neighbouring constituency of Leigh. What you'd think of as Leigh is still just as grotty terraced homes as it always was, but its surrounded by new estates of semi-detached homes with gardens and driveways for 2 parking spaces each.
Drive around the new estates of Leigh, versus the old streets of Leigh, and its hardly a surprise voting levels have changed. The voting is changing not because people are suddenly fed up of Labour, but because Leigh itself, much of the North itself, is changing. The houses people are living in - and increasingly owning - are not the same homes that existed thirty years ago.
And constituencies that were predominantly owner occupied in the past, that are now unaffordable and NIMBYs are blocking construction, are seeing trends away from the Tories.
Its housing, stupid.
Again again, I hope your Tory friends go and argue your points on the doorstep. They will be annihilated.
I don't think Bart is presenting an argument why people in Warrington North or Leigh SHOULD vote Tory - he is saying that where there has been a long term shift to owner occupation, especially of new builds - such as Warrington North, Leigh, Blyth, Rother Valley, and dozens of others - there has been a long term shift to the Tories. This seems inarguable to me. I also agree with the implication that the Tories would be well served to try to maximise the number of owner occupiers.
Bingo. You've nailed it completely.
Essentially Britain votes by housing. Renters as a class tend to vote Labour. Owned outright tend to vote Tory. Owned with a mortgage, are the swing voters, who in recent years have voted Tory but in Blair's time voted Labour.
In much of the country renting has become more common, but in parts of the North owner occupiers have become more common due to vast amounts of new builds. That has meant more Tory voters, but since those voters have mortgages they're not safe Tory.
The idea that the North swung Tory because voters were pissed off and angry misses the transformation in housing that has happened. Drive around the North outside the cities, and yes if you're here you're driving to get around, and there has been major new housing developments and those developments lead to new owner occupiers which changes how people think about voting.
There have been suggestions of this voting-by-housing-tenure hypothesis before. It is interesting and believable, but I don't know of studies that examine it carefully. Do you?
I've seen many studies on it before, none to hand, but this excellent chart is in the article I linked to above and sums it up well.
The vast construction in the Red Wall, one of the only places in the country where there has been a semi-reasonable amount of construction, has led to home ownership rates here moving from Labour levels to Tory levels. The seats then swung accordingly.
Home ownership and GE2019 As in previous years, homeowners were more likely to vote Conservative in the 2019 election. According to Ipsos MORI’s figures, 57% of voters who owned their home outright voted Conservative, as did 43% of people with mortgages. By contrast, 45% of social renters and 46% of private renters voted Labour.
The 2011 Census tells us how many homeowners were in each constituency. At the time, around 64% of UK households owned their home, either outright or with a mortgage. 315 of the Conservatives’ 365 seats (86%) had home ownership levels above this average, compared with 53 of Labour’s 202 seats (26%). Nine of the Lib Dems’ 11 seats had above-average home ownership levels (82%).
86% above average ownership for Tories, 26% for Labour.
Home ownership is far and away what affects voting in this country. NIMBY scum like our Essicks Massiv that wants to invade Scotland, or the first son of Abraham, are doing their level best to discourage people from voting Tory.
That's a bit jarring, seeing "scum" affixed to NIMBYs. Don't think I've ever come across it before. Really quite unusual.
When the world owes you a 5 bed detached des res, waiting to collect can get to you.
Especially if deleting the pampering of Tory-approved standard nuclear families under the current IHT regulations, and imposing wealth tax on landed property, are active subjects for discussion to remedy the chaos of the last few years.
Only 9% of voters want IHT to rise, the lowest of any tax.
Though yes wealth taxes on million pound plus properties might not be too unpopular if Labour proposes them (outside of a few central London Labour target seats like Kensington and Cities of London and Westminster)
No, it says 9% of voters included inheritance tax in the top three taxes they want held constant.
Obviously people want taxes on other, higher-income people to go up, though they also love the public services those people pay for by building businesses in the UK or working in jobs that are created in the UK, so it's a bit of a bind.
Belgium has a big welfare state by taxing ordinary people at 30% from euro one. The average Brit wants to pay something like 10%, so of course they get less stuff from government.
So does Sweden have a big welfare state but also no inheritance tax at all.
There are also examples in Europe of lower tax, lower spend nations than the UK eg Switzerland
In fact, the main reason you are worried about IHT is that your Topry voters will be bribed with our money so they don't have to spend their own savings on looking after themselves. Using that purpose for savings is what ordinary self-respecting civilised non-selfish citizens used to.
Preserving property and inheritance is a core Tory value. Why should Tories care what non Tories like you think about it?
Because you're deliberately parasitising on most of society, which don't have enough to leave to get to the 325K limit [edit] and will not get anywhere where they have to worry abotu the Special Allowance For Publicly Subsidising Tory Voting Sponging Pensioners And Their Greedy Offspring.
In London the average sold property price is £740,597, in Surrey the average house price is £620,686, so it is not just the rich but average voters in London and the Home Counties hit by higher IHT
No they are not. The effective IHT rate for couples leaving a property to their children is £1m.
For now thanks to Osborne's IHT cut, Carnyx wants to reverse that, that is the WHOLE point!!
So will tens of millions of others. We're not all obsessed with funding elderly Tory voters at the expense of everyone else.
Their children benefit too of course, Tories should care about their core vote first, you worry about your core vote ie those renting and in the public sector
'Levelling up' is dangerous ground for Sunak, given that video of him trumpeting unlevelling up the already high...
That’s not actually what he was saying in the video. But Labour had artfully cut the video to mislead.
He was saying that all deprived areas need support - including deprived rural areas in Kent - not just deprived urban areas
The problem was not him rightly pointing to pockets of deprived rural areas. The probem was that he claimed he had taken money from genuinely shonky areas in the north to give to pockets of deprived rural areas.
Nobody is denying that rural places can't hide poverty. But you can't divert money from places already promised the cash. Or in practice what it's meant is that money has gone to posh Tory areas to sort the small bit that isn't quite as posh as the rest whilst the scum area gets little or nothing.
Stockton on Tees seeing levelling up money spent in Yarm as a prime example. Yes, there are bits of Yarm not as nice as the rest. But relatively these areas are fine - certainly a lot better than chunks of town centre or Newtown wards.
Why do the Tories still have a minister for levelling up? Bottom line up front, Boris Johnson’s glib election promise “we will level up” is undeliverable bollocks.
Once you fathom out the impossible to fathom out “what exactly does it mean? Level up the north to the level of the south? But bits of the south are just as run down as bits of the north and vice versa? And switch to how to do it anyway to delivery something at least, even though you don’t really understand what it means, you realise it’s not about funnelling existing money from this to that, you will just end up hated and stuck in the 20s in the polling, it has to be new money, given to deserving places, fairly, and so that Tiverton in Blue Wall can’t get upset they are just as deserving and being cheated.
After all that, are you now levelling up? Of course not, because it is just pretend the ancient mismatch in scale and wealth between London and the secondary cities their regions can ever be levelled, it always was empty unachievable Johnsonian electioneering bollocks.
Why? Because: (a) Red Wall voters have noticed they are still relatively / actually poor (b) Brexit promised them resources and riches (c) Tories promised them definitely resources and riches (d) They won't take no for an answer
Either this government produces a rabbit out of the hat or the Tory 2019 first timers depart.
(A) is wrong.
Red Wall Tory voters are typically home owners, not impoverished people awaiting resources and riches.
Thanks to the relatively huge success in building new homes up here, compared to the rest of the country, the Red Wall has seen much more people getting on the property ladder rather than the reverse happening as in much of the country.
That's the real reason the non-metropolitan North has been swinging Tory while the South is swinging against the Tories. Because voters here have their own deeds to their very own Barratt Home and similar, rather than rental bills.
(a) is not wrong. A is the reason why we have seen a clearout of Labour councils and Labour MPs in Labour since the Danelaw areas. Try living in the red wall for a while and you will see what they are so upset about./
Incidentally, it wouldn't be a good idea for the Tories to listen to you. Telling people that their lived experience is wrong never works.
Try living in the red wall for a while? Excuse me, I do live in the Red Wall, you don't.
There is new housing estates all over the place. You know, all those homes you keep complaining about because you want to excuse the NIMBY scum? All those new homes have voters.
The Red Wall fell because of construction, because the likes of Barratt etc got people on the property ladder, NOT because poor people suddenly became fed up of Labour not doing anything for them.
You're in Birchwood aren't you? Cheshire daaaaarling.
I've moved around a bit, I'd rather not say where I live if you don't mind, but Birchwood is not a bad example. Warrington North is a safe Labour seat, or used to be, like much of the North West its seen massive construction recently and its trended away from Labour as the share of owner occupier voters in the constituency has risen.
Just like the neighbouring constituency of Leigh. What you'd think of as Leigh is still just as grotty terraced homes as it always was, but its surrounded by new estates of semi-detached homes with gardens and driveways for 2 parking spaces each.
Drive around the new estates of Leigh, versus the old streets of Leigh, and its hardly a surprise voting levels have changed. The voting is changing not because people are suddenly fed up of Labour, but because Leigh itself, much of the North itself, is changing. The houses people are living in - and increasingly owning - are not the same homes that existed thirty years ago.
And constituencies that were predominantly owner occupied in the past, that are now unaffordable and NIMBYs are blocking construction, are seeing trends away from the Tories.
Its housing, stupid.
Again again, I hope your Tory friends go and argue your points on the doorstep. They will be annihilated.
I don't think Bart is presenting an argument why people in Warrington North or Leigh SHOULD vote Tory - he is saying that where there has been a long term shift to owner occupation, especially of new builds - such as Warrington North, Leigh, Blyth, Rother Valley, and dozens of others - there has been a long term shift to the Tories. This seems inarguable to me. I also agree with the implication that the Tories would be well served to try to maximise the number of owner occupiers.
Bingo. You've nailed it completely.
Essentially Britain votes by housing. Renters as a class tend to vote Labour. Owned outright tend to vote Tory. Owned with a mortgage, are the swing voters, who in recent years have voted Tory but in Blair's time voted Labour.
In much of the country renting has become more common, but in parts of the North owner occupiers have become more common due to vast amounts of new builds. That has meant more Tory voters, but since those voters have mortgages they're not safe Tory.
The idea that the North swung Tory because voters were pissed off and angry misses the transformation in housing that has happened. Drive around the North outside the cities, and yes if you're here you're driving to get around, and there has been major new housing developments and those developments lead to new owner occupiers which changes how people think about voting.
There have been suggestions of this voting-by-housing-tenure hypothesis before. It is interesting and believable, but I don't know of studies that examine it carefully. Do you?
I've seen many studies on it before, none to hand, but this excellent chart is in the article I linked to above and sums it up well.
The vast construction in the Red Wall, one of the only places in the country where there has been a semi-reasonable amount of construction, has led to home ownership rates here moving from Labour levels to Tory levels. The seats then swung accordingly.
Home ownership and GE2019 As in previous years, homeowners were more likely to vote Conservative in the 2019 election. According to Ipsos MORI’s figures, 57% of voters who owned their home outright voted Conservative, as did 43% of people with mortgages. By contrast, 45% of social renters and 46% of private renters voted Labour.
The 2011 Census tells us how many homeowners were in each constituency. At the time, around 64% of UK households owned their home, either outright or with a mortgage. 315 of the Conservatives’ 365 seats (86%) had home ownership levels above this average, compared with 53 of Labour’s 202 seats (26%). Nine of the Lib Dems’ 11 seats had above-average home ownership levels (82%).
86% above average ownership for Tories, 26% for Labour.
Home ownership is far and away what affects voting in this country. NIMBY scum like our Essicks Massiv that wants to invade Scotland, or the first son of Abraham, are doing their level best to discourage people from voting Tory.
That's a bit jarring, seeing "scum" affixed to NIMBYs. Don't think I've ever come across it before. Really quite unusual.
When the world owes you a 5 bed detached des res, waiting to collect can get to you.
Especially if deleting the pampering of Tory-approved standard nuclear families under the current IHT regulations, and imposing wealth tax on landed property, are active subjects for discussion to remedy the chaos of the last few years.
Only 9% of voters want IHT to rise, the lowest of any tax.
Though yes wealth taxes on million pound plus properties might not be too unpopular if Labour proposes them (outside of a few central London Labour target seats like Kensington and Cities of London and Westminster)
No, it says 9% of voters included inheritance tax in the top three taxes they want held constant.
Obviously people want taxes on other, higher-income people to go up, though they also love the public services those people pay for by building businesses in the UK or working in jobs that are created in the UK, so it's a bit of a bind.
Belgium has a big welfare state by taxing ordinary people at 30% from euro one. The average Brit wants to pay something like 10%, so of course they get less stuff from government.
So does Sweden have a big welfare state but also no inheritance tax at all.
There are also examples in Europe of lower tax, lower spend nations than the UK eg Switzerland
In fact, the main reason you are worried about IHT is that your Topry voters will be bribed with our money so they don't have to spend their own savings on looking after themselves. Using that purpose for savings is what ordinary self-respecting civilised non-selfish citizens used to.
Preserving property and inheritance is a core Tory value. Why should Tories care what non Tories like you think about it?
Because you're deliberately parasitising on most of society, which don't have enough to leave to get to the 325K limit [edit] and will not get anywhere where they have to worry abotu the Special Allowance For Publicly Subsidising Tory Voting Sponging Pensioners And Their Greedy Offspring.
In London the average sold property price is £740,597, in Surrey the average house price is £620,686, so it is not just the rich but average voters in London and the Home Counties hit by higher IHT
(a) that every voter is a home-owner. Many are not. (B) that every home-owner actually has 100% equity without any mortgage. Many are not.
(Of course, both are heavily biased toward the Tories, but they would be for you. Or perhaps Labour and LD and Green voters are not human beings?)
So you are mixing up three different populations and talking bollocks because you trhink it makes your argument look better. Actually, it makes it look even worse.
Anyway, that's enough bollock-toasting to stock a French charcuterie for one evening, so I'm going to go off and read a nice new book. And I suggest you buy yourself a train set and try out the logical operation of points and sidings.
65% are home owners, by the time they are near death most will have paid off their mortgage.
YOu think so, the way things are going? Are already? We're not in the 1970s any more. Or the 1950s.
In the 1950s fewer owned their own property than now
Look at the repo statistics in a year or two. Thanks entirely to youir party.
Well those facing repo will need an inheritance and parental support even more won't they! Hopefully though most will avoid falling behind on their mortgage (and Rishi is not responsible for Truss and Kwarteng's errors)
With any luck,. their parents will have been heavily taxed on their unearned capital gains.
Well a socialist like you would say that wouldn't you, tax everything is your philosophy
I'm not a socialist. But you ought to start worrying when your party has got centrist dads such as I saying such things for want of any other alternative.
You are hard left Scottish nationalist, a million miles from centrist dad
If you can't tell the difference between me and Tommy Sheridan, you're not much of a commenter on PB.
Tommy Sheridan is less of a Scottish Nationalist than you, agreed
'Levelling up' is dangerous ground for Sunak, given that video of him trumpeting unlevelling up the already high...
That’s not actually what he was saying in the video. But Labour had artfully cut the video to mislead.
He was saying that all deprived areas need support - including deprived rural areas in Kent - not just deprived urban areas
The problem was not him rightly pointing to pockets of deprived rural areas. The probem was that he claimed he had taken money from genuinely shonky areas in the north to give to pockets of deprived rural areas.
Nobody is denying that rural places can't hide poverty. But you can't divert money from places already promised the cash. Or in practice what it's meant is that money has gone to posh Tory areas to sort the small bit that isn't quite as posh as the rest whilst the scum area gets little or nothing.
Stockton on Tees seeing levelling up money spent in Yarm as a prime example. Yes, there are bits of Yarm not as nice as the rest. But relatively these areas are fine - certainly a lot better than chunks of town centre or Newtown wards.
Why do the Tories still have a minister for levelling up? Bottom line up front, Boris Johnson’s glib election promise “we will level up” is undeliverable bollocks.
Once you fathom out the impossible to fathom out “what exactly does it mean? Level up the north to the level of the south? But bits of the south are just as run down as bits of the north and vice versa? And switch to how to do it anyway to delivery something at least, even though you don’t really understand what it means, you realise it’s not about funnelling existing money from this to that, you will just end up hated and stuck in the 20s in the polling, it has to be new money, given to deserving places, fairly, and so that Tiverton in Blue Wall can’t get upset they are just as deserving and being cheated.
After all that, are you now levelling up? Of course not, because it is just pretend the ancient mismatch in scale and wealth between London and the secondary cities their regions can ever be levelled, it always was empty unachievable Johnsonian electioneering bollocks.
Why? Because: (a) Red Wall voters have noticed they are still relatively / actually poor (b) Brexit promised them resources and riches (c) Tories promised them definitely resources and riches (d) They won't take no for an answer
Either this government produces a rabbit out of the hat or the Tory 2019 first timers depart.
(A) is wrong.
Red Wall Tory voters are typically home owners, not impoverished people awaiting resources and riches.
Thanks to the relatively huge success in building new homes up here, compared to the rest of the country, the Red Wall has seen much more people getting on the property ladder rather than the reverse happening as in much of the country.
That's the real reason the non-metropolitan North has been swinging Tory while the South is swinging against the Tories. Because voters here have their own deeds to their very own Barratt Home and similar, rather than rental bills.
(a) is not wrong. A is the reason why we have seen a clearout of Labour councils and Labour MPs in Labour since the Danelaw areas. Try living in the red wall for a while and you will see what they are so upset about./
Incidentally, it wouldn't be a good idea for the Tories to listen to you. Telling people that their lived experience is wrong never works.
Try living in the red wall for a while? Excuse me, I do live in the Red Wall, you don't.
There is new housing estates all over the place. You know, all those homes you keep complaining about because you want to excuse the NIMBY scum? All those new homes have voters.
The Red Wall fell because of construction, because the likes of Barratt etc got people on the property ladder, NOT because poor people suddenly became fed up of Labour not doing anything for them.
You're in Birchwood aren't you? Cheshire daaaaarling.
I've moved around a bit, I'd rather not say where I live if you don't mind, but Birchwood is not a bad example. Warrington North is a safe Labour seat, or used to be, like much of the North West its seen massive construction recently and its trended away from Labour as the share of owner occupier voters in the constituency has risen.
Just like the neighbouring constituency of Leigh. What you'd think of as Leigh is still just as grotty terraced homes as it always was, but its surrounded by new estates of semi-detached homes with gardens and driveways for 2 parking spaces each.
Drive around the new estates of Leigh, versus the old streets of Leigh, and its hardly a surprise voting levels have changed. The voting is changing not because people are suddenly fed up of Labour, but because Leigh itself, much of the North itself, is changing. The houses people are living in - and increasingly owning - are not the same homes that existed thirty years ago.
And constituencies that were predominantly owner occupied in the past, that are now unaffordable and NIMBYs are blocking construction, are seeing trends away from the Tories.
Its housing, stupid.
Again again, I hope your Tory friends go and argue your points on the doorstep. They will be annihilated.
I don't think Bart is presenting an argument why people in Warrington North or Leigh SHOULD vote Tory - he is saying that where there has been a long term shift to owner occupation, especially of new builds - such as Warrington North, Leigh, Blyth, Rother Valley, and dozens of others - there has been a long term shift to the Tories. This seems inarguable to me. I also agree with the implication that the Tories would be well served to try to maximise the number of owner occupiers.
Bingo. You've nailed it completely.
Essentially Britain votes by housing. Renters as a class tend to vote Labour. Owned outright tend to vote Tory. Owned with a mortgage, are the swing voters, who in recent years have voted Tory but in Blair's time voted Labour.
In much of the country renting has become more common, but in parts of the North owner occupiers have become more common due to vast amounts of new builds. That has meant more Tory voters, but since those voters have mortgages they're not safe Tory.
The idea that the North swung Tory because voters were pissed off and angry misses the transformation in housing that has happened. Drive around the North outside the cities, and yes if you're here you're driving to get around, and there has been major new housing developments and those developments lead to new owner occupiers which changes how people think about voting.
There have been suggestions of this voting-by-housing-tenure hypothesis before. It is interesting and believable, but I don't know of studies that examine it carefully. Do you?
I've seen many studies on it before, none to hand, but this excellent chart is in the article I linked to above and sums it up well.
The vast construction in the Red Wall, one of the only places in the country where there has been a semi-reasonable amount of construction, has led to home ownership rates here moving from Labour levels to Tory levels. The seats then swung accordingly.
Home ownership and GE2019 As in previous years, homeowners were more likely to vote Conservative in the 2019 election. According to Ipsos MORI’s figures, 57% of voters who owned their home outright voted Conservative, as did 43% of people with mortgages. By contrast, 45% of social renters and 46% of private renters voted Labour.
The 2011 Census tells us how many homeowners were in each constituency. At the time, around 64% of UK households owned their home, either outright or with a mortgage. 315 of the Conservatives’ 365 seats (86%) had home ownership levels above this average, compared with 53 of Labour’s 202 seats (26%). Nine of the Lib Dems’ 11 seats had above-average home ownership levels (82%).
86% above average ownership for Tories, 26% for Labour.
Home ownership is far and away what affects voting in this country. NIMBY scum like our Essicks Massiv that wants to invade Scotland, or the first son of Abraham, are doing their level best to discourage people from voting Tory.
That's a bit jarring, seeing "scum" affixed to NIMBYs. Don't think I've ever come across it before. Really quite unusual.
When the world owes you a 5 bed detached des res, waiting to collect can get to you.
Especially if deleting the pampering of Tory-approved standard nuclear families under the current IHT regulations, and imposing wealth tax on landed property, are active subjects for discussion to remedy the chaos of the last few years.
Only 9% of voters want IHT to rise, the lowest of any tax.
Though yes wealth taxes on million pound plus properties might not be too unpopular if Labour proposes them (outside of a few central London Labour target seats like Kensington and Cities of London and Westminster)
No, it says 9% of voters included inheritance tax in the top three taxes they want held constant.
Obviously people want taxes on other, higher-income people to go up, though they also love the public services those people pay for by building businesses in the UK or working in jobs that are created in the UK, so it's a bit of a bind.
Belgium has a big welfare state by taxing ordinary people at 30% from euro one. The average Brit wants to pay something like 10%, so of course they get less stuff from government.
So does Sweden have a big welfare state but also no inheritance tax at all.
There are also examples in Europe of lower tax, lower spend nations than the UK eg Switzerland
In fact, the main reason you are worried about IHT is that your Topry voters will be bribed with our money so they don't have to spend their own savings on looking after themselves. Using that purpose for savings is what ordinary self-respecting civilised non-selfish citizens used to.
Preserving property and inheritance is a core Tory value. Why should Tories care what non Tories like you think about it?
Because you're deliberately parasitising on most of society, which don't have enough to leave to get to the 325K limit [edit] and will not get anywhere where they have to worry abotu the Special Allowance For Publicly Subsidising Tory Voting Sponging Pensioners And Their Greedy Offspring.
In London the average sold property price is £740,597, in Surrey the average house price is £620,686, so it is not just the rich but average voters in London and the Home Counties hit by higher IHT
No they are not. The effective IHT rate for couples leaving a property to their children is £1m.
For now thanks to Osborne's IHT cut, Carnyx wants to reverse that, that is the WHOLE point!!
So will tens of millions of others. We're not all obsessed with funding elderly Tory voters at the expense of everyone else.
Their children benefit too of course, Tories should care about their core vote first, you worry about your core vote ie those renting and in the public sector
Their children can work for a living too instead of agonising about when Daddy pops his clogs? There was a time when that was the absolute bedrock of Tory doctrine.
Did anyone see the Newsnight report last night re Moroccans trying to get into the tiny Spanish territory of Melilla in North Africa.
The Spanish were far, far tougher than we are - live firing, many people killed, Moroccans stuck in a tiny pen with dead bodies etc.
As always, the rhetoric is very different from what actually happens. Braverman is strong on rhetoric but bottom line is we all know she isn't actually going to do anything.
Meanwhile the Spanish take a very different approach.
Though of course the asylum seekers largely need to come via boats across the Mediterranean before they get here, so the Mediterranean coast countries are where the toughest approach is needed (not that I condone live firing on asylum seekers)
The Spanish police have been murdering illegal immigrants into Ceuta and Melilla (who are by no means all Moroccan) for years. They also (the police in those territories) frequently carry out street robberies.
It's very interesting - and it reinforces my view of what's going on - that British TV reports this, all of a sudden.
Has there been a dearth of former ministers saying they'll appear on reality shows maybe?
"Properly tough", "unlike not doing anything, which has been the softie British approach until now" is exactly what viewers are supposed to think. It'll probably be in the Express, Sun, Torygraph, and Daily Heil if it hasn't been already.
In this context, the term "invasion" is in the same semantic field as "shoot".
Price of the Tories winning most seats at the next GE is 2.74 at Betfair. Value.
Spain however has the far right Vox on up to 16% of the vote, Italy now has a far right Brothers of Italy PM.
Farage is a long way from that level, it is the populist hard right there driving the hardline on immigration
'Levelling up' is dangerous ground for Sunak, given that video of him trumpeting unlevelling up the already high...
That’s not actually what he was saying in the video. But Labour had artfully cut the video to mislead.
He was saying that all deprived areas need support - including deprived rural areas in Kent - not just deprived urban areas
The problem was not him rightly pointing to pockets of deprived rural areas. The probem was that he claimed he had taken money from genuinely shonky areas in the north to give to pockets of deprived rural areas.
Nobody is denying that rural places can't hide poverty. But you can't divert money from places already promised the cash. Or in practice what it's meant is that money has gone to posh Tory areas to sort the small bit that isn't quite as posh as the rest whilst the scum area gets little or nothing.
Stockton on Tees seeing levelling up money spent in Yarm as a prime example. Yes, there are bits of Yarm not as nice as the rest. But relatively these areas are fine - certainly a lot better than chunks of town centre or Newtown wards.
Why do the Tories still have a minister for levelling up? Bottom line up front, Boris Johnson’s glib election promise “we will level up” is undeliverable bollocks.
Once you fathom out the impossible to fathom out “what exactly does it mean? Level up the north to the level of the south? But bits of the south are just as run down as bits of the north and vice versa? And switch to how to do it anyway to delivery something at least, even though you don’t really understand what it means, you realise it’s not about funnelling existing money from this to that, you will just end up hated and stuck in the 20s in the polling, it has to be new money, given to deserving places, fairly, and so that Tiverton in Blue Wall can’t get upset they are just as deserving and being cheated.
After all that, are you now levelling up? Of course not, because it is just pretend the ancient mismatch in scale and wealth between London and the secondary cities their regions can ever be levelled, it always was empty unachievable Johnsonian electioneering bollocks.
Why? Because: (a) Red Wall voters have noticed they are still relatively / actually poor (b) Brexit promised them resources and riches (c) Tories promised them definitely resources and riches (d) They won't take no for an answer
Either this government produces a rabbit out of the hat or the Tory 2019 first timers depart.
(A) is wrong.
Red Wall Tory voters are typically home owners, not impoverished people awaiting resources and riches.
Thanks to the relatively huge success in building new homes up here, compared to the rest of the country, the Red Wall has seen much more people getting on the property ladder rather than the reverse happening as in much of the country.
That's the real reason the non-metropolitan North has been swinging Tory while the South is swinging against the Tories. Because voters here have their own deeds to their very own Barratt Home and similar, rather than rental bills.
(a) is not wrong. A is the reason why we have seen a clearout of Labour councils and Labour MPs in Labour since the Danelaw areas. Try living in the red wall for a while and you will see what they are so upset about./
Incidentally, it wouldn't be a good idea for the Tories to listen to you. Telling people that their lived experience is wrong never works.
Try living in the red wall for a while? Excuse me, I do live in the Red Wall, you don't.
There is new housing estates all over the place. You know, all those homes you keep complaining about because you want to excuse the NIMBY scum? All those new homes have voters.
The Red Wall fell because of construction, because the likes of Barratt etc got people on the property ladder, NOT because poor people suddenly became fed up of Labour not doing anything for them.
You're in Birchwood aren't you? Cheshire daaaaarling.
I've moved around a bit, I'd rather not say where I live if you don't mind, but Birchwood is not a bad example. Warrington North is a safe Labour seat, or used to be, like much of the North West its seen massive construction recently and its trended away from Labour as the share of owner occupier voters in the constituency has risen.
Just like the neighbouring constituency of Leigh. What you'd think of as Leigh is still just as grotty terraced homes as it always was, but its surrounded by new estates of semi-detached homes with gardens and driveways for 2 parking spaces each.
Drive around the new estates of Leigh, versus the old streets of Leigh, and its hardly a surprise voting levels have changed. The voting is changing not because people are suddenly fed up of Labour, but because Leigh itself, much of the North itself, is changing. The houses people are living in - and increasingly owning - are not the same homes that existed thirty years ago.
And constituencies that were predominantly owner occupied in the past, that are now unaffordable and NIMBYs are blocking construction, are seeing trends away from the Tories.
Its housing, stupid.
Again again, I hope your Tory friends go and argue your points on the doorstep. They will be annihilated.
I don't think Bart is presenting an argument why people in Warrington North or Leigh SHOULD vote Tory - he is saying that where there has been a long term shift to owner occupation, especially of new builds - such as Warrington North, Leigh, Blyth, Rother Valley, and dozens of others - there has been a long term shift to the Tories. This seems inarguable to me. I also agree with the implication that the Tories would be well served to try to maximise the number of owner occupiers.
Bingo. You've nailed it completely.
Essentially Britain votes by housing. Renters as a class tend to vote Labour. Owned outright tend to vote Tory. Owned with a mortgage, are the swing voters, who in recent years have voted Tory but in Blair's time voted Labour.
In much of the country renting has become more common, but in parts of the North owner occupiers have become more common due to vast amounts of new builds. That has meant more Tory voters, but since those voters have mortgages they're not safe Tory.
The idea that the North swung Tory because voters were pissed off and angry misses the transformation in housing that has happened. Drive around the North outside the cities, and yes if you're here you're driving to get around, and there has been major new housing developments and those developments lead to new owner occupiers which changes how people think about voting.
There have been suggestions of this voting-by-housing-tenure hypothesis before. It is interesting and believable, but I don't know of studies that examine it carefully. Do you?
I've seen many studies on it before, none to hand, but this excellent chart is in the article I linked to above and sums it up well.
The vast construction in the Red Wall, one of the only places in the country where there has been a semi-reasonable amount of construction, has led to home ownership rates here moving from Labour levels to Tory levels. The seats then swung accordingly.
Home ownership and GE2019 As in previous years, homeowners were more likely to vote Conservative in the 2019 election. According to Ipsos MORI’s figures, 57% of voters who owned their home outright voted Conservative, as did 43% of people with mortgages. By contrast, 45% of social renters and 46% of private renters voted Labour.
The 2011 Census tells us how many homeowners were in each constituency. At the time, around 64% of UK households owned their home, either outright or with a mortgage. 315 of the Conservatives’ 365 seats (86%) had home ownership levels above this average, compared with 53 of Labour’s 202 seats (26%). Nine of the Lib Dems’ 11 seats had above-average home ownership levels (82%).
86% above average ownership for Tories, 26% for Labour.
Home ownership is far and away what affects voting in this country. NIMBY scum like our Essicks Massiv that wants to invade Scotland, or the first son of Abraham, are doing their level best to discourage people from voting Tory.
That's a bit jarring, seeing "scum" affixed to NIMBYs. Don't think I've ever come across it before. Really quite unusual.
When the world owes you a 5 bed detached des res, waiting to collect can get to you.
Especially if deleting the pampering of Tory-approved standard nuclear families under the current IHT regulations, and imposing wealth tax on landed property, are active subjects for discussion to remedy the chaos of the last few years.
Only 9% of voters want IHT to rise, the lowest of any tax.
Though yes wealth taxes on million pound plus properties might not be too unpopular if Labour proposes them (outside of a few central London Labour target seats like Kensington and Cities of London and Westminster)
No, it says 9% of voters included inheritance tax in the top three taxes they want held constant.
Obviously people want taxes on other, higher-income people to go up, though they also love the public services those people pay for by building businesses in the UK or working in jobs that are created in the UK, so it's a bit of a bind.
Belgium has a big welfare state by taxing ordinary people at 30% from euro one. The average Brit wants to pay something like 10%, so of course they get less stuff from government.
So does Sweden have a big welfare state but also no inheritance tax at all.
There are also examples in Europe of lower tax, lower spend nations than the UK eg Switzerland
In fact, the main reason you are worried about IHT is that your Topry voters will be bribed with our money so they don't have to spend their own savings on looking after themselves. Using that purpose for savings is what ordinary self-respecting civilised non-selfish citizens used to.
Preserving property and inheritance is a core Tory value. Why should Tories care what non Tories like you think about it?
Because you're deliberately parasitising on most of society, which don't have enough to leave to get to the 325K limit [edit] and will not get anywhere where they have to worry abotu the Special Allowance For Publicly Subsidising Tory Voting Sponging Pensioners And Their Greedy Offspring.
In London the average sold property price is £740,597, in Surrey the average house price is £620,686, so it is not just the rich but average voters in London and the Home Counties hit by higher IHT
(a) that every voter is a home-owner. Many are not. (B) that every home-owner actually has 100% equity without any mortgage. Many are not.
(Of course, both are heavily biased toward the Tories, but they would be for you. Or perhaps Labour and LD and Green voters are not human beings?)
So you are mixing up three different populations and talking bollocks because you trhink it makes your argument look better. Actually, it makes it look even worse.
Anyway, that's enough bollock-toasting to stock a French charcuterie for one evening, so I'm going to go off and read a nice new book. And I suggest you buy yourself a train set and try out the logical operation of points and sidings.
65% are home owners, by the time they are near death most will have paid off their mortgage.
YOu think so, the way things are going? Are already? We're not in the 1970s any more. Or the 1950s.
In the 1950s fewer owned their own property than now
Look at the repo statistics in a year or two. Thanks entirely to youir party.
Well those facing repo will need an inheritance and parental support even more won't they! Hopefully though most will avoid falling behind on their mortgage (and Rishi is not responsible for Truss and Kwarteng's errors)
With any luck,. their parents will have been heavily taxed on their unearned capital gains.
Well a socialist like you would say that wouldn't you, tax everything is your philosophy
I'm not a socialist. But you ought to start worrying when your party has got centrist dads such as I saying such things for want of any other alternative.
You are hard left Scottish nationalist, a million miles from centrist dad
If you can't tell the difference between me and Tommy Sheridan, you're not much of a commenter on PB.
Tommy Sheridan is less of a Scottish Nationalist than you, agreed
How do you know? He is pro independence and alwasy has been.
'Levelling up' is dangerous ground for Sunak, given that video of him trumpeting unlevelling up the already high...
That’s not actually what he was saying in the video. But Labour had artfully cut the video to mislead.
He was saying that all deprived areas need support - including deprived rural areas in Kent - not just deprived urban areas
The problem was not him rightly pointing to pockets of deprived rural areas. The probem was that he claimed he had taken money from genuinely shonky areas in the north to give to pockets of deprived rural areas.
Nobody is denying that rural places can't hide poverty. But you can't divert money from places already promised the cash. Or in practice what it's meant is that money has gone to posh Tory areas to sort the small bit that isn't quite as posh as the rest whilst the scum area gets little or nothing.
Stockton on Tees seeing levelling up money spent in Yarm as a prime example. Yes, there are bits of Yarm not as nice as the rest. But relatively these areas are fine - certainly a lot better than chunks of town centre or Newtown wards.
Why do the Tories still have a minister for levelling up? Bottom line up front, Boris Johnson’s glib election promise “we will level up” is undeliverable bollocks.
Once you fathom out the impossible to fathom out “what exactly does it mean? Level up the north to the level of the south? But bits of the south are just as run down as bits of the north and vice versa? And switch to how to do it anyway to delivery something at least, even though you don’t really understand what it means, you realise it’s not about funnelling existing money from this to that, you will just end up hated and stuck in the 20s in the polling, it has to be new money, given to deserving places, fairly, and so that Tiverton in Blue Wall can’t get upset they are just as deserving and being cheated.
After all that, are you now levelling up? Of course not, because it is just pretend the ancient mismatch in scale and wealth between London and the secondary cities their regions can ever be levelled, it always was empty unachievable Johnsonian electioneering bollocks.
Why? Because: (a) Red Wall voters have noticed they are still relatively / actually poor (b) Brexit promised them resources and riches (c) Tories promised them definitely resources and riches (d) They won't take no for an answer
Either this government produces a rabbit out of the hat or the Tory 2019 first timers depart.
(A) is wrong.
Red Wall Tory voters are typically home owners, not impoverished people awaiting resources and riches.
Thanks to the relatively huge success in building new homes up here, compared to the rest of the country, the Red Wall has seen much more people getting on the property ladder rather than the reverse happening as in much of the country.
That's the real reason the non-metropolitan North has been swinging Tory while the South is swinging against the Tories. Because voters here have their own deeds to their very own Barratt Home and similar, rather than rental bills.
(a) is not wrong. A is the reason why we have seen a clearout of Labour councils and Labour MPs in Labour since the Danelaw areas. Try living in the red wall for a while and you will see what they are so upset about./
Incidentally, it wouldn't be a good idea for the Tories to listen to you. Telling people that their lived experience is wrong never works.
Try living in the red wall for a while? Excuse me, I do live in the Red Wall, you don't.
There is new housing estates all over the place. You know, all those homes you keep complaining about because you want to excuse the NIMBY scum? All those new homes have voters.
The Red Wall fell because of construction, because the likes of Barratt etc got people on the property ladder, NOT because poor people suddenly became fed up of Labour not doing anything for them.
You're in Birchwood aren't you? Cheshire daaaaarling.
I've moved around a bit, I'd rather not say where I live if you don't mind, but Birchwood is not a bad example. Warrington North is a safe Labour seat, or used to be, like much of the North West its seen massive construction recently and its trended away from Labour as the share of owner occupier voters in the constituency has risen.
Just like the neighbouring constituency of Leigh. What you'd think of as Leigh is still just as grotty terraced homes as it always was, but its surrounded by new estates of semi-detached homes with gardens and driveways for 2 parking spaces each.
Drive around the new estates of Leigh, versus the old streets of Leigh, and its hardly a surprise voting levels have changed. The voting is changing not because people are suddenly fed up of Labour, but because Leigh itself, much of the North itself, is changing. The houses people are living in - and increasingly owning - are not the same homes that existed thirty years ago.
And constituencies that were predominantly owner occupied in the past, that are now unaffordable and NIMBYs are blocking construction, are seeing trends away from the Tories.
Its housing, stupid.
Again again, I hope your Tory friends go and argue your points on the doorstep. They will be annihilated.
I don't think Bart is presenting an argument why people in Warrington North or Leigh SHOULD vote Tory - he is saying that where there has been a long term shift to owner occupation, especially of new builds - such as Warrington North, Leigh, Blyth, Rother Valley, and dozens of others - there has been a long term shift to the Tories. This seems inarguable to me. I also agree with the implication that the Tories would be well served to try to maximise the number of owner occupiers.
Bingo. You've nailed it completely.
Essentially Britain votes by housing. Renters as a class tend to vote Labour. Owned outright tend to vote Tory. Owned with a mortgage, are the swing voters, who in recent years have voted Tory but in Blair's time voted Labour.
In much of the country renting has become more common, but in parts of the North owner occupiers have become more common due to vast amounts of new builds. That has meant more Tory voters, but since those voters have mortgages they're not safe Tory.
The idea that the North swung Tory because voters were pissed off and angry misses the transformation in housing that has happened. Drive around the North outside the cities, and yes if you're here you're driving to get around, and there has been major new housing developments and those developments lead to new owner occupiers which changes how people think about voting.
There have been suggestions of this voting-by-housing-tenure hypothesis before. It is interesting and believable, but I don't know of studies that examine it carefully. Do you?
I've seen many studies on it before, none to hand, but this excellent chart is in the article I linked to above and sums it up well.
The vast construction in the Red Wall, one of the only places in the country where there has been a semi-reasonable amount of construction, has led to home ownership rates here moving from Labour levels to Tory levels. The seats then swung accordingly.
Home ownership and GE2019 As in previous years, homeowners were more likely to vote Conservative in the 2019 election. According to Ipsos MORI’s figures, 57% of voters who owned their home outright voted Conservative, as did 43% of people with mortgages. By contrast, 45% of social renters and 46% of private renters voted Labour.
The 2011 Census tells us how many homeowners were in each constituency. At the time, around 64% of UK households owned their home, either outright or with a mortgage. 315 of the Conservatives’ 365 seats (86%) had home ownership levels above this average, compared with 53 of Labour’s 202 seats (26%). Nine of the Lib Dems’ 11 seats had above-average home ownership levels (82%).
86% above average ownership for Tories, 26% for Labour.
Home ownership is far and away what affects voting in this country. NIMBY scum like our Essicks Massiv that wants to invade Scotland, or the first son of Abraham, are doing their level best to discourage people from voting Tory.
That's a bit jarring, seeing "scum" affixed to NIMBYs. Don't think I've ever come across it before. Really quite unusual.
When the world owes you a 5 bed detached des res, waiting to collect can get to you.
Especially if deleting the pampering of Tory-approved standard nuclear families under the current IHT regulations, and imposing wealth tax on landed property, are active subjects for discussion to remedy the chaos of the last few years.
Only 9% of voters want IHT to rise, the lowest of any tax.
Though yes wealth taxes on million pound plus properties might not be too unpopular if Labour proposes them (outside of a few central London Labour target seats like Kensington and Cities of London and Westminster)
How on earth can you have misread that so badly. They want IHT to increase in preference to all normal taxes eg income tax, vat, fuel duty, council tax, stamp duty, ni. The only taxes they prefer to increase more than IHT are higher and top rate income tax, CGT and Corp Tax. And of course that is what you would expect. They don't want taxes increased that they pay but do want taxes increased on richer people.
The converse is true re taxes they don't want increased which is where you got the 9% from but you completely misunderstood the table. 50% don't want income tax increased compared to only 9% who don't want IHT to rise. Similarly Vat, fuel duty, ni, council tax etc compared to IHT.
Just 12% want higher IHT compared to 52% wanting a higher top income tax rate, 47% higher corporation tax, 33% higher capital gains tax and 29% a rise in the higher rate of income tax
Yep. Would you now like to show the rest of the figures so as not to mislead. That is they prefer higher IHT compared to all the other taxes. You know the ones we all pay every day. So it was completely untrue that it was bottom of the list isn't it. It was actually nearer the top of the list wasn't it and only under the taxes richer people pay. Same goes for the other table.
You either don't understand the tables or are deliberately misleading. Daft as we can all see the tables.
Just ask him about the time he equated a voodoo poll of self-selected skippers of larger long-rage fishing boats to the entire workforce of the Scottish fishing industry.
'Levelling up' is dangerous ground for Sunak, given that video of him trumpeting unlevelling up the already high...
That’s not actually what he was saying in the video. But Labour had artfully cut the video to mislead.
He was saying that all deprived areas need support - including deprived rural areas in Kent - not just deprived urban areas
The problem was not him rightly pointing to pockets of deprived rural areas. The probem was that he claimed he had taken money from genuinely shonky areas in the north to give to pockets of deprived rural areas.
Nobody is denying that rural places can't hide poverty. But you can't divert money from places already promised the cash. Or in practice what it's meant is that money has gone to posh Tory areas to sort the small bit that isn't quite as posh as the rest whilst the scum area gets little or nothing.
Stockton on Tees seeing levelling up money spent in Yarm as a prime example. Yes, there are bits of Yarm not as nice as the rest. But relatively these areas are fine - certainly a lot better than chunks of town centre or Newtown wards.
Why do the Tories still have a minister for levelling up? Bottom line up front, Boris Johnson’s glib election promise “we will level up” is undeliverable bollocks.
Once you fathom out the impossible to fathom out “what exactly does it mean? Level up the north to the level of the south? But bits of the south are just as run down as bits of the north and vice versa? And switch to how to do it anyway to delivery something at least, even though you don’t really understand what it means, you realise it’s not about funnelling existing money from this to that, you will just end up hated and stuck in the 20s in the polling, it has to be new money, given to deserving places, fairly, and so that Tiverton in Blue Wall can’t get upset they are just as deserving and being cheated.
After all that, are you now levelling up? Of course not, because it is just pretend the ancient mismatch in scale and wealth between London and the secondary cities their regions can ever be levelled, it always was empty unachievable Johnsonian electioneering bollocks.
Why? Because: (a) Red Wall voters have noticed they are still relatively / actually poor (b) Brexit promised them resources and riches (c) Tories promised them definitely resources and riches (d) They won't take no for an answer
Either this government produces a rabbit out of the hat or the Tory 2019 first timers depart.
(A) is wrong.
Red Wall Tory voters are typically home owners, not impoverished people awaiting resources and riches.
Thanks to the relatively huge success in building new homes up here, compared to the rest of the country, the Red Wall has seen much more people getting on the property ladder rather than the reverse happening as in much of the country.
That's the real reason the non-metropolitan North has been swinging Tory while the South is swinging against the Tories. Because voters here have their own deeds to their very own Barratt Home and similar, rather than rental bills.
(a) is not wrong. A is the reason why we have seen a clearout of Labour councils and Labour MPs in Labour since the Danelaw areas. Try living in the red wall for a while and you will see what they are so upset about./
Incidentally, it wouldn't be a good idea for the Tories to listen to you. Telling people that their lived experience is wrong never works.
Try living in the red wall for a while? Excuse me, I do live in the Red Wall, you don't.
There is new housing estates all over the place. You know, all those homes you keep complaining about because you want to excuse the NIMBY scum? All those new homes have voters.
The Red Wall fell because of construction, because the likes of Barratt etc got people on the property ladder, NOT because poor people suddenly became fed up of Labour not doing anything for them.
You're in Birchwood aren't you? Cheshire daaaaarling.
I've moved around a bit, I'd rather not say where I live if you don't mind, but Birchwood is not a bad example. Warrington North is a safe Labour seat, or used to be, like much of the North West its seen massive construction recently and its trended away from Labour as the share of owner occupier voters in the constituency has risen.
Just like the neighbouring constituency of Leigh. What you'd think of as Leigh is still just as grotty terraced homes as it always was, but its surrounded by new estates of semi-detached homes with gardens and driveways for 2 parking spaces each.
Drive around the new estates of Leigh, versus the old streets of Leigh, and its hardly a surprise voting levels have changed. The voting is changing not because people are suddenly fed up of Labour, but because Leigh itself, much of the North itself, is changing. The houses people are living in - and increasingly owning - are not the same homes that existed thirty years ago.
And constituencies that were predominantly owner occupied in the past, that are now unaffordable and NIMBYs are blocking construction, are seeing trends away from the Tories.
Its housing, stupid.
Again again, I hope your Tory friends go and argue your points on the doorstep. They will be annihilated.
I don't think Bart is presenting an argument why people in Warrington North or Leigh SHOULD vote Tory - he is saying that where there has been a long term shift to owner occupation, especially of new builds - such as Warrington North, Leigh, Blyth, Rother Valley, and dozens of others - there has been a long term shift to the Tories. This seems inarguable to me. I also agree with the implication that the Tories would be well served to try to maximise the number of owner occupiers.
Bingo. You've nailed it completely.
Essentially Britain votes by housing. Renters as a class tend to vote Labour. Owned outright tend to vote Tory. Owned with a mortgage, are the swing voters, who in recent years have voted Tory but in Blair's time voted Labour.
In much of the country renting has become more common, but in parts of the North owner occupiers have become more common due to vast amounts of new builds. That has meant more Tory voters, but since those voters have mortgages they're not safe Tory.
The idea that the North swung Tory because voters were pissed off and angry misses the transformation in housing that has happened. Drive around the North outside the cities, and yes if you're here you're driving to get around, and there has been major new housing developments and those developments lead to new owner occupiers which changes how people think about voting.
There have been suggestions of this voting-by-housing-tenure hypothesis before. It is interesting and believable, but I don't know of studies that examine it carefully. Do you?
I've seen many studies on it before, none to hand, but this excellent chart is in the article I linked to above and sums it up well.
The vast construction in the Red Wall, one of the only places in the country where there has been a semi-reasonable amount of construction, has led to home ownership rates here moving from Labour levels to Tory levels. The seats then swung accordingly.
Home ownership and GE2019 As in previous years, homeowners were more likely to vote Conservative in the 2019 election. According to Ipsos MORI’s figures, 57% of voters who owned their home outright voted Conservative, as did 43% of people with mortgages. By contrast, 45% of social renters and 46% of private renters voted Labour.
The 2011 Census tells us how many homeowners were in each constituency. At the time, around 64% of UK households owned their home, either outright or with a mortgage. 315 of the Conservatives’ 365 seats (86%) had home ownership levels above this average, compared with 53 of Labour’s 202 seats (26%). Nine of the Lib Dems’ 11 seats had above-average home ownership levels (82%).
86% above average ownership for Tories, 26% for Labour.
Home ownership is far and away what affects voting in this country. NIMBY scum like our Essicks Massiv that wants to invade Scotland, or the first son of Abraham, are doing their level best to discourage people from voting Tory.
That's a bit jarring, seeing "scum" affixed to NIMBYs. Don't think I've ever come across it before. Really quite unusual.
When the world owes you a 5 bed detached des res, waiting to collect can get to you.
Especially if deleting the pampering of Tory-approved standard nuclear families under the current IHT regulations, and imposing wealth tax on landed property, are active subjects for discussion to remedy the chaos of the last few years.
Only 9% of voters want IHT to rise, the lowest of any tax.
Though yes wealth taxes on million pound plus properties might not be too unpopular if Labour proposes them (outside of a few central London Labour target seats like Kensington and Cities of London and Westminster)
No, it says 9% of voters included inheritance tax in the top three taxes they want held constant.
Obviously people want taxes on other, higher-income people to go up, though they also love the public services those people pay for by building businesses in the UK or working in jobs that are created in the UK, so it's a bit of a bind.
Belgium has a big welfare state by taxing ordinary people at 30% from euro one. The average Brit wants to pay something like 10%, so of course they get less stuff from government.
So does Sweden have a big welfare state but also no inheritance tax at all.
There are also examples in Europe of lower tax, lower spend nations than the UK eg Switzerland
In fact, the main reason you are worried about IHT is that your Topry voters will be bribed with our money so they don't have to spend their own savings on looking after themselves. Using that purpose for savings is what ordinary self-respecting civilised non-selfish citizens used to.
Preserving property and inheritance is a core Tory value. Why should Tories care what non Tories like you think about it?
Because you're deliberately parasitising on most of society, which don't have enough to leave to get to the 325K limit [edit] and will not get anywhere where they have to worry abotu the Special Allowance For Publicly Subsidising Tory Voting Sponging Pensioners And Their Greedy Offspring.
In London the average sold property price is £740,597, in Surrey the average house price is £620,686, so it is not just the rich but average voters in London and the Home Counties hit by higher IHT
No they are not. The effective IHT rate for couples leaving a property to their children is £1m.
For now thanks to Osborne's IHT cut, Carnyx wants to reverse that, that is the WHOLE point!!
I'm sorry but you specifically referred to houses of £740,597 and £620,686 would be hit by IHT. A married couple leaving a house to their children at these two values would not be hit by IHT.
The UK car industry has been significantly under-performing its peers in the last two years. If it's not Brexit related it is certainly a remarkable coincidence.
'Levelling up' is dangerous ground for Sunak, given that video of him trumpeting unlevelling up the already high...
That’s not actually what he was saying in the video. But Labour had artfully cut the video to mislead.
He was saying that all deprived areas need support - including deprived rural areas in Kent - not just deprived urban areas
The problem was not him rightly pointing to pockets of deprived rural areas. The probem was that he claimed he had taken money from genuinely shonky areas in the north to give to pockets of deprived rural areas.
Nobody is denying that rural places can't hide poverty. But you can't divert money from places already promised the cash. Or in practice what it's meant is that money has gone to posh Tory areas to sort the small bit that isn't quite as posh as the rest whilst the scum area gets little or nothing.
Stockton on Tees seeing levelling up money spent in Yarm as a prime example. Yes, there are bits of Yarm not as nice as the rest. But relatively these areas are fine - certainly a lot better than chunks of town centre or Newtown wards.
Why do the Tories still have a minister for levelling up? Bottom line up front, Boris Johnson’s glib election promise “we will level up” is undeliverable bollocks.
Once you fathom out the impossible to fathom out “what exactly does it mean? Level up the north to the level of the south? But bits of the south are just as run down as bits of the north and vice versa? And switch to how to do it anyway to delivery something at least, even though you don’t really understand what it means, you realise it’s not about funnelling existing money from this to that, you will just end up hated and stuck in the 20s in the polling, it has to be new money, given to deserving places, fairly, and so that Tiverton in Blue Wall can’t get upset they are just as deserving and being cheated.
After all that, are you now levelling up? Of course not, because it is just pretend the ancient mismatch in scale and wealth between London and the secondary cities their regions can ever be levelled, it always was empty unachievable Johnsonian electioneering bollocks.
Why? Because: (a) Red Wall voters have noticed they are still relatively / actually poor (b) Brexit promised them resources and riches (c) Tories promised them definitely resources and riches (d) They won't take no for an answer
Either this government produces a rabbit out of the hat or the Tory 2019 first timers depart.
(A) is wrong.
Red Wall Tory voters are typically home owners, not impoverished people awaiting resources and riches.
Thanks to the relatively huge success in building new homes up here, compared to the rest of the country, the Red Wall has seen much more people getting on the property ladder rather than the reverse happening as in much of the country.
That's the real reason the non-metropolitan North has been swinging Tory while the South is swinging against the Tories. Because voters here have their own deeds to their very own Barratt Home and similar, rather than rental bills.
(a) is not wrong. A is the reason why we have seen a clearout of Labour councils and Labour MPs in Labour since the Danelaw areas. Try living in the red wall for a while and you will see what they are so upset about./
Incidentally, it wouldn't be a good idea for the Tories to listen to you. Telling people that their lived experience is wrong never works.
Try living in the red wall for a while? Excuse me, I do live in the Red Wall, you don't.
There is new housing estates all over the place. You know, all those homes you keep complaining about because you want to excuse the NIMBY scum? All those new homes have voters.
The Red Wall fell because of construction, because the likes of Barratt etc got people on the property ladder, NOT because poor people suddenly became fed up of Labour not doing anything for them.
You're in Birchwood aren't you? Cheshire daaaaarling.
I've moved around a bit, I'd rather not say where I live if you don't mind, but Birchwood is not a bad example. Warrington North is a safe Labour seat, or used to be, like much of the North West its seen massive construction recently and its trended away from Labour as the share of owner occupier voters in the constituency has risen.
Just like the neighbouring constituency of Leigh. What you'd think of as Leigh is still just as grotty terraced homes as it always was, but its surrounded by new estates of semi-detached homes with gardens and driveways for 2 parking spaces each.
Drive around the new estates of Leigh, versus the old streets of Leigh, and its hardly a surprise voting levels have changed. The voting is changing not because people are suddenly fed up of Labour, but because Leigh itself, much of the North itself, is changing. The houses people are living in - and increasingly owning - are not the same homes that existed thirty years ago.
And constituencies that were predominantly owner occupied in the past, that are now unaffordable and NIMBYs are blocking construction, are seeing trends away from the Tories.
Its housing, stupid.
Again again, I hope your Tory friends go and argue your points on the doorstep. They will be annihilated.
I don't think Bart is presenting an argument why people in Warrington North or Leigh SHOULD vote Tory - he is saying that where there has been a long term shift to owner occupation, especially of new builds - such as Warrington North, Leigh, Blyth, Rother Valley, and dozens of others - there has been a long term shift to the Tories. This seems inarguable to me. I also agree with the implication that the Tories would be well served to try to maximise the number of owner occupiers.
Bingo. You've nailed it completely.
Essentially Britain votes by housing. Renters as a class tend to vote Labour. Owned outright tend to vote Tory. Owned with a mortgage, are the swing voters, who in recent years have voted Tory but in Blair's time voted Labour.
In much of the country renting has become more common, but in parts of the North owner occupiers have become more common due to vast amounts of new builds. That has meant more Tory voters, but since those voters have mortgages they're not safe Tory.
The idea that the North swung Tory because voters were pissed off and angry misses the transformation in housing that has happened. Drive around the North outside the cities, and yes if you're here you're driving to get around, and there has been major new housing developments and those developments lead to new owner occupiers which changes how people think about voting.
There have been suggestions of this voting-by-housing-tenure hypothesis before. It is interesting and believable, but I don't know of studies that examine it carefully. Do you?
I've seen many studies on it before, none to hand, but this excellent chart is in the article I linked to above and sums it up well.
The vast construction in the Red Wall, one of the only places in the country where there has been a semi-reasonable amount of construction, has led to home ownership rates here moving from Labour levels to Tory levels. The seats then swung accordingly.
Home ownership and GE2019 As in previous years, homeowners were more likely to vote Conservative in the 2019 election. According to Ipsos MORI’s figures, 57% of voters who owned their home outright voted Conservative, as did 43% of people with mortgages. By contrast, 45% of social renters and 46% of private renters voted Labour.
The 2011 Census tells us how many homeowners were in each constituency. At the time, around 64% of UK households owned their home, either outright or with a mortgage. 315 of the Conservatives’ 365 seats (86%) had home ownership levels above this average, compared with 53 of Labour’s 202 seats (26%). Nine of the Lib Dems’ 11 seats had above-average home ownership levels (82%).
86% above average ownership for Tories, 26% for Labour.
Home ownership is far and away what affects voting in this country. NIMBY scum like our Essicks Massiv that wants to invade Scotland, or the first son of Abraham, are doing their level best to discourage people from voting Tory.
So 82% of LD seats have above average home ownership levels too.
Yes we need more affordable housing, especially in brownbelt areas of London where home ownership is at its lowest and Labour has gained lots of former Conservative seats.
Build all over the greenbelt however and you will see lots of formerly safe Conservative seats like Chesham and Amersham go Liberal Democrat
You say that like its a bad thing.
Better to have people engaged in society and able to have their own home, even if some vote Lib Dem, than unable to afford their own home and voting to tear down society by voting for Labour.
No, we don't want to build all over our greenbelt when the Home Counties already have a 70% owner occupier rate anyway and are largely safe Tory just to send voters to the LDs.
London with only 50% owner occupier rate and lots of Labour seats and Tory marginals vulnerable to Labour does certainly need more affordable homes to buy, the South East less so
London is a part of the South East. If people working in London are going to have semi detached homes and gardens, the place to do so, is in the South East.
A very large proportion of people living in the SE outside of London already do work in London. That's generally for those who have a home, how they can afford to pay for it, so no pulling up the ladder after you and saying "you're not my problem, piss off and don't get a home near me" is not a solution.
London is NOT a part of the South East. People used to regularly be able to afford to buy a semi detached in suburban London on average incomes if they worked in the capital, they can't now. That needs more properties being built in outer London, not concreting all over the Home Counties greenbelt.
70% in the Home Counties outside London by contrast still own a property, the highest percentage of any UK region
'Levelling up' is dangerous ground for Sunak, given that video of him trumpeting unlevelling up the already high...
That’s not actually what he was saying in the video. But Labour had artfully cut the video to mislead.
He was saying that all deprived areas need support - including deprived rural areas in Kent - not just deprived urban areas
The problem was not him rightly pointing to pockets of deprived rural areas. The probem was that he claimed he had taken money from genuinely shonky areas in the north to give to pockets of deprived rural areas.
Nobody is denying that rural places can't hide poverty. But you can't divert money from places already promised the cash. Or in practice what it's meant is that money has gone to posh Tory areas to sort the small bit that isn't quite as posh as the rest whilst the scum area gets little or nothing.
Stockton on Tees seeing levelling up money spent in Yarm as a prime example. Yes, there are bits of Yarm not as nice as the rest. But relatively these areas are fine - certainly a lot better than chunks of town centre or Newtown wards.
Why do the Tories still have a minister for levelling up? Bottom line up front, Boris Johnson’s glib election promise “we will level up” is undeliverable bollocks.
Once you fathom out the impossible to fathom out “what exactly does it mean? Level up the north to the level of the south? But bits of the south are just as run down as bits of the north and vice versa? And switch to how to do it anyway to delivery something at least, even though you don’t really understand what it means, you realise it’s not about funnelling existing money from this to that, you will just end up hated and stuck in the 20s in the polling, it has to be new money, given to deserving places, fairly, and so that Tiverton in Blue Wall can’t get upset they are just as deserving and being cheated.
After all that, are you now levelling up? Of course not, because it is just pretend the ancient mismatch in scale and wealth between London and the secondary cities their regions can ever be levelled, it always was empty unachievable Johnsonian electioneering bollocks.
Why? Because: (a) Red Wall voters have noticed they are still relatively / actually poor (b) Brexit promised them resources and riches (c) Tories promised them definitely resources and riches (d) They won't take no for an answer
Either this government produces a rabbit out of the hat or the Tory 2019 first timers depart.
(A) is wrong.
Red Wall Tory voters are typically home owners, not impoverished people awaiting resources and riches.
Thanks to the relatively huge success in building new homes up here, compared to the rest of the country, the Red Wall has seen much more people getting on the property ladder rather than the reverse happening as in much of the country.
That's the real reason the non-metropolitan North has been swinging Tory while the South is swinging against the Tories. Because voters here have their own deeds to their very own Barratt Home and similar, rather than rental bills.
(a) is not wrong. A is the reason why we have seen a clearout of Labour councils and Labour MPs in Labour since the Danelaw areas. Try living in the red wall for a while and you will see what they are so upset about./
Incidentally, it wouldn't be a good idea for the Tories to listen to you. Telling people that their lived experience is wrong never works.
Try living in the red wall for a while? Excuse me, I do live in the Red Wall, you don't.
There is new housing estates all over the place. You know, all those homes you keep complaining about because you want to excuse the NIMBY scum? All those new homes have voters.
The Red Wall fell because of construction, because the likes of Barratt etc got people on the property ladder, NOT because poor people suddenly became fed up of Labour not doing anything for them.
You're in Birchwood aren't you? Cheshire daaaaarling.
I've moved around a bit, I'd rather not say where I live if you don't mind, but Birchwood is not a bad example. Warrington North is a safe Labour seat, or used to be, like much of the North West its seen massive construction recently and its trended away from Labour as the share of owner occupier voters in the constituency has risen.
Just like the neighbouring constituency of Leigh. What you'd think of as Leigh is still just as grotty terraced homes as it always was, but its surrounded by new estates of semi-detached homes with gardens and driveways for 2 parking spaces each.
Drive around the new estates of Leigh, versus the old streets of Leigh, and its hardly a surprise voting levels have changed. The voting is changing not because people are suddenly fed up of Labour, but because Leigh itself, much of the North itself, is changing. The houses people are living in - and increasingly owning - are not the same homes that existed thirty years ago.
And constituencies that were predominantly owner occupied in the past, that are now unaffordable and NIMBYs are blocking construction, are seeing trends away from the Tories.
Its housing, stupid.
Again again, I hope your Tory friends go and argue your points on the doorstep. They will be annihilated.
I don't think Bart is presenting an argument why people in Warrington North or Leigh SHOULD vote Tory - he is saying that where there has been a long term shift to owner occupation, especially of new builds - such as Warrington North, Leigh, Blyth, Rother Valley, and dozens of others - there has been a long term shift to the Tories. This seems inarguable to me. I also agree with the implication that the Tories would be well served to try to maximise the number of owner occupiers.
Bingo. You've nailed it completely.
Essentially Britain votes by housing. Renters as a class tend to vote Labour. Owned outright tend to vote Tory. Owned with a mortgage, are the swing voters, who in recent years have voted Tory but in Blair's time voted Labour.
In much of the country renting has become more common, but in parts of the North owner occupiers have become more common due to vast amounts of new builds. That has meant more Tory voters, but since those voters have mortgages they're not safe Tory.
The idea that the North swung Tory because voters were pissed off and angry misses the transformation in housing that has happened. Drive around the North outside the cities, and yes if you're here you're driving to get around, and there has been major new housing developments and those developments lead to new owner occupiers which changes how people think about voting.
There have been suggestions of this voting-by-housing-tenure hypothesis before. It is interesting and believable, but I don't know of studies that examine it carefully. Do you?
I've seen many studies on it before, none to hand, but this excellent chart is in the article I linked to above and sums it up well.
The vast construction in the Red Wall, one of the only places in the country where there has been a semi-reasonable amount of construction, has led to home ownership rates here moving from Labour levels to Tory levels. The seats then swung accordingly.
Home ownership and GE2019 As in previous years, homeowners were more likely to vote Conservative in the 2019 election. According to Ipsos MORI’s figures, 57% of voters who owned their home outright voted Conservative, as did 43% of people with mortgages. By contrast, 45% of social renters and 46% of private renters voted Labour.
The 2011 Census tells us how many homeowners were in each constituency. At the time, around 64% of UK households owned their home, either outright or with a mortgage. 315 of the Conservatives’ 365 seats (86%) had home ownership levels above this average, compared with 53 of Labour’s 202 seats (26%). Nine of the Lib Dems’ 11 seats had above-average home ownership levels (82%).
86% above average ownership for Tories, 26% for Labour.
Home ownership is far and away what affects voting in this country. NIMBY scum like our Essicks Massiv that wants to invade Scotland, or the first son of Abraham, are doing their level best to discourage people from voting Tory.
That's a bit jarring, seeing "scum" affixed to NIMBYs. Don't think I've ever come across it before. Really quite unusual.
When the world owes you a 5 bed detached des res, waiting to collect can get to you.
Especially if deleting the pampering of Tory-approved standard nuclear families under the current IHT regulations, and imposing wealth tax on landed property, are active subjects for discussion to remedy the chaos of the last few years.
Only 9% of voters want IHT to rise, the lowest of any tax.
Though yes wealth taxes on million pound plus properties might not be too unpopular if Labour proposes them (outside of a few central London Labour target seats like Kensington and Cities of London and Westminster)
How on earth can you have misread that so badly. They want IHT to increase in preference to all normal taxes eg income tax, vat, fuel duty, council tax, stamp duty, ni. The only taxes they prefer to increase more than IHT are higher and top rate income tax, CGT and Corp Tax. And of course that is what you would expect. They don't want taxes increased that they pay but do want taxes increased on richer people.
The converse is true re taxes they don't want increased which is where you got the 9% from but you completely misunderstood the table. 50% don't want income tax increased compared to only 9% who don't want IHT to rise. Similarly Vat, fuel duty, ni, council tax etc compared to IHT.
Just 12% want higher IHT compared to 52% wanting a higher top income tax rate, 47% higher corporation tax, 33% higher capital gains tax and 29% a rise in the higher rate of income tax
Yep. Would you now like to show the rest of the figures so as not to mislead. That is they prefer higher IHT compared to all the other taxes. You know the ones we all pay every day. So it was completely untrue that it was bottom of the list isn't it. It was actually nearer the top of the list wasn't it and only under the taxes richer people pay. Same goes for the other table.
You either don't understand the tables or are deliberately misleading. Daft as we can all see the tables.
No, plenty of people pay the higher rate of income tax, they also wanted that increased more than IHT.
'Levelling up' is dangerous ground for Sunak, given that video of him trumpeting unlevelling up the already high...
That’s not actually what he was saying in the video. But Labour had artfully cut the video to mislead.
He was saying that all deprived areas need support - including deprived rural areas in Kent - not just deprived urban areas
The problem was not him rightly pointing to pockets of deprived rural areas. The probem was that he claimed he had taken money from genuinely shonky areas in the north to give to pockets of deprived rural areas.
Nobody is denying that rural places can't hide poverty. But you can't divert money from places already promised the cash. Or in practice what it's meant is that money has gone to posh Tory areas to sort the small bit that isn't quite as posh as the rest whilst the scum area gets little or nothing.
Stockton on Tees seeing levelling up money spent in Yarm as a prime example. Yes, there are bits of Yarm not as nice as the rest. But relatively these areas are fine - certainly a lot better than chunks of town centre or Newtown wards.
Why do the Tories still have a minister for levelling up? Bottom line up front, Boris Johnson’s glib election promise “we will level up” is undeliverable bollocks.
Once you fathom out the impossible to fathom out “what exactly does it mean? Level up the north to the level of the south? But bits of the south are just as run down as bits of the north and vice versa? And switch to how to do it anyway to delivery something at least, even though you don’t really understand what it means, you realise it’s not about funnelling existing money from this to that, you will just end up hated and stuck in the 20s in the polling, it has to be new money, given to deserving places, fairly, and so that Tiverton in Blue Wall can’t get upset they are just as deserving and being cheated.
After all that, are you now levelling up? Of course not, because it is just pretend the ancient mismatch in scale and wealth between London and the secondary cities their regions can ever be levelled, it always was empty unachievable Johnsonian electioneering bollocks.
Why? Because: (a) Red Wall voters have noticed they are still relatively / actually poor (b) Brexit promised them resources and riches (c) Tories promised them definitely resources and riches (d) They won't take no for an answer
Either this government produces a rabbit out of the hat or the Tory 2019 first timers depart.
(A) is wrong.
Red Wall Tory voters are typically home owners, not impoverished people awaiting resources and riches.
Thanks to the relatively huge success in building new homes up here, compared to the rest of the country, the Red Wall has seen much more people getting on the property ladder rather than the reverse happening as in much of the country.
That's the real reason the non-metropolitan North has been swinging Tory while the South is swinging against the Tories. Because voters here have their own deeds to their very own Barratt Home and similar, rather than rental bills.
(a) is not wrong. A is the reason why we have seen a clearout of Labour councils and Labour MPs in Labour since the Danelaw areas. Try living in the red wall for a while and you will see what they are so upset about./
Incidentally, it wouldn't be a good idea for the Tories to listen to you. Telling people that their lived experience is wrong never works.
Try living in the red wall for a while? Excuse me, I do live in the Red Wall, you don't.
There is new housing estates all over the place. You know, all those homes you keep complaining about because you want to excuse the NIMBY scum? All those new homes have voters.
The Red Wall fell because of construction, because the likes of Barratt etc got people on the property ladder, NOT because poor people suddenly became fed up of Labour not doing anything for them.
You're in Birchwood aren't you? Cheshire daaaaarling.
I've moved around a bit, I'd rather not say where I live if you don't mind, but Birchwood is not a bad example. Warrington North is a safe Labour seat, or used to be, like much of the North West its seen massive construction recently and its trended away from Labour as the share of owner occupier voters in the constituency has risen.
Just like the neighbouring constituency of Leigh. What you'd think of as Leigh is still just as grotty terraced homes as it always was, but its surrounded by new estates of semi-detached homes with gardens and driveways for 2 parking spaces each.
Drive around the new estates of Leigh, versus the old streets of Leigh, and its hardly a surprise voting levels have changed. The voting is changing not because people are suddenly fed up of Labour, but because Leigh itself, much of the North itself, is changing. The houses people are living in - and increasingly owning - are not the same homes that existed thirty years ago.
And constituencies that were predominantly owner occupied in the past, that are now unaffordable and NIMBYs are blocking construction, are seeing trends away from the Tories.
Its housing, stupid.
Again again, I hope your Tory friends go and argue your points on the doorstep. They will be annihilated.
I don't think Bart is presenting an argument why people in Warrington North or Leigh SHOULD vote Tory - he is saying that where there has been a long term shift to owner occupation, especially of new builds - such as Warrington North, Leigh, Blyth, Rother Valley, and dozens of others - there has been a long term shift to the Tories. This seems inarguable to me. I also agree with the implication that the Tories would be well served to try to maximise the number of owner occupiers.
Bingo. You've nailed it completely.
Essentially Britain votes by housing. Renters as a class tend to vote Labour. Owned outright tend to vote Tory. Owned with a mortgage, are the swing voters, who in recent years have voted Tory but in Blair's time voted Labour.
In much of the country renting has become more common, but in parts of the North owner occupiers have become more common due to vast amounts of new builds. That has meant more Tory voters, but since those voters have mortgages they're not safe Tory.
The idea that the North swung Tory because voters were pissed off and angry misses the transformation in housing that has happened. Drive around the North outside the cities, and yes if you're here you're driving to get around, and there has been major new housing developments and those developments lead to new owner occupiers which changes how people think about voting.
There have been suggestions of this voting-by-housing-tenure hypothesis before. It is interesting and believable, but I don't know of studies that examine it carefully. Do you?
I've seen many studies on it before, none to hand, but this excellent chart is in the article I linked to above and sums it up well.
The vast construction in the Red Wall, one of the only places in the country where there has been a semi-reasonable amount of construction, has led to home ownership rates here moving from Labour levels to Tory levels. The seats then swung accordingly.
Home ownership and GE2019 As in previous years, homeowners were more likely to vote Conservative in the 2019 election. According to Ipsos MORI’s figures, 57% of voters who owned their home outright voted Conservative, as did 43% of people with mortgages. By contrast, 45% of social renters and 46% of private renters voted Labour.
The 2011 Census tells us how many homeowners were in each constituency. At the time, around 64% of UK households owned their home, either outright or with a mortgage. 315 of the Conservatives’ 365 seats (86%) had home ownership levels above this average, compared with 53 of Labour’s 202 seats (26%). Nine of the Lib Dems’ 11 seats had above-average home ownership levels (82%).
86% above average ownership for Tories, 26% for Labour.
Home ownership is far and away what affects voting in this country. NIMBY scum like our Essicks Massiv that wants to invade Scotland, or the first son of Abraham, are doing their level best to discourage people from voting Tory.
That's a bit jarring, seeing "scum" affixed to NIMBYs. Don't think I've ever come across it before. Really quite unusual.
When the world owes you a 5 bed detached des res, waiting to collect can get to you.
Especially if deleting the pampering of Tory-approved standard nuclear families under the current IHT regulations, and imposing wealth tax on landed property, are active subjects for discussion to remedy the chaos of the last few years.
Only 9% of voters want IHT to rise, the lowest of any tax.
Though yes wealth taxes on million pound plus properties might not be too unpopular if Labour proposes them (outside of a few central London Labour target seats like Kensington and Cities of London and Westminster)
No, it says 9% of voters included inheritance tax in the top three taxes they want held constant.
Obviously people want taxes on other, higher-income people to go up, though they also love the public services those people pay for by building businesses in the UK or working in jobs that are created in the UK, so it's a bit of a bind.
Belgium has a big welfare state by taxing ordinary people at 30% from euro one. The average Brit wants to pay something like 10%, so of course they get less stuff from government.
So does Sweden have a big welfare state but also no inheritance tax at all.
There are also examples in Europe of lower tax, lower spend nations than the UK eg Switzerland
In fact, the main reason you are worried about IHT is that your Topry voters will be bribed with our money so they don't have to spend their own savings on looking after themselves. Using that purpose for savings is what ordinary self-respecting civilised non-selfish citizens used to.
Preserving property and inheritance is a core Tory value. Why should Tories care what non Tories like you think about it?
The reason the Tories survived the widening of the franchise is that they held out the promise to the rest of the population that they could also join the property-owning class, and so have assets that would need protecting from Socialists.
The danger from your attitude is that it narrows the base of people who would support Tories from a growing group who have assets and those who hope to have assets in the future, to only a declining share of the population who still have assets, and no-one else because they've all lost hope that it will be possible.
Rubbish, the majority of the population have assets and property and inheritances to pass on.
Yes we can expand property ownership by building more affordable housing in areas with high levels of renters like London, not reducing property ownership via higher IHT. We could also cut immigration to reduce pressure on housing
But not as much as 325K per person - let alone 500K under the Tory-pampering allowances.
Which hits average property owners across London and the Home Counties
'Levelling up' is dangerous ground for Sunak, given that video of him trumpeting unlevelling up the already high...
That’s not actually what he was saying in the video. But Labour had artfully cut the video to mislead.
He was saying that all deprived areas need support - including deprived rural areas in Kent - not just deprived urban areas
The problem was not him rightly pointing to pockets of deprived rural areas. The probem was that he claimed he had taken money from genuinely shonky areas in the north to give to pockets of deprived rural areas.
Nobody is denying that rural places can't hide poverty. But you can't divert money from places already promised the cash. Or in practice what it's meant is that money has gone to posh Tory areas to sort the small bit that isn't quite as posh as the rest whilst the scum area gets little or nothing.
Stockton on Tees seeing levelling up money spent in Yarm as a prime example. Yes, there are bits of Yarm not as nice as the rest. But relatively these areas are fine - certainly a lot better than chunks of town centre or Newtown wards.
Why do the Tories still have a minister for levelling up? Bottom line up front, Boris Johnson’s glib election promise “we will level up” is undeliverable bollocks.
Once you fathom out the impossible to fathom out “what exactly does it mean? Level up the north to the level of the south? But bits of the south are just as run down as bits of the north and vice versa? And switch to how to do it anyway to delivery something at least, even though you don’t really understand what it means, you realise it’s not about funnelling existing money from this to that, you will just end up hated and stuck in the 20s in the polling, it has to be new money, given to deserving places, fairly, and so that Tiverton in Blue Wall can’t get upset they are just as deserving and being cheated.
After all that, are you now levelling up? Of course not, because it is just pretend the ancient mismatch in scale and wealth between London and the secondary cities their regions can ever be levelled, it always was empty unachievable Johnsonian electioneering bollocks.
Why? Because: (a) Red Wall voters have noticed they are still relatively / actually poor (b) Brexit promised them resources and riches (c) Tories promised them definitely resources and riches (d) They won't take no for an answer
Either this government produces a rabbit out of the hat or the Tory 2019 first timers depart.
(A) is wrong.
Red Wall Tory voters are typically home owners, not impoverished people awaiting resources and riches.
Thanks to the relatively huge success in building new homes up here, compared to the rest of the country, the Red Wall has seen much more people getting on the property ladder rather than the reverse happening as in much of the country.
That's the real reason the non-metropolitan North has been swinging Tory while the South is swinging against the Tories. Because voters here have their own deeds to their very own Barratt Home and similar, rather than rental bills.
(a) is not wrong. A is the reason why we have seen a clearout of Labour councils and Labour MPs in Labour since the Danelaw areas. Try living in the red wall for a while and you will see what they are so upset about./
Incidentally, it wouldn't be a good idea for the Tories to listen to you. Telling people that their lived experience is wrong never works.
Try living in the red wall for a while? Excuse me, I do live in the Red Wall, you don't.
There is new housing estates all over the place. You know, all those homes you keep complaining about because you want to excuse the NIMBY scum? All those new homes have voters.
The Red Wall fell because of construction, because the likes of Barratt etc got people on the property ladder, NOT because poor people suddenly became fed up of Labour not doing anything for them.
You're in Birchwood aren't you? Cheshire daaaaarling.
I've moved around a bit, I'd rather not say where I live if you don't mind, but Birchwood is not a bad example. Warrington North is a safe Labour seat, or used to be, like much of the North West its seen massive construction recently and its trended away from Labour as the share of owner occupier voters in the constituency has risen.
Just like the neighbouring constituency of Leigh. What you'd think of as Leigh is still just as grotty terraced homes as it always was, but its surrounded by new estates of semi-detached homes with gardens and driveways for 2 parking spaces each.
Drive around the new estates of Leigh, versus the old streets of Leigh, and its hardly a surprise voting levels have changed. The voting is changing not because people are suddenly fed up of Labour, but because Leigh itself, much of the North itself, is changing. The houses people are living in - and increasingly owning - are not the same homes that existed thirty years ago.
And constituencies that were predominantly owner occupied in the past, that are now unaffordable and NIMBYs are blocking construction, are seeing trends away from the Tories.
Its housing, stupid.
Again again, I hope your Tory friends go and argue your points on the doorstep. They will be annihilated.
I don't think Bart is presenting an argument why people in Warrington North or Leigh SHOULD vote Tory - he is saying that where there has been a long term shift to owner occupation, especially of new builds - such as Warrington North, Leigh, Blyth, Rother Valley, and dozens of others - there has been a long term shift to the Tories. This seems inarguable to me. I also agree with the implication that the Tories would be well served to try to maximise the number of owner occupiers.
Bingo. You've nailed it completely.
Essentially Britain votes by housing. Renters as a class tend to vote Labour. Owned outright tend to vote Tory. Owned with a mortgage, are the swing voters, who in recent years have voted Tory but in Blair's time voted Labour.
In much of the country renting has become more common, but in parts of the North owner occupiers have become more common due to vast amounts of new builds. That has meant more Tory voters, but since those voters have mortgages they're not safe Tory.
The idea that the North swung Tory because voters were pissed off and angry misses the transformation in housing that has happened. Drive around the North outside the cities, and yes if you're here you're driving to get around, and there has been major new housing developments and those developments lead to new owner occupiers which changes how people think about voting.
There have been suggestions of this voting-by-housing-tenure hypothesis before. It is interesting and believable, but I don't know of studies that examine it carefully. Do you?
I've seen many studies on it before, none to hand, but this excellent chart is in the article I linked to above and sums it up well.
The vast construction in the Red Wall, one of the only places in the country where there has been a semi-reasonable amount of construction, has led to home ownership rates here moving from Labour levels to Tory levels. The seats then swung accordingly.
Home ownership and GE2019 As in previous years, homeowners were more likely to vote Conservative in the 2019 election. According to Ipsos MORI’s figures, 57% of voters who owned their home outright voted Conservative, as did 43% of people with mortgages. By contrast, 45% of social renters and 46% of private renters voted Labour.
The 2011 Census tells us how many homeowners were in each constituency. At the time, around 64% of UK households owned their home, either outright or with a mortgage. 315 of the Conservatives’ 365 seats (86%) had home ownership levels above this average, compared with 53 of Labour’s 202 seats (26%). Nine of the Lib Dems’ 11 seats had above-average home ownership levels (82%).
86% above average ownership for Tories, 26% for Labour.
Home ownership is far and away what affects voting in this country. NIMBY scum like our Essicks Massiv that wants to invade Scotland, or the first son of Abraham, are doing their level best to discourage people from voting Tory.
That's a bit jarring, seeing "scum" affixed to NIMBYs. Don't think I've ever come across it before. Really quite unusual.
When the world owes you a 5 bed detached des res, waiting to collect can get to you.
Especially if deleting the pampering of Tory-approved standard nuclear families under the current IHT regulations, and imposing wealth tax on landed property, are active subjects for discussion to remedy the chaos of the last few years.
Only 9% of voters want IHT to rise, the lowest of any tax.
Though yes wealth taxes on million pound plus properties might not be too unpopular if Labour proposes them (outside of a few central London Labour target seats like Kensington and Cities of London and Westminster)
No, it says 9% of voters included inheritance tax in the top three taxes they want held constant.
Obviously people want taxes on other, higher-income people to go up, though they also love the public services those people pay for by building businesses in the UK or working in jobs that are created in the UK, so it's a bit of a bind.
Belgium has a big welfare state by taxing ordinary people at 30% from euro one. The average Brit wants to pay something like 10%, so of course they get less stuff from government.
So does Sweden have a big welfare state but also no inheritance tax at all.
There are also examples in Europe of lower tax, lower spend nations than the UK eg Switzerland
In fact, the main reason you are worried about IHT is that your Topry voters will be bribed with our money so they don't have to spend their own savings on looking after themselves. Using that purpose for savings is what ordinary self-respecting civilised non-selfish citizens used to.
Preserving property and inheritance is a core Tory value. Why should Tories care what non Tories like you think about it?
Because you're deliberately parasitising on most of society, which don't have enough to leave to get to the 325K limit [edit] and will not get anywhere where they have to worry abotu the Special Allowance For Publicly Subsidising Tory Voting Sponging Pensioners And Their Greedy Offspring.
In London the average sold property price is £740,597, in Surrey the average house price is £620,686, so it is not just the rich but average voters in London and the Home Counties hit by higher IHT
No they are not. The effective IHT rate for couples leaving a property to their children is £1m.
For now thanks to Osborne's IHT cut, Carnyx wants to reverse that, that is the WHOLE point!!
So will tens of millions of others. We're not all obsessed with funding elderly Tory voters at the expense of everyone else.
Their children benefit too of course, Tories should care about their core vote first, you worry about your core vote ie those renting and in the public sector
Their children can work for a living too instead of agonising about when Daddy pops his clogs? There was a time when that was the absolute bedrock of Tory doctrine.
Get a job and work for a living is absolutely the bedrock of Toryism that I know and appreciate.
HYUFDs twisted "principles" are nothing of the sort. Thankfully other Tories on this site are more grounded in ethics.
'Levelling up' is dangerous ground for Sunak, given that video of him trumpeting unlevelling up the already high...
That’s not actually what he was saying in the video. But Labour had artfully cut the video to mislead.
He was saying that all deprived areas need support - including deprived rural areas in Kent - not just deprived urban areas
The problem was not him rightly pointing to pockets of deprived rural areas. The probem was that he claimed he had taken money from genuinely shonky areas in the north to give to pockets of deprived rural areas.
Nobody is denying that rural places can't hide poverty. But you can't divert money from places already promised the cash. Or in practice what it's meant is that money has gone to posh Tory areas to sort the small bit that isn't quite as posh as the rest whilst the scum area gets little or nothing.
Stockton on Tees seeing levelling up money spent in Yarm as a prime example. Yes, there are bits of Yarm not as nice as the rest. But relatively these areas are fine - certainly a lot better than chunks of town centre or Newtown wards.
Why do the Tories still have a minister for levelling up? Bottom line up front, Boris Johnson’s glib election promise “we will level up” is undeliverable bollocks.
Once you fathom out the impossible to fathom out “what exactly does it mean? Level up the north to the level of the south? But bits of the south are just as run down as bits of the north and vice versa? And switch to how to do it anyway to delivery something at least, even though you don’t really understand what it means, you realise it’s not about funnelling existing money from this to that, you will just end up hated and stuck in the 20s in the polling, it has to be new money, given to deserving places, fairly, and so that Tiverton in Blue Wall can’t get upset they are just as deserving and being cheated.
After all that, are you now levelling up? Of course not, because it is just pretend the ancient mismatch in scale and wealth between London and the secondary cities their regions can ever be levelled, it always was empty unachievable Johnsonian electioneering bollocks.
Why? Because: (a) Red Wall voters have noticed they are still relatively / actually poor (b) Brexit promised them resources and riches (c) Tories promised them definitely resources and riches (d) They won't take no for an answer
Either this government produces a rabbit out of the hat or the Tory 2019 first timers depart.
(A) is wrong.
Red Wall Tory voters are typically home owners, not impoverished people awaiting resources and riches.
Thanks to the relatively huge success in building new homes up here, compared to the rest of the country, the Red Wall has seen much more people getting on the property ladder rather than the reverse happening as in much of the country.
That's the real reason the non-metropolitan North has been swinging Tory while the South is swinging against the Tories. Because voters here have their own deeds to their very own Barratt Home and similar, rather than rental bills.
(a) is not wrong. A is the reason why we have seen a clearout of Labour councils and Labour MPs in Labour since the Danelaw areas. Try living in the red wall for a while and you will see what they are so upset about./
Incidentally, it wouldn't be a good idea for the Tories to listen to you. Telling people that their lived experience is wrong never works.
Try living in the red wall for a while? Excuse me, I do live in the Red Wall, you don't.
There is new housing estates all over the place. You know, all those homes you keep complaining about because you want to excuse the NIMBY scum? All those new homes have voters.
The Red Wall fell because of construction, because the likes of Barratt etc got people on the property ladder, NOT because poor people suddenly became fed up of Labour not doing anything for them.
You're in Birchwood aren't you? Cheshire daaaaarling.
I've moved around a bit, I'd rather not say where I live if you don't mind, but Birchwood is not a bad example. Warrington North is a safe Labour seat, or used to be, like much of the North West its seen massive construction recently and its trended away from Labour as the share of owner occupier voters in the constituency has risen.
Just like the neighbouring constituency of Leigh. What you'd think of as Leigh is still just as grotty terraced homes as it always was, but its surrounded by new estates of semi-detached homes with gardens and driveways for 2 parking spaces each.
Drive around the new estates of Leigh, versus the old streets of Leigh, and its hardly a surprise voting levels have changed. The voting is changing not because people are suddenly fed up of Labour, but because Leigh itself, much of the North itself, is changing. The houses people are living in - and increasingly owning - are not the same homes that existed thirty years ago.
And constituencies that were predominantly owner occupied in the past, that are now unaffordable and NIMBYs are blocking construction, are seeing trends away from the Tories.
Its housing, stupid.
Again again, I hope your Tory friends go and argue your points on the doorstep. They will be annihilated.
I don't think Bart is presenting an argument why people in Warrington North or Leigh SHOULD vote Tory - he is saying that where there has been a long term shift to owner occupation, especially of new builds - such as Warrington North, Leigh, Blyth, Rother Valley, and dozens of others - there has been a long term shift to the Tories. This seems inarguable to me. I also agree with the implication that the Tories would be well served to try to maximise the number of owner occupiers.
Bingo. You've nailed it completely.
Essentially Britain votes by housing. Renters as a class tend to vote Labour. Owned outright tend to vote Tory. Owned with a mortgage, are the swing voters, who in recent years have voted Tory but in Blair's time voted Labour.
In much of the country renting has become more common, but in parts of the North owner occupiers have become more common due to vast amounts of new builds. That has meant more Tory voters, but since those voters have mortgages they're not safe Tory.
The idea that the North swung Tory because voters were pissed off and angry misses the transformation in housing that has happened. Drive around the North outside the cities, and yes if you're here you're driving to get around, and there has been major new housing developments and those developments lead to new owner occupiers which changes how people think about voting.
There have been suggestions of this voting-by-housing-tenure hypothesis before. It is interesting and believable, but I don't know of studies that examine it carefully. Do you?
I've seen many studies on it before, none to hand, but this excellent chart is in the article I linked to above and sums it up well.
The vast construction in the Red Wall, one of the only places in the country where there has been a semi-reasonable amount of construction, has led to home ownership rates here moving from Labour levels to Tory levels. The seats then swung accordingly.
Home ownership and GE2019 As in previous years, homeowners were more likely to vote Conservative in the 2019 election. According to Ipsos MORI’s figures, 57% of voters who owned their home outright voted Conservative, as did 43% of people with mortgages. By contrast, 45% of social renters and 46% of private renters voted Labour.
The 2011 Census tells us how many homeowners were in each constituency. At the time, around 64% of UK households owned their home, either outright or with a mortgage. 315 of the Conservatives’ 365 seats (86%) had home ownership levels above this average, compared with 53 of Labour’s 202 seats (26%). Nine of the Lib Dems’ 11 seats had above-average home ownership levels (82%).
86% above average ownership for Tories, 26% for Labour.
Home ownership is far and away what affects voting in this country. NIMBY scum like our Essicks Massiv that wants to invade Scotland, or the first son of Abraham, are doing their level best to discourage people from voting Tory.
That's a bit jarring, seeing "scum" affixed to NIMBYs. Don't think I've ever come across it before. Really quite unusual.
When the world owes you a 5 bed detached des res, waiting to collect can get to you.
Especially if deleting the pampering of Tory-approved standard nuclear families under the current IHT regulations, and imposing wealth tax on landed property, are active subjects for discussion to remedy the chaos of the last few years.
Only 9% of voters want IHT to rise, the lowest of any tax.
Though yes wealth taxes on million pound plus properties might not be too unpopular if Labour proposes them (outside of a few central London Labour target seats like Kensington and Cities of London and Westminster)
No, it says 9% of voters included inheritance tax in the top three taxes they want held constant.
Obviously people want taxes on other, higher-income people to go up, though they also love the public services those people pay for by building businesses in the UK or working in jobs that are created in the UK, so it's a bit of a bind.
Belgium has a big welfare state by taxing ordinary people at 30% from euro one. The average Brit wants to pay something like 10%, so of course they get less stuff from government.
So does Sweden have a big welfare state but also no inheritance tax at all.
There are also examples in Europe of lower tax, lower spend nations than the UK eg Switzerland
In fact, the main reason you are worried about IHT is that your Topry voters will be bribed with our money so they don't have to spend their own savings on looking after themselves. Using that purpose for savings is what ordinary self-respecting civilised non-selfish citizens used to.
Preserving property and inheritance is a core Tory value. Why should Tories care what non Tories like you think about it?
Because you're deliberately parasitising on most of society, which don't have enough to leave to get to the 325K limit [edit] and will not get anywhere where they have to worry abotu the Special Allowance For Publicly Subsidising Tory Voting Sponging Pensioners And Their Greedy Offspring.
In London the average sold property price is £740,597, in Surrey the average house price is £620,686, so it is not just the rich but average voters in London and the Home Counties hit by higher IHT
No they are not. The effective IHT rate for couples leaving a property to their children is £1m.
This is correct as long as you organise it correctly, with legal advice as necessary, as long as the property is worth £350,000 (or more). In much of the north of England £1m still counts as having a few bob.
The other thing is that for the wealthy IHT is in many cases incredibly avoidable by various means including having money in certain exempt assets, and by handing stuff over with impeccable timing. It is this fact, it seems to me, which makes the £1m (effective) threshold in many ordinary cases not unreasonable.
Land, probate, tax and wills lawyers do OK out of this, which is fine as they too have starving and indigent wives and children all wanting new top hats and bonnets for Easter out of their over taxed, meagre stipends.
'Levelling up' is dangerous ground for Sunak, given that video of him trumpeting unlevelling up the already high...
That’s not actually what he was saying in the video. But Labour had artfully cut the video to mislead.
He was saying that all deprived areas need support - including deprived rural areas in Kent - not just deprived urban areas
The problem was not him rightly pointing to pockets of deprived rural areas. The probem was that he claimed he had taken money from genuinely shonky areas in the north to give to pockets of deprived rural areas.
Nobody is denying that rural places can't hide poverty. But you can't divert money from places already promised the cash. Or in practice what it's meant is that money has gone to posh Tory areas to sort the small bit that isn't quite as posh as the rest whilst the scum area gets little or nothing.
Stockton on Tees seeing levelling up money spent in Yarm as a prime example. Yes, there are bits of Yarm not as nice as the rest. But relatively these areas are fine - certainly a lot better than chunks of town centre or Newtown wards.
Why do the Tories still have a minister for levelling up? Bottom line up front, Boris Johnson’s glib election promise “we will level up” is undeliverable bollocks.
Once you fathom out the impossible to fathom out “what exactly does it mean? Level up the north to the level of the south? But bits of the south are just as run down as bits of the north and vice versa? And switch to how to do it anyway to delivery something at least, even though you don’t really understand what it means, you realise it’s not about funnelling existing money from this to that, you will just end up hated and stuck in the 20s in the polling, it has to be new money, given to deserving places, fairly, and so that Tiverton in Blue Wall can’t get upset they are just as deserving and being cheated.
After all that, are you now levelling up? Of course not, because it is just pretend the ancient mismatch in scale and wealth between London and the secondary cities their regions can ever be levelled, it always was empty unachievable Johnsonian electioneering bollocks.
Why? Because: (a) Red Wall voters have noticed they are still relatively / actually poor (b) Brexit promised them resources and riches (c) Tories promised them definitely resources and riches (d) They won't take no for an answer
Either this government produces a rabbit out of the hat or the Tory 2019 first timers depart.
(A) is wrong.
Red Wall Tory voters are typically home owners, not impoverished people awaiting resources and riches.
Thanks to the relatively huge success in building new homes up here, compared to the rest of the country, the Red Wall has seen much more people getting on the property ladder rather than the reverse happening as in much of the country.
That's the real reason the non-metropolitan North has been swinging Tory while the South is swinging against the Tories. Because voters here have their own deeds to their very own Barratt Home and similar, rather than rental bills.
(a) is not wrong. A is the reason why we have seen a clearout of Labour councils and Labour MPs in Labour since the Danelaw areas. Try living in the red wall for a while and you will see what they are so upset about./
Incidentally, it wouldn't be a good idea for the Tories to listen to you. Telling people that their lived experience is wrong never works.
Try living in the red wall for a while? Excuse me, I do live in the Red Wall, you don't.
There is new housing estates all over the place. You know, all those homes you keep complaining about because you want to excuse the NIMBY scum? All those new homes have voters.
The Red Wall fell because of construction, because the likes of Barratt etc got people on the property ladder, NOT because poor people suddenly became fed up of Labour not doing anything for them.
You're in Birchwood aren't you? Cheshire daaaaarling.
I've moved around a bit, I'd rather not say where I live if you don't mind, but Birchwood is not a bad example. Warrington North is a safe Labour seat, or used to be, like much of the North West its seen massive construction recently and its trended away from Labour as the share of owner occupier voters in the constituency has risen.
Just like the neighbouring constituency of Leigh. What you'd think of as Leigh is still just as grotty terraced homes as it always was, but its surrounded by new estates of semi-detached homes with gardens and driveways for 2 parking spaces each.
Drive around the new estates of Leigh, versus the old streets of Leigh, and its hardly a surprise voting levels have changed. The voting is changing not because people are suddenly fed up of Labour, but because Leigh itself, much of the North itself, is changing. The houses people are living in - and increasingly owning - are not the same homes that existed thirty years ago.
And constituencies that were predominantly owner occupied in the past, that are now unaffordable and NIMBYs are blocking construction, are seeing trends away from the Tories.
Its housing, stupid.
Again again, I hope your Tory friends go and argue your points on the doorstep. They will be annihilated.
I don't think Bart is presenting an argument why people in Warrington North or Leigh SHOULD vote Tory - he is saying that where there has been a long term shift to owner occupation, especially of new builds - such as Warrington North, Leigh, Blyth, Rother Valley, and dozens of others - there has been a long term shift to the Tories. This seems inarguable to me. I also agree with the implication that the Tories would be well served to try to maximise the number of owner occupiers.
Bingo. You've nailed it completely.
Essentially Britain votes by housing. Renters as a class tend to vote Labour. Owned outright tend to vote Tory. Owned with a mortgage, are the swing voters, who in recent years have voted Tory but in Blair's time voted Labour.
In much of the country renting has become more common, but in parts of the North owner occupiers have become more common due to vast amounts of new builds. That has meant more Tory voters, but since those voters have mortgages they're not safe Tory.
The idea that the North swung Tory because voters were pissed off and angry misses the transformation in housing that has happened. Drive around the North outside the cities, and yes if you're here you're driving to get around, and there has been major new housing developments and those developments lead to new owner occupiers which changes how people think about voting.
There have been suggestions of this voting-by-housing-tenure hypothesis before. It is interesting and believable, but I don't know of studies that examine it carefully. Do you?
I've seen many studies on it before, none to hand, but this excellent chart is in the article I linked to above and sums it up well.
The vast construction in the Red Wall, one of the only places in the country where there has been a semi-reasonable amount of construction, has led to home ownership rates here moving from Labour levels to Tory levels. The seats then swung accordingly.
Home ownership and GE2019 As in previous years, homeowners were more likely to vote Conservative in the 2019 election. According to Ipsos MORI’s figures, 57% of voters who owned their home outright voted Conservative, as did 43% of people with mortgages. By contrast, 45% of social renters and 46% of private renters voted Labour.
The 2011 Census tells us how many homeowners were in each constituency. At the time, around 64% of UK households owned their home, either outright or with a mortgage. 315 of the Conservatives’ 365 seats (86%) had home ownership levels above this average, compared with 53 of Labour’s 202 seats (26%). Nine of the Lib Dems’ 11 seats had above-average home ownership levels (82%).
86% above average ownership for Tories, 26% for Labour.
Home ownership is far and away what affects voting in this country. NIMBY scum like our Essicks Massiv that wants to invade Scotland, or the first son of Abraham, are doing their level best to discourage people from voting Tory.
So 82% of LD seats have above average home ownership levels too.
Yes we need more affordable housing, especially in brownbelt areas of London where home ownership is at its lowest and Labour has gained lots of former Conservative seats.
Build all over the greenbelt however and you will see lots of formerly safe Conservative seats like Chesham and Amersham go Liberal Democrat
You say that like its a bad thing.
Better to have people engaged in society and able to have their own home, even if some vote Lib Dem, than unable to afford their own home and voting to tear down society by voting for Labour.
No, we don't want to build all over our greenbelt when the Home Counties already have a 70% owner occupier rate anyway and are largely safe Tory just to send voters to the LDs.
London with only 50% owner occupier rate and lots of Labour seats and Tory marginals vulnerable to Labour does certainly need more affordable homes to buy, the South East less so
London is a part of the South East. If people working in London are going to have semi detached homes and gardens, the place to do so, is in the South East.
A very large proportion of people living in the SE outside of London already do work in London. That's generally for those who have a home, how they can afford to pay for it, so no pulling up the ladder after you and saying "you're not my problem, piss off and don't get a home near me" is not a solution.
London is NOT a part of the South East. People used to regularly be able to afford to buy a semi detached in suburban London on average incomes if they worked in the capital, they can't now. That needs more properties being built in outer London, not concreting all over the Home Counties greenbelt.
70% in the Home Counties outside London by contrast still own a property, the highest percentage of any UK region
London is a part of the South East. Places like Woking, Guildford etc are commuter belts to London and not remotely divorced from it.
'Levelling up' is dangerous ground for Sunak, given that video of him trumpeting unlevelling up the already high...
That’s not actually what he was saying in the video. But Labour had artfully cut the video to mislead.
He was saying that all deprived areas need support - including deprived rural areas in Kent - not just deprived urban areas
The problem was not him rightly pointing to pockets of deprived rural areas. The probem was that he claimed he had taken money from genuinely shonky areas in the north to give to pockets of deprived rural areas.
Nobody is denying that rural places can't hide poverty. But you can't divert money from places already promised the cash. Or in practice what it's meant is that money has gone to posh Tory areas to sort the small bit that isn't quite as posh as the rest whilst the scum area gets little or nothing.
Stockton on Tees seeing levelling up money spent in Yarm as a prime example. Yes, there are bits of Yarm not as nice as the rest. But relatively these areas are fine - certainly a lot better than chunks of town centre or Newtown wards.
Why do the Tories still have a minister for levelling up? Bottom line up front, Boris Johnson’s glib election promise “we will level up” is undeliverable bollocks.
Once you fathom out the impossible to fathom out “what exactly does it mean? Level up the north to the level of the south? But bits of the south are just as run down as bits of the north and vice versa? And switch to how to do it anyway to delivery something at least, even though you don’t really understand what it means, you realise it’s not about funnelling existing money from this to that, you will just end up hated and stuck in the 20s in the polling, it has to be new money, given to deserving places, fairly, and so that Tiverton in Blue Wall can’t get upset they are just as deserving and being cheated.
After all that, are you now levelling up? Of course not, because it is just pretend the ancient mismatch in scale and wealth between London and the secondary cities their regions can ever be levelled, it always was empty unachievable Johnsonian electioneering bollocks.
Why? Because: (a) Red Wall voters have noticed they are still relatively / actually poor (b) Brexit promised them resources and riches (c) Tories promised them definitely resources and riches (d) They won't take no for an answer
Either this government produces a rabbit out of the hat or the Tory 2019 first timers depart.
(A) is wrong.
Red Wall Tory voters are typically home owners, not impoverished people awaiting resources and riches.
Thanks to the relatively huge success in building new homes up here, compared to the rest of the country, the Red Wall has seen much more people getting on the property ladder rather than the reverse happening as in much of the country.
That's the real reason the non-metropolitan North has been swinging Tory while the South is swinging against the Tories. Because voters here have their own deeds to their very own Barratt Home and similar, rather than rental bills.
(a) is not wrong. A is the reason why we have seen a clearout of Labour councils and Labour MPs in Labour since the Danelaw areas. Try living in the red wall for a while and you will see what they are so upset about./
Incidentally, it wouldn't be a good idea for the Tories to listen to you. Telling people that their lived experience is wrong never works.
Try living in the red wall for a while? Excuse me, I do live in the Red Wall, you don't.
There is new housing estates all over the place. You know, all those homes you keep complaining about because you want to excuse the NIMBY scum? All those new homes have voters.
The Red Wall fell because of construction, because the likes of Barratt etc got people on the property ladder, NOT because poor people suddenly became fed up of Labour not doing anything for them.
You're in Birchwood aren't you? Cheshire daaaaarling.
I've moved around a bit, I'd rather not say where I live if you don't mind, but Birchwood is not a bad example. Warrington North is a safe Labour seat, or used to be, like much of the North West its seen massive construction recently and its trended away from Labour as the share of owner occupier voters in the constituency has risen.
Just like the neighbouring constituency of Leigh. What you'd think of as Leigh is still just as grotty terraced homes as it always was, but its surrounded by new estates of semi-detached homes with gardens and driveways for 2 parking spaces each.
Drive around the new estates of Leigh, versus the old streets of Leigh, and its hardly a surprise voting levels have changed. The voting is changing not because people are suddenly fed up of Labour, but because Leigh itself, much of the North itself, is changing. The houses people are living in - and increasingly owning - are not the same homes that existed thirty years ago.
And constituencies that were predominantly owner occupied in the past, that are now unaffordable and NIMBYs are blocking construction, are seeing trends away from the Tories.
Its housing, stupid.
Again again, I hope your Tory friends go and argue your points on the doorstep. They will be annihilated.
I don't think Bart is presenting an argument why people in Warrington North or Leigh SHOULD vote Tory - he is saying that where there has been a long term shift to owner occupation, especially of new builds - such as Warrington North, Leigh, Blyth, Rother Valley, and dozens of others - there has been a long term shift to the Tories. This seems inarguable to me. I also agree with the implication that the Tories would be well served to try to maximise the number of owner occupiers.
Bingo. You've nailed it completely.
Essentially Britain votes by housing. Renters as a class tend to vote Labour. Owned outright tend to vote Tory. Owned with a mortgage, are the swing voters, who in recent years have voted Tory but in Blair's time voted Labour.
In much of the country renting has become more common, but in parts of the North owner occupiers have become more common due to vast amounts of new builds. That has meant more Tory voters, but since those voters have mortgages they're not safe Tory.
The idea that the North swung Tory because voters were pissed off and angry misses the transformation in housing that has happened. Drive around the North outside the cities, and yes if you're here you're driving to get around, and there has been major new housing developments and those developments lead to new owner occupiers which changes how people think about voting.
There have been suggestions of this voting-by-housing-tenure hypothesis before. It is interesting and believable, but I don't know of studies that examine it carefully. Do you?
I've seen many studies on it before, none to hand, but this excellent chart is in the article I linked to above and sums it up well.
The vast construction in the Red Wall, one of the only places in the country where there has been a semi-reasonable amount of construction, has led to home ownership rates here moving from Labour levels to Tory levels. The seats then swung accordingly.
Home ownership and GE2019 As in previous years, homeowners were more likely to vote Conservative in the 2019 election. According to Ipsos MORI’s figures, 57% of voters who owned their home outright voted Conservative, as did 43% of people with mortgages. By contrast, 45% of social renters and 46% of private renters voted Labour.
The 2011 Census tells us how many homeowners were in each constituency. At the time, around 64% of UK households owned their home, either outright or with a mortgage. 315 of the Conservatives’ 365 seats (86%) had home ownership levels above this average, compared with 53 of Labour’s 202 seats (26%). Nine of the Lib Dems’ 11 seats had above-average home ownership levels (82%).
86% above average ownership for Tories, 26% for Labour.
Home ownership is far and away what affects voting in this country. NIMBY scum like our Essicks Massiv that wants to invade Scotland, or the first son of Abraham, are doing their level best to discourage people from voting Tory.
That's a bit jarring, seeing "scum" affixed to NIMBYs. Don't think I've ever come across it before. Really quite unusual.
When the world owes you a 5 bed detached des res, waiting to collect can get to you.
Especially if deleting the pampering of Tory-approved standard nuclear families under the current IHT regulations, and imposing wealth tax on landed property, are active subjects for discussion to remedy the chaos of the last few years.
Only 9% of voters want IHT to rise, the lowest of any tax.
Though yes wealth taxes on million pound plus properties might not be too unpopular if Labour proposes them (outside of a few central London Labour target seats like Kensington and Cities of London and Westminster)
No, it says 9% of voters included inheritance tax in the top three taxes they want held constant.
Obviously people want taxes on other, higher-income people to go up, though they also love the public services those people pay for by building businesses in the UK or working in jobs that are created in the UK, so it's a bit of a bind.
Belgium has a big welfare state by taxing ordinary people at 30% from euro one. The average Brit wants to pay something like 10%, so of course they get less stuff from government.
So does Sweden have a big welfare state but also no inheritance tax at all.
There are also examples in Europe of lower tax, lower spend nations than the UK eg Switzerland
In fact, the main reason you are worried about IHT is that your Topry voters will be bribed with our money so they don't have to spend their own savings on looking after themselves. Using that purpose for savings is what ordinary self-respecting civilised non-selfish citizens used to.
Preserving property and inheritance is a core Tory value. Why should Tories care what non Tories like you think about it?
Because you're deliberately parasitising on most of society, which don't have enough to leave to get to the 325K limit [edit] and will not get anywhere where they have to worry abotu the Special Allowance For Publicly Subsidising Tory Voting Sponging Pensioners And Their Greedy Offspring.
In London the average sold property price is £740,597, in Surrey the average house price is £620,686, so it is not just the rich but average voters in London and the Home Counties hit by higher IHT
No they are not. The effective IHT rate for couples leaving a property to their children is £1m.
For now thanks to Osborne's IHT cut, Carnyx wants to reverse that, that is the WHOLE point!!
So will tens of millions of others. We're not all obsessed with funding elderly Tory voters at the expense of everyone else.
Their children benefit too of course, Tories should care about their core vote first, you worry about your core vote ie those renting and in the public sector
Their children can work for a living too instead of agonising about when Daddy pops his clogs? There was a time when that was the absolute bedrock of Tory doctrine.
No, that is classical liberalism, which admittedly was absorbed into the Conservative Party to keep out Socialism and Labour but is not core Toryism, which is preservation of Crown, tradition and inherited wealth
'Levelling up' is dangerous ground for Sunak, given that video of him trumpeting unlevelling up the already high...
That’s not actually what he was saying in the video. But Labour had artfully cut the video to mislead.
He was saying that all deprived areas need support - including deprived rural areas in Kent - not just deprived urban areas
The problem was not him rightly pointing to pockets of deprived rural areas. The probem was that he claimed he had taken money from genuinely shonky areas in the north to give to pockets of deprived rural areas.
Nobody is denying that rural places can't hide poverty. But you can't divert money from places already promised the cash. Or in practice what it's meant is that money has gone to posh Tory areas to sort the small bit that isn't quite as posh as the rest whilst the scum area gets little or nothing.
Stockton on Tees seeing levelling up money spent in Yarm as a prime example. Yes, there are bits of Yarm not as nice as the rest. But relatively these areas are fine - certainly a lot better than chunks of town centre or Newtown wards.
Why do the Tories still have a minister for levelling up? Bottom line up front, Boris Johnson’s glib election promise “we will level up” is undeliverable bollocks.
Once you fathom out the impossible to fathom out “what exactly does it mean? Level up the north to the level of the south? But bits of the south are just as run down as bits of the north and vice versa? And switch to how to do it anyway to delivery something at least, even though you don’t really understand what it means, you realise it’s not about funnelling existing money from this to that, you will just end up hated and stuck in the 20s in the polling, it has to be new money, given to deserving places, fairly, and so that Tiverton in Blue Wall can’t get upset they are just as deserving and being cheated.
After all that, are you now levelling up? Of course not, because it is just pretend the ancient mismatch in scale and wealth between London and the secondary cities their regions can ever be levelled, it always was empty unachievable Johnsonian electioneering bollocks.
Why? Because: (a) Red Wall voters have noticed they are still relatively / actually poor (b) Brexit promised them resources and riches (c) Tories promised them definitely resources and riches (d) They won't take no for an answer
Either this government produces a rabbit out of the hat or the Tory 2019 first timers depart.
(A) is wrong.
Red Wall Tory voters are typically home owners, not impoverished people awaiting resources and riches.
Thanks to the relatively huge success in building new homes up here, compared to the rest of the country, the Red Wall has seen much more people getting on the property ladder rather than the reverse happening as in much of the country.
That's the real reason the non-metropolitan North has been swinging Tory while the South is swinging against the Tories. Because voters here have their own deeds to their very own Barratt Home and similar, rather than rental bills.
(a) is not wrong. A is the reason why we have seen a clearout of Labour councils and Labour MPs in Labour since the Danelaw areas. Try living in the red wall for a while and you will see what they are so upset about./
Incidentally, it wouldn't be a good idea for the Tories to listen to you. Telling people that their lived experience is wrong never works.
Try living in the red wall for a while? Excuse me, I do live in the Red Wall, you don't.
There is new housing estates all over the place. You know, all those homes you keep complaining about because you want to excuse the NIMBY scum? All those new homes have voters.
The Red Wall fell because of construction, because the likes of Barratt etc got people on the property ladder, NOT because poor people suddenly became fed up of Labour not doing anything for them.
You're in Birchwood aren't you? Cheshire daaaaarling.
I've moved around a bit, I'd rather not say where I live if you don't mind, but Birchwood is not a bad example. Warrington North is a safe Labour seat, or used to be, like much of the North West its seen massive construction recently and its trended away from Labour as the share of owner occupier voters in the constituency has risen.
Just like the neighbouring constituency of Leigh. What you'd think of as Leigh is still just as grotty terraced homes as it always was, but its surrounded by new estates of semi-detached homes with gardens and driveways for 2 parking spaces each.
Drive around the new estates of Leigh, versus the old streets of Leigh, and its hardly a surprise voting levels have changed. The voting is changing not because people are suddenly fed up of Labour, but because Leigh itself, much of the North itself, is changing. The houses people are living in - and increasingly owning - are not the same homes that existed thirty years ago.
And constituencies that were predominantly owner occupied in the past, that are now unaffordable and NIMBYs are blocking construction, are seeing trends away from the Tories.
Its housing, stupid.
Again again, I hope your Tory friends go and argue your points on the doorstep. They will be annihilated.
I don't think Bart is presenting an argument why people in Warrington North or Leigh SHOULD vote Tory - he is saying that where there has been a long term shift to owner occupation, especially of new builds - such as Warrington North, Leigh, Blyth, Rother Valley, and dozens of others - there has been a long term shift to the Tories. This seems inarguable to me. I also agree with the implication that the Tories would be well served to try to maximise the number of owner occupiers.
Bingo. You've nailed it completely.
Essentially Britain votes by housing. Renters as a class tend to vote Labour. Owned outright tend to vote Tory. Owned with a mortgage, are the swing voters, who in recent years have voted Tory but in Blair's time voted Labour.
In much of the country renting has become more common, but in parts of the North owner occupiers have become more common due to vast amounts of new builds. That has meant more Tory voters, but since those voters have mortgages they're not safe Tory.
The idea that the North swung Tory because voters were pissed off and angry misses the transformation in housing that has happened. Drive around the North outside the cities, and yes if you're here you're driving to get around, and there has been major new housing developments and those developments lead to new owner occupiers which changes how people think about voting.
There have been suggestions of this voting-by-housing-tenure hypothesis before. It is interesting and believable, but I don't know of studies that examine it carefully. Do you?
I've seen many studies on it before, none to hand, but this excellent chart is in the article I linked to above and sums it up well.
The vast construction in the Red Wall, one of the only places in the country where there has been a semi-reasonable amount of construction, has led to home ownership rates here moving from Labour levels to Tory levels. The seats then swung accordingly.
Home ownership and GE2019 As in previous years, homeowners were more likely to vote Conservative in the 2019 election. According to Ipsos MORI’s figures, 57% of voters who owned their home outright voted Conservative, as did 43% of people with mortgages. By contrast, 45% of social renters and 46% of private renters voted Labour.
The 2011 Census tells us how many homeowners were in each constituency. At the time, around 64% of UK households owned their home, either outright or with a mortgage. 315 of the Conservatives’ 365 seats (86%) had home ownership levels above this average, compared with 53 of Labour’s 202 seats (26%). Nine of the Lib Dems’ 11 seats had above-average home ownership levels (82%).
86% above average ownership for Tories, 26% for Labour.
Home ownership is far and away what affects voting in this country. NIMBY scum like our Essicks Massiv that wants to invade Scotland, or the first son of Abraham, are doing their level best to discourage people from voting Tory.
That's a bit jarring, seeing "scum" affixed to NIMBYs. Don't think I've ever come across it before. Really quite unusual.
When the world owes you a 5 bed detached des res, waiting to collect can get to you.
Especially if deleting the pampering of Tory-approved standard nuclear families under the current IHT regulations, and imposing wealth tax on landed property, are active subjects for discussion to remedy the chaos of the last few years.
Only 9% of voters want IHT to rise, the lowest of any tax.
Though yes wealth taxes on million pound plus properties might not be too unpopular if Labour proposes them (outside of a few central London Labour target seats like Kensington and Cities of London and Westminster)
No, it says 9% of voters included inheritance tax in the top three taxes they want held constant.
Obviously people want taxes on other, higher-income people to go up, though they also love the public services those people pay for by building businesses in the UK or working in jobs that are created in the UK, so it's a bit of a bind.
Belgium has a big welfare state by taxing ordinary people at 30% from euro one. The average Brit wants to pay something like 10%, so of course they get less stuff from government.
So does Sweden have a big welfare state but also no inheritance tax at all.
There are also examples in Europe of lower tax, lower spend nations than the UK eg Switzerland
In fact, the main reason you are worried about IHT is that your Topry voters will be bribed with our money so they don't have to spend their own savings on looking after themselves. Using that purpose for savings is what ordinary self-respecting civilised non-selfish citizens used to.
Preserving property and inheritance is a core Tory value. Why should Tories care what non Tories like you think about it?
Because you're deliberately parasitising on most of society, which don't have enough to leave to get to the 325K limit [edit] and will not get anywhere where they have to worry abotu the Special Allowance For Publicly Subsidising Tory Voting Sponging Pensioners And Their Greedy Offspring.
In London the average sold property price is £740,597, in Surrey the average house price is £620,686, so it is not just the rich but average voters in London and the Home Counties hit by higher IHT
No they are not. The effective IHT rate for couples leaving a property to their children is £1m.
For now thanks to Osborne's IHT cut, Carnyx wants to reverse that, that is the WHOLE point!!
So will tens of millions of others. We're not all obsessed with funding elderly Tory voters at the expense of everyone else.
Their children benefit too of course, Tories should care about their core vote first, you worry about your core vote ie those renting and in the public sector
Their children can work for a living too instead of agonising about when Daddy pops his clogs? There was a time when that was the absolute bedrock of Tory doctrine.
Get a job and work for a living is absolutely the bedrock of Toryism that I know and appreciate.
HYUFDs twisted "principles" are nothing of the sort. Thankfully other Tories on this site are more grounded in ethics.
'Levelling up' is dangerous ground for Sunak, given that video of him trumpeting unlevelling up the already high...
That’s not actually what he was saying in the video. But Labour had artfully cut the video to mislead.
He was saying that all deprived areas need support - including deprived rural areas in Kent - not just deprived urban areas
The problem was not him rightly pointing to pockets of deprived rural areas. The probem was that he claimed he had taken money from genuinely shonky areas in the north to give to pockets of deprived rural areas.
Nobody is denying that rural places can't hide poverty. But you can't divert money from places already promised the cash. Or in practice what it's meant is that money has gone to posh Tory areas to sort the small bit that isn't quite as posh as the rest whilst the scum area gets little or nothing.
Stockton on Tees seeing levelling up money spent in Yarm as a prime example. Yes, there are bits of Yarm not as nice as the rest. But relatively these areas are fine - certainly a lot better than chunks of town centre or Newtown wards.
Why do the Tories still have a minister for levelling up? Bottom line up front, Boris Johnson’s glib election promise “we will level up” is undeliverable bollocks.
Once you fathom out the impossible to fathom out “what exactly does it mean? Level up the north to the level of the south? But bits of the south are just as run down as bits of the north and vice versa? And switch to how to do it anyway to delivery something at least, even though you don’t really understand what it means, you realise it’s not about funnelling existing money from this to that, you will just end up hated and stuck in the 20s in the polling, it has to be new money, given to deserving places, fairly, and so that Tiverton in Blue Wall can’t get upset they are just as deserving and being cheated.
After all that, are you now levelling up? Of course not, because it is just pretend the ancient mismatch in scale and wealth between London and the secondary cities their regions can ever be levelled, it always was empty unachievable Johnsonian electioneering bollocks.
Why? Because: (a) Red Wall voters have noticed they are still relatively / actually poor (b) Brexit promised them resources and riches (c) Tories promised them definitely resources and riches (d) They won't take no for an answer
Either this government produces a rabbit out of the hat or the Tory 2019 first timers depart.
(A) is wrong.
Red Wall Tory voters are typically home owners, not impoverished people awaiting resources and riches.
Thanks to the relatively huge success in building new homes up here, compared to the rest of the country, the Red Wall has seen much more people getting on the property ladder rather than the reverse happening as in much of the country.
That's the real reason the non-metropolitan North has been swinging Tory while the South is swinging against the Tories. Because voters here have their own deeds to their very own Barratt Home and similar, rather than rental bills.
(a) is not wrong. A is the reason why we have seen a clearout of Labour councils and Labour MPs in Labour since the Danelaw areas. Try living in the red wall for a while and you will see what they are so upset about./
Incidentally, it wouldn't be a good idea for the Tories to listen to you. Telling people that their lived experience is wrong never works.
Try living in the red wall for a while? Excuse me, I do live in the Red Wall, you don't.
There is new housing estates all over the place. You know, all those homes you keep complaining about because you want to excuse the NIMBY scum? All those new homes have voters.
The Red Wall fell because of construction, because the likes of Barratt etc got people on the property ladder, NOT because poor people suddenly became fed up of Labour not doing anything for them.
You're in Birchwood aren't you? Cheshire daaaaarling.
I've moved around a bit, I'd rather not say where I live if you don't mind, but Birchwood is not a bad example. Warrington North is a safe Labour seat, or used to be, like much of the North West its seen massive construction recently and its trended away from Labour as the share of owner occupier voters in the constituency has risen.
Just like the neighbouring constituency of Leigh. What you'd think of as Leigh is still just as grotty terraced homes as it always was, but its surrounded by new estates of semi-detached homes with gardens and driveways for 2 parking spaces each.
Drive around the new estates of Leigh, versus the old streets of Leigh, and its hardly a surprise voting levels have changed. The voting is changing not because people are suddenly fed up of Labour, but because Leigh itself, much of the North itself, is changing. The houses people are living in - and increasingly owning - are not the same homes that existed thirty years ago.
And constituencies that were predominantly owner occupied in the past, that are now unaffordable and NIMBYs are blocking construction, are seeing trends away from the Tories.
Its housing, stupid.
Again again, I hope your Tory friends go and argue your points on the doorstep. They will be annihilated.
I don't think Bart is presenting an argument why people in Warrington North or Leigh SHOULD vote Tory - he is saying that where there has been a long term shift to owner occupation, especially of new builds - such as Warrington North, Leigh, Blyth, Rother Valley, and dozens of others - there has been a long term shift to the Tories. This seems inarguable to me. I also agree with the implication that the Tories would be well served to try to maximise the number of owner occupiers.
Bingo. You've nailed it completely.
Essentially Britain votes by housing. Renters as a class tend to vote Labour. Owned outright tend to vote Tory. Owned with a mortgage, are the swing voters, who in recent years have voted Tory but in Blair's time voted Labour.
In much of the country renting has become more common, but in parts of the North owner occupiers have become more common due to vast amounts of new builds. That has meant more Tory voters, but since those voters have mortgages they're not safe Tory.
The idea that the North swung Tory because voters were pissed off and angry misses the transformation in housing that has happened. Drive around the North outside the cities, and yes if you're here you're driving to get around, and there has been major new housing developments and those developments lead to new owner occupiers which changes how people think about voting.
There have been suggestions of this voting-by-housing-tenure hypothesis before. It is interesting and believable, but I don't know of studies that examine it carefully. Do you?
I've seen many studies on it before, none to hand, but this excellent chart is in the article I linked to above and sums it up well.
The vast construction in the Red Wall, one of the only places in the country where there has been a semi-reasonable amount of construction, has led to home ownership rates here moving from Labour levels to Tory levels. The seats then swung accordingly.
Home ownership and GE2019 As in previous years, homeowners were more likely to vote Conservative in the 2019 election. According to Ipsos MORI’s figures, 57% of voters who owned their home outright voted Conservative, as did 43% of people with mortgages. By contrast, 45% of social renters and 46% of private renters voted Labour.
The 2011 Census tells us how many homeowners were in each constituency. At the time, around 64% of UK households owned their home, either outright or with a mortgage. 315 of the Conservatives’ 365 seats (86%) had home ownership levels above this average, compared with 53 of Labour’s 202 seats (26%). Nine of the Lib Dems’ 11 seats had above-average home ownership levels (82%).
86% above average ownership for Tories, 26% for Labour.
Home ownership is far and away what affects voting in this country. NIMBY scum like our Essicks Massiv that wants to invade Scotland, or the first son of Abraham, are doing their level best to discourage people from voting Tory.
So 82% of LD seats have above average home ownership levels too.
Yes we need more affordable housing, especially in brownbelt areas of London where home ownership is at its lowest and Labour has gained lots of former Conservative seats.
Build all over the greenbelt however and you will see lots of formerly safe Conservative seats like Chesham and Amersham go Liberal Democrat
You say that like its a bad thing.
Better to have people engaged in society and able to have their own home, even if some vote Lib Dem, than unable to afford their own home and voting to tear down society by voting for Labour.
No, we don't want to build all over our greenbelt when the Home Counties already have a 70% owner occupier rate anyway and are largely safe Tory just to send voters to the LDs.
London with only 50% owner occupier rate and lots of Labour seats and Tory marginals vulnerable to Labour does certainly need more affordable homes to buy, the South East less so
London is a part of the South East. If people working in London are going to have semi detached homes and gardens, the place to do so, is in the South East.
A very large proportion of people living in the SE outside of London already do work in London. That's generally for those who have a home, how they can afford to pay for it, so no pulling up the ladder after you and saying "you're not my problem, piss off and don't get a home near me" is not a solution.
London is NOT a part of the South East. People used to regularly be able to afford to buy a semi detached in suburban London on average incomes if they worked in the capital, they can't now. That needs more properties being built in outer London, not concreting all over the Home Counties greenbelt.
70% in the Home Counties outside London by contrast still own a property, the highest percentage of any UK region
'Levelling up' is dangerous ground for Sunak, given that video of him trumpeting unlevelling up the already high...
That’s not actually what he was saying in the video. But Labour had artfully cut the video to mislead.
He was saying that all deprived areas need support - including deprived rural areas in Kent - not just deprived urban areas
The problem was not him rightly pointing to pockets of deprived rural areas. The probem was that he claimed he had taken money from genuinely shonky areas in the north to give to pockets of deprived rural areas.
Nobody is denying that rural places can't hide poverty. But you can't divert money from places already promised the cash. Or in practice what it's meant is that money has gone to posh Tory areas to sort the small bit that isn't quite as posh as the rest whilst the scum area gets little or nothing.
Stockton on Tees seeing levelling up money spent in Yarm as a prime example. Yes, there are bits of Yarm not as nice as the rest. But relatively these areas are fine - certainly a lot better than chunks of town centre or Newtown wards.
Why do the Tories still have a minister for levelling up? Bottom line up front, Boris Johnson’s glib election promise “we will level up” is undeliverable bollocks.
Once you fathom out the impossible to fathom out “what exactly does it mean? Level up the north to the level of the south? But bits of the south are just as run down as bits of the north and vice versa? And switch to how to do it anyway to delivery something at least, even though you don’t really understand what it means, you realise it’s not about funnelling existing money from this to that, you will just end up hated and stuck in the 20s in the polling, it has to be new money, given to deserving places, fairly, and so that Tiverton in Blue Wall can’t get upset they are just as deserving and being cheated.
After all that, are you now levelling up? Of course not, because it is just pretend the ancient mismatch in scale and wealth between London and the secondary cities their regions can ever be levelled, it always was empty unachievable Johnsonian electioneering bollocks.
Why? Because: (a) Red Wall voters have noticed they are still relatively / actually poor (b) Brexit promised them resources and riches (c) Tories promised them definitely resources and riches (d) They won't take no for an answer
Either this government produces a rabbit out of the hat or the Tory 2019 first timers depart.
(A) is wrong.
Red Wall Tory voters are typically home owners, not impoverished people awaiting resources and riches.
Thanks to the relatively huge success in building new homes up here, compared to the rest of the country, the Red Wall has seen much more people getting on the property ladder rather than the reverse happening as in much of the country.
That's the real reason the non-metropolitan North has been swinging Tory while the South is swinging against the Tories. Because voters here have their own deeds to their very own Barratt Home and similar, rather than rental bills.
(a) is not wrong. A is the reason why we have seen a clearout of Labour councils and Labour MPs in Labour since the Danelaw areas. Try living in the red wall for a while and you will see what they are so upset about./
Incidentally, it wouldn't be a good idea for the Tories to listen to you. Telling people that their lived experience is wrong never works.
Try living in the red wall for a while? Excuse me, I do live in the Red Wall, you don't.
There is new housing estates all over the place. You know, all those homes you keep complaining about because you want to excuse the NIMBY scum? All those new homes have voters.
The Red Wall fell because of construction, because the likes of Barratt etc got people on the property ladder, NOT because poor people suddenly became fed up of Labour not doing anything for them.
You're in Birchwood aren't you? Cheshire daaaaarling.
I've moved around a bit, I'd rather not say where I live if you don't mind, but Birchwood is not a bad example. Warrington North is a safe Labour seat, or used to be, like much of the North West its seen massive construction recently and its trended away from Labour as the share of owner occupier voters in the constituency has risen.
Just like the neighbouring constituency of Leigh. What you'd think of as Leigh is still just as grotty terraced homes as it always was, but its surrounded by new estates of semi-detached homes with gardens and driveways for 2 parking spaces each.
Drive around the new estates of Leigh, versus the old streets of Leigh, and its hardly a surprise voting levels have changed. The voting is changing not because people are suddenly fed up of Labour, but because Leigh itself, much of the North itself, is changing. The houses people are living in - and increasingly owning - are not the same homes that existed thirty years ago.
And constituencies that were predominantly owner occupied in the past, that are now unaffordable and NIMBYs are blocking construction, are seeing trends away from the Tories.
Its housing, stupid.
Again again, I hope your Tory friends go and argue your points on the doorstep. They will be annihilated.
I don't think Bart is presenting an argument why people in Warrington North or Leigh SHOULD vote Tory - he is saying that where there has been a long term shift to owner occupation, especially of new builds - such as Warrington North, Leigh, Blyth, Rother Valley, and dozens of others - there has been a long term shift to the Tories. This seems inarguable to me. I also agree with the implication that the Tories would be well served to try to maximise the number of owner occupiers.
Bingo. You've nailed it completely.
Essentially Britain votes by housing. Renters as a class tend to vote Labour. Owned outright tend to vote Tory. Owned with a mortgage, are the swing voters, who in recent years have voted Tory but in Blair's time voted Labour.
In much of the country renting has become more common, but in parts of the North owner occupiers have become more common due to vast amounts of new builds. That has meant more Tory voters, but since those voters have mortgages they're not safe Tory.
The idea that the North swung Tory because voters were pissed off and angry misses the transformation in housing that has happened. Drive around the North outside the cities, and yes if you're here you're driving to get around, and there has been major new housing developments and those developments lead to new owner occupiers which changes how people think about voting.
There have been suggestions of this voting-by-housing-tenure hypothesis before. It is interesting and believable, but I don't know of studies that examine it carefully. Do you?
I've seen many studies on it before, none to hand, but this excellent chart is in the article I linked to above and sums it up well.
The vast construction in the Red Wall, one of the only places in the country where there has been a semi-reasonable amount of construction, has led to home ownership rates here moving from Labour levels to Tory levels. The seats then swung accordingly.
Home ownership and GE2019 As in previous years, homeowners were more likely to vote Conservative in the 2019 election. According to Ipsos MORI’s figures, 57% of voters who owned their home outright voted Conservative, as did 43% of people with mortgages. By contrast, 45% of social renters and 46% of private renters voted Labour.
The 2011 Census tells us how many homeowners were in each constituency. At the time, around 64% of UK households owned their home, either outright or with a mortgage. 315 of the Conservatives’ 365 seats (86%) had home ownership levels above this average, compared with 53 of Labour’s 202 seats (26%). Nine of the Lib Dems’ 11 seats had above-average home ownership levels (82%).
86% above average ownership for Tories, 26% for Labour.
Home ownership is far and away what affects voting in this country. NIMBY scum like our Essicks Massiv that wants to invade Scotland, or the first son of Abraham, are doing their level best to discourage people from voting Tory.
That's a bit jarring, seeing "scum" affixed to NIMBYs. Don't think I've ever come across it before. Really quite unusual.
When the world owes you a 5 bed detached des res, waiting to collect can get to you.
Especially if deleting the pampering of Tory-approved standard nuclear families under the current IHT regulations, and imposing wealth tax on landed property, are active subjects for discussion to remedy the chaos of the last few years.
Only 9% of voters want IHT to rise, the lowest of any tax.
Though yes wealth taxes on million pound plus properties might not be too unpopular if Labour proposes them (outside of a few central London Labour target seats like Kensington and Cities of London and Westminster)
How on earth can you have misread that so badly. They want IHT to increase in preference to all normal taxes eg income tax, vat, fuel duty, council tax, stamp duty, ni. The only taxes they prefer to increase more than IHT are higher and top rate income tax, CGT and Corp Tax. And of course that is what you would expect. They don't want taxes increased that they pay but do want taxes increased on richer people.
The converse is true re taxes they don't want increased which is where you got the 9% from but you completely misunderstood the table. 50% don't want income tax increased compared to only 9% who don't want IHT to rise. Similarly Vat, fuel duty, ni, council tax etc compared to IHT.
Just 12% want higher IHT compared to 52% wanting a higher top income tax rate, 47% higher corporation tax, 33% higher capital gains tax and 29% a rise in the higher rate of income tax
Yep. Would you now like to show the rest of the figures so as not to mislead. That is they prefer higher IHT compared to all the other taxes. You know the ones we all pay every day. So it was completely untrue that it was bottom of the list isn't it. It was actually nearer the top of the list wasn't it and only under the taxes richer people pay. Same goes for the other table.
You either don't understand the tables or are deliberately misleading. Daft as we can all see the tables.
No, plenty of people pay the higher rate of income tax, they also wanted that increased more than IHT
Sorry what has that got to do with anything. You completely misunderstood it. You said it was the LOWEST of any tax. It wasn't. It was actually higher than mid table and actually higher than all the taxes nearly all of us pay. It was only below the taxes wealthy or better off people pay (greater than £50K) You got it completely wrong.
Come on put your hands up to it. We can all see the tables cos you gave us the links so you just look silly denying it.
'Levelling up' is dangerous ground for Sunak, given that video of him trumpeting unlevelling up the already high...
That’s not actually what he was saying in the video. But Labour had artfully cut the video to mislead.
He was saying that all deprived areas need support - including deprived rural areas in Kent - not just deprived urban areas
The problem was not him rightly pointing to pockets of deprived rural areas. The probem was that he claimed he had taken money from genuinely shonky areas in the north to give to pockets of deprived rural areas.
Nobody is denying that rural places can't hide poverty. But you can't divert money from places already promised the cash. Or in practice what it's meant is that money has gone to posh Tory areas to sort the small bit that isn't quite as posh as the rest whilst the scum area gets little or nothing.
Stockton on Tees seeing levelling up money spent in Yarm as a prime example. Yes, there are bits of Yarm not as nice as the rest. But relatively these areas are fine - certainly a lot better than chunks of town centre or Newtown wards.
Why do the Tories still have a minister for levelling up? Bottom line up front, Boris Johnson’s glib election promise “we will level up” is undeliverable bollocks.
Once you fathom out the impossible to fathom out “what exactly does it mean? Level up the north to the level of the south? But bits of the south are just as run down as bits of the north and vice versa? And switch to how to do it anyway to delivery something at least, even though you don’t really understand what it means, you realise it’s not about funnelling existing money from this to that, you will just end up hated and stuck in the 20s in the polling, it has to be new money, given to deserving places, fairly, and so that Tiverton in Blue Wall can’t get upset they are just as deserving and being cheated.
After all that, are you now levelling up? Of course not, because it is just pretend the ancient mismatch in scale and wealth between London and the secondary cities their regions can ever be levelled, it always was empty unachievable Johnsonian electioneering bollocks.
Why? Because: (a) Red Wall voters have noticed they are still relatively / actually poor (b) Brexit promised them resources and riches (c) Tories promised them definitely resources and riches (d) They won't take no for an answer
Either this government produces a rabbit out of the hat or the Tory 2019 first timers depart.
(A) is wrong.
Red Wall Tory voters are typically home owners, not impoverished people awaiting resources and riches.
Thanks to the relatively huge success in building new homes up here, compared to the rest of the country, the Red Wall has seen much more people getting on the property ladder rather than the reverse happening as in much of the country.
That's the real reason the non-metropolitan North has been swinging Tory while the South is swinging against the Tories. Because voters here have their own deeds to their very own Barratt Home and similar, rather than rental bills.
(a) is not wrong. A is the reason why we have seen a clearout of Labour councils and Labour MPs in Labour since the Danelaw areas. Try living in the red wall for a while and you will see what they are so upset about./
Incidentally, it wouldn't be a good idea for the Tories to listen to you. Telling people that their lived experience is wrong never works.
Try living in the red wall for a while? Excuse me, I do live in the Red Wall, you don't.
There is new housing estates all over the place. You know, all those homes you keep complaining about because you want to excuse the NIMBY scum? All those new homes have voters.
The Red Wall fell because of construction, because the likes of Barratt etc got people on the property ladder, NOT because poor people suddenly became fed up of Labour not doing anything for them.
You're in Birchwood aren't you? Cheshire daaaaarling.
I've moved around a bit, I'd rather not say where I live if you don't mind, but Birchwood is not a bad example. Warrington North is a safe Labour seat, or used to be, like much of the North West its seen massive construction recently and its trended away from Labour as the share of owner occupier voters in the constituency has risen.
Just like the neighbouring constituency of Leigh. What you'd think of as Leigh is still just as grotty terraced homes as it always was, but its surrounded by new estates of semi-detached homes with gardens and driveways for 2 parking spaces each.
Drive around the new estates of Leigh, versus the old streets of Leigh, and its hardly a surprise voting levels have changed. The voting is changing not because people are suddenly fed up of Labour, but because Leigh itself, much of the North itself, is changing. The houses people are living in - and increasingly owning - are not the same homes that existed thirty years ago.
And constituencies that were predominantly owner occupied in the past, that are now unaffordable and NIMBYs are blocking construction, are seeing trends away from the Tories.
Its housing, stupid.
Again again, I hope your Tory friends go and argue your points on the doorstep. They will be annihilated.
I don't think Bart is presenting an argument why people in Warrington North or Leigh SHOULD vote Tory - he is saying that where there has been a long term shift to owner occupation, especially of new builds - such as Warrington North, Leigh, Blyth, Rother Valley, and dozens of others - there has been a long term shift to the Tories. This seems inarguable to me. I also agree with the implication that the Tories would be well served to try to maximise the number of owner occupiers.
Bingo. You've nailed it completely.
Essentially Britain votes by housing. Renters as a class tend to vote Labour. Owned outright tend to vote Tory. Owned with a mortgage, are the swing voters, who in recent years have voted Tory but in Blair's time voted Labour.
In much of the country renting has become more common, but in parts of the North owner occupiers have become more common due to vast amounts of new builds. That has meant more Tory voters, but since those voters have mortgages they're not safe Tory.
The idea that the North swung Tory because voters were pissed off and angry misses the transformation in housing that has happened. Drive around the North outside the cities, and yes if you're here you're driving to get around, and there has been major new housing developments and those developments lead to new owner occupiers which changes how people think about voting.
There have been suggestions of this voting-by-housing-tenure hypothesis before. It is interesting and believable, but I don't know of studies that examine it carefully. Do you?
I've seen many studies on it before, none to hand, but this excellent chart is in the article I linked to above and sums it up well.
The vast construction in the Red Wall, one of the only places in the country where there has been a semi-reasonable amount of construction, has led to home ownership rates here moving from Labour levels to Tory levels. The seats then swung accordingly.
Home ownership and GE2019 As in previous years, homeowners were more likely to vote Conservative in the 2019 election. According to Ipsos MORI’s figures, 57% of voters who owned their home outright voted Conservative, as did 43% of people with mortgages. By contrast, 45% of social renters and 46% of private renters voted Labour.
The 2011 Census tells us how many homeowners were in each constituency. At the time, around 64% of UK households owned their home, either outright or with a mortgage. 315 of the Conservatives’ 365 seats (86%) had home ownership levels above this average, compared with 53 of Labour’s 202 seats (26%). Nine of the Lib Dems’ 11 seats had above-average home ownership levels (82%).
86% above average ownership for Tories, 26% for Labour.
Home ownership is far and away what affects voting in this country. NIMBY scum like our Essicks Massiv that wants to invade Scotland, or the first son of Abraham, are doing their level best to discourage people from voting Tory.
So 82% of LD seats have above average home ownership levels too.
Yes we need more affordable housing, especially in brownbelt areas of London where home ownership is at its lowest and Labour has gained lots of former Conservative seats.
Build all over the greenbelt however and you will see lots of formerly safe Conservative seats like Chesham and Amersham go Liberal Democrat
You say that like its a bad thing.
Better to have people engaged in society and able to have their own home, even if some vote Lib Dem, than unable to afford their own home and voting to tear down society by voting for Labour.
No, we don't want to build all over our greenbelt when the Home Counties already have a 70% owner occupier rate anyway and are largely safe Tory just to send voters to the LDs.
London with only 50% owner occupier rate and lots of Labour seats and Tory marginals vulnerable to Labour does certainly need more affordable homes to buy, the South East less so
London is a part of the South East. If people working in London are going to have semi detached homes and gardens, the place to do so, is in the South East.
A very large proportion of people living in the SE outside of London already do work in London. That's generally for those who have a home, how they can afford to pay for it, so no pulling up the ladder after you and saying "you're not my problem, piss off and don't get a home near me" is not a solution.
London is NOT a part of the South East. People used to regularly be able to afford to buy a semi detached in suburban London on average incomes if they worked in the capital, they can't now. That needs more properties being built in outer London, not concreting all over the Home Counties greenbelt.
70% in the Home Counties outside London by contrast still own a property, the highest percentage of any UK region
London is a part of the South East. Places like Woking, Guildford etc are commuter belts to London and not remotely divorced from it.
No they aren't and plenty of people in Woking and Guildford do not work in London, home ownership there is also far higher than in London
'Levelling up' is dangerous ground for Sunak, given that video of him trumpeting unlevelling up the already high...
That’s not actually what he was saying in the video. But Labour had artfully cut the video to mislead.
He was saying that all deprived areas need support - including deprived rural areas in Kent - not just deprived urban areas
The problem was not him rightly pointing to pockets of deprived rural areas. The probem was that he claimed he had taken money from genuinely shonky areas in the north to give to pockets of deprived rural areas.
Nobody is denying that rural places can't hide poverty. But you can't divert money from places already promised the cash. Or in practice what it's meant is that money has gone to posh Tory areas to sort the small bit that isn't quite as posh as the rest whilst the scum area gets little or nothing.
Stockton on Tees seeing levelling up money spent in Yarm as a prime example. Yes, there are bits of Yarm not as nice as the rest. But relatively these areas are fine - certainly a lot better than chunks of town centre or Newtown wards.
Why do the Tories still have a minister for levelling up? Bottom line up front, Boris Johnson’s glib election promise “we will level up” is undeliverable bollocks.
Once you fathom out the impossible to fathom out “what exactly does it mean? Level up the north to the level of the south? But bits of the south are just as run down as bits of the north and vice versa? And switch to how to do it anyway to delivery something at least, even though you don’t really understand what it means, you realise it’s not about funnelling existing money from this to that, you will just end up hated and stuck in the 20s in the polling, it has to be new money, given to deserving places, fairly, and so that Tiverton in Blue Wall can’t get upset they are just as deserving and being cheated.
After all that, are you now levelling up? Of course not, because it is just pretend the ancient mismatch in scale and wealth between London and the secondary cities their regions can ever be levelled, it always was empty unachievable Johnsonian electioneering bollocks.
Why? Because: (a) Red Wall voters have noticed they are still relatively / actually poor (b) Brexit promised them resources and riches (c) Tories promised them definitely resources and riches (d) They won't take no for an answer
Either this government produces a rabbit out of the hat or the Tory 2019 first timers depart.
(A) is wrong.
Red Wall Tory voters are typically home owners, not impoverished people awaiting resources and riches.
Thanks to the relatively huge success in building new homes up here, compared to the rest of the country, the Red Wall has seen much more people getting on the property ladder rather than the reverse happening as in much of the country.
That's the real reason the non-metropolitan North has been swinging Tory while the South is swinging against the Tories. Because voters here have their own deeds to their very own Barratt Home and similar, rather than rental bills.
(a) is not wrong. A is the reason why we have seen a clearout of Labour councils and Labour MPs in Labour since the Danelaw areas. Try living in the red wall for a while and you will see what they are so upset about./
Incidentally, it wouldn't be a good idea for the Tories to listen to you. Telling people that their lived experience is wrong never works.
Try living in the red wall for a while? Excuse me, I do live in the Red Wall, you don't.
There is new housing estates all over the place. You know, all those homes you keep complaining about because you want to excuse the NIMBY scum? All those new homes have voters.
The Red Wall fell because of construction, because the likes of Barratt etc got people on the property ladder, NOT because poor people suddenly became fed up of Labour not doing anything for them.
You're in Birchwood aren't you? Cheshire daaaaarling.
I've moved around a bit, I'd rather not say where I live if you don't mind, but Birchwood is not a bad example. Warrington North is a safe Labour seat, or used to be, like much of the North West its seen massive construction recently and its trended away from Labour as the share of owner occupier voters in the constituency has risen.
Just like the neighbouring constituency of Leigh. What you'd think of as Leigh is still just as grotty terraced homes as it always was, but its surrounded by new estates of semi-detached homes with gardens and driveways for 2 parking spaces each.
Drive around the new estates of Leigh, versus the old streets of Leigh, and its hardly a surprise voting levels have changed. The voting is changing not because people are suddenly fed up of Labour, but because Leigh itself, much of the North itself, is changing. The houses people are living in - and increasingly owning - are not the same homes that existed thirty years ago.
And constituencies that were predominantly owner occupied in the past, that are now unaffordable and NIMBYs are blocking construction, are seeing trends away from the Tories.
Its housing, stupid.
Again again, I hope your Tory friends go and argue your points on the doorstep. They will be annihilated.
I don't think Bart is presenting an argument why people in Warrington North or Leigh SHOULD vote Tory - he is saying that where there has been a long term shift to owner occupation, especially of new builds - such as Warrington North, Leigh, Blyth, Rother Valley, and dozens of others - there has been a long term shift to the Tories. This seems inarguable to me. I also agree with the implication that the Tories would be well served to try to maximise the number of owner occupiers.
Bingo. You've nailed it completely.
Essentially Britain votes by housing. Renters as a class tend to vote Labour. Owned outright tend to vote Tory. Owned with a mortgage, are the swing voters, who in recent years have voted Tory but in Blair's time voted Labour.
In much of the country renting has become more common, but in parts of the North owner occupiers have become more common due to vast amounts of new builds. That has meant more Tory voters, but since those voters have mortgages they're not safe Tory.
The idea that the North swung Tory because voters were pissed off and angry misses the transformation in housing that has happened. Drive around the North outside the cities, and yes if you're here you're driving to get around, and there has been major new housing developments and those developments lead to new owner occupiers which changes how people think about voting.
There have been suggestions of this voting-by-housing-tenure hypothesis before. It is interesting and believable, but I don't know of studies that examine it carefully. Do you?
I've seen many studies on it before, none to hand, but this excellent chart is in the article I linked to above and sums it up well.
The vast construction in the Red Wall, one of the only places in the country where there has been a semi-reasonable amount of construction, has led to home ownership rates here moving from Labour levels to Tory levels. The seats then swung accordingly.
Home ownership and GE2019 As in previous years, homeowners were more likely to vote Conservative in the 2019 election. According to Ipsos MORI’s figures, 57% of voters who owned their home outright voted Conservative, as did 43% of people with mortgages. By contrast, 45% of social renters and 46% of private renters voted Labour.
The 2011 Census tells us how many homeowners were in each constituency. At the time, around 64% of UK households owned their home, either outright or with a mortgage. 315 of the Conservatives’ 365 seats (86%) had home ownership levels above this average, compared with 53 of Labour’s 202 seats (26%). Nine of the Lib Dems’ 11 seats had above-average home ownership levels (82%).
86% above average ownership for Tories, 26% for Labour.
Home ownership is far and away what affects voting in this country. NIMBY scum like our Essicks Massiv that wants to invade Scotland, or the first son of Abraham, are doing their level best to discourage people from voting Tory.
That's a bit jarring, seeing "scum" affixed to NIMBYs. Don't think I've ever come across it before. Really quite unusual.
When the world owes you a 5 bed detached des res, waiting to collect can get to you.
Especially if deleting the pampering of Tory-approved standard nuclear families under the current IHT regulations, and imposing wealth tax on landed property, are active subjects for discussion to remedy the chaos of the last few years.
Only 9% of voters want IHT to rise, the lowest of any tax.
Though yes wealth taxes on million pound plus properties might not be too unpopular if Labour proposes them (outside of a few central London Labour target seats like Kensington and Cities of London and Westminster)
No, it says 9% of voters included inheritance tax in the top three taxes they want held constant.
Obviously people want taxes on other, higher-income people to go up, though they also love the public services those people pay for by building businesses in the UK or working in jobs that are created in the UK, so it's a bit of a bind.
Belgium has a big welfare state by taxing ordinary people at 30% from euro one. The average Brit wants to pay something like 10%, so of course they get less stuff from government.
So does Sweden have a big welfare state but also no inheritance tax at all.
There are also examples in Europe of lower tax, lower spend nations than the UK eg Switzerland
In fact, the main reason you are worried about IHT is that your Topry voters will be bribed with our money so they don't have to spend their own savings on looking after themselves. Using that purpose for savings is what ordinary self-respecting civilised non-selfish citizens used to.
Preserving property and inheritance is a core Tory value. Why should Tories care what non Tories like you think about it?
Because you're deliberately parasitising on most of society, which don't have enough to leave to get to the 325K limit [edit] and will not get anywhere where they have to worry abotu the Special Allowance For Publicly Subsidising Tory Voting Sponging Pensioners And Their Greedy Offspring.
In London the average sold property price is £740,597, in Surrey the average house price is £620,686, so it is not just the rich but average voters in London and the Home Counties hit by higher IHT
(a) that every voter is a home-owner. Many are not. (B) that every home-owner actually has 100% equity without any mortgage. Many are not.
(Of course, both are heavily biased toward the Tories, but they would be for you. Or perhaps Labour and LD and Green voters are not human beings?)
So you are mixing up three different populations and talking bollocks because you trhink it makes your argument look better. Actually, it makes it look even worse.
Anyway, that's enough bollock-toasting to stock a French charcuterie for one evening, so I'm going to go off and read a nice new book. And I suggest you buy yourself a train set and try out the logical operation of points and sidings.
65% are home owners, by the time they are near death most will have paid off their mortgage.
YOu think so, the way things are going? Are already? We're not in the 1970s any more. Or the 1950s.
In the 1950s fewer owned their own property than now
Look at the repo statistics in a year or two. Thanks entirely to youir party.
Well those facing repo will need an inheritance and parental support even more won't they! Hopefully though most will avoid falling behind on their mortgage (and Rishi is not responsible for Truss and Kwarteng's errors)
With any luck,. their parents will have been heavily taxed on their unearned capital gains.
Well a socialist like you would say that wouldn't you, tax everything is your philosophy
I'm not a socialist. But you ought to start worrying when your party has got centrist dads such as I saying such things for want of any other alternative.
You are hard left Scottish nationalist, a million miles from centrist dad
You simply do not know that
There are many Scots who want independence who are not hard left as you imply
But then you know very little about the Scots and certainly do nothing to win the argument for the Union
Indeed you are a positive recruiting sergeant for independence, and I say that as someone who knows Scotland, is married to a Scot, has lived in Scotland, and love the country and its people and cherish the union
'Levelling up' is dangerous ground for Sunak, given that video of him trumpeting unlevelling up the already high...
That’s not actually what he was saying in the video. But Labour had artfully cut the video to mislead.
He was saying that all deprived areas need support - including deprived rural areas in Kent - not just deprived urban areas
The problem was not him rightly pointing to pockets of deprived rural areas. The probem was that he claimed he had taken money from genuinely shonky areas in the north to give to pockets of deprived rural areas.
Nobody is denying that rural places can't hide poverty. But you can't divert money from places already promised the cash. Or in practice what it's meant is that money has gone to posh Tory areas to sort the small bit that isn't quite as posh as the rest whilst the scum area gets little or nothing.
Stockton on Tees seeing levelling up money spent in Yarm as a prime example. Yes, there are bits of Yarm not as nice as the rest. But relatively these areas are fine - certainly a lot better than chunks of town centre or Newtown wards.
Why do the Tories still have a minister for levelling up? Bottom line up front, Boris Johnson’s glib election promise “we will level up” is undeliverable bollocks.
Once you fathom out the impossible to fathom out “what exactly does it mean? Level up the north to the level of the south? But bits of the south are just as run down as bits of the north and vice versa? And switch to how to do it anyway to delivery something at least, even though you don’t really understand what it means, you realise it’s not about funnelling existing money from this to that, you will just end up hated and stuck in the 20s in the polling, it has to be new money, given to deserving places, fairly, and so that Tiverton in Blue Wall can’t get upset they are just as deserving and being cheated.
After all that, are you now levelling up? Of course not, because it is just pretend the ancient mismatch in scale and wealth between London and the secondary cities their regions can ever be levelled, it always was empty unachievable Johnsonian electioneering bollocks.
Why? Because: (a) Red Wall voters have noticed they are still relatively / actually poor (b) Brexit promised them resources and riches (c) Tories promised them definitely resources and riches (d) They won't take no for an answer
Either this government produces a rabbit out of the hat or the Tory 2019 first timers depart.
(A) is wrong.
Red Wall Tory voters are typically home owners, not impoverished people awaiting resources and riches.
Thanks to the relatively huge success in building new homes up here, compared to the rest of the country, the Red Wall has seen much more people getting on the property ladder rather than the reverse happening as in much of the country.
That's the real reason the non-metropolitan North has been swinging Tory while the South is swinging against the Tories. Because voters here have their own deeds to their very own Barratt Home and similar, rather than rental bills.
(a) is not wrong. A is the reason why we have seen a clearout of Labour councils and Labour MPs in Labour since the Danelaw areas. Try living in the red wall for a while and you will see what they are so upset about./
Incidentally, it wouldn't be a good idea for the Tories to listen to you. Telling people that their lived experience is wrong never works.
Try living in the red wall for a while? Excuse me, I do live in the Red Wall, you don't.
There is new housing estates all over the place. You know, all those homes you keep complaining about because you want to excuse the NIMBY scum? All those new homes have voters.
The Red Wall fell because of construction, because the likes of Barratt etc got people on the property ladder, NOT because poor people suddenly became fed up of Labour not doing anything for them.
You're in Birchwood aren't you? Cheshire daaaaarling.
I've moved around a bit, I'd rather not say where I live if you don't mind, but Birchwood is not a bad example. Warrington North is a safe Labour seat, or used to be, like much of the North West its seen massive construction recently and its trended away from Labour as the share of owner occupier voters in the constituency has risen.
Just like the neighbouring constituency of Leigh. What you'd think of as Leigh is still just as grotty terraced homes as it always was, but its surrounded by new estates of semi-detached homes with gardens and driveways for 2 parking spaces each.
Drive around the new estates of Leigh, versus the old streets of Leigh, and its hardly a surprise voting levels have changed. The voting is changing not because people are suddenly fed up of Labour, but because Leigh itself, much of the North itself, is changing. The houses people are living in - and increasingly owning - are not the same homes that existed thirty years ago.
And constituencies that were predominantly owner occupied in the past, that are now unaffordable and NIMBYs are blocking construction, are seeing trends away from the Tories.
Its housing, stupid.
Again again, I hope your Tory friends go and argue your points on the doorstep. They will be annihilated.
I don't think Bart is presenting an argument why people in Warrington North or Leigh SHOULD vote Tory - he is saying that where there has been a long term shift to owner occupation, especially of new builds - such as Warrington North, Leigh, Blyth, Rother Valley, and dozens of others - there has been a long term shift to the Tories. This seems inarguable to me. I also agree with the implication that the Tories would be well served to try to maximise the number of owner occupiers.
Bingo. You've nailed it completely.
Essentially Britain votes by housing. Renters as a class tend to vote Labour. Owned outright tend to vote Tory. Owned with a mortgage, are the swing voters, who in recent years have voted Tory but in Blair's time voted Labour.
In much of the country renting has become more common, but in parts of the North owner occupiers have become more common due to vast amounts of new builds. That has meant more Tory voters, but since those voters have mortgages they're not safe Tory.
The idea that the North swung Tory because voters were pissed off and angry misses the transformation in housing that has happened. Drive around the North outside the cities, and yes if you're here you're driving to get around, and there has been major new housing developments and those developments lead to new owner occupiers which changes how people think about voting.
There have been suggestions of this voting-by-housing-tenure hypothesis before. It is interesting and believable, but I don't know of studies that examine it carefully. Do you?
I've seen many studies on it before, none to hand, but this excellent chart is in the article I linked to above and sums it up well.
The vast construction in the Red Wall, one of the only places in the country where there has been a semi-reasonable amount of construction, has led to home ownership rates here moving from Labour levels to Tory levels. The seats then swung accordingly.
Home ownership and GE2019 As in previous years, homeowners were more likely to vote Conservative in the 2019 election. According to Ipsos MORI’s figures, 57% of voters who owned their home outright voted Conservative, as did 43% of people with mortgages. By contrast, 45% of social renters and 46% of private renters voted Labour.
The 2011 Census tells us how many homeowners were in each constituency. At the time, around 64% of UK households owned their home, either outright or with a mortgage. 315 of the Conservatives’ 365 seats (86%) had home ownership levels above this average, compared with 53 of Labour’s 202 seats (26%). Nine of the Lib Dems’ 11 seats had above-average home ownership levels (82%).
86% above average ownership for Tories, 26% for Labour.
Home ownership is far and away what affects voting in this country. NIMBY scum like our Essicks Massiv that wants to invade Scotland, or the first son of Abraham, are doing their level best to discourage people from voting Tory.
So 82% of LD seats have above average home ownership levels too.
Yes we need more affordable housing, especially in brownbelt areas of London where home ownership is at its lowest and Labour has gained lots of former Conservative seats.
Build all over the greenbelt however and you will see lots of formerly safe Conservative seats like Chesham and Amersham go Liberal Democrat
You say that like its a bad thing.
Better to have people engaged in society and able to have their own home, even if some vote Lib Dem, than unable to afford their own home and voting to tear down society by voting for Labour.
No, we don't want to build all over our greenbelt when the Home Counties already have a 70% owner occupier rate anyway and are largely safe Tory just to send voters to the LDs.
London with only 50% owner occupier rate and lots of Labour seats and Tory marginals vulnerable to Labour does certainly need more affordable homes to buy, the South East less so
London is a part of the South East. If people working in London are going to have semi detached homes and gardens, the place to do so, is in the South East.
A very large proportion of people living in the SE outside of London already do work in London. That's generally for those who have a home, how they can afford to pay for it, so no pulling up the ladder after you and saying "you're not my problem, piss off and don't get a home near me" is not a solution.
London is NOT a part of the South East. People used to regularly be able to afford to buy a semi detached in suburban London on average incomes if they worked in the capital, they can't now. That needs more properties being built in outer London, not concreting all over the Home Counties greenbelt.
70% in the Home Counties outside London by contrast still own a property, the highest percentage of any UK region
You can submit a report to Google about Maps is wrong, and how London is really not in the South East of England.
It isn't, South East voters don't elect the London Mayor or London Assembly do they? When we had MEPs the South East region MEPs were completely separate to London elected MEPs
'Levelling up' is dangerous ground for Sunak, given that video of him trumpeting unlevelling up the already high...
That’s not actually what he was saying in the video. But Labour had artfully cut the video to mislead.
He was saying that all deprived areas need support - including deprived rural areas in Kent - not just deprived urban areas
The problem was not him rightly pointing to pockets of deprived rural areas. The probem was that he claimed he had taken money from genuinely shonky areas in the north to give to pockets of deprived rural areas.
Nobody is denying that rural places can't hide poverty. But you can't divert money from places already promised the cash. Or in practice what it's meant is that money has gone to posh Tory areas to sort the small bit that isn't quite as posh as the rest whilst the scum area gets little or nothing.
Stockton on Tees seeing levelling up money spent in Yarm as a prime example. Yes, there are bits of Yarm not as nice as the rest. But relatively these areas are fine - certainly a lot better than chunks of town centre or Newtown wards.
Why do the Tories still have a minister for levelling up? Bottom line up front, Boris Johnson’s glib election promise “we will level up” is undeliverable bollocks.
Once you fathom out the impossible to fathom out “what exactly does it mean? Level up the north to the level of the south? But bits of the south are just as run down as bits of the north and vice versa? And switch to how to do it anyway to delivery something at least, even though you don’t really understand what it means, you realise it’s not about funnelling existing money from this to that, you will just end up hated and stuck in the 20s in the polling, it has to be new money, given to deserving places, fairly, and so that Tiverton in Blue Wall can’t get upset they are just as deserving and being cheated.
After all that, are you now levelling up? Of course not, because it is just pretend the ancient mismatch in scale and wealth between London and the secondary cities their regions can ever be levelled, it always was empty unachievable Johnsonian electioneering bollocks.
Why? Because: (a) Red Wall voters have noticed they are still relatively / actually poor (b) Brexit promised them resources and riches (c) Tories promised them definitely resources and riches (d) They won't take no for an answer
Either this government produces a rabbit out of the hat or the Tory 2019 first timers depart.
(A) is wrong.
Red Wall Tory voters are typically home owners, not impoverished people awaiting resources and riches.
Thanks to the relatively huge success in building new homes up here, compared to the rest of the country, the Red Wall has seen much more people getting on the property ladder rather than the reverse happening as in much of the country.
That's the real reason the non-metropolitan North has been swinging Tory while the South is swinging against the Tories. Because voters here have their own deeds to their very own Barratt Home and similar, rather than rental bills.
(a) is not wrong. A is the reason why we have seen a clearout of Labour councils and Labour MPs in Labour since the Danelaw areas. Try living in the red wall for a while and you will see what they are so upset about./
Incidentally, it wouldn't be a good idea for the Tories to listen to you. Telling people that their lived experience is wrong never works.
Try living in the red wall for a while? Excuse me, I do live in the Red Wall, you don't.
There is new housing estates all over the place. You know, all those homes you keep complaining about because you want to excuse the NIMBY scum? All those new homes have voters.
The Red Wall fell because of construction, because the likes of Barratt etc got people on the property ladder, NOT because poor people suddenly became fed up of Labour not doing anything for them.
You're in Birchwood aren't you? Cheshire daaaaarling.
I've moved around a bit, I'd rather not say where I live if you don't mind, but Birchwood is not a bad example. Warrington North is a safe Labour seat, or used to be, like much of the North West its seen massive construction recently and its trended away from Labour as the share of owner occupier voters in the constituency has risen.
Just like the neighbouring constituency of Leigh. What you'd think of as Leigh is still just as grotty terraced homes as it always was, but its surrounded by new estates of semi-detached homes with gardens and driveways for 2 parking spaces each.
Drive around the new estates of Leigh, versus the old streets of Leigh, and its hardly a surprise voting levels have changed. The voting is changing not because people are suddenly fed up of Labour, but because Leigh itself, much of the North itself, is changing. The houses people are living in - and increasingly owning - are not the same homes that existed thirty years ago.
And constituencies that were predominantly owner occupied in the past, that are now unaffordable and NIMBYs are blocking construction, are seeing trends away from the Tories.
Its housing, stupid.
Again again, I hope your Tory friends go and argue your points on the doorstep. They will be annihilated.
I don't think Bart is presenting an argument why people in Warrington North or Leigh SHOULD vote Tory - he is saying that where there has been a long term shift to owner occupation, especially of new builds - such as Warrington North, Leigh, Blyth, Rother Valley, and dozens of others - there has been a long term shift to the Tories. This seems inarguable to me. I also agree with the implication that the Tories would be well served to try to maximise the number of owner occupiers.
Bingo. You've nailed it completely.
Essentially Britain votes by housing. Renters as a class tend to vote Labour. Owned outright tend to vote Tory. Owned with a mortgage, are the swing voters, who in recent years have voted Tory but in Blair's time voted Labour.
In much of the country renting has become more common, but in parts of the North owner occupiers have become more common due to vast amounts of new builds. That has meant more Tory voters, but since those voters have mortgages they're not safe Tory.
The idea that the North swung Tory because voters were pissed off and angry misses the transformation in housing that has happened. Drive around the North outside the cities, and yes if you're here you're driving to get around, and there has been major new housing developments and those developments lead to new owner occupiers which changes how people think about voting.
There have been suggestions of this voting-by-housing-tenure hypothesis before. It is interesting and believable, but I don't know of studies that examine it carefully. Do you?
I've seen many studies on it before, none to hand, but this excellent chart is in the article I linked to above and sums it up well.
The vast construction in the Red Wall, one of the only places in the country where there has been a semi-reasonable amount of construction, has led to home ownership rates here moving from Labour levels to Tory levels. The seats then swung accordingly.
Home ownership and GE2019 As in previous years, homeowners were more likely to vote Conservative in the 2019 election. According to Ipsos MORI’s figures, 57% of voters who owned their home outright voted Conservative, as did 43% of people with mortgages. By contrast, 45% of social renters and 46% of private renters voted Labour.
The 2011 Census tells us how many homeowners were in each constituency. At the time, around 64% of UK households owned their home, either outright or with a mortgage. 315 of the Conservatives’ 365 seats (86%) had home ownership levels above this average, compared with 53 of Labour’s 202 seats (26%). Nine of the Lib Dems’ 11 seats had above-average home ownership levels (82%).
86% above average ownership for Tories, 26% for Labour.
Home ownership is far and away what affects voting in this country. NIMBY scum like our Essicks Massiv that wants to invade Scotland, or the first son of Abraham, are doing their level best to discourage people from voting Tory.
So 82% of LD seats have above average home ownership levels too.
Yes we need more affordable housing, especially in brownbelt areas of London where home ownership is at its lowest and Labour has gained lots of former Conservative seats.
Build all over the greenbelt however and you will see lots of formerly safe Conservative seats like Chesham and Amersham go Liberal Democrat
You say that like its a bad thing.
Better to have people engaged in society and able to have their own home, even if some vote Lib Dem, than unable to afford their own home and voting to tear down society by voting for Labour.
No, we don't want to build all over our greenbelt when the Home Counties already have a 70% owner occupier rate anyway and are largely safe Tory just to send voters to the LDs.
London with only 50% owner occupier rate and lots of Labour seats and Tory marginals vulnerable to Labour does certainly need more affordable homes to buy, the South East less so
London is a part of the South East. If people working in London are going to have semi detached homes and gardens, the place to do so, is in the South East.
A very large proportion of people living in the SE outside of London already do work in London. That's generally for those who have a home, how they can afford to pay for it, so no pulling up the ladder after you and saying "you're not my problem, piss off and don't get a home near me" is not a solution.
London is NOT a part of the South East. People used to regularly be able to afford to buy a semi detached in suburban London on average incomes if they worked in the capital, they can't now. That needs more properties being built in outer London, not concreting all over the Home Counties greenbelt.
70% in the Home Counties outside London by contrast still own a property, the highest percentage of any UK region
London is a part of the South East. Places like Woking, Guildford etc are commuter belts to London and not remotely divorced from it.
No they aren't and plenty of people in Woking and Guildford do not work in London, home ownership there is also far higher than in London
Plenty don't, plenty do.
There are many trains running every day to ferry commuters to London from Woking, because they are both places in the South East of England that are close to each other. Anyone living in London who wants a home in Surrey, or anywhere else that's a suburb of London, should be able to get a house there.
The failure of having enough homes for Londoners is a failure for the whole of the South East, not just London.
Anyone who thinks that London isn't in the South East of England is as preposterous as someone suggesting that Manchester isn't in the North West.
Manchester's Mayor covers much of the North West as part of Greater Manchester, London's Mayor only expands as far as Greater London suburbia, not the Home Counties
'Levelling up' is dangerous ground for Sunak, given that video of him trumpeting unlevelling up the already high...
That’s not actually what he was saying in the video. But Labour had artfully cut the video to mislead.
He was saying that all deprived areas need support - including deprived rural areas in Kent - not just deprived urban areas
The problem was not him rightly pointing to pockets of deprived rural areas. The probem was that he claimed he had taken money from genuinely shonky areas in the north to give to pockets of deprived rural areas.
Nobody is denying that rural places can't hide poverty. But you can't divert money from places already promised the cash. Or in practice what it's meant is that money has gone to posh Tory areas to sort the small bit that isn't quite as posh as the rest whilst the scum area gets little or nothing.
Stockton on Tees seeing levelling up money spent in Yarm as a prime example. Yes, there are bits of Yarm not as nice as the rest. But relatively these areas are fine - certainly a lot better than chunks of town centre or Newtown wards.
Why do the Tories still have a minister for levelling up? Bottom line up front, Boris Johnson’s glib election promise “we will level up” is undeliverable bollocks.
Once you fathom out the impossible to fathom out “what exactly does it mean? Level up the north to the level of the south? But bits of the south are just as run down as bits of the north and vice versa? And switch to how to do it anyway to delivery something at least, even though you don’t really understand what it means, you realise it’s not about funnelling existing money from this to that, you will just end up hated and stuck in the 20s in the polling, it has to be new money, given to deserving places, fairly, and so that Tiverton in Blue Wall can’t get upset they are just as deserving and being cheated.
After all that, are you now levelling up? Of course not, because it is just pretend the ancient mismatch in scale and wealth between London and the secondary cities their regions can ever be levelled, it always was empty unachievable Johnsonian electioneering bollocks.
Why? Because: (a) Red Wall voters have noticed they are still relatively / actually poor (b) Brexit promised them resources and riches (c) Tories promised them definitely resources and riches (d) They won't take no for an answer
Either this government produces a rabbit out of the hat or the Tory 2019 first timers depart.
(A) is wrong.
Red Wall Tory voters are typically home owners, not impoverished people awaiting resources and riches.
Thanks to the relatively huge success in building new homes up here, compared to the rest of the country, the Red Wall has seen much more people getting on the property ladder rather than the reverse happening as in much of the country.
That's the real reason the non-metropolitan North has been swinging Tory while the South is swinging against the Tories. Because voters here have their own deeds to their very own Barratt Home and similar, rather than rental bills.
(a) is not wrong. A is the reason why we have seen a clearout of Labour councils and Labour MPs in Labour since the Danelaw areas. Try living in the red wall for a while and you will see what they are so upset about./
Incidentally, it wouldn't be a good idea for the Tories to listen to you. Telling people that their lived experience is wrong never works.
Try living in the red wall for a while? Excuse me, I do live in the Red Wall, you don't.
There is new housing estates all over the place. You know, all those homes you keep complaining about because you want to excuse the NIMBY scum? All those new homes have voters.
The Red Wall fell because of construction, because the likes of Barratt etc got people on the property ladder, NOT because poor people suddenly became fed up of Labour not doing anything for them.
You're in Birchwood aren't you? Cheshire daaaaarling.
I've moved around a bit, I'd rather not say where I live if you don't mind, but Birchwood is not a bad example. Warrington North is a safe Labour seat, or used to be, like much of the North West its seen massive construction recently and its trended away from Labour as the share of owner occupier voters in the constituency has risen.
Just like the neighbouring constituency of Leigh. What you'd think of as Leigh is still just as grotty terraced homes as it always was, but its surrounded by new estates of semi-detached homes with gardens and driveways for 2 parking spaces each.
Drive around the new estates of Leigh, versus the old streets of Leigh, and its hardly a surprise voting levels have changed. The voting is changing not because people are suddenly fed up of Labour, but because Leigh itself, much of the North itself, is changing. The houses people are living in - and increasingly owning - are not the same homes that existed thirty years ago.
And constituencies that were predominantly owner occupied in the past, that are now unaffordable and NIMBYs are blocking construction, are seeing trends away from the Tories.
Its housing, stupid.
Again again, I hope your Tory friends go and argue your points on the doorstep. They will be annihilated.
I don't think Bart is presenting an argument why people in Warrington North or Leigh SHOULD vote Tory - he is saying that where there has been a long term shift to owner occupation, especially of new builds - such as Warrington North, Leigh, Blyth, Rother Valley, and dozens of others - there has been a long term shift to the Tories. This seems inarguable to me. I also agree with the implication that the Tories would be well served to try to maximise the number of owner occupiers.
Bingo. You've nailed it completely.
Essentially Britain votes by housing. Renters as a class tend to vote Labour. Owned outright tend to vote Tory. Owned with a mortgage, are the swing voters, who in recent years have voted Tory but in Blair's time voted Labour.
In much of the country renting has become more common, but in parts of the North owner occupiers have become more common due to vast amounts of new builds. That has meant more Tory voters, but since those voters have mortgages they're not safe Tory.
The idea that the North swung Tory because voters were pissed off and angry misses the transformation in housing that has happened. Drive around the North outside the cities, and yes if you're here you're driving to get around, and there has been major new housing developments and those developments lead to new owner occupiers which changes how people think about voting.
There have been suggestions of this voting-by-housing-tenure hypothesis before. It is interesting and believable, but I don't know of studies that examine it carefully. Do you?
I've seen many studies on it before, none to hand, but this excellent chart is in the article I linked to above and sums it up well.
The vast construction in the Red Wall, one of the only places in the country where there has been a semi-reasonable amount of construction, has led to home ownership rates here moving from Labour levels to Tory levels. The seats then swung accordingly.
Home ownership and GE2019 As in previous years, homeowners were more likely to vote Conservative in the 2019 election. According to Ipsos MORI’s figures, 57% of voters who owned their home outright voted Conservative, as did 43% of people with mortgages. By contrast, 45% of social renters and 46% of private renters voted Labour.
The 2011 Census tells us how many homeowners were in each constituency. At the time, around 64% of UK households owned their home, either outright or with a mortgage. 315 of the Conservatives’ 365 seats (86%) had home ownership levels above this average, compared with 53 of Labour’s 202 seats (26%). Nine of the Lib Dems’ 11 seats had above-average home ownership levels (82%).
86% above average ownership for Tories, 26% for Labour.
Home ownership is far and away what affects voting in this country. NIMBY scum like our Essicks Massiv that wants to invade Scotland, or the first son of Abraham, are doing their level best to discourage people from voting Tory.
That's a bit jarring, seeing "scum" affixed to NIMBYs. Don't think I've ever come across it before. Really quite unusual.
When the world owes you a 5 bed detached des res, waiting to collect can get to you.
Especially if deleting the pampering of Tory-approved standard nuclear families under the current IHT regulations, and imposing wealth tax on landed property, are active subjects for discussion to remedy the chaos of the last few years.
Only 9% of voters want IHT to rise, the lowest of any tax.
Though yes wealth taxes on million pound plus properties might not be too unpopular if Labour proposes them (outside of a few central London Labour target seats like Kensington and Cities of London and Westminster)
No, it says 9% of voters included inheritance tax in the top three taxes they want held constant.
Obviously people want taxes on other, higher-income people to go up, though they also love the public services those people pay for by building businesses in the UK or working in jobs that are created in the UK, so it's a bit of a bind.
Belgium has a big welfare state by taxing ordinary people at 30% from euro one. The average Brit wants to pay something like 10%, so of course they get less stuff from government.
So does Sweden have a big welfare state but also no inheritance tax at all.
There are also examples in Europe of lower tax, lower spend nations than the UK eg Switzerland
In fact, the main reason you are worried about IHT is that your Topry voters will be bribed with our money so they don't have to spend their own savings on looking after themselves. Using that purpose for savings is what ordinary self-respecting civilised non-selfish citizens used to.
Preserving property and inheritance is a core Tory value. Why should Tories care what non Tories like you think about it?
Because you're deliberately parasitising on most of society, which don't have enough to leave to get to the 325K limit [edit] and will not get anywhere where they have to worry abotu the Special Allowance For Publicly Subsidising Tory Voting Sponging Pensioners And Their Greedy Offspring.
In London the average sold property price is £740,597, in Surrey the average house price is £620,686, so it is not just the rich but average voters in London and the Home Counties hit by higher IHT
(a) that every voter is a home-owner. Many are not. (B) that every home-owner actually has 100% equity without any mortgage. Many are not.
(Of course, both are heavily biased toward the Tories, but they would be for you. Or perhaps Labour and LD and Green voters are not human beings?)
So you are mixing up three different populations and talking bollocks because you trhink it makes your argument look better. Actually, it makes it look even worse.
Anyway, that's enough bollock-toasting to stock a French charcuterie for one evening, so I'm going to go off and read a nice new book. And I suggest you buy yourself a train set and try out the logical operation of points and sidings.
65% are home owners, by the time they are near death most will have paid off their mortgage.
YOu think so, the way things are going? Are already? We're not in the 1970s any more. Or the 1950s.
In the 1950s fewer owned their own property than now
Look at the repo statistics in a year or two. Thanks entirely to youir party.
Well those facing repo will need an inheritance and parental support even more won't they! Hopefully though most will avoid falling behind on their mortgage (and Rishi is not responsible for Truss and Kwarteng's errors)
With any luck,. their parents will have been heavily taxed on their unearned capital gains.
Well a socialist like you would say that wouldn't you, tax everything is your philosophy
'Levelling up' is dangerous ground for Sunak, given that video of him trumpeting unlevelling up the already high...
That’s not actually what he was saying in the video. But Labour had artfully cut the video to mislead.
He was saying that all deprived areas need support - including deprived rural areas in Kent - not just deprived urban areas
The problem was not him rightly pointing to pockets of deprived rural areas. The probem was that he claimed he had taken money from genuinely shonky areas in the north to give to pockets of deprived rural areas.
Nobody is denying that rural places can't hide poverty. But you can't divert money from places already promised the cash. Or in practice what it's meant is that money has gone to posh Tory areas to sort the small bit that isn't quite as posh as the rest whilst the scum area gets little or nothing.
Stockton on Tees seeing levelling up money spent in Yarm as a prime example. Yes, there are bits of Yarm not as nice as the rest. But relatively these areas are fine - certainly a lot better than chunks of town centre or Newtown wards.
Why do the Tories still have a minister for levelling up? Bottom line up front, Boris Johnson’s glib election promise “we will level up” is undeliverable bollocks.
Once you fathom out the impossible to fathom out “what exactly does it mean? Level up the north to the level of the south? But bits of the south are just as run down as bits of the north and vice versa? And switch to how to do it anyway to delivery something at least, even though you don’t really understand what it means, you realise it’s not about funnelling existing money from this to that, you will just end up hated and stuck in the 20s in the polling, it has to be new money, given to deserving places, fairly, and so that Tiverton in Blue Wall can’t get upset they are just as deserving and being cheated.
After all that, are you now levelling up? Of course not, because it is just pretend the ancient mismatch in scale and wealth between London and the secondary cities their regions can ever be levelled, it always was empty unachievable Johnsonian electioneering bollocks.
Why? Because: (a) Red Wall voters have noticed they are still relatively / actually poor (b) Brexit promised them resources and riches (c) Tories promised them definitely resources and riches (d) They won't take no for an answer
Either this government produces a rabbit out of the hat or the Tory 2019 first timers depart.
(A) is wrong.
Red Wall Tory voters are typically home owners, not impoverished people awaiting resources and riches.
Thanks to the relatively huge success in building new homes up here, compared to the rest of the country, the Red Wall has seen much more people getting on the property ladder rather than the reverse happening as in much of the country.
That's the real reason the non-metropolitan North has been swinging Tory while the South is swinging against the Tories. Because voters here have their own deeds to their very own Barratt Home and similar, rather than rental bills.
(a) is not wrong. A is the reason why we have seen a clearout of Labour councils and Labour MPs in Labour since the Danelaw areas. Try living in the red wall for a while and you will see what they are so upset about./
Incidentally, it wouldn't be a good idea for the Tories to listen to you. Telling people that their lived experience is wrong never works.
Try living in the red wall for a while? Excuse me, I do live in the Red Wall, you don't.
There is new housing estates all over the place. You know, all those homes you keep complaining about because you want to excuse the NIMBY scum? All those new homes have voters.
The Red Wall fell because of construction, because the likes of Barratt etc got people on the property ladder, NOT because poor people suddenly became fed up of Labour not doing anything for them.
You're in Birchwood aren't you? Cheshire daaaaarling.
I've moved around a bit, I'd rather not say where I live if you don't mind, but Birchwood is not a bad example. Warrington North is a safe Labour seat, or used to be, like much of the North West its seen massive construction recently and its trended away from Labour as the share of owner occupier voters in the constituency has risen.
Just like the neighbouring constituency of Leigh. What you'd think of as Leigh is still just as grotty terraced homes as it always was, but its surrounded by new estates of semi-detached homes with gardens and driveways for 2 parking spaces each.
Drive around the new estates of Leigh, versus the old streets of Leigh, and its hardly a surprise voting levels have changed. The voting is changing not because people are suddenly fed up of Labour, but because Leigh itself, much of the North itself, is changing. The houses people are living in - and increasingly owning - are not the same homes that existed thirty years ago.
And constituencies that were predominantly owner occupied in the past, that are now unaffordable and NIMBYs are blocking construction, are seeing trends away from the Tories.
Its housing, stupid.
Again again, I hope your Tory friends go and argue your points on the doorstep. They will be annihilated.
I don't think Bart is presenting an argument why people in Warrington North or Leigh SHOULD vote Tory - he is saying that where there has been a long term shift to owner occupation, especially of new builds - such as Warrington North, Leigh, Blyth, Rother Valley, and dozens of others - there has been a long term shift to the Tories. This seems inarguable to me. I also agree with the implication that the Tories would be well served to try to maximise the number of owner occupiers.
Bingo. You've nailed it completely.
Essentially Britain votes by housing. Renters as a class tend to vote Labour. Owned outright tend to vote Tory. Owned with a mortgage, are the swing voters, who in recent years have voted Tory but in Blair's time voted Labour.
In much of the country renting has become more common, but in parts of the North owner occupiers have become more common due to vast amounts of new builds. That has meant more Tory voters, but since those voters have mortgages they're not safe Tory.
The idea that the North swung Tory because voters were pissed off and angry misses the transformation in housing that has happened. Drive around the North outside the cities, and yes if you're here you're driving to get around, and there has been major new housing developments and those developments lead to new owner occupiers which changes how people think about voting.
There have been suggestions of this voting-by-housing-tenure hypothesis before. It is interesting and believable, but I don't know of studies that examine it carefully. Do you?
I've seen many studies on it before, none to hand, but this excellent chart is in the article I linked to above and sums it up well.
The vast construction in the Red Wall, one of the only places in the country where there has been a semi-reasonable amount of construction, has led to home ownership rates here moving from Labour levels to Tory levels. The seats then swung accordingly.
Home ownership and GE2019 As in previous years, homeowners were more likely to vote Conservative in the 2019 election. According to Ipsos MORI’s figures, 57% of voters who owned their home outright voted Conservative, as did 43% of people with mortgages. By contrast, 45% of social renters and 46% of private renters voted Labour.
The 2011 Census tells us how many homeowners were in each constituency. At the time, around 64% of UK households owned their home, either outright or with a mortgage. 315 of the Conservatives’ 365 seats (86%) had home ownership levels above this average, compared with 53 of Labour’s 202 seats (26%). Nine of the Lib Dems’ 11 seats had above-average home ownership levels (82%).
86% above average ownership for Tories, 26% for Labour.
Home ownership is far and away what affects voting in this country. NIMBY scum like our Essicks Massiv that wants to invade Scotland, or the first son of Abraham, are doing their level best to discourage people from voting Tory.
So 82% of LD seats have above average home ownership levels too.
Yes we need more affordable housing, especially in brownbelt areas of London where home ownership is at its lowest and Labour has gained lots of former Conservative seats.
Build all over the greenbelt however and you will see lots of formerly safe Conservative seats like Chesham and Amersham go Liberal Democrat
You say that like its a bad thing.
Better to have people engaged in society and able to have their own home, even if some vote Lib Dem, than unable to afford their own home and voting to tear down society by voting for Labour.
No, we don't want to build all over our greenbelt when the Home Counties already have a 70% owner occupier rate anyway and are largely safe Tory just to send voters to the LDs.
London with only 50% owner occupier rate and lots of Labour seats and Tory marginals vulnerable to Labour does certainly need more affordable homes to buy, the South East less so
London is a part of the South East. If people working in London are going to have semi detached homes and gardens, the place to do so, is in the South East.
A very large proportion of people living in the SE outside of London already do work in London. That's generally for those who have a home, how they can afford to pay for it, so no pulling up the ladder after you and saying "you're not my problem, piss off and don't get a home near me" is not a solution.
London is NOT a part of the South East. People used to regularly be able to afford to buy a semi detached in suburban London on average incomes if they worked in the capital, they can't now. That needs more properties being built in outer London, not concreting all over the Home Counties greenbelt.
70% in the Home Counties outside London by contrast still own a property, the highest percentage of any UK region
You can submit a report to Google about Maps is wrong, and how London is really not in the South East of England.
It isn't, South East voters don't elect the London Mayor or London Assembly do they? When we had MEPs the South East region MEPs were completely separate to London elected MEPs
Voters in Warrington don't elect the Mayor of Greater Manchester. They're still both in the North West though.
London is entirely contained within the South East, that the South East is split into two regions for administrative purposes is no different to the fact that Stoke on Trent has 3 constituencies.
'Levelling up' is dangerous ground for Sunak, given that video of him trumpeting unlevelling up the already high...
That’s not actually what he was saying in the video. But Labour had artfully cut the video to mislead.
He was saying that all deprived areas need support - including deprived rural areas in Kent - not just deprived urban areas
The problem was not him rightly pointing to pockets of deprived rural areas. The probem was that he claimed he had taken money from genuinely shonky areas in the north to give to pockets of deprived rural areas.
Nobody is denying that rural places can't hide poverty. But you can't divert money from places already promised the cash. Or in practice what it's meant is that money has gone to posh Tory areas to sort the small bit that isn't quite as posh as the rest whilst the scum area gets little or nothing.
Stockton on Tees seeing levelling up money spent in Yarm as a prime example. Yes, there are bits of Yarm not as nice as the rest. But relatively these areas are fine - certainly a lot better than chunks of town centre or Newtown wards.
Why do the Tories still have a minister for levelling up? Bottom line up front, Boris Johnson’s glib election promise “we will level up” is undeliverable bollocks.
Once you fathom out the impossible to fathom out “what exactly does it mean? Level up the north to the level of the south? But bits of the south are just as run down as bits of the north and vice versa? And switch to how to do it anyway to delivery something at least, even though you don’t really understand what it means, you realise it’s not about funnelling existing money from this to that, you will just end up hated and stuck in the 20s in the polling, it has to be new money, given to deserving places, fairly, and so that Tiverton in Blue Wall can’t get upset they are just as deserving and being cheated.
After all that, are you now levelling up? Of course not, because it is just pretend the ancient mismatch in scale and wealth between London and the secondary cities their regions can ever be levelled, it always was empty unachievable Johnsonian electioneering bollocks.
Why? Because: (a) Red Wall voters have noticed they are still relatively / actually poor (b) Brexit promised them resources and riches (c) Tories promised them definitely resources and riches (d) They won't take no for an answer
Either this government produces a rabbit out of the hat or the Tory 2019 first timers depart.
(A) is wrong.
Red Wall Tory voters are typically home owners, not impoverished people awaiting resources and riches.
Thanks to the relatively huge success in building new homes up here, compared to the rest of the country, the Red Wall has seen much more people getting on the property ladder rather than the reverse happening as in much of the country.
That's the real reason the non-metropolitan North has been swinging Tory while the South is swinging against the Tories. Because voters here have their own deeds to their very own Barratt Home and similar, rather than rental bills.
(a) is not wrong. A is the reason why we have seen a clearout of Labour councils and Labour MPs in Labour since the Danelaw areas. Try living in the red wall for a while and you will see what they are so upset about./
Incidentally, it wouldn't be a good idea for the Tories to listen to you. Telling people that their lived experience is wrong never works.
Try living in the red wall for a while? Excuse me, I do live in the Red Wall, you don't.
There is new housing estates all over the place. You know, all those homes you keep complaining about because you want to excuse the NIMBY scum? All those new homes have voters.
The Red Wall fell because of construction, because the likes of Barratt etc got people on the property ladder, NOT because poor people suddenly became fed up of Labour not doing anything for them.
You're in Birchwood aren't you? Cheshire daaaaarling.
I've moved around a bit, I'd rather not say where I live if you don't mind, but Birchwood is not a bad example. Warrington North is a safe Labour seat, or used to be, like much of the North West its seen massive construction recently and its trended away from Labour as the share of owner occupier voters in the constituency has risen.
Just like the neighbouring constituency of Leigh. What you'd think of as Leigh is still just as grotty terraced homes as it always was, but its surrounded by new estates of semi-detached homes with gardens and driveways for 2 parking spaces each.
Drive around the new estates of Leigh, versus the old streets of Leigh, and its hardly a surprise voting levels have changed. The voting is changing not because people are suddenly fed up of Labour, but because Leigh itself, much of the North itself, is changing. The houses people are living in - and increasingly owning - are not the same homes that existed thirty years ago.
And constituencies that were predominantly owner occupied in the past, that are now unaffordable and NIMBYs are blocking construction, are seeing trends away from the Tories.
Its housing, stupid.
Again again, I hope your Tory friends go and argue your points on the doorstep. They will be annihilated.
I don't think Bart is presenting an argument why people in Warrington North or Leigh SHOULD vote Tory - he is saying that where there has been a long term shift to owner occupation, especially of new builds - such as Warrington North, Leigh, Blyth, Rother Valley, and dozens of others - there has been a long term shift to the Tories. This seems inarguable to me. I also agree with the implication that the Tories would be well served to try to maximise the number of owner occupiers.
Bingo. You've nailed it completely.
Essentially Britain votes by housing. Renters as a class tend to vote Labour. Owned outright tend to vote Tory. Owned with a mortgage, are the swing voters, who in recent years have voted Tory but in Blair's time voted Labour.
In much of the country renting has become more common, but in parts of the North owner occupiers have become more common due to vast amounts of new builds. That has meant more Tory voters, but since those voters have mortgages they're not safe Tory.
The idea that the North swung Tory because voters were pissed off and angry misses the transformation in housing that has happened. Drive around the North outside the cities, and yes if you're here you're driving to get around, and there has been major new housing developments and those developments lead to new owner occupiers which changes how people think about voting.
There have been suggestions of this voting-by-housing-tenure hypothesis before. It is interesting and believable, but I don't know of studies that examine it carefully. Do you?
I've seen many studies on it before, none to hand, but this excellent chart is in the article I linked to above and sums it up well.
The vast construction in the Red Wall, one of the only places in the country where there has been a semi-reasonable amount of construction, has led to home ownership rates here moving from Labour levels to Tory levels. The seats then swung accordingly.
Home ownership and GE2019 As in previous years, homeowners were more likely to vote Conservative in the 2019 election. According to Ipsos MORI’s figures, 57% of voters who owned their home outright voted Conservative, as did 43% of people with mortgages. By contrast, 45% of social renters and 46% of private renters voted Labour.
The 2011 Census tells us how many homeowners were in each constituency. At the time, around 64% of UK households owned their home, either outright or with a mortgage. 315 of the Conservatives’ 365 seats (86%) had home ownership levels above this average, compared with 53 of Labour’s 202 seats (26%). Nine of the Lib Dems’ 11 seats had above-average home ownership levels (82%).
86% above average ownership for Tories, 26% for Labour.
Home ownership is far and away what affects voting in this country. NIMBY scum like our Essicks Massiv that wants to invade Scotland, or the first son of Abraham, are doing their level best to discourage people from voting Tory.
That's a bit jarring, seeing "scum" affixed to NIMBYs. Don't think I've ever come across it before. Really quite unusual.
When the world owes you a 5 bed detached des res, waiting to collect can get to you.
Especially if deleting the pampering of Tory-approved standard nuclear families under the current IHT regulations, and imposing wealth tax on landed property, are active subjects for discussion to remedy the chaos of the last few years.
Only 9% of voters want IHT to rise, the lowest of any tax.
Though yes wealth taxes on million pound plus properties might not be too unpopular if Labour proposes them (outside of a few central London Labour target seats like Kensington and Cities of London and Westminster)
How on earth can you have misread that so badly. They want IHT to increase in preference to all normal taxes eg income tax, vat, fuel duty, council tax, stamp duty, ni. The only taxes they prefer to increase more than IHT are higher and top rate income tax, CGT and Corp Tax. And of course that is what you would expect. They don't want taxes increased that they pay but do want taxes increased on richer people.
The converse is true re taxes they don't want increased which is where you got the 9% from but you completely misunderstood the table. 50% don't want income tax increased compared to only 9% who don't want IHT to rise. Similarly Vat, fuel duty, ni, council tax etc compared to IHT.
Just 12% want higher IHT compared to 52% wanting a higher top income tax rate, 47% higher corporation tax, 33% higher capital gains tax and 29% a rise in the higher rate of income tax
Yep. Would you now like to show the rest of the figures so as not to mislead. That is they prefer higher IHT compared to all the other taxes. You know the ones we all pay every day. So it was completely untrue that it was bottom of the list isn't it. It was actually nearer the top of the list wasn't it and only under the taxes richer people pay. Same goes for the other table.
You either don't understand the tables or are deliberately misleading. Daft as we can all see the tables.
No, plenty of people pay the higher rate of income tax, they also wanted that increased more than IHT.
Most people, SFAICS, outside areas of ludicrously high house prices never think about IHT because they never need to; it falls miles outside their range, as does CGT and windfall taxes on oil and gas. It just isn't their problem.
'Levelling up' is dangerous ground for Sunak, given that video of him trumpeting unlevelling up the already high...
That’s not actually what he was saying in the video. But Labour had artfully cut the video to mislead.
He was saying that all deprived areas need support - including deprived rural areas in Kent - not just deprived urban areas
The problem was not him rightly pointing to pockets of deprived rural areas. The probem was that he claimed he had taken money from genuinely shonky areas in the north to give to pockets of deprived rural areas.
Nobody is denying that rural places can't hide poverty. But you can't divert money from places already promised the cash. Or in practice what it's meant is that money has gone to posh Tory areas to sort the small bit that isn't quite as posh as the rest whilst the scum area gets little or nothing.
Stockton on Tees seeing levelling up money spent in Yarm as a prime example. Yes, there are bits of Yarm not as nice as the rest. But relatively these areas are fine - certainly a lot better than chunks of town centre or Newtown wards.
Why do the Tories still have a minister for levelling up? Bottom line up front, Boris Johnson’s glib election promise “we will level up” is undeliverable bollocks.
Once you fathom out the impossible to fathom out “what exactly does it mean? Level up the north to the level of the south? But bits of the south are just as run down as bits of the north and vice versa? And switch to how to do it anyway to delivery something at least, even though you don’t really understand what it means, you realise it’s not about funnelling existing money from this to that, you will just end up hated and stuck in the 20s in the polling, it has to be new money, given to deserving places, fairly, and so that Tiverton in Blue Wall can’t get upset they are just as deserving and being cheated.
After all that, are you now levelling up? Of course not, because it is just pretend the ancient mismatch in scale and wealth between London and the secondary cities their regions can ever be levelled, it always was empty unachievable Johnsonian electioneering bollocks.
Why? Because: (a) Red Wall voters have noticed they are still relatively / actually poor (b) Brexit promised them resources and riches (c) Tories promised them definitely resources and riches (d) They won't take no for an answer
Either this government produces a rabbit out of the hat or the Tory 2019 first timers depart.
(A) is wrong.
Red Wall Tory voters are typically home owners, not impoverished people awaiting resources and riches.
Thanks to the relatively huge success in building new homes up here, compared to the rest of the country, the Red Wall has seen much more people getting on the property ladder rather than the reverse happening as in much of the country.
That's the real reason the non-metropolitan North has been swinging Tory while the South is swinging against the Tories. Because voters here have their own deeds to their very own Barratt Home and similar, rather than rental bills.
(a) is not wrong. A is the reason why we have seen a clearout of Labour councils and Labour MPs in Labour since the Danelaw areas. Try living in the red wall for a while and you will see what they are so upset about./
Incidentally, it wouldn't be a good idea for the Tories to listen to you. Telling people that their lived experience is wrong never works.
Try living in the red wall for a while? Excuse me, I do live in the Red Wall, you don't.
There is new housing estates all over the place. You know, all those homes you keep complaining about because you want to excuse the NIMBY scum? All those new homes have voters.
The Red Wall fell because of construction, because the likes of Barratt etc got people on the property ladder, NOT because poor people suddenly became fed up of Labour not doing anything for them.
You're in Birchwood aren't you? Cheshire daaaaarling.
I've moved around a bit, I'd rather not say where I live if you don't mind, but Birchwood is not a bad example. Warrington North is a safe Labour seat, or used to be, like much of the North West its seen massive construction recently and its trended away from Labour as the share of owner occupier voters in the constituency has risen.
Just like the neighbouring constituency of Leigh. What you'd think of as Leigh is still just as grotty terraced homes as it always was, but its surrounded by new estates of semi-detached homes with gardens and driveways for 2 parking spaces each.
Drive around the new estates of Leigh, versus the old streets of Leigh, and its hardly a surprise voting levels have changed. The voting is changing not because people are suddenly fed up of Labour, but because Leigh itself, much of the North itself, is changing. The houses people are living in - and increasingly owning - are not the same homes that existed thirty years ago.
And constituencies that were predominantly owner occupied in the past, that are now unaffordable and NIMBYs are blocking construction, are seeing trends away from the Tories.
Its housing, stupid.
Again again, I hope your Tory friends go and argue your points on the doorstep. They will be annihilated.
I don't think Bart is presenting an argument why people in Warrington North or Leigh SHOULD vote Tory - he is saying that where there has been a long term shift to owner occupation, especially of new builds - such as Warrington North, Leigh, Blyth, Rother Valley, and dozens of others - there has been a long term shift to the Tories. This seems inarguable to me. I also agree with the implication that the Tories would be well served to try to maximise the number of owner occupiers.
Bingo. You've nailed it completely.
Essentially Britain votes by housing. Renters as a class tend to vote Labour. Owned outright tend to vote Tory. Owned with a mortgage, are the swing voters, who in recent years have voted Tory but in Blair's time voted Labour.
In much of the country renting has become more common, but in parts of the North owner occupiers have become more common due to vast amounts of new builds. That has meant more Tory voters, but since those voters have mortgages they're not safe Tory.
The idea that the North swung Tory because voters were pissed off and angry misses the transformation in housing that has happened. Drive around the North outside the cities, and yes if you're here you're driving to get around, and there has been major new housing developments and those developments lead to new owner occupiers which changes how people think about voting.
There have been suggestions of this voting-by-housing-tenure hypothesis before. It is interesting and believable, but I don't know of studies that examine it carefully. Do you?
I've seen many studies on it before, none to hand, but this excellent chart is in the article I linked to above and sums it up well.
The vast construction in the Red Wall, one of the only places in the country where there has been a semi-reasonable amount of construction, has led to home ownership rates here moving from Labour levels to Tory levels. The seats then swung accordingly.
Home ownership and GE2019 As in previous years, homeowners were more likely to vote Conservative in the 2019 election. According to Ipsos MORI’s figures, 57% of voters who owned their home outright voted Conservative, as did 43% of people with mortgages. By contrast, 45% of social renters and 46% of private renters voted Labour.
The 2011 Census tells us how many homeowners were in each constituency. At the time, around 64% of UK households owned their home, either outright or with a mortgage. 315 of the Conservatives’ 365 seats (86%) had home ownership levels above this average, compared with 53 of Labour’s 202 seats (26%). Nine of the Lib Dems’ 11 seats had above-average home ownership levels (82%).
86% above average ownership for Tories, 26% for Labour.
Home ownership is far and away what affects voting in this country. NIMBY scum like our Essicks Massiv that wants to invade Scotland, or the first son of Abraham, are doing their level best to discourage people from voting Tory.
That's a bit jarring, seeing "scum" affixed to NIMBYs. Don't think I've ever come across it before. Really quite unusual.
When the world owes you a 5 bed detached des res, waiting to collect can get to you.
Especially if deleting the pampering of Tory-approved standard nuclear families under the current IHT regulations, and imposing wealth tax on landed property, are active subjects for discussion to remedy the chaos of the last few years.
Only 9% of voters want IHT to rise, the lowest of any tax.
Though yes wealth taxes on million pound plus properties might not be too unpopular if Labour proposes them (outside of a few central London Labour target seats like Kensington and Cities of London and Westminster)
How on earth can you have misread that so badly. They want IHT to increase in preference to all normal taxes eg income tax, vat, fuel duty, council tax, stamp duty, ni. The only taxes they prefer to increase more than IHT are higher and top rate income tax, CGT and Corp Tax. And of course that is what you would expect. They don't want taxes increased that they pay but do want taxes increased on richer people.
The converse is true re taxes they don't want increased which is where you got the 9% from but you completely misunderstood the table. 50% don't want income tax increased compared to only 9% who don't want IHT to rise. Similarly Vat, fuel duty, ni, council tax etc compared to IHT.
Just 12% want higher IHT compared to 52% wanting a higher top income tax rate, 47% higher corporation tax, 33% higher capital gains tax and 29% a rise in the higher rate of income tax
Yep. Would you now like to show the rest of the figures so as not to mislead. That is they prefer higher IHT compared to all the other taxes. You know the ones we all pay every day. So it was completely untrue that it was bottom of the list isn't it. It was actually nearer the top of the list wasn't it and only under the taxes richer people pay. Same goes for the other table.
You either don't understand the tables or are deliberately misleading. Daft as we can all see the tables.
No, plenty of people pay the higher rate of income tax, they also wanted that increased more than IHT
Sorry what has that got to do with anything. You completely misunderstood it. You said it was the LOWEST of any tax. It wasn't. It was actually higher than mid table and actually higher than all the taxes nearly all of us pay. It was only below the taxes wealthy or better off people pay (greater than £50K) You got it completely wrong.
Come on put your hands up to it. We can all see the tables cos you gave us the links so you just look silly denying it.
You have to understand @HYUFD has a personal interest in his inheritance but the one thing about inheritance is nobody should take it for granted as elderly parents are living much longer and as a result may need years in care at approx £50,000 pa, but also IHT is far too generous at one million and should revert to the previous lower threshold in these difficult times for everyone
'Levelling up' is dangerous ground for Sunak, given that video of him trumpeting unlevelling up the already high...
That’s not actually what he was saying in the video. But Labour had artfully cut the video to mislead.
He was saying that all deprived areas need support - including deprived rural areas in Kent - not just deprived urban areas
The problem was not him rightly pointing to pockets of deprived rural areas. The probem was that he claimed he had taken money from genuinely shonky areas in the north to give to pockets of deprived rural areas.
Nobody is denying that rural places can't hide poverty. But you can't divert money from places already promised the cash. Or in practice what it's meant is that money has gone to posh Tory areas to sort the small bit that isn't quite as posh as the rest whilst the scum area gets little or nothing.
Stockton on Tees seeing levelling up money spent in Yarm as a prime example. Yes, there are bits of Yarm not as nice as the rest. But relatively these areas are fine - certainly a lot better than chunks of town centre or Newtown wards.
Why do the Tories still have a minister for levelling up? Bottom line up front, Boris Johnson’s glib election promise “we will level up” is undeliverable bollocks.
Once you fathom out the impossible to fathom out “what exactly does it mean? Level up the north to the level of the south? But bits of the south are just as run down as bits of the north and vice versa? And switch to how to do it anyway to delivery something at least, even though you don’t really understand what it means, you realise it’s not about funnelling existing money from this to that, you will just end up hated and stuck in the 20s in the polling, it has to be new money, given to deserving places, fairly, and so that Tiverton in Blue Wall can’t get upset they are just as deserving and being cheated.
After all that, are you now levelling up? Of course not, because it is just pretend the ancient mismatch in scale and wealth between London and the secondary cities their regions can ever be levelled, it always was empty unachievable Johnsonian electioneering bollocks.
Why? Because: (a) Red Wall voters have noticed they are still relatively / actually poor (b) Brexit promised them resources and riches (c) Tories promised them definitely resources and riches (d) They won't take no for an answer
Either this government produces a rabbit out of the hat or the Tory 2019 first timers depart.
(A) is wrong.
Red Wall Tory voters are typically home owners, not impoverished people awaiting resources and riches.
Thanks to the relatively huge success in building new homes up here, compared to the rest of the country, the Red Wall has seen much more people getting on the property ladder rather than the reverse happening as in much of the country.
That's the real reason the non-metropolitan North has been swinging Tory while the South is swinging against the Tories. Because voters here have their own deeds to their very own Barratt Home and similar, rather than rental bills.
(a) is not wrong. A is the reason why we have seen a clearout of Labour councils and Labour MPs in Labour since the Danelaw areas. Try living in the red wall for a while and you will see what they are so upset about./
Incidentally, it wouldn't be a good idea for the Tories to listen to you. Telling people that their lived experience is wrong never works.
Try living in the red wall for a while? Excuse me, I do live in the Red Wall, you don't.
There is new housing estates all over the place. You know, all those homes you keep complaining about because you want to excuse the NIMBY scum? All those new homes have voters.
The Red Wall fell because of construction, because the likes of Barratt etc got people on the property ladder, NOT because poor people suddenly became fed up of Labour not doing anything for them.
You're in Birchwood aren't you? Cheshire daaaaarling.
I've moved around a bit, I'd rather not say where I live if you don't mind, but Birchwood is not a bad example. Warrington North is a safe Labour seat, or used to be, like much of the North West its seen massive construction recently and its trended away from Labour as the share of owner occupier voters in the constituency has risen.
Just like the neighbouring constituency of Leigh. What you'd think of as Leigh is still just as grotty terraced homes as it always was, but its surrounded by new estates of semi-detached homes with gardens and driveways for 2 parking spaces each.
Drive around the new estates of Leigh, versus the old streets of Leigh, and its hardly a surprise voting levels have changed. The voting is changing not because people are suddenly fed up of Labour, but because Leigh itself, much of the North itself, is changing. The houses people are living in - and increasingly owning - are not the same homes that existed thirty years ago.
And constituencies that were predominantly owner occupied in the past, that are now unaffordable and NIMBYs are blocking construction, are seeing trends away from the Tories.
Its housing, stupid.
Again again, I hope your Tory friends go and argue your points on the doorstep. They will be annihilated.
I don't think Bart is presenting an argument why people in Warrington North or Leigh SHOULD vote Tory - he is saying that where there has been a long term shift to owner occupation, especially of new builds - such as Warrington North, Leigh, Blyth, Rother Valley, and dozens of others - there has been a long term shift to the Tories. This seems inarguable to me. I also agree with the implication that the Tories would be well served to try to maximise the number of owner occupiers.
Bingo. You've nailed it completely.
Essentially Britain votes by housing. Renters as a class tend to vote Labour. Owned outright tend to vote Tory. Owned with a mortgage, are the swing voters, who in recent years have voted Tory but in Blair's time voted Labour.
In much of the country renting has become more common, but in parts of the North owner occupiers have become more common due to vast amounts of new builds. That has meant more Tory voters, but since those voters have mortgages they're not safe Tory.
The idea that the North swung Tory because voters were pissed off and angry misses the transformation in housing that has happened. Drive around the North outside the cities, and yes if you're here you're driving to get around, and there has been major new housing developments and those developments lead to new owner occupiers which changes how people think about voting.
There have been suggestions of this voting-by-housing-tenure hypothesis before. It is interesting and believable, but I don't know of studies that examine it carefully. Do you?
I've seen many studies on it before, none to hand, but this excellent chart is in the article I linked to above and sums it up well.
The vast construction in the Red Wall, one of the only places in the country where there has been a semi-reasonable amount of construction, has led to home ownership rates here moving from Labour levels to Tory levels. The seats then swung accordingly.
Home ownership and GE2019 As in previous years, homeowners were more likely to vote Conservative in the 2019 election. According to Ipsos MORI’s figures, 57% of voters who owned their home outright voted Conservative, as did 43% of people with mortgages. By contrast, 45% of social renters and 46% of private renters voted Labour.
The 2011 Census tells us how many homeowners were in each constituency. At the time, around 64% of UK households owned their home, either outright or with a mortgage. 315 of the Conservatives’ 365 seats (86%) had home ownership levels above this average, compared with 53 of Labour’s 202 seats (26%). Nine of the Lib Dems’ 11 seats had above-average home ownership levels (82%).
86% above average ownership for Tories, 26% for Labour.
Home ownership is far and away what affects voting in this country. NIMBY scum like our Essicks Massiv that wants to invade Scotland, or the first son of Abraham, are doing their level best to discourage people from voting Tory.
So 82% of LD seats have above average home ownership levels too.
Yes we need more affordable housing, especially in brownbelt areas of London where home ownership is at its lowest and Labour has gained lots of former Conservative seats.
Build all over the greenbelt however and you will see lots of formerly safe Conservative seats like Chesham and Amersham go Liberal Democrat
You say that like its a bad thing.
Better to have people engaged in society and able to have their own home, even if some vote Lib Dem, than unable to afford their own home and voting to tear down society by voting for Labour.
No, we don't want to build all over our greenbelt when the Home Counties already have a 70% owner occupier rate anyway and are largely safe Tory just to send voters to the LDs.
London with only 50% owner occupier rate and lots of Labour seats and Tory marginals vulnerable to Labour does certainly need more affordable homes to buy, the South East less so
London is a part of the South East. If people working in London are going to have semi detached homes and gardens, the place to do so, is in the South East.
A very large proportion of people living in the SE outside of London already do work in London. That's generally for those who have a home, how they can afford to pay for it, so no pulling up the ladder after you and saying "you're not my problem, piss off and don't get a home near me" is not a solution.
London is NOT a part of the South East. People used to regularly be able to afford to buy a semi detached in suburban London on average incomes if they worked in the capital, they can't now. That needs more properties being built in outer London, not concreting all over the Home Counties greenbelt.
70% in the Home Counties outside London by contrast still own a property, the highest percentage of any UK region
London is a part of the South East. Places like Woking, Guildford etc are commuter belts to London and not remotely divorced from it.
No they aren't and plenty of people in Woking and Guildford do not work in London, home ownership there is also far higher than in London
Plenty don't, plenty do.
There are many trains running every day to ferry commuters to London from Woking, because they are both places in the South East of England that are close to each other. Anyone living in London who wants a home in Surrey, or anywhere else that's a suburb of London, should be able to get a house there.
The failure of having enough homes for Londoners is a failure for the whole of the South East, not just London.
'Levelling up' is dangerous ground for Sunak, given that video of him trumpeting unlevelling up the already high...
That’s not actually what he was saying in the video. But Labour had artfully cut the video to mislead.
He was saying that all deprived areas need support - including deprived rural areas in Kent - not just deprived urban areas
The problem was not him rightly pointing to pockets of deprived rural areas. The probem was that he claimed he had taken money from genuinely shonky areas in the north to give to pockets of deprived rural areas.
Nobody is denying that rural places can't hide poverty. But you can't divert money from places already promised the cash. Or in practice what it's meant is that money has gone to posh Tory areas to sort the small bit that isn't quite as posh as the rest whilst the scum area gets little or nothing.
Stockton on Tees seeing levelling up money spent in Yarm as a prime example. Yes, there are bits of Yarm not as nice as the rest. But relatively these areas are fine - certainly a lot better than chunks of town centre or Newtown wards.
Why do the Tories still have a minister for levelling up? Bottom line up front, Boris Johnson’s glib election promise “we will level up” is undeliverable bollocks.
Once you fathom out the impossible to fathom out “what exactly does it mean? Level up the north to the level of the south? But bits of the south are just as run down as bits of the north and vice versa? And switch to how to do it anyway to delivery something at least, even though you don’t really understand what it means, you realise it’s not about funnelling existing money from this to that, you will just end up hated and stuck in the 20s in the polling, it has to be new money, given to deserving places, fairly, and so that Tiverton in Blue Wall can’t get upset they are just as deserving and being cheated.
After all that, are you now levelling up? Of course not, because it is just pretend the ancient mismatch in scale and wealth between London and the secondary cities their regions can ever be levelled, it always was empty unachievable Johnsonian electioneering bollocks.
Why? Because: (a) Red Wall voters have noticed they are still relatively / actually poor (b) Brexit promised them resources and riches (c) Tories promised them definitely resources and riches (d) They won't take no for an answer
Either this government produces a rabbit out of the hat or the Tory 2019 first timers depart.
(A) is wrong.
Red Wall Tory voters are typically home owners, not impoverished people awaiting resources and riches.
Thanks to the relatively huge success in building new homes up here, compared to the rest of the country, the Red Wall has seen much more people getting on the property ladder rather than the reverse happening as in much of the country.
That's the real reason the non-metropolitan North has been swinging Tory while the South is swinging against the Tories. Because voters here have their own deeds to their very own Barratt Home and similar, rather than rental bills.
(a) is not wrong. A is the reason why we have seen a clearout of Labour councils and Labour MPs in Labour since the Danelaw areas. Try living in the red wall for a while and you will see what they are so upset about./
Incidentally, it wouldn't be a good idea for the Tories to listen to you. Telling people that their lived experience is wrong never works.
Try living in the red wall for a while? Excuse me, I do live in the Red Wall, you don't.
There is new housing estates all over the place. You know, all those homes you keep complaining about because you want to excuse the NIMBY scum? All those new homes have voters.
The Red Wall fell because of construction, because the likes of Barratt etc got people on the property ladder, NOT because poor people suddenly became fed up of Labour not doing anything for them.
You're in Birchwood aren't you? Cheshire daaaaarling.
I've moved around a bit, I'd rather not say where I live if you don't mind, but Birchwood is not a bad example. Warrington North is a safe Labour seat, or used to be, like much of the North West its seen massive construction recently and its trended away from Labour as the share of owner occupier voters in the constituency has risen.
Just like the neighbouring constituency of Leigh. What you'd think of as Leigh is still just as grotty terraced homes as it always was, but its surrounded by new estates of semi-detached homes with gardens and driveways for 2 parking spaces each.
Drive around the new estates of Leigh, versus the old streets of Leigh, and its hardly a surprise voting levels have changed. The voting is changing not because people are suddenly fed up of Labour, but because Leigh itself, much of the North itself, is changing. The houses people are living in - and increasingly owning - are not the same homes that existed thirty years ago.
And constituencies that were predominantly owner occupied in the past, that are now unaffordable and NIMBYs are blocking construction, are seeing trends away from the Tories.
Its housing, stupid.
Again again, I hope your Tory friends go and argue your points on the doorstep. They will be annihilated.
I don't think Bart is presenting an argument why people in Warrington North or Leigh SHOULD vote Tory - he is saying that where there has been a long term shift to owner occupation, especially of new builds - such as Warrington North, Leigh, Blyth, Rother Valley, and dozens of others - there has been a long term shift to the Tories. This seems inarguable to me. I also agree with the implication that the Tories would be well served to try to maximise the number of owner occupiers.
Bingo. You've nailed it completely.
Essentially Britain votes by housing. Renters as a class tend to vote Labour. Owned outright tend to vote Tory. Owned with a mortgage, are the swing voters, who in recent years have voted Tory but in Blair's time voted Labour.
In much of the country renting has become more common, but in parts of the North owner occupiers have become more common due to vast amounts of new builds. That has meant more Tory voters, but since those voters have mortgages they're not safe Tory.
The idea that the North swung Tory because voters were pissed off and angry misses the transformation in housing that has happened. Drive around the North outside the cities, and yes if you're here you're driving to get around, and there has been major new housing developments and those developments lead to new owner occupiers which changes how people think about voting.
There have been suggestions of this voting-by-housing-tenure hypothesis before. It is interesting and believable, but I don't know of studies that examine it carefully. Do you?
I've seen many studies on it before, none to hand, but this excellent chart is in the article I linked to above and sums it up well.
The vast construction in the Red Wall, one of the only places in the country where there has been a semi-reasonable amount of construction, has led to home ownership rates here moving from Labour levels to Tory levels. The seats then swung accordingly.
Home ownership and GE2019 As in previous years, homeowners were more likely to vote Conservative in the 2019 election. According to Ipsos MORI’s figures, 57% of voters who owned their home outright voted Conservative, as did 43% of people with mortgages. By contrast, 45% of social renters and 46% of private renters voted Labour.
The 2011 Census tells us how many homeowners were in each constituency. At the time, around 64% of UK households owned their home, either outright or with a mortgage. 315 of the Conservatives’ 365 seats (86%) had home ownership levels above this average, compared with 53 of Labour’s 202 seats (26%). Nine of the Lib Dems’ 11 seats had above-average home ownership levels (82%).
86% above average ownership for Tories, 26% for Labour.
Home ownership is far and away what affects voting in this country. NIMBY scum like our Essicks Massiv that wants to invade Scotland, or the first son of Abraham, are doing their level best to discourage people from voting Tory.
That's a bit jarring, seeing "scum" affixed to NIMBYs. Don't think I've ever come across it before. Really quite unusual.
When the world owes you a 5 bed detached des res, waiting to collect can get to you.
Especially if deleting the pampering of Tory-approved standard nuclear families under the current IHT regulations, and imposing wealth tax on landed property, are active subjects for discussion to remedy the chaos of the last few years.
Only 9% of voters want IHT to rise, the lowest of any tax.
Though yes wealth taxes on million pound plus properties might not be too unpopular if Labour proposes them (outside of a few central London Labour target seats like Kensington and Cities of London and Westminster)
No, it says 9% of voters included inheritance tax in the top three taxes they want held constant.
Obviously people want taxes on other, higher-income people to go up, though they also love the public services those people pay for by building businesses in the UK or working in jobs that are created in the UK, so it's a bit of a bind.
Belgium has a big welfare state by taxing ordinary people at 30% from euro one. The average Brit wants to pay something like 10%, so of course they get less stuff from government.
So does Sweden have a big welfare state but also no inheritance tax at all.
There are also examples in Europe of lower tax, lower spend nations than the UK eg Switzerland
In fact, the main reason you are worried about IHT is that your Topry voters will be bribed with our money so they don't have to spend their own savings on looking after themselves. Using that purpose for savings is what ordinary self-respecting civilised non-selfish citizens used to.
Preserving property and inheritance is a core Tory value. Why should Tories care what non Tories like you think about it?
Because you're deliberately parasitising on most of society, which don't have enough to leave to get to the 325K limit [edit] and will not get anywhere where they have to worry abotu the Special Allowance For Publicly Subsidising Tory Voting Sponging Pensioners And Their Greedy Offspring.
In London the average sold property price is £740,597, in Surrey the average house price is £620,686, so it is not just the rich but average voters in London and the Home Counties hit by higher IHT
No they are not. The effective IHT rate for couples leaving a property to their children is £1m.
For now thanks to Osborne's IHT cut, Carnyx wants to reverse that, that is the WHOLE point!!
So will tens of millions of others. We're not all obsessed with funding elderly Tory voters at the expense of everyone else.
Their children benefit too of course, Tories should care about their core vote first, you worry about your core vote ie those renting and in the public sector
Their children can work for a living too instead of agonising about when Daddy pops his clogs? There was a time when that was the absolute bedrock of Tory doctrine.
Get a job and work for a living is absolutely the bedrock of Toryism that I know and appreciate.
HYUFDs twisted "principles" are nothing of the sort. Thankfully other Tories on this site are more grounded in ethics.
You are a Liberal, NOT a Tory
His conservative vote counts exactly the same as yours
'Levelling up' is dangerous ground for Sunak, given that video of him trumpeting unlevelling up the already high...
That’s not actually what he was saying in the video. But Labour had artfully cut the video to mislead.
He was saying that all deprived areas need support - including deprived rural areas in Kent - not just deprived urban areas
The problem was not him rightly pointing to pockets of deprived rural areas. The probem was that he claimed he had taken money from genuinely shonky areas in the north to give to pockets of deprived rural areas.
Nobody is denying that rural places can't hide poverty. But you can't divert money from places already promised the cash. Or in practice what it's meant is that money has gone to posh Tory areas to sort the small bit that isn't quite as posh as the rest whilst the scum area gets little or nothing.
Stockton on Tees seeing levelling up money spent in Yarm as a prime example. Yes, there are bits of Yarm not as nice as the rest. But relatively these areas are fine - certainly a lot better than chunks of town centre or Newtown wards.
Why do the Tories still have a minister for levelling up? Bottom line up front, Boris Johnson’s glib election promise “we will level up” is undeliverable bollocks.
Once you fathom out the impossible to fathom out “what exactly does it mean? Level up the north to the level of the south? But bits of the south are just as run down as bits of the north and vice versa? And switch to how to do it anyway to delivery something at least, even though you don’t really understand what it means, you realise it’s not about funnelling existing money from this to that, you will just end up hated and stuck in the 20s in the polling, it has to be new money, given to deserving places, fairly, and so that Tiverton in Blue Wall can’t get upset they are just as deserving and being cheated.
After all that, are you now levelling up? Of course not, because it is just pretend the ancient mismatch in scale and wealth between London and the secondary cities their regions can ever be levelled, it always was empty unachievable Johnsonian electioneering bollocks.
Why? Because: (a) Red Wall voters have noticed they are still relatively / actually poor (b) Brexit promised them resources and riches (c) Tories promised them definitely resources and riches (d) They won't take no for an answer
Either this government produces a rabbit out of the hat or the Tory 2019 first timers depart.
(A) is wrong.
Red Wall Tory voters are typically home owners, not impoverished people awaiting resources and riches.
Thanks to the relatively huge success in building new homes up here, compared to the rest of the country, the Red Wall has seen much more people getting on the property ladder rather than the reverse happening as in much of the country.
That's the real reason the non-metropolitan North has been swinging Tory while the South is swinging against the Tories. Because voters here have their own deeds to their very own Barratt Home and similar, rather than rental bills.
(a) is not wrong. A is the reason why we have seen a clearout of Labour councils and Labour MPs in Labour since the Danelaw areas. Try living in the red wall for a while and you will see what they are so upset about./
Incidentally, it wouldn't be a good idea for the Tories to listen to you. Telling people that their lived experience is wrong never works.
Try living in the red wall for a while? Excuse me, I do live in the Red Wall, you don't.
There is new housing estates all over the place. You know, all those homes you keep complaining about because you want to excuse the NIMBY scum? All those new homes have voters.
The Red Wall fell because of construction, because the likes of Barratt etc got people on the property ladder, NOT because poor people suddenly became fed up of Labour not doing anything for them.
You're in Birchwood aren't you? Cheshire daaaaarling.
I've moved around a bit, I'd rather not say where I live if you don't mind, but Birchwood is not a bad example. Warrington North is a safe Labour seat, or used to be, like much of the North West its seen massive construction recently and its trended away from Labour as the share of owner occupier voters in the constituency has risen.
Just like the neighbouring constituency of Leigh. What you'd think of as Leigh is still just as grotty terraced homes as it always was, but its surrounded by new estates of semi-detached homes with gardens and driveways for 2 parking spaces each.
Drive around the new estates of Leigh, versus the old streets of Leigh, and its hardly a surprise voting levels have changed. The voting is changing not because people are suddenly fed up of Labour, but because Leigh itself, much of the North itself, is changing. The houses people are living in - and increasingly owning - are not the same homes that existed thirty years ago.
And constituencies that were predominantly owner occupied in the past, that are now unaffordable and NIMBYs are blocking construction, are seeing trends away from the Tories.
Its housing, stupid.
Again again, I hope your Tory friends go and argue your points on the doorstep. They will be annihilated.
I don't think Bart is presenting an argument why people in Warrington North or Leigh SHOULD vote Tory - he is saying that where there has been a long term shift to owner occupation, especially of new builds - such as Warrington North, Leigh, Blyth, Rother Valley, and dozens of others - there has been a long term shift to the Tories. This seems inarguable to me. I also agree with the implication that the Tories would be well served to try to maximise the number of owner occupiers.
Bingo. You've nailed it completely.
Essentially Britain votes by housing. Renters as a class tend to vote Labour. Owned outright tend to vote Tory. Owned with a mortgage, are the swing voters, who in recent years have voted Tory but in Blair's time voted Labour.
In much of the country renting has become more common, but in parts of the North owner occupiers have become more common due to vast amounts of new builds. That has meant more Tory voters, but since those voters have mortgages they're not safe Tory.
The idea that the North swung Tory because voters were pissed off and angry misses the transformation in housing that has happened. Drive around the North outside the cities, and yes if you're here you're driving to get around, and there has been major new housing developments and those developments lead to new owner occupiers which changes how people think about voting.
There have been suggestions of this voting-by-housing-tenure hypothesis before. It is interesting and believable, but I don't know of studies that examine it carefully. Do you?
I've seen many studies on it before, none to hand, but this excellent chart is in the article I linked to above and sums it up well.
The vast construction in the Red Wall, one of the only places in the country where there has been a semi-reasonable amount of construction, has led to home ownership rates here moving from Labour levels to Tory levels. The seats then swung accordingly.
Home ownership and GE2019 As in previous years, homeowners were more likely to vote Conservative in the 2019 election. According to Ipsos MORI’s figures, 57% of voters who owned their home outright voted Conservative, as did 43% of people with mortgages. By contrast, 45% of social renters and 46% of private renters voted Labour.
The 2011 Census tells us how many homeowners were in each constituency. At the time, around 64% of UK households owned their home, either outright or with a mortgage. 315 of the Conservatives’ 365 seats (86%) had home ownership levels above this average, compared with 53 of Labour’s 202 seats (26%). Nine of the Lib Dems’ 11 seats had above-average home ownership levels (82%).
86% above average ownership for Tories, 26% for Labour.
Home ownership is far and away what affects voting in this country. NIMBY scum like our Essicks Massiv that wants to invade Scotland, or the first son of Abraham, are doing their level best to discourage people from voting Tory.
That's a bit jarring, seeing "scum" affixed to NIMBYs. Don't think I've ever come across it before. Really quite unusual.
When the world owes you a 5 bed detached des res, waiting to collect can get to you.
Especially if deleting the pampering of Tory-approved standard nuclear families under the current IHT regulations, and imposing wealth tax on landed property, are active subjects for discussion to remedy the chaos of the last few years.
Only 9% of voters want IHT to rise, the lowest of any tax.
Though yes wealth taxes on million pound plus properties might not be too unpopular if Labour proposes them (outside of a few central London Labour target seats like Kensington and Cities of London and Westminster)
No, it says 9% of voters included inheritance tax in the top three taxes they want held constant.
Obviously people want taxes on other, higher-income people to go up, though they also love the public services those people pay for by building businesses in the UK or working in jobs that are created in the UK, so it's a bit of a bind.
Belgium has a big welfare state by taxing ordinary people at 30% from euro one. The average Brit wants to pay something like 10%, so of course they get less stuff from government.
So does Sweden have a big welfare state but also no inheritance tax at all.
There are also examples in Europe of lower tax, lower spend nations than the UK eg Switzerland
In fact, the main reason you are worried about IHT is that your Topry voters will be bribed with our money so they don't have to spend their own savings on looking after themselves. Using that purpose for savings is what ordinary self-respecting civilised non-selfish citizens used to.
Preserving property and inheritance is a core Tory value. Why should Tories care what non Tories like you think about it?
Because you're deliberately parasitising on most of society, which don't have enough to leave to get to the 325K limit [edit] and will not get anywhere where they have to worry abotu the Special Allowance For Publicly Subsidising Tory Voting Sponging Pensioners And Their Greedy Offspring.
In London the average sold property price is £740,597, in Surrey the average house price is £620,686, so it is not just the rich but average voters in London and the Home Counties hit by higher IHT
No they are not. The effective IHT rate for couples leaving a property to their children is £1m.
This is correct as long as you organise it correctly, with legal advice as necessary, as long as the property is worth £350,000 (or more). In much of the north of England £1m still counts as having a few bob.
The other thing is that for the wealthy IHT is in many cases incredibly avoidable by various means including having money in certain exempt assets, and by handing stuff over with impeccable timing. It is this fact, it seems to me, which makes the £1m (effective) threshold in many ordinary cases not unreasonable.
Land, probate, tax and wills lawyers do OK out of this, which is fine as they too have starving and indigent wives and children all wanting new top hats and bonnets for Easter out of their over taxed, meagre stipends.
I love the fact that hyufd has liked your post. Whoooosh over his head.
'Levelling up' is dangerous ground for Sunak, given that video of him trumpeting unlevelling up the already high...
That’s not actually what he was saying in the video. But Labour had artfully cut the video to mislead.
He was saying that all deprived areas need support - including deprived rural areas in Kent - not just deprived urban areas
The problem was not him rightly pointing to pockets of deprived rural areas. The probem was that he claimed he had taken money from genuinely shonky areas in the north to give to pockets of deprived rural areas.
Nobody is denying that rural places can't hide poverty. But you can't divert money from places already promised the cash. Or in practice what it's meant is that money has gone to posh Tory areas to sort the small bit that isn't quite as posh as the rest whilst the scum area gets little or nothing.
Stockton on Tees seeing levelling up money spent in Yarm as a prime example. Yes, there are bits of Yarm not as nice as the rest. But relatively these areas are fine - certainly a lot better than chunks of town centre or Newtown wards.
Why do the Tories still have a minister for levelling up? Bottom line up front, Boris Johnson’s glib election promise “we will level up” is undeliverable bollocks.
Once you fathom out the impossible to fathom out “what exactly does it mean? Level up the north to the level of the south? But bits of the south are just as run down as bits of the north and vice versa? And switch to how to do it anyway to delivery something at least, even though you don’t really understand what it means, you realise it’s not about funnelling existing money from this to that, you will just end up hated and stuck in the 20s in the polling, it has to be new money, given to deserving places, fairly, and so that Tiverton in Blue Wall can’t get upset they are just as deserving and being cheated.
After all that, are you now levelling up? Of course not, because it is just pretend the ancient mismatch in scale and wealth between London and the secondary cities their regions can ever be levelled, it always was empty unachievable Johnsonian electioneering bollocks.
Why? Because: (a) Red Wall voters have noticed they are still relatively / actually poor (b) Brexit promised them resources and riches (c) Tories promised them definitely resources and riches (d) They won't take no for an answer
Either this government produces a rabbit out of the hat or the Tory 2019 first timers depart.
(A) is wrong.
Red Wall Tory voters are typically home owners, not impoverished people awaiting resources and riches.
Thanks to the relatively huge success in building new homes up here, compared to the rest of the country, the Red Wall has seen much more people getting on the property ladder rather than the reverse happening as in much of the country.
That's the real reason the non-metropolitan North has been swinging Tory while the South is swinging against the Tories. Because voters here have their own deeds to their very own Barratt Home and similar, rather than rental bills.
(a) is not wrong. A is the reason why we have seen a clearout of Labour councils and Labour MPs in Labour since the Danelaw areas. Try living in the red wall for a while and you will see what they are so upset about./
Incidentally, it wouldn't be a good idea for the Tories to listen to you. Telling people that their lived experience is wrong never works.
Try living in the red wall for a while? Excuse me, I do live in the Red Wall, you don't.
There is new housing estates all over the place. You know, all those homes you keep complaining about because you want to excuse the NIMBY scum? All those new homes have voters.
The Red Wall fell because of construction, because the likes of Barratt etc got people on the property ladder, NOT because poor people suddenly became fed up of Labour not doing anything for them.
You're in Birchwood aren't you? Cheshire daaaaarling.
I've moved around a bit, I'd rather not say where I live if you don't mind, but Birchwood is not a bad example. Warrington North is a safe Labour seat, or used to be, like much of the North West its seen massive construction recently and its trended away from Labour as the share of owner occupier voters in the constituency has risen.
Just like the neighbouring constituency of Leigh. What you'd think of as Leigh is still just as grotty terraced homes as it always was, but its surrounded by new estates of semi-detached homes with gardens and driveways for 2 parking spaces each.
Drive around the new estates of Leigh, versus the old streets of Leigh, and its hardly a surprise voting levels have changed. The voting is changing not because people are suddenly fed up of Labour, but because Leigh itself, much of the North itself, is changing. The houses people are living in - and increasingly owning - are not the same homes that existed thirty years ago.
And constituencies that were predominantly owner occupied in the past, that are now unaffordable and NIMBYs are blocking construction, are seeing trends away from the Tories.
Its housing, stupid.
Again again, I hope your Tory friends go and argue your points on the doorstep. They will be annihilated.
I don't think Bart is presenting an argument why people in Warrington North or Leigh SHOULD vote Tory - he is saying that where there has been a long term shift to owner occupation, especially of new builds - such as Warrington North, Leigh, Blyth, Rother Valley, and dozens of others - there has been a long term shift to the Tories. This seems inarguable to me. I also agree with the implication that the Tories would be well served to try to maximise the number of owner occupiers.
Bingo. You've nailed it completely.
Essentially Britain votes by housing. Renters as a class tend to vote Labour. Owned outright tend to vote Tory. Owned with a mortgage, are the swing voters, who in recent years have voted Tory but in Blair's time voted Labour.
In much of the country renting has become more common, but in parts of the North owner occupiers have become more common due to vast amounts of new builds. That has meant more Tory voters, but since those voters have mortgages they're not safe Tory.
The idea that the North swung Tory because voters were pissed off and angry misses the transformation in housing that has happened. Drive around the North outside the cities, and yes if you're here you're driving to get around, and there has been major new housing developments and those developments lead to new owner occupiers which changes how people think about voting.
There have been suggestions of this voting-by-housing-tenure hypothesis before. It is interesting and believable, but I don't know of studies that examine it carefully. Do you?
I've seen many studies on it before, none to hand, but this excellent chart is in the article I linked to above and sums it up well.
The vast construction in the Red Wall, one of the only places in the country where there has been a semi-reasonable amount of construction, has led to home ownership rates here moving from Labour levels to Tory levels. The seats then swung accordingly.
Home ownership and GE2019 As in previous years, homeowners were more likely to vote Conservative in the 2019 election. According to Ipsos MORI’s figures, 57% of voters who owned their home outright voted Conservative, as did 43% of people with mortgages. By contrast, 45% of social renters and 46% of private renters voted Labour.
The 2011 Census tells us how many homeowners were in each constituency. At the time, around 64% of UK households owned their home, either outright or with a mortgage. 315 of the Conservatives’ 365 seats (86%) had home ownership levels above this average, compared with 53 of Labour’s 202 seats (26%). Nine of the Lib Dems’ 11 seats had above-average home ownership levels (82%).
86% above average ownership for Tories, 26% for Labour.
Home ownership is far and away what affects voting in this country. NIMBY scum like our Essicks Massiv that wants to invade Scotland, or the first son of Abraham, are doing their level best to discourage people from voting Tory.
That's a bit jarring, seeing "scum" affixed to NIMBYs. Don't think I've ever come across it before. Really quite unusual.
When the world owes you a 5 bed detached des res, waiting to collect can get to you.
Especially if deleting the pampering of Tory-approved standard nuclear families under the current IHT regulations, and imposing wealth tax on landed property, are active subjects for discussion to remedy the chaos of the last few years.
Only 9% of voters want IHT to rise, the lowest of any tax.
Though yes wealth taxes on million pound plus properties might not be too unpopular if Labour proposes them (outside of a few central London Labour target seats like Kensington and Cities of London and Westminster)
How on earth can you have misread that so badly. They want IHT to increase in preference to all normal taxes eg income tax, vat, fuel duty, council tax, stamp duty, ni. The only taxes they prefer to increase more than IHT are higher and top rate income tax, CGT and Corp Tax. And of course that is what you would expect. They don't want taxes increased that they pay but do want taxes increased on richer people.
The converse is true re taxes they don't want increased which is where you got the 9% from but you completely misunderstood the table. 50% don't want income tax increased compared to only 9% who don't want IHT to rise. Similarly Vat, fuel duty, ni, council tax etc compared to IHT.
Just 12% want higher IHT compared to 52% wanting a higher top income tax rate, 47% higher corporation tax, 33% higher capital gains tax and 29% a rise in the higher rate of income tax
Yep. Would you now like to show the rest of the figures so as not to mislead. That is they prefer higher IHT compared to all the other taxes. You know the ones we all pay every day. So it was completely untrue that it was bottom of the list isn't it. It was actually nearer the top of the list wasn't it and only under the taxes richer people pay. Same goes for the other table.
You either don't understand the tables or are deliberately misleading. Daft as we can all see the tables.
No, plenty of people pay the higher rate of income tax, they also wanted that increased more than IHT
Sorry what has that got to do with anything. You completely misunderstood it. You said it was the LOWEST of any tax. It wasn't. It was actually higher than mid table and actually higher than all the taxes nearly all of us pay. It was only below the taxes wealthy or better off people pay (greater than £50K) You got it completely wrong.
Come on put your hands up to it. We can all see the tables cos you gave us the links so you just look silly denying it.
You have to understand @HYUFD has a personal interest in his inheritance but the one thing about inheritance is nobody should take it for granted as elderly parents are living much longer and as a result may need years in care at approx £50,000 pa, but also IHT is far too generous at one million and should revert to the previous lower threshold in these difficult times for everyone
Well you can vote Labour again if you want that, we Tories must not betray our core vote
Anyone who thinks that London isn't in the South East of England is as preposterous as someone suggesting that Manchester isn't in the North West.
Manchester's Mayor covers much of the North West as part of Greater Manchester, London's Mayor only expands as far as Greater London suburbia, not the Home Counties
LOL, there's no difference whatsoever.
Manchester's Mayor doesn't much of the North West, it covers a small part of it known as the Greater Manchester area. Plenty of areas in the North West have people commuting into Manchester and all are within the North West. Manchester is a city, with a metropolitan area, within the North West just as London is a city, with a metropolitan area, within the South East.
Do you think Chorley isn't in the North West because its not in Greater Manchester? What about Macclesfield?
'Levelling up' is dangerous ground for Sunak, given that video of him trumpeting unlevelling up the already high...
That’s not actually what he was saying in the video. But Labour had artfully cut the video to mislead.
He was saying that all deprived areas need support - including deprived rural areas in Kent - not just deprived urban areas
The problem was not him rightly pointing to pockets of deprived rural areas. The probem was that he claimed he had taken money from genuinely shonky areas in the north to give to pockets of deprived rural areas.
Nobody is denying that rural places can't hide poverty. But you can't divert money from places already promised the cash. Or in practice what it's meant is that money has gone to posh Tory areas to sort the small bit that isn't quite as posh as the rest whilst the scum area gets little or nothing.
Stockton on Tees seeing levelling up money spent in Yarm as a prime example. Yes, there are bits of Yarm not as nice as the rest. But relatively these areas are fine - certainly a lot better than chunks of town centre or Newtown wards.
Why do the Tories still have a minister for levelling up? Bottom line up front, Boris Johnson’s glib election promise “we will level up” is undeliverable bollocks.
Once you fathom out the impossible to fathom out “what exactly does it mean? Level up the north to the level of the south? But bits of the south are just as run down as bits of the north and vice versa? And switch to how to do it anyway to delivery something at least, even though you don’t really understand what it means, you realise it’s not about funnelling existing money from this to that, you will just end up hated and stuck in the 20s in the polling, it has to be new money, given to deserving places, fairly, and so that Tiverton in Blue Wall can’t get upset they are just as deserving and being cheated.
After all that, are you now levelling up? Of course not, because it is just pretend the ancient mismatch in scale and wealth between London and the secondary cities their regions can ever be levelled, it always was empty unachievable Johnsonian electioneering bollocks.
Why? Because: (a) Red Wall voters have noticed they are still relatively / actually poor (b) Brexit promised them resources and riches (c) Tories promised them definitely resources and riches (d) They won't take no for an answer
Either this government produces a rabbit out of the hat or the Tory 2019 first timers depart.
(A) is wrong.
Red Wall Tory voters are typically home owners, not impoverished people awaiting resources and riches.
Thanks to the relatively huge success in building new homes up here, compared to the rest of the country, the Red Wall has seen much more people getting on the property ladder rather than the reverse happening as in much of the country.
That's the real reason the non-metropolitan North has been swinging Tory while the South is swinging against the Tories. Because voters here have their own deeds to their very own Barratt Home and similar, rather than rental bills.
(a) is not wrong. A is the reason why we have seen a clearout of Labour councils and Labour MPs in Labour since the Danelaw areas. Try living in the red wall for a while and you will see what they are so upset about./
Incidentally, it wouldn't be a good idea for the Tories to listen to you. Telling people that their lived experience is wrong never works.
Try living in the red wall for a while? Excuse me, I do live in the Red Wall, you don't.
There is new housing estates all over the place. You know, all those homes you keep complaining about because you want to excuse the NIMBY scum? All those new homes have voters.
The Red Wall fell because of construction, because the likes of Barratt etc got people on the property ladder, NOT because poor people suddenly became fed up of Labour not doing anything for them.
You're in Birchwood aren't you? Cheshire daaaaarling.
I've moved around a bit, I'd rather not say where I live if you don't mind, but Birchwood is not a bad example. Warrington North is a safe Labour seat, or used to be, like much of the North West its seen massive construction recently and its trended away from Labour as the share of owner occupier voters in the constituency has risen.
Just like the neighbouring constituency of Leigh. What you'd think of as Leigh is still just as grotty terraced homes as it always was, but its surrounded by new estates of semi-detached homes with gardens and driveways for 2 parking spaces each.
Drive around the new estates of Leigh, versus the old streets of Leigh, and its hardly a surprise voting levels have changed. The voting is changing not because people are suddenly fed up of Labour, but because Leigh itself, much of the North itself, is changing. The houses people are living in - and increasingly owning - are not the same homes that existed thirty years ago.
And constituencies that were predominantly owner occupied in the past, that are now unaffordable and NIMBYs are blocking construction, are seeing trends away from the Tories.
Its housing, stupid.
Again again, I hope your Tory friends go and argue your points on the doorstep. They will be annihilated.
I don't think Bart is presenting an argument why people in Warrington North or Leigh SHOULD vote Tory - he is saying that where there has been a long term shift to owner occupation, especially of new builds - such as Warrington North, Leigh, Blyth, Rother Valley, and dozens of others - there has been a long term shift to the Tories. This seems inarguable to me. I also agree with the implication that the Tories would be well served to try to maximise the number of owner occupiers.
Bingo. You've nailed it completely.
Essentially Britain votes by housing. Renters as a class tend to vote Labour. Owned outright tend to vote Tory. Owned with a mortgage, are the swing voters, who in recent years have voted Tory but in Blair's time voted Labour.
In much of the country renting has become more common, but in parts of the North owner occupiers have become more common due to vast amounts of new builds. That has meant more Tory voters, but since those voters have mortgages they're not safe Tory.
The idea that the North swung Tory because voters were pissed off and angry misses the transformation in housing that has happened. Drive around the North outside the cities, and yes if you're here you're driving to get around, and there has been major new housing developments and those developments lead to new owner occupiers which changes how people think about voting.
There have been suggestions of this voting-by-housing-tenure hypothesis before. It is interesting and believable, but I don't know of studies that examine it carefully. Do you?
I've seen many studies on it before, none to hand, but this excellent chart is in the article I linked to above and sums it up well.
The vast construction in the Red Wall, one of the only places in the country where there has been a semi-reasonable amount of construction, has led to home ownership rates here moving from Labour levels to Tory levels. The seats then swung accordingly.
Home ownership and GE2019 As in previous years, homeowners were more likely to vote Conservative in the 2019 election. According to Ipsos MORI’s figures, 57% of voters who owned their home outright voted Conservative, as did 43% of people with mortgages. By contrast, 45% of social renters and 46% of private renters voted Labour.
The 2011 Census tells us how many homeowners were in each constituency. At the time, around 64% of UK households owned their home, either outright or with a mortgage. 315 of the Conservatives’ 365 seats (86%) had home ownership levels above this average, compared with 53 of Labour’s 202 seats (26%). Nine of the Lib Dems’ 11 seats had above-average home ownership levels (82%).
86% above average ownership for Tories, 26% for Labour.
Home ownership is far and away what affects voting in this country. NIMBY scum like our Essicks Massiv that wants to invade Scotland, or the first son of Abraham, are doing their level best to discourage people from voting Tory.
That's a bit jarring, seeing "scum" affixed to NIMBYs. Don't think I've ever come across it before. Really quite unusual.
When the world owes you a 5 bed detached des res, waiting to collect can get to you.
Especially if deleting the pampering of Tory-approved standard nuclear families under the current IHT regulations, and imposing wealth tax on landed property, are active subjects for discussion to remedy the chaos of the last few years.
Only 9% of voters want IHT to rise, the lowest of any tax.
Though yes wealth taxes on million pound plus properties might not be too unpopular if Labour proposes them (outside of a few central London Labour target seats like Kensington and Cities of London and Westminster)
No, it says 9% of voters included inheritance tax in the top three taxes they want held constant.
Obviously people want taxes on other, higher-income people to go up, though they also love the public services those people pay for by building businesses in the UK or working in jobs that are created in the UK, so it's a bit of a bind.
Belgium has a big welfare state by taxing ordinary people at 30% from euro one. The average Brit wants to pay something like 10%, so of course they get less stuff from government.
So does Sweden have a big welfare state but also no inheritance tax at all.
There are also examples in Europe of lower tax, lower spend nations than the UK eg Switzerland
In fact, the main reason you are worried about IHT is that your Topry voters will be bribed with our money so they don't have to spend their own savings on looking after themselves. Using that purpose for savings is what ordinary self-respecting civilised non-selfish citizens used to.
Preserving property and inheritance is a core Tory value. Why should Tories care what non Tories like you think about it?
Because you're deliberately parasitising on most of society, which don't have enough to leave to get to the 325K limit [edit] and will not get anywhere where they have to worry abotu the Special Allowance For Publicly Subsidising Tory Voting Sponging Pensioners And Their Greedy Offspring.
In London the average sold property price is £740,597, in Surrey the average house price is £620,686, so it is not just the rich but average voters in London and the Home Counties hit by higher IHT
(a) that every voter is a home-owner. Many are not. (B) that every home-owner actually has 100% equity without any mortgage. Many are not.
(Of course, both are heavily biased toward the Tories, but they would be for you. Or perhaps Labour and LD and Green voters are not human beings?)
So you are mixing up three different populations and talking bollocks because you trhink it makes your argument look better. Actually, it makes it look even worse.
Anyway, that's enough bollock-toasting to stock a French charcuterie for one evening, so I'm going to go off and read a nice new book. And I suggest you buy yourself a train set and try out the logical operation of points and sidings.
65% are home owners, by the time they are near death most will have paid off their mortgage.
YOu think so, the way things are going? Are already? We're not in the 1970s any more. Or the 1950s.
In the 1950s fewer owned their own property than now
Look at the repo statistics in a year or two. Thanks entirely to youir party.
Well those facing repo will need an inheritance and parental support even more won't they! Hopefully though most will avoid falling behind on their mortgage (and Rishi is not responsible for Truss and Kwarteng's errors)
With any luck,. their parents will have been heavily taxed on their unearned capital gains.
Well a socialist like you would say that wouldn't you, tax everything is your philosophy
'Levelling up' is dangerous ground for Sunak, given that video of him trumpeting unlevelling up the already high...
That’s not actually what he was saying in the video. But Labour had artfully cut the video to mislead.
He was saying that all deprived areas need support - including deprived rural areas in Kent - not just deprived urban areas
The problem was not him rightly pointing to pockets of deprived rural areas. The probem was that he claimed he had taken money from genuinely shonky areas in the north to give to pockets of deprived rural areas.
Nobody is denying that rural places can't hide poverty. But you can't divert money from places already promised the cash. Or in practice what it's meant is that money has gone to posh Tory areas to sort the small bit that isn't quite as posh as the rest whilst the scum area gets little or nothing.
Stockton on Tees seeing levelling up money spent in Yarm as a prime example. Yes, there are bits of Yarm not as nice as the rest. But relatively these areas are fine - certainly a lot better than chunks of town centre or Newtown wards.
Why do the Tories still have a minister for levelling up? Bottom line up front, Boris Johnson’s glib election promise “we will level up” is undeliverable bollocks.
Once you fathom out the impossible to fathom out “what exactly does it mean? Level up the north to the level of the south? But bits of the south are just as run down as bits of the north and vice versa? And switch to how to do it anyway to delivery something at least, even though you don’t really understand what it means, you realise it’s not about funnelling existing money from this to that, you will just end up hated and stuck in the 20s in the polling, it has to be new money, given to deserving places, fairly, and so that Tiverton in Blue Wall can’t get upset they are just as deserving and being cheated.
After all that, are you now levelling up? Of course not, because it is just pretend the ancient mismatch in scale and wealth between London and the secondary cities their regions can ever be levelled, it always was empty unachievable Johnsonian electioneering bollocks.
Why? Because: (a) Red Wall voters have noticed they are still relatively / actually poor (b) Brexit promised them resources and riches (c) Tories promised them definitely resources and riches (d) They won't take no for an answer
Either this government produces a rabbit out of the hat or the Tory 2019 first timers depart.
(A) is wrong.
Red Wall Tory voters are typically home owners, not impoverished people awaiting resources and riches.
Thanks to the relatively huge success in building new homes up here, compared to the rest of the country, the Red Wall has seen much more people getting on the property ladder rather than the reverse happening as in much of the country.
That's the real reason the non-metropolitan North has been swinging Tory while the South is swinging against the Tories. Because voters here have their own deeds to their very own Barratt Home and similar, rather than rental bills.
(a) is not wrong. A is the reason why we have seen a clearout of Labour councils and Labour MPs in Labour since the Danelaw areas. Try living in the red wall for a while and you will see what they are so upset about./
Incidentally, it wouldn't be a good idea for the Tories to listen to you. Telling people that their lived experience is wrong never works.
Try living in the red wall for a while? Excuse me, I do live in the Red Wall, you don't.
There is new housing estates all over the place. You know, all those homes you keep complaining about because you want to excuse the NIMBY scum? All those new homes have voters.
The Red Wall fell because of construction, because the likes of Barratt etc got people on the property ladder, NOT because poor people suddenly became fed up of Labour not doing anything for them.
You're in Birchwood aren't you? Cheshire daaaaarling.
I've moved around a bit, I'd rather not say where I live if you don't mind, but Birchwood is not a bad example. Warrington North is a safe Labour seat, or used to be, like much of the North West its seen massive construction recently and its trended away from Labour as the share of owner occupier voters in the constituency has risen.
Just like the neighbouring constituency of Leigh. What you'd think of as Leigh is still just as grotty terraced homes as it always was, but its surrounded by new estates of semi-detached homes with gardens and driveways for 2 parking spaces each.
Drive around the new estates of Leigh, versus the old streets of Leigh, and its hardly a surprise voting levels have changed. The voting is changing not because people are suddenly fed up of Labour, but because Leigh itself, much of the North itself, is changing. The houses people are living in - and increasingly owning - are not the same homes that existed thirty years ago.
And constituencies that were predominantly owner occupied in the past, that are now unaffordable and NIMBYs are blocking construction, are seeing trends away from the Tories.
Its housing, stupid.
Again again, I hope your Tory friends go and argue your points on the doorstep. They will be annihilated.
I don't think Bart is presenting an argument why people in Warrington North or Leigh SHOULD vote Tory - he is saying that where there has been a long term shift to owner occupation, especially of new builds - such as Warrington North, Leigh, Blyth, Rother Valley, and dozens of others - there has been a long term shift to the Tories. This seems inarguable to me. I also agree with the implication that the Tories would be well served to try to maximise the number of owner occupiers.
Bingo. You've nailed it completely.
Essentially Britain votes by housing. Renters as a class tend to vote Labour. Owned outright tend to vote Tory. Owned with a mortgage, are the swing voters, who in recent years have voted Tory but in Blair's time voted Labour.
In much of the country renting has become more common, but in parts of the North owner occupiers have become more common due to vast amounts of new builds. That has meant more Tory voters, but since those voters have mortgages they're not safe Tory.
The idea that the North swung Tory because voters were pissed off and angry misses the transformation in housing that has happened. Drive around the North outside the cities, and yes if you're here you're driving to get around, and there has been major new housing developments and those developments lead to new owner occupiers which changes how people think about voting.
There have been suggestions of this voting-by-housing-tenure hypothesis before. It is interesting and believable, but I don't know of studies that examine it carefully. Do you?
I've seen many studies on it before, none to hand, but this excellent chart is in the article I linked to above and sums it up well.
The vast construction in the Red Wall, one of the only places in the country where there has been a semi-reasonable amount of construction, has led to home ownership rates here moving from Labour levels to Tory levels. The seats then swung accordingly.
Home ownership and GE2019 As in previous years, homeowners were more likely to vote Conservative in the 2019 election. According to Ipsos MORI’s figures, 57% of voters who owned their home outright voted Conservative, as did 43% of people with mortgages. By contrast, 45% of social renters and 46% of private renters voted Labour.
The 2011 Census tells us how many homeowners were in each constituency. At the time, around 64% of UK households owned their home, either outright or with a mortgage. 315 of the Conservatives’ 365 seats (86%) had home ownership levels above this average, compared with 53 of Labour’s 202 seats (26%). Nine of the Lib Dems’ 11 seats had above-average home ownership levels (82%).
86% above average ownership for Tories, 26% for Labour.
Home ownership is far and away what affects voting in this country. NIMBY scum like our Essicks Massiv that wants to invade Scotland, or the first son of Abraham, are doing their level best to discourage people from voting Tory.
That's a bit jarring, seeing "scum" affixed to NIMBYs. Don't think I've ever come across it before. Really quite unusual.
When the world owes you a 5 bed detached des res, waiting to collect can get to you.
Especially if deleting the pampering of Tory-approved standard nuclear families under the current IHT regulations, and imposing wealth tax on landed property, are active subjects for discussion to remedy the chaos of the last few years.
Only 9% of voters want IHT to rise, the lowest of any tax.
Though yes wealth taxes on million pound plus properties might not be too unpopular if Labour proposes them (outside of a few central London Labour target seats like Kensington and Cities of London and Westminster)
No, it says 9% of voters included inheritance tax in the top three taxes they want held constant.
Obviously people want taxes on other, higher-income people to go up, though they also love the public services those people pay for by building businesses in the UK or working in jobs that are created in the UK, so it's a bit of a bind.
Belgium has a big welfare state by taxing ordinary people at 30% from euro one. The average Brit wants to pay something like 10%, so of course they get less stuff from government.
So does Sweden have a big welfare state but also no inheritance tax at all.
There are also examples in Europe of lower tax, lower spend nations than the UK eg Switzerland
In fact, the main reason you are worried about IHT is that your Topry voters will be bribed with our money so they don't have to spend their own savings on looking after themselves. Using that purpose for savings is what ordinary self-respecting civilised non-selfish citizens used to.
Preserving property and inheritance is a core Tory value. Why should Tories care what non Tories like you think about it?
Because you're deliberately parasitising on most of society, which don't have enough to leave to get to the 325K limit [edit] and will not get anywhere where they have to worry abotu the Special Allowance For Publicly Subsidising Tory Voting Sponging Pensioners And Their Greedy Offspring.
In London the average sold property price is £740,597, in Surrey the average house price is £620,686, so it is not just the rich but average voters in London and the Home Counties hit by higher IHT
(a) that every voter is a home-owner. Many are not. (B) that every home-owner actually has 100% equity without any mortgage. Many are not.
(Of course, both are heavily biased toward the Tories, but they would be for you. Or perhaps Labour and LD and Green voters are not human beings?)
So you are mixing up three different populations and talking bollocks because you trhink it makes your argument look better. Actually, it makes it look even worse.
Anyway, that's enough bollock-toasting to stock a French charcuterie for one evening, so I'm going to go off and read a nice new book. And I suggest you buy yourself a train set and try out the logical operation of points and sidings.
65% are home owners, by the time they are near death most will have paid off their mortgage.
YOu think so, the way things are going? Are already? We're not in the 1970s any more. Or the 1950s.
In the 1950s fewer owned their own property than now
Look at the repo statistics in a year or two. Thanks entirely to youir party.
Well those facing repo will need an inheritance and parental support even more won't they! Hopefully though most will avoid falling behind on their mortgage (and Rishi is not responsible for Truss and Kwarteng's errors)
With any luck,. their parents will have been heavily taxed on their unearned capital gains.
Well a socialist like you would say that wouldn't you, tax everything is your philosophy
MONARCHY = SOCIALISM!
No, MONARCHY = TORYISM, STATE CONTROL OF THE ECONOMY = SOCIALISM
'Levelling up' is dangerous ground for Sunak, given that video of him trumpeting unlevelling up the already high...
That’s not actually what he was saying in the video. But Labour had artfully cut the video to mislead.
He was saying that all deprived areas need support - including deprived rural areas in Kent - not just deprived urban areas
The problem was not him rightly pointing to pockets of deprived rural areas. The probem was that he claimed he had taken money from genuinely shonky areas in the north to give to pockets of deprived rural areas.
Nobody is denying that rural places can't hide poverty. But you can't divert money from places already promised the cash. Or in practice what it's meant is that money has gone to posh Tory areas to sort the small bit that isn't quite as posh as the rest whilst the scum area gets little or nothing.
Stockton on Tees seeing levelling up money spent in Yarm as a prime example. Yes, there are bits of Yarm not as nice as the rest. But relatively these areas are fine - certainly a lot better than chunks of town centre or Newtown wards.
Why do the Tories still have a minister for levelling up? Bottom line up front, Boris Johnson’s glib election promise “we will level up” is undeliverable bollocks.
Once you fathom out the impossible to fathom out “what exactly does it mean? Level up the north to the level of the south? But bits of the south are just as run down as bits of the north and vice versa? And switch to how to do it anyway to delivery something at least, even though you don’t really understand what it means, you realise it’s not about funnelling existing money from this to that, you will just end up hated and stuck in the 20s in the polling, it has to be new money, given to deserving places, fairly, and so that Tiverton in Blue Wall can’t get upset they are just as deserving and being cheated.
After all that, are you now levelling up? Of course not, because it is just pretend the ancient mismatch in scale and wealth between London and the secondary cities their regions can ever be levelled, it always was empty unachievable Johnsonian electioneering bollocks.
Why? Because: (a) Red Wall voters have noticed they are still relatively / actually poor (b) Brexit promised them resources and riches (c) Tories promised them definitely resources and riches (d) They won't take no for an answer
Either this government produces a rabbit out of the hat or the Tory 2019 first timers depart.
(A) is wrong.
Red Wall Tory voters are typically home owners, not impoverished people awaiting resources and riches.
Thanks to the relatively huge success in building new homes up here, compared to the rest of the country, the Red Wall has seen much more people getting on the property ladder rather than the reverse happening as in much of the country.
That's the real reason the non-metropolitan North has been swinging Tory while the South is swinging against the Tories. Because voters here have their own deeds to their very own Barratt Home and similar, rather than rental bills.
(a) is not wrong. A is the reason why we have seen a clearout of Labour councils and Labour MPs in Labour since the Danelaw areas. Try living in the red wall for a while and you will see what they are so upset about./
Incidentally, it wouldn't be a good idea for the Tories to listen to you. Telling people that their lived experience is wrong never works.
Try living in the red wall for a while? Excuse me, I do live in the Red Wall, you don't.
There is new housing estates all over the place. You know, all those homes you keep complaining about because you want to excuse the NIMBY scum? All those new homes have voters.
The Red Wall fell because of construction, because the likes of Barratt etc got people on the property ladder, NOT because poor people suddenly became fed up of Labour not doing anything for them.
You're in Birchwood aren't you? Cheshire daaaaarling.
I've moved around a bit, I'd rather not say where I live if you don't mind, but Birchwood is not a bad example. Warrington North is a safe Labour seat, or used to be, like much of the North West its seen massive construction recently and its trended away from Labour as the share of owner occupier voters in the constituency has risen.
Just like the neighbouring constituency of Leigh. What you'd think of as Leigh is still just as grotty terraced homes as it always was, but its surrounded by new estates of semi-detached homes with gardens and driveways for 2 parking spaces each.
Drive around the new estates of Leigh, versus the old streets of Leigh, and its hardly a surprise voting levels have changed. The voting is changing not because people are suddenly fed up of Labour, but because Leigh itself, much of the North itself, is changing. The houses people are living in - and increasingly owning - are not the same homes that existed thirty years ago.
And constituencies that were predominantly owner occupied in the past, that are now unaffordable and NIMBYs are blocking construction, are seeing trends away from the Tories.
Its housing, stupid.
Again again, I hope your Tory friends go and argue your points on the doorstep. They will be annihilated.
I don't think Bart is presenting an argument why people in Warrington North or Leigh SHOULD vote Tory - he is saying that where there has been a long term shift to owner occupation, especially of new builds - such as Warrington North, Leigh, Blyth, Rother Valley, and dozens of others - there has been a long term shift to the Tories. This seems inarguable to me. I also agree with the implication that the Tories would be well served to try to maximise the number of owner occupiers.
Bingo. You've nailed it completely.
Essentially Britain votes by housing. Renters as a class tend to vote Labour. Owned outright tend to vote Tory. Owned with a mortgage, are the swing voters, who in recent years have voted Tory but in Blair's time voted Labour.
In much of the country renting has become more common, but in parts of the North owner occupiers have become more common due to vast amounts of new builds. That has meant more Tory voters, but since those voters have mortgages they're not safe Tory.
The idea that the North swung Tory because voters were pissed off and angry misses the transformation in housing that has happened. Drive around the North outside the cities, and yes if you're here you're driving to get around, and there has been major new housing developments and those developments lead to new owner occupiers which changes how people think about voting.
There have been suggestions of this voting-by-housing-tenure hypothesis before. It is interesting and believable, but I don't know of studies that examine it carefully. Do you?
I've seen many studies on it before, none to hand, but this excellent chart is in the article I linked to above and sums it up well.
The vast construction in the Red Wall, one of the only places in the country where there has been a semi-reasonable amount of construction, has led to home ownership rates here moving from Labour levels to Tory levels. The seats then swung accordingly.
Home ownership and GE2019 As in previous years, homeowners were more likely to vote Conservative in the 2019 election. According to Ipsos MORI’s figures, 57% of voters who owned their home outright voted Conservative, as did 43% of people with mortgages. By contrast, 45% of social renters and 46% of private renters voted Labour.
The 2011 Census tells us how many homeowners were in each constituency. At the time, around 64% of UK households owned their home, either outright or with a mortgage. 315 of the Conservatives’ 365 seats (86%) had home ownership levels above this average, compared with 53 of Labour’s 202 seats (26%). Nine of the Lib Dems’ 11 seats had above-average home ownership levels (82%).
86% above average ownership for Tories, 26% for Labour.
Home ownership is far and away what affects voting in this country. NIMBY scum like our Essicks Massiv that wants to invade Scotland, or the first son of Abraham, are doing their level best to discourage people from voting Tory.
So 82% of LD seats have above average home ownership levels too.
Yes we need more affordable housing, especially in brownbelt areas of London where home ownership is at its lowest and Labour has gained lots of former Conservative seats.
Build all over the greenbelt however and you will see lots of formerly safe Conservative seats like Chesham and Amersham go Liberal Democrat
You say that like its a bad thing.
Better to have people engaged in society and able to have their own home, even if some vote Lib Dem, than unable to afford their own home and voting to tear down society by voting for Labour.
No, we don't want to build all over our greenbelt when the Home Counties already have a 70% owner occupier rate anyway and are largely safe Tory just to send voters to the LDs.
London with only 50% owner occupier rate and lots of Labour seats and Tory marginals vulnerable to Labour does certainly need more affordable homes to buy, the South East less so
London is a part of the South East. If people working in London are going to have semi detached homes and gardens, the place to do so, is in the South East.
A very large proportion of people living in the SE outside of London already do work in London. That's generally for those who have a home, how they can afford to pay for it, so no pulling up the ladder after you and saying "you're not my problem, piss off and don't get a home near me" is not a solution.
London is NOT a part of the South East. People used to regularly be able to afford to buy a semi detached in suburban London on average incomes if they worked in the capital, they can't now. That needs more properties being built in outer London, not concreting all over the Home Counties greenbelt.
70% in the Home Counties outside London by contrast still own a property, the highest percentage of any UK region
London is a part of the South East. Places like Woking, Guildford etc are commuter belts to London and not remotely divorced from it.
No they aren't and plenty of people in Woking and Guildford do not work in London, home ownership there is also far higher than in London
Plenty don't, plenty do.
There are many trains running every day to ferry commuters to London from Woking, because they are both places in the South East of England that are close to each other. Anyone living in London who wants a home in Surrey, or anywhere else that's a suburb of London, should be able to get a house there.
The failure of having enough homes for Londoners is a failure for the whole of the South East, not just London.
If all trains across the South East stopped allowing commuters into and out of London as they're distinct separate areas as you like to pretend, then plenty of people across the South East would be royally stuffed and unable to get to work.
Anyone who thinks that London isn't in the South East of England is as preposterous as someone suggesting that Manchester isn't in the North West.
Manchester's Mayor covers much of the North West as part of Greater Manchester, London's Mayor only expands as far as Greater London suburbia, not the Home Counties
LOL, there's no difference whatsoever.
Manchester's Mayor doesn't much of the North West, it covers a small part of it known as the Greater Manchester area. Plenty of areas in the North West have people commuting into Manchester and all are within the North West. Manchester is a city, with a metropolitan area, within the North West just as London is a city, with a metropolitan area, within the South East.
Do you think Chorley isn't in the North West because its not in Greater Manchester? What about Macclesfield?
London has a population of 8 million, more than the whole North West put together.
London is NOT the South East. The South Downs are not London for goodness sake!!
Anyone who thinks that London isn't in the South East of England is as preposterous as someone suggesting that Manchester isn't in the North West.
Manchester's Mayor covers much of the North West as part of Greater Manchester, London's Mayor only expands as far as Greater London suburbia, not the Home Counties
LOL, there's no difference whatsoever.
Manchester's Mayor doesn't much of the North West, it covers a small part of it known as the Greater Manchester area. Plenty of areas in the North West have people commuting into Manchester and all are within the North West. Manchester is a city, with a metropolitan area, within the North West just as London is a city, with a metropolitan area, within the South East.
Do you think Chorley isn't in the North West because its not in Greater Manchester? What about Macclesfield?
London has a population of 8 million, more than the whole North West put together.
London is NOT the South East. The South Downs are not London for goodness sake!!
🤦♂️
All dogs are animals, not all animals are dogs.
London is in the South East. The South East is not in London.
'Levelling up' is dangerous ground for Sunak, given that video of him trumpeting unlevelling up the already high...
That’s not actually what he was saying in the video. But Labour had artfully cut the video to mislead.
He was saying that all deprived areas need support - including deprived rural areas in Kent - not just deprived urban areas
The problem was not him rightly pointing to pockets of deprived rural areas. The probem was that he claimed he had taken money from genuinely shonky areas in the north to give to pockets of deprived rural areas.
Nobody is denying that rural places can't hide poverty. But you can't divert money from places already promised the cash. Or in practice what it's meant is that money has gone to posh Tory areas to sort the small bit that isn't quite as posh as the rest whilst the scum area gets little or nothing.
Stockton on Tees seeing levelling up money spent in Yarm as a prime example. Yes, there are bits of Yarm not as nice as the rest. But relatively these areas are fine - certainly a lot better than chunks of town centre or Newtown wards.
Why do the Tories still have a minister for levelling up? Bottom line up front, Boris Johnson’s glib election promise “we will level up” is undeliverable bollocks.
Once you fathom out the impossible to fathom out “what exactly does it mean? Level up the north to the level of the south? But bits of the south are just as run down as bits of the north and vice versa? And switch to how to do it anyway to delivery something at least, even though you don’t really understand what it means, you realise it’s not about funnelling existing money from this to that, you will just end up hated and stuck in the 20s in the polling, it has to be new money, given to deserving places, fairly, and so that Tiverton in Blue Wall can’t get upset they are just as deserving and being cheated.
After all that, are you now levelling up? Of course not, because it is just pretend the ancient mismatch in scale and wealth between London and the secondary cities their regions can ever be levelled, it always was empty unachievable Johnsonian electioneering bollocks.
Why? Because: (a) Red Wall voters have noticed they are still relatively / actually poor (b) Brexit promised them resources and riches (c) Tories promised them definitely resources and riches (d) They won't take no for an answer
Either this government produces a rabbit out of the hat or the Tory 2019 first timers depart.
(A) is wrong.
Red Wall Tory voters are typically home owners, not impoverished people awaiting resources and riches.
Thanks to the relatively huge success in building new homes up here, compared to the rest of the country, the Red Wall has seen much more people getting on the property ladder rather than the reverse happening as in much of the country.
That's the real reason the non-metropolitan North has been swinging Tory while the South is swinging against the Tories. Because voters here have their own deeds to their very own Barratt Home and similar, rather than rental bills.
(a) is not wrong. A is the reason why we have seen a clearout of Labour councils and Labour MPs in Labour since the Danelaw areas. Try living in the red wall for a while and you will see what they are so upset about./
Incidentally, it wouldn't be a good idea for the Tories to listen to you. Telling people that their lived experience is wrong never works.
Try living in the red wall for a while? Excuse me, I do live in the Red Wall, you don't.
There is new housing estates all over the place. You know, all those homes you keep complaining about because you want to excuse the NIMBY scum? All those new homes have voters.
The Red Wall fell because of construction, because the likes of Barratt etc got people on the property ladder, NOT because poor people suddenly became fed up of Labour not doing anything for them.
You're in Birchwood aren't you? Cheshire daaaaarling.
I've moved around a bit, I'd rather not say where I live if you don't mind, but Birchwood is not a bad example. Warrington North is a safe Labour seat, or used to be, like much of the North West its seen massive construction recently and its trended away from Labour as the share of owner occupier voters in the constituency has risen.
Just like the neighbouring constituency of Leigh. What you'd think of as Leigh is still just as grotty terraced homes as it always was, but its surrounded by new estates of semi-detached homes with gardens and driveways for 2 parking spaces each.
Drive around the new estates of Leigh, versus the old streets of Leigh, and its hardly a surprise voting levels have changed. The voting is changing not because people are suddenly fed up of Labour, but because Leigh itself, much of the North itself, is changing. The houses people are living in - and increasingly owning - are not the same homes that existed thirty years ago.
And constituencies that were predominantly owner occupied in the past, that are now unaffordable and NIMBYs are blocking construction, are seeing trends away from the Tories.
Its housing, stupid.
Again again, I hope your Tory friends go and argue your points on the doorstep. They will be annihilated.
I don't think Bart is presenting an argument why people in Warrington North or Leigh SHOULD vote Tory - he is saying that where there has been a long term shift to owner occupation, especially of new builds - such as Warrington North, Leigh, Blyth, Rother Valley, and dozens of others - there has been a long term shift to the Tories. This seems inarguable to me. I also agree with the implication that the Tories would be well served to try to maximise the number of owner occupiers.
Bingo. You've nailed it completely.
Essentially Britain votes by housing. Renters as a class tend to vote Labour. Owned outright tend to vote Tory. Owned with a mortgage, are the swing voters, who in recent years have voted Tory but in Blair's time voted Labour.
In much of the country renting has become more common, but in parts of the North owner occupiers have become more common due to vast amounts of new builds. That has meant more Tory voters, but since those voters have mortgages they're not safe Tory.
The idea that the North swung Tory because voters were pissed off and angry misses the transformation in housing that has happened. Drive around the North outside the cities, and yes if you're here you're driving to get around, and there has been major new housing developments and those developments lead to new owner occupiers which changes how people think about voting.
There have been suggestions of this voting-by-housing-tenure hypothesis before. It is interesting and believable, but I don't know of studies that examine it carefully. Do you?
I've seen many studies on it before, none to hand, but this excellent chart is in the article I linked to above and sums it up well.
The vast construction in the Red Wall, one of the only places in the country where there has been a semi-reasonable amount of construction, has led to home ownership rates here moving from Labour levels to Tory levels. The seats then swung accordingly.
Home ownership and GE2019 As in previous years, homeowners were more likely to vote Conservative in the 2019 election. According to Ipsos MORI’s figures, 57% of voters who owned their home outright voted Conservative, as did 43% of people with mortgages. By contrast, 45% of social renters and 46% of private renters voted Labour.
The 2011 Census tells us how many homeowners were in each constituency. At the time, around 64% of UK households owned their home, either outright or with a mortgage. 315 of the Conservatives’ 365 seats (86%) had home ownership levels above this average, compared with 53 of Labour’s 202 seats (26%). Nine of the Lib Dems’ 11 seats had above-average home ownership levels (82%).
86% above average ownership for Tories, 26% for Labour.
Home ownership is far and away what affects voting in this country. NIMBY scum like our Essicks Massiv that wants to invade Scotland, or the first son of Abraham, are doing their level best to discourage people from voting Tory.
That's a bit jarring, seeing "scum" affixed to NIMBYs. Don't think I've ever come across it before. Really quite unusual.
When the world owes you a 5 bed detached des res, waiting to collect can get to you.
Especially if deleting the pampering of Tory-approved standard nuclear families under the current IHT regulations, and imposing wealth tax on landed property, are active subjects for discussion to remedy the chaos of the last few years.
Only 9% of voters want IHT to rise, the lowest of any tax.
Though yes wealth taxes on million pound plus properties might not be too unpopular if Labour proposes them (outside of a few central London Labour target seats like Kensington and Cities of London and Westminster)
How on earth can you have misread that so badly. They want IHT to increase in preference to all normal taxes eg income tax, vat, fuel duty, council tax, stamp duty, ni. The only taxes they prefer to increase more than IHT are higher and top rate income tax, CGT and Corp Tax. And of course that is what you would expect. They don't want taxes increased that they pay but do want taxes increased on richer people.
The converse is true re taxes they don't want increased which is where you got the 9% from but you completely misunderstood the table. 50% don't want income tax increased compared to only 9% who don't want IHT to rise. Similarly Vat, fuel duty, ni, council tax etc compared to IHT.
Just 12% want higher IHT compared to 52% wanting a higher top income tax rate, 47% higher corporation tax, 33% higher capital gains tax and 29% a rise in the higher rate of income tax
Yep. Would you now like to show the rest of the figures so as not to mislead. That is they prefer higher IHT compared to all the other taxes. You know the ones we all pay every day. So it was completely untrue that it was bottom of the list isn't it. It was actually nearer the top of the list wasn't it and only under the taxes richer people pay. Same goes for the other table.
You either don't understand the tables or are deliberately misleading. Daft as we can all see the tables.
No, plenty of people pay the higher rate of income tax, they also wanted that increased more than IHT.
Most people, SFAICS, outside areas of ludicrously high house prices never think about IHT because they never need to; it falls miles outside their range, as does CGT and windfall taxes on oil and gas. It just isn't their problem.
Mainly because of Osborne's IHT cut, especially in London and the SE
'Levelling up' is dangerous ground for Sunak, given that video of him trumpeting unlevelling up the already high...
That’s not actually what he was saying in the video. But Labour had artfully cut the video to mislead.
He was saying that all deprived areas need support - including deprived rural areas in Kent - not just deprived urban areas
The problem was not him rightly pointing to pockets of deprived rural areas. The probem was that he claimed he had taken money from genuinely shonky areas in the north to give to pockets of deprived rural areas.
Nobody is denying that rural places can't hide poverty. But you can't divert money from places already promised the cash. Or in practice what it's meant is that money has gone to posh Tory areas to sort the small bit that isn't quite as posh as the rest whilst the scum area gets little or nothing.
Stockton on Tees seeing levelling up money spent in Yarm as a prime example. Yes, there are bits of Yarm not as nice as the rest. But relatively these areas are fine - certainly a lot better than chunks of town centre or Newtown wards.
Why do the Tories still have a minister for levelling up? Bottom line up front, Boris Johnson’s glib election promise “we will level up” is undeliverable bollocks.
Once you fathom out the impossible to fathom out “what exactly does it mean? Level up the north to the level of the south? But bits of the south are just as run down as bits of the north and vice versa? And switch to how to do it anyway to delivery something at least, even though you don’t really understand what it means, you realise it’s not about funnelling existing money from this to that, you will just end up hated and stuck in the 20s in the polling, it has to be new money, given to deserving places, fairly, and so that Tiverton in Blue Wall can’t get upset they are just as deserving and being cheated.
After all that, are you now levelling up? Of course not, because it is just pretend the ancient mismatch in scale and wealth between London and the secondary cities their regions can ever be levelled, it always was empty unachievable Johnsonian electioneering bollocks.
Why? Because: (a) Red Wall voters have noticed they are still relatively / actually poor (b) Brexit promised them resources and riches (c) Tories promised them definitely resources and riches (d) They won't take no for an answer
Either this government produces a rabbit out of the hat or the Tory 2019 first timers depart.
(A) is wrong.
Red Wall Tory voters are typically home owners, not impoverished people awaiting resources and riches.
Thanks to the relatively huge success in building new homes up here, compared to the rest of the country, the Red Wall has seen much more people getting on the property ladder rather than the reverse happening as in much of the country.
That's the real reason the non-metropolitan North has been swinging Tory while the South is swinging against the Tories. Because voters here have their own deeds to their very own Barratt Home and similar, rather than rental bills.
(a) is not wrong. A is the reason why we have seen a clearout of Labour councils and Labour MPs in Labour since the Danelaw areas. Try living in the red wall for a while and you will see what they are so upset about./
Incidentally, it wouldn't be a good idea for the Tories to listen to you. Telling people that their lived experience is wrong never works.
Try living in the red wall for a while? Excuse me, I do live in the Red Wall, you don't.
There is new housing estates all over the place. You know, all those homes you keep complaining about because you want to excuse the NIMBY scum? All those new homes have voters.
The Red Wall fell because of construction, because the likes of Barratt etc got people on the property ladder, NOT because poor people suddenly became fed up of Labour not doing anything for them.
You're in Birchwood aren't you? Cheshire daaaaarling.
I've moved around a bit, I'd rather not say where I live if you don't mind, but Birchwood is not a bad example. Warrington North is a safe Labour seat, or used to be, like much of the North West its seen massive construction recently and its trended away from Labour as the share of owner occupier voters in the constituency has risen.
Just like the neighbouring constituency of Leigh. What you'd think of as Leigh is still just as grotty terraced homes as it always was, but its surrounded by new estates of semi-detached homes with gardens and driveways for 2 parking spaces each.
Drive around the new estates of Leigh, versus the old streets of Leigh, and its hardly a surprise voting levels have changed. The voting is changing not because people are suddenly fed up of Labour, but because Leigh itself, much of the North itself, is changing. The houses people are living in - and increasingly owning - are not the same homes that existed thirty years ago.
And constituencies that were predominantly owner occupied in the past, that are now unaffordable and NIMBYs are blocking construction, are seeing trends away from the Tories.
Its housing, stupid.
Again again, I hope your Tory friends go and argue your points on the doorstep. They will be annihilated.
I don't think Bart is presenting an argument why people in Warrington North or Leigh SHOULD vote Tory - he is saying that where there has been a long term shift to owner occupation, especially of new builds - such as Warrington North, Leigh, Blyth, Rother Valley, and dozens of others - there has been a long term shift to the Tories. This seems inarguable to me. I also agree with the implication that the Tories would be well served to try to maximise the number of owner occupiers.
Bingo. You've nailed it completely.
Essentially Britain votes by housing. Renters as a class tend to vote Labour. Owned outright tend to vote Tory. Owned with a mortgage, are the swing voters, who in recent years have voted Tory but in Blair's time voted Labour.
In much of the country renting has become more common, but in parts of the North owner occupiers have become more common due to vast amounts of new builds. That has meant more Tory voters, but since those voters have mortgages they're not safe Tory.
The idea that the North swung Tory because voters were pissed off and angry misses the transformation in housing that has happened. Drive around the North outside the cities, and yes if you're here you're driving to get around, and there has been major new housing developments and those developments lead to new owner occupiers which changes how people think about voting.
There have been suggestions of this voting-by-housing-tenure hypothesis before. It is interesting and believable, but I don't know of studies that examine it carefully. Do you?
I've seen many studies on it before, none to hand, but this excellent chart is in the article I linked to above and sums it up well.
The vast construction in the Red Wall, one of the only places in the country where there has been a semi-reasonable amount of construction, has led to home ownership rates here moving from Labour levels to Tory levels. The seats then swung accordingly.
Home ownership and GE2019 As in previous years, homeowners were more likely to vote Conservative in the 2019 election. According to Ipsos MORI’s figures, 57% of voters who owned their home outright voted Conservative, as did 43% of people with mortgages. By contrast, 45% of social renters and 46% of private renters voted Labour.
The 2011 Census tells us how many homeowners were in each constituency. At the time, around 64% of UK households owned their home, either outright or with a mortgage. 315 of the Conservatives’ 365 seats (86%) had home ownership levels above this average, compared with 53 of Labour’s 202 seats (26%). Nine of the Lib Dems’ 11 seats had above-average home ownership levels (82%).
86% above average ownership for Tories, 26% for Labour.
Home ownership is far and away what affects voting in this country. NIMBY scum like our Essicks Massiv that wants to invade Scotland, or the first son of Abraham, are doing their level best to discourage people from voting Tory.
That's a bit jarring, seeing "scum" affixed to NIMBYs. Don't think I've ever come across it before. Really quite unusual.
When the world owes you a 5 bed detached des res, waiting to collect can get to you.
Especially if deleting the pampering of Tory-approved standard nuclear families under the current IHT regulations, and imposing wealth tax on landed property, are active subjects for discussion to remedy the chaos of the last few years.
Only 9% of voters want IHT to rise, the lowest of any tax.
Though yes wealth taxes on million pound plus properties might not be too unpopular if Labour proposes them (outside of a few central London Labour target seats like Kensington and Cities of London and Westminster)
How on earth can you have misread that so badly. They want IHT to increase in preference to all normal taxes eg income tax, vat, fuel duty, council tax, stamp duty, ni. The only taxes they prefer to increase more than IHT are higher and top rate income tax, CGT and Corp Tax. And of course that is what you would expect. They don't want taxes increased that they pay but do want taxes increased on richer people.
The converse is true re taxes they don't want increased which is where you got the 9% from but you completely misunderstood the table. 50% don't want income tax increased compared to only 9% who don't want IHT to rise. Similarly Vat, fuel duty, ni, council tax etc compared to IHT.
Just 12% want higher IHT compared to 52% wanting a higher top income tax rate, 47% higher corporation tax, 33% higher capital gains tax and 29% a rise in the higher rate of income tax
Yep. Would you now like to show the rest of the figures so as not to mislead. That is they prefer higher IHT compared to all the other taxes. You know the ones we all pay every day. So it was completely untrue that it was bottom of the list isn't it. It was actually nearer the top of the list wasn't it and only under the taxes richer people pay. Same goes for the other table.
You either don't understand the tables or are deliberately misleading. Daft as we can all see the tables.
No, plenty of people pay the higher rate of income tax, they also wanted that increased more than IHT
Sorry what has that got to do with anything. You completely misunderstood it. You said it was the LOWEST of any tax. It wasn't. It was actually higher than mid table and actually higher than all the taxes nearly all of us pay. It was only below the taxes wealthy or better off people pay (greater than £50K) You got it completely wrong.
Come on put your hands up to it. We can all see the tables cos you gave us the links so you just look silly denying it.
You have to understand @HYUFD has a personal interest in his inheritance but the one thing about inheritance is nobody should take it for granted as elderly parents are living much longer and as a result may need years in care at approx £50,000 pa, but also IHT is far too generous at one million and should revert to the previous lower threshold in these difficult times for everyone
Well you can vote Labour again if you want that, we Tories must not betray our core vote
The conservative party does not belong to you nor your little Englander far right views
'Levelling up' is dangerous ground for Sunak, given that video of him trumpeting unlevelling up the already high...
That’s not actually what he was saying in the video. But Labour had artfully cut the video to mislead.
He was saying that all deprived areas need support - including deprived rural areas in Kent - not just deprived urban areas
The problem was not him rightly pointing to pockets of deprived rural areas. The probem was that he claimed he had taken money from genuinely shonky areas in the north to give to pockets of deprived rural areas.
Nobody is denying that rural places can't hide poverty. But you can't divert money from places already promised the cash. Or in practice what it's meant is that money has gone to posh Tory areas to sort the small bit that isn't quite as posh as the rest whilst the scum area gets little or nothing.
Stockton on Tees seeing levelling up money spent in Yarm as a prime example. Yes, there are bits of Yarm not as nice as the rest. But relatively these areas are fine - certainly a lot better than chunks of town centre or Newtown wards.
Why do the Tories still have a minister for levelling up? Bottom line up front, Boris Johnson’s glib election promise “we will level up” is undeliverable bollocks.
Once you fathom out the impossible to fathom out “what exactly does it mean? Level up the north to the level of the south? But bits of the south are just as run down as bits of the north and vice versa? And switch to how to do it anyway to delivery something at least, even though you don’t really understand what it means, you realise it’s not about funnelling existing money from this to that, you will just end up hated and stuck in the 20s in the polling, it has to be new money, given to deserving places, fairly, and so that Tiverton in Blue Wall can’t get upset they are just as deserving and being cheated.
After all that, are you now levelling up? Of course not, because it is just pretend the ancient mismatch in scale and wealth between London and the secondary cities their regions can ever be levelled, it always was empty unachievable Johnsonian electioneering bollocks.
Why? Because: (a) Red Wall voters have noticed they are still relatively / actually poor (b) Brexit promised them resources and riches (c) Tories promised them definitely resources and riches (d) They won't take no for an answer
Either this government produces a rabbit out of the hat or the Tory 2019 first timers depart.
(A) is wrong.
Red Wall Tory voters are typically home owners, not impoverished people awaiting resources and riches.
Thanks to the relatively huge success in building new homes up here, compared to the rest of the country, the Red Wall has seen much more people getting on the property ladder rather than the reverse happening as in much of the country.
That's the real reason the non-metropolitan North has been swinging Tory while the South is swinging against the Tories. Because voters here have their own deeds to their very own Barratt Home and similar, rather than rental bills.
(a) is not wrong. A is the reason why we have seen a clearout of Labour councils and Labour MPs in Labour since the Danelaw areas. Try living in the red wall for a while and you will see what they are so upset about./
Incidentally, it wouldn't be a good idea for the Tories to listen to you. Telling people that their lived experience is wrong never works.
Try living in the red wall for a while? Excuse me, I do live in the Red Wall, you don't.
There is new housing estates all over the place. You know, all those homes you keep complaining about because you want to excuse the NIMBY scum? All those new homes have voters.
The Red Wall fell because of construction, because the likes of Barratt etc got people on the property ladder, NOT because poor people suddenly became fed up of Labour not doing anything for them.
You're in Birchwood aren't you? Cheshire daaaaarling.
I've moved around a bit, I'd rather not say where I live if you don't mind, but Birchwood is not a bad example. Warrington North is a safe Labour seat, or used to be, like much of the North West its seen massive construction recently and its trended away from Labour as the share of owner occupier voters in the constituency has risen.
Just like the neighbouring constituency of Leigh. What you'd think of as Leigh is still just as grotty terraced homes as it always was, but its surrounded by new estates of semi-detached homes with gardens and driveways for 2 parking spaces each.
Drive around the new estates of Leigh, versus the old streets of Leigh, and its hardly a surprise voting levels have changed. The voting is changing not because people are suddenly fed up of Labour, but because Leigh itself, much of the North itself, is changing. The houses people are living in - and increasingly owning - are not the same homes that existed thirty years ago.
And constituencies that were predominantly owner occupied in the past, that are now unaffordable and NIMBYs are blocking construction, are seeing trends away from the Tories.
Its housing, stupid.
Again again, I hope your Tory friends go and argue your points on the doorstep. They will be annihilated.
I don't think Bart is presenting an argument why people in Warrington North or Leigh SHOULD vote Tory - he is saying that where there has been a long term shift to owner occupation, especially of new builds - such as Warrington North, Leigh, Blyth, Rother Valley, and dozens of others - there has been a long term shift to the Tories. This seems inarguable to me. I also agree with the implication that the Tories would be well served to try to maximise the number of owner occupiers.
Bingo. You've nailed it completely.
Essentially Britain votes by housing. Renters as a class tend to vote Labour. Owned outright tend to vote Tory. Owned with a mortgage, are the swing voters, who in recent years have voted Tory but in Blair's time voted Labour.
In much of the country renting has become more common, but in parts of the North owner occupiers have become more common due to vast amounts of new builds. That has meant more Tory voters, but since those voters have mortgages they're not safe Tory.
The idea that the North swung Tory because voters were pissed off and angry misses the transformation in housing that has happened. Drive around the North outside the cities, and yes if you're here you're driving to get around, and there has been major new housing developments and those developments lead to new owner occupiers which changes how people think about voting.
There have been suggestions of this voting-by-housing-tenure hypothesis before. It is interesting and believable, but I don't know of studies that examine it carefully. Do you?
I've seen many studies on it before, none to hand, but this excellent chart is in the article I linked to above and sums it up well.
The vast construction in the Red Wall, one of the only places in the country where there has been a semi-reasonable amount of construction, has led to home ownership rates here moving from Labour levels to Tory levels. The seats then swung accordingly.
Home ownership and GE2019 As in previous years, homeowners were more likely to vote Conservative in the 2019 election. According to Ipsos MORI’s figures, 57% of voters who owned their home outright voted Conservative, as did 43% of people with mortgages. By contrast, 45% of social renters and 46% of private renters voted Labour.
The 2011 Census tells us how many homeowners were in each constituency. At the time, around 64% of UK households owned their home, either outright or with a mortgage. 315 of the Conservatives’ 365 seats (86%) had home ownership levels above this average, compared with 53 of Labour’s 202 seats (26%). Nine of the Lib Dems’ 11 seats had above-average home ownership levels (82%).
86% above average ownership for Tories, 26% for Labour.
Home ownership is far and away what affects voting in this country. NIMBY scum like our Essicks Massiv that wants to invade Scotland, or the first son of Abraham, are doing their level best to discourage people from voting Tory.
So 82% of LD seats have above average home ownership levels too.
Yes we need more affordable housing, especially in brownbelt areas of London where home ownership is at its lowest and Labour has gained lots of former Conservative seats.
Build all over the greenbelt however and you will see lots of formerly safe Conservative seats like Chesham and Amersham go Liberal Democrat
You say that like its a bad thing.
Better to have people engaged in society and able to have their own home, even if some vote Lib Dem, than unable to afford their own home and voting to tear down society by voting for Labour.
No, we don't want to build all over our greenbelt when the Home Counties already have a 70% owner occupier rate anyway and are largely safe Tory just to send voters to the LDs.
London with only 50% owner occupier rate and lots of Labour seats and Tory marginals vulnerable to Labour does certainly need more affordable homes to buy, the South East less so
London is a part of the South East. If people working in London are going to have semi detached homes and gardens, the place to do so, is in the South East.
A very large proportion of people living in the SE outside of London already do work in London. That's generally for those who have a home, how they can afford to pay for it, so no pulling up the ladder after you and saying "you're not my problem, piss off and don't get a home near me" is not a solution.
London is NOT a part of the South East. People used to regularly be able to afford to buy a semi detached in suburban London on average incomes if they worked in the capital, they can't now. That needs more properties being built in outer London, not concreting all over the Home Counties greenbelt.
70% in the Home Counties outside London by contrast still own a property, the highest percentage of any UK region
You can submit a report to Google about Maps is wrong, and how London is really not in the South East of England.
It isn't, South East voters don't elect the London Mayor or London Assembly do they? When we had MEPs the South East region MEPs were completely separate to London elected MEPs
Voters in Warrington don't elect the Mayor of Greater Manchester. They're still both in the North West though.
London is entirely contained within the South East, that the South East is split into two regions for administrative purposes is no different to the fact that Stoke on Trent has 3 constituencies.
Warrington isn't in Manchester either, London is NOT in the South East, London is its OWN region
'Levelling up' is dangerous ground for Sunak, given that video of him trumpeting unlevelling up the already high...
That’s not actually what he was saying in the video. But Labour had artfully cut the video to mislead.
He was saying that all deprived areas need support - including deprived rural areas in Kent - not just deprived urban areas
The problem was not him rightly pointing to pockets of deprived rural areas. The probem was that he claimed he had taken money from genuinely shonky areas in the north to give to pockets of deprived rural areas.
Nobody is denying that rural places can't hide poverty. But you can't divert money from places already promised the cash. Or in practice what it's meant is that money has gone to posh Tory areas to sort the small bit that isn't quite as posh as the rest whilst the scum area gets little or nothing.
Stockton on Tees seeing levelling up money spent in Yarm as a prime example. Yes, there are bits of Yarm not as nice as the rest. But relatively these areas are fine - certainly a lot better than chunks of town centre or Newtown wards.
Why do the Tories still have a minister for levelling up? Bottom line up front, Boris Johnson’s glib election promise “we will level up” is undeliverable bollocks.
Once you fathom out the impossible to fathom out “what exactly does it mean? Level up the north to the level of the south? But bits of the south are just as run down as bits of the north and vice versa? And switch to how to do it anyway to delivery something at least, even though you don’t really understand what it means, you realise it’s not about funnelling existing money from this to that, you will just end up hated and stuck in the 20s in the polling, it has to be new money, given to deserving places, fairly, and so that Tiverton in Blue Wall can’t get upset they are just as deserving and being cheated.
After all that, are you now levelling up? Of course not, because it is just pretend the ancient mismatch in scale and wealth between London and the secondary cities their regions can ever be levelled, it always was empty unachievable Johnsonian electioneering bollocks.
Why? Because: (a) Red Wall voters have noticed they are still relatively / actually poor (b) Brexit promised them resources and riches (c) Tories promised them definitely resources and riches (d) They won't take no for an answer
Either this government produces a rabbit out of the hat or the Tory 2019 first timers depart.
(A) is wrong.
Red Wall Tory voters are typically home owners, not impoverished people awaiting resources and riches.
Thanks to the relatively huge success in building new homes up here, compared to the rest of the country, the Red Wall has seen much more people getting on the property ladder rather than the reverse happening as in much of the country.
That's the real reason the non-metropolitan North has been swinging Tory while the South is swinging against the Tories. Because voters here have their own deeds to their very own Barratt Home and similar, rather than rental bills.
(a) is not wrong. A is the reason why we have seen a clearout of Labour councils and Labour MPs in Labour since the Danelaw areas. Try living in the red wall for a while and you will see what they are so upset about./
Incidentally, it wouldn't be a good idea for the Tories to listen to you. Telling people that their lived experience is wrong never works.
Try living in the red wall for a while? Excuse me, I do live in the Red Wall, you don't.
There is new housing estates all over the place. You know, all those homes you keep complaining about because you want to excuse the NIMBY scum? All those new homes have voters.
The Red Wall fell because of construction, because the likes of Barratt etc got people on the property ladder, NOT because poor people suddenly became fed up of Labour not doing anything for them.
You're in Birchwood aren't you? Cheshire daaaaarling.
I've moved around a bit, I'd rather not say where I live if you don't mind, but Birchwood is not a bad example. Warrington North is a safe Labour seat, or used to be, like much of the North West its seen massive construction recently and its trended away from Labour as the share of owner occupier voters in the constituency has risen.
Just like the neighbouring constituency of Leigh. What you'd think of as Leigh is still just as grotty terraced homes as it always was, but its surrounded by new estates of semi-detached homes with gardens and driveways for 2 parking spaces each.
Drive around the new estates of Leigh, versus the old streets of Leigh, and its hardly a surprise voting levels have changed. The voting is changing not because people are suddenly fed up of Labour, but because Leigh itself, much of the North itself, is changing. The houses people are living in - and increasingly owning - are not the same homes that existed thirty years ago.
And constituencies that were predominantly owner occupied in the past, that are now unaffordable and NIMBYs are blocking construction, are seeing trends away from the Tories.
Its housing, stupid.
Again again, I hope your Tory friends go and argue your points on the doorstep. They will be annihilated.
I don't think Bart is presenting an argument why people in Warrington North or Leigh SHOULD vote Tory - he is saying that where there has been a long term shift to owner occupation, especially of new builds - such as Warrington North, Leigh, Blyth, Rother Valley, and dozens of others - there has been a long term shift to the Tories. This seems inarguable to me. I also agree with the implication that the Tories would be well served to try to maximise the number of owner occupiers.
Bingo. You've nailed it completely.
Essentially Britain votes by housing. Renters as a class tend to vote Labour. Owned outright tend to vote Tory. Owned with a mortgage, are the swing voters, who in recent years have voted Tory but in Blair's time voted Labour.
In much of the country renting has become more common, but in parts of the North owner occupiers have become more common due to vast amounts of new builds. That has meant more Tory voters, but since those voters have mortgages they're not safe Tory.
The idea that the North swung Tory because voters were pissed off and angry misses the transformation in housing that has happened. Drive around the North outside the cities, and yes if you're here you're driving to get around, and there has been major new housing developments and those developments lead to new owner occupiers which changes how people think about voting.
There have been suggestions of this voting-by-housing-tenure hypothesis before. It is interesting and believable, but I don't know of studies that examine it carefully. Do you?
I've seen many studies on it before, none to hand, but this excellent chart is in the article I linked to above and sums it up well.
The vast construction in the Red Wall, one of the only places in the country where there has been a semi-reasonable amount of construction, has led to home ownership rates here moving from Labour levels to Tory levels. The seats then swung accordingly.
Home ownership and GE2019 As in previous years, homeowners were more likely to vote Conservative in the 2019 election. According to Ipsos MORI’s figures, 57% of voters who owned their home outright voted Conservative, as did 43% of people with mortgages. By contrast, 45% of social renters and 46% of private renters voted Labour.
The 2011 Census tells us how many homeowners were in each constituency. At the time, around 64% of UK households owned their home, either outright or with a mortgage. 315 of the Conservatives’ 365 seats (86%) had home ownership levels above this average, compared with 53 of Labour’s 202 seats (26%). Nine of the Lib Dems’ 11 seats had above-average home ownership levels (82%).
86% above average ownership for Tories, 26% for Labour.
Home ownership is far and away what affects voting in this country. NIMBY scum like our Essicks Massiv that wants to invade Scotland, or the first son of Abraham, are doing their level best to discourage people from voting Tory.
That's a bit jarring, seeing "scum" affixed to NIMBYs. Don't think I've ever come across it before. Really quite unusual.
When the world owes you a 5 bed detached des res, waiting to collect can get to you.
Especially if deleting the pampering of Tory-approved standard nuclear families under the current IHT regulations, and imposing wealth tax on landed property, are active subjects for discussion to remedy the chaos of the last few years.
Only 9% of voters want IHT to rise, the lowest of any tax.
Though yes wealth taxes on million pound plus properties might not be too unpopular if Labour proposes them (outside of a few central London Labour target seats like Kensington and Cities of London and Westminster)
How on earth can you have misread that so badly. They want IHT to increase in preference to all normal taxes eg income tax, vat, fuel duty, council tax, stamp duty, ni. The only taxes they prefer to increase more than IHT are higher and top rate income tax, CGT and Corp Tax. And of course that is what you would expect. They don't want taxes increased that they pay but do want taxes increased on richer people.
The converse is true re taxes they don't want increased which is where you got the 9% from but you completely misunderstood the table. 50% don't want income tax increased compared to only 9% who don't want IHT to rise. Similarly Vat, fuel duty, ni, council tax etc compared to IHT.
Just 12% want higher IHT compared to 52% wanting a higher top income tax rate, 47% higher corporation tax, 33% higher capital gains tax and 29% a rise in the higher rate of income tax
Yep. Would you now like to show the rest of the figures so as not to mislead. That is they prefer higher IHT compared to all the other taxes. You know the ones we all pay every day. So it was completely untrue that it was bottom of the list isn't it. It was actually nearer the top of the list wasn't it and only under the taxes richer people pay. Same goes for the other table.
You either don't understand the tables or are deliberately misleading. Daft as we can all see the tables.
No, plenty of people pay the higher rate of income tax, they also wanted that increased more than IHT
Sorry what has that got to do with anything. You completely misunderstood it. You said it was the LOWEST of any tax. It wasn't. It was actually higher than mid table and actually higher than all the taxes nearly all of us pay. It was only below the taxes wealthy or better off people pay (greater than £50K) You got it completely wrong.
Come on put your hands up to it. We can all see the tables cos you gave us the links so you just look silly denying it.
You have to understand @HYUFD has a personal interest in his inheritance but the one thing about inheritance is nobody should take it for granted as elderly parents are living much longer and as a result may need years in care at approx £50,000 pa, but also IHT is far too generous at one million and should revert to the previous lower threshold in these difficult times for everyone
Well you can vote Labour again if you want that, we Tories must not betray our core vote
The conservative party does not belong to you nor your little Englander far right views
Since when has it been far right not to confiscate peoples' property built up over a lifetime, conserving property in the family is a core Tory value.
'Levelling up' is dangerous ground for Sunak, given that video of him trumpeting unlevelling up the already high...
That’s not actually what he was saying in the video. But Labour had artfully cut the video to mislead.
He was saying that all deprived areas need support - including deprived rural areas in Kent - not just deprived urban areas
The problem was not him rightly pointing to pockets of deprived rural areas. The probem was that he claimed he had taken money from genuinely shonky areas in the north to give to pockets of deprived rural areas.
Nobody is denying that rural places can't hide poverty. But you can't divert money from places already promised the cash. Or in practice what it's meant is that money has gone to posh Tory areas to sort the small bit that isn't quite as posh as the rest whilst the scum area gets little or nothing.
Stockton on Tees seeing levelling up money spent in Yarm as a prime example. Yes, there are bits of Yarm not as nice as the rest. But relatively these areas are fine - certainly a lot better than chunks of town centre or Newtown wards.
Why do the Tories still have a minister for levelling up? Bottom line up front, Boris Johnson’s glib election promise “we will level up” is undeliverable bollocks.
Once you fathom out the impossible to fathom out “what exactly does it mean? Level up the north to the level of the south? But bits of the south are just as run down as bits of the north and vice versa? And switch to how to do it anyway to delivery something at least, even though you don’t really understand what it means, you realise it’s not about funnelling existing money from this to that, you will just end up hated and stuck in the 20s in the polling, it has to be new money, given to deserving places, fairly, and so that Tiverton in Blue Wall can’t get upset they are just as deserving and being cheated.
After all that, are you now levelling up? Of course not, because it is just pretend the ancient mismatch in scale and wealth between London and the secondary cities their regions can ever be levelled, it always was empty unachievable Johnsonian electioneering bollocks.
Why? Because: (a) Red Wall voters have noticed they are still relatively / actually poor (b) Brexit promised them resources and riches (c) Tories promised them definitely resources and riches (d) They won't take no for an answer
Either this government produces a rabbit out of the hat or the Tory 2019 first timers depart.
(A) is wrong.
Red Wall Tory voters are typically home owners, not impoverished people awaiting resources and riches.
Thanks to the relatively huge success in building new homes up here, compared to the rest of the country, the Red Wall has seen much more people getting on the property ladder rather than the reverse happening as in much of the country.
That's the real reason the non-metropolitan North has been swinging Tory while the South is swinging against the Tories. Because voters here have their own deeds to their very own Barratt Home and similar, rather than rental bills.
(a) is not wrong. A is the reason why we have seen a clearout of Labour councils and Labour MPs in Labour since the Danelaw areas. Try living in the red wall for a while and you will see what they are so upset about./
Incidentally, it wouldn't be a good idea for the Tories to listen to you. Telling people that their lived experience is wrong never works.
Try living in the red wall for a while? Excuse me, I do live in the Red Wall, you don't.
There is new housing estates all over the place. You know, all those homes you keep complaining about because you want to excuse the NIMBY scum? All those new homes have voters.
The Red Wall fell because of construction, because the likes of Barratt etc got people on the property ladder, NOT because poor people suddenly became fed up of Labour not doing anything for them.
You're in Birchwood aren't you? Cheshire daaaaarling.
I've moved around a bit, I'd rather not say where I live if you don't mind, but Birchwood is not a bad example. Warrington North is a safe Labour seat, or used to be, like much of the North West its seen massive construction recently and its trended away from Labour as the share of owner occupier voters in the constituency has risen.
Just like the neighbouring constituency of Leigh. What you'd think of as Leigh is still just as grotty terraced homes as it always was, but its surrounded by new estates of semi-detached homes with gardens and driveways for 2 parking spaces each.
Drive around the new estates of Leigh, versus the old streets of Leigh, and its hardly a surprise voting levels have changed. The voting is changing not because people are suddenly fed up of Labour, but because Leigh itself, much of the North itself, is changing. The houses people are living in - and increasingly owning - are not the same homes that existed thirty years ago.
And constituencies that were predominantly owner occupied in the past, that are now unaffordable and NIMBYs are blocking construction, are seeing trends away from the Tories.
Its housing, stupid.
Again again, I hope your Tory friends go and argue your points on the doorstep. They will be annihilated.
I don't think Bart is presenting an argument why people in Warrington North or Leigh SHOULD vote Tory - he is saying that where there has been a long term shift to owner occupation, especially of new builds - such as Warrington North, Leigh, Blyth, Rother Valley, and dozens of others - there has been a long term shift to the Tories. This seems inarguable to me. I also agree with the implication that the Tories would be well served to try to maximise the number of owner occupiers.
Bingo. You've nailed it completely.
Essentially Britain votes by housing. Renters as a class tend to vote Labour. Owned outright tend to vote Tory. Owned with a mortgage, are the swing voters, who in recent years have voted Tory but in Blair's time voted Labour.
In much of the country renting has become more common, but in parts of the North owner occupiers have become more common due to vast amounts of new builds. That has meant more Tory voters, but since those voters have mortgages they're not safe Tory.
The idea that the North swung Tory because voters were pissed off and angry misses the transformation in housing that has happened. Drive around the North outside the cities, and yes if you're here you're driving to get around, and there has been major new housing developments and those developments lead to new owner occupiers which changes how people think about voting.
There have been suggestions of this voting-by-housing-tenure hypothesis before. It is interesting and believable, but I don't know of studies that examine it carefully. Do you?
I've seen many studies on it before, none to hand, but this excellent chart is in the article I linked to above and sums it up well.
The vast construction in the Red Wall, one of the only places in the country where there has been a semi-reasonable amount of construction, has led to home ownership rates here moving from Labour levels to Tory levels. The seats then swung accordingly.
Home ownership and GE2019 As in previous years, homeowners were more likely to vote Conservative in the 2019 election. According to Ipsos MORI’s figures, 57% of voters who owned their home outright voted Conservative, as did 43% of people with mortgages. By contrast, 45% of social renters and 46% of private renters voted Labour.
The 2011 Census tells us how many homeowners were in each constituency. At the time, around 64% of UK households owned their home, either outright or with a mortgage. 315 of the Conservatives’ 365 seats (86%) had home ownership levels above this average, compared with 53 of Labour’s 202 seats (26%). Nine of the Lib Dems’ 11 seats had above-average home ownership levels (82%).
86% above average ownership for Tories, 26% for Labour.
Home ownership is far and away what affects voting in this country. NIMBY scum like our Essicks Massiv that wants to invade Scotland, or the first son of Abraham, are doing their level best to discourage people from voting Tory.
So 82% of LD seats have above average home ownership levels too.
Yes we need more affordable housing, especially in brownbelt areas of London where home ownership is at its lowest and Labour has gained lots of former Conservative seats.
Build all over the greenbelt however and you will see lots of formerly safe Conservative seats like Chesham and Amersham go Liberal Democrat
You say that like its a bad thing.
Better to have people engaged in society and able to have their own home, even if some vote Lib Dem, than unable to afford their own home and voting to tear down society by voting for Labour.
No, we don't want to build all over our greenbelt when the Home Counties already have a 70% owner occupier rate anyway and are largely safe Tory just to send voters to the LDs.
London with only 50% owner occupier rate and lots of Labour seats and Tory marginals vulnerable to Labour does certainly need more affordable homes to buy, the South East less so
London is a part of the South East. If people working in London are going to have semi detached homes and gardens, the place to do so, is in the South East.
A very large proportion of people living in the SE outside of London already do work in London. That's generally for those who have a home, how they can afford to pay for it, so no pulling up the ladder after you and saying "you're not my problem, piss off and don't get a home near me" is not a solution.
London is NOT a part of the South East. People used to regularly be able to afford to buy a semi detached in suburban London on average incomes if they worked in the capital, they can't now. That needs more properties being built in outer London, not concreting all over the Home Counties greenbelt.
70% in the Home Counties outside London by contrast still own a property, the highest percentage of any UK region
You can submit a report to Google about Maps is wrong, and how London is really not in the South East of England.
It isn't, South East voters don't elect the London Mayor or London Assembly do they? When we had MEPs the South East region MEPs were completely separate to London elected MEPs
Voters in Warrington don't elect the Mayor of Greater Manchester. They're still both in the North West though.
London is entirely contained within the South East, that the South East is split into two regions for administrative purposes is no different to the fact that Stoke on Trent has 3 constituencies.
Warrington isn't in Manchester either, London is NOT in the South East, London is its OWN region
Learn to read, I never said Warrington is in Manchester, or that London is in South Downs now, did I?.
Warrington and Manchester are both in the North West. London and Guildford are both in the South East. That's why many people live in suburbs like Guildford or Warrington and commute into nearby cities like Manchester and London, because many people like to live in a suburban town where they can have a house and a garden and still commute into a city.
The fact London is bigger than Manchester doesn't change geography. London being in the South East is a simple matter of geographical fact.
Comments
You have to go back to Bill Clinton to find a President who saw his party lose control of both the House and the Senate in his first midterms (mind you he was still re elected in 1996)
But we have to pamper Tories who are too mean to look after themselves.
Better to have people engaged in society and able to have their own home, even if some vote Lib Dem, than unable to afford their own home and voting to tear down society by voting for Labour.
ETA but broke up in 2014, the internet thinks
He would not say who has launched it.
https://twitter.com/alixculbertson/status/1587902975409881096
Interestingly sources claimed that when Suella Braverman asked for a second opinion on legal advice that said it was against the HO statutory duty not to release people quicker from Manston, she thought 2nd opinion could help protect HO in case of a judicial review. https://twitter.com/anushkaasthana/status/1587871557849944066
https://ocean.si.edu/ocean-life/invertebrates/parasitic-barnacle-crab
https://www.zoopla.co.uk/house-prices/london/
https://www.rightmove.co.uk/house-prices/surrey.html
London with only 50% owner occupier rate and lots of Labour seats and Tory marginals vulnerable to Labour does certainly need more affordable homes to buy, the South East less so
Massive logical howlers there. You are assuming
(a) that every voter is a home-owner. Many are not.
(B) that every home-owner actually has 100% equity without any mortgage. Many are not.
(Of course, both are heavily biased toward the Tories, but they would be for you. Or perhaps Labour and LD and Green voters are not human beings?)
So you are mixing up three different populations and talking bollocks because you trhink it makes your argument look better. Actually, it makes it look even worse.
Anyway, that's enough bollock-toasting to stock a French charcuterie for one evening, so I'm going to go off and read a nice new book. And I suggest you buy yourself a train set and try out the logical operation of points and sidings.
In case anyone here has a special interest.....
The Spanish were far, far tougher than we are - live firing, many people killed, Moroccans stuck in a tiny pen with dead bodies etc.
As always, the rhetoric is very different from what actually happens. Braverman is strong on rhetoric but bottom line is we all know she isn't actually going to do anything.
Meanwhile the Spanish take a very different approach.
https://twitter.com/isaachayes3/status/1587575692472074242
The converse is true re taxes they don't want increased which is where you got the 9% from but you completely misunderstood the table. 50% don't want income tax increased compared to only 9% who don't want IHT to rise. Similarly Vat, fuel duty, ni, council tax etc compared to IHT.
Such a shame, they had a peculiarly intoxicating sound
Especially her voice
https://twitter.com/YouGov/status/1587413703930036224?s=20&t=0bvm7ERpl8yTvCDb5tnqGA
As well as confirming gvt facing legal action over Manston Immigration Minister Robert Jenrick tells @SophyRidgeSky
"I expect Manston will be returned to a well-functioning and legally complaint site very rapidly"
So not legally complaint now?
https://news.sky.com/story/home-office-facing-judicial-review-over-migrant-overcrowding-at-manston-immigration-minister-says-12736728
The danger from your attitude is that it narrows the base of people who would support Tories from a growing group who have assets and those who hope to have assets in the future, to only a declining share of the population who still have assets, and no-one else because they've all lost hope that it will be possible.
Yes we can expand property ownership by building more affordable housing in areas with high levels of renters like London, not reducing property ownership via higher IHT. We could also cut immigration to reduce pressure on housing
It's very interesting - and it reinforces my view of what's going on - that British TV reports this, all of a sudden.
Has there been a dearth of former ministers saying they'll appear on reality shows maybe?
"Properly tough", "unlike not doing anything, which has been the softie British approach until now" is exactly what viewers are supposed to think. It'll probably be in the Express, Sun, Torygraph, and Daily Heil if it hasn't been already.
In this context, the term "invasion" is in the same semantic field as "shoot".
Price of the Tories winning most seats at the next GE is 2.74 at Betfair. Value.
A very large proportion of people living in the SE outside of London already do work in London. That's generally for those who have a home, how they can afford to pay for it, so no pulling up the ladder after you and saying "you're not my problem, piss off and don't get a home near me" is not a solution.
You either don't understand the tables or are deliberately misleading. Daft as we can all see the tables.
Farage is a long way from that level, it is the populist hard right there driving the hardline on immigration
70% in the Home Counties outside London by contrast still own a property, the highest percentage of any UK region
HYUFDs twisted "principles" are nothing of the sort. Thankfully other Tories on this site are more grounded in ethics.
The other thing is that for the wealthy IHT is in many cases incredibly avoidable by various means including having money in certain exempt assets, and by handing stuff over with impeccable timing. It is this fact, it seems to me, which makes the £1m (effective) threshold in many ordinary cases not unreasonable.
Land, probate, tax and wills lawyers do OK out of this, which is fine as they too have starving and indigent wives and children all wanting new top hats and bonnets for Easter out of their over taxed, meagre stipends.
You can submit a report to Google about Maps is wrong, and how London is really not in the South East of England.
Come on put your hands up to it. We can all see the tables cos you gave us the links so you just look silly denying it.
There are many Scots who want independence who are not hard left as you imply
But then you know very little about the Scots and certainly do nothing to win the argument for the Union
Indeed you are a positive recruiting sergeant for independence, and I say that as someone who knows Scotland, is married to a Scot, has lived in Scotland, and love the country and its people and cherish the union
There are many trains running every day to ferry commuters to London from Woking, because they are both places in the South East of England that are close to each other. Anyone living in London who wants a home in Surrey, or anywhere else that's a suburb of London, should be able to get a house there.
The failure of having enough homes for Londoners is a failure for the whole of the South East, not just London.
London is entirely contained within the South East, that the South East is split into two regions for administrative purposes is no different to the fact that Stoke on Trent has 3 constituencies.
https://www.birdandco.co.uk/site/blog/conveyancing-blog/midlands-has-the-highest-home-ownership-rate-in-england#:~:text=This means that each region,West Midlands – 26.7%
Manchester's Mayor doesn't much of the North West, it covers a small part of it known as the Greater Manchester area. Plenty of areas in the North West have people commuting into Manchester and all are within the North West. Manchester is a city, with a metropolitan area, within the North West just as London is a city, with a metropolitan area, within the South East.
Do you think Chorley isn't in the North West because its not in Greater Manchester? What about Macclesfield?
If all trains across the South East stopped allowing commuters into and out of London as they're distinct separate areas as you like to pretend, then plenty of people across the South East would be royally stuffed and unable to get to work.
London is NOT the South East. The South Downs are not London for goodness sake!!
All dogs are animals, not all animals are dogs.
London is in the South East. The South East is not in London.
🤦♂️
Off to Starmer with you and good riddance!!
In VERY strong terms he hit out at UK politics/language on channel crossings
@ediramaal told us ‘this kind of language is not a policy, not a vision, it’s nothing but fuelling xenophobia’
Full int 1030pm @BBCTwo
https://twitter.com/vicderbyshire/status/1587918666624110595
https://twitter.com/ediramaal/status/1587800223430180864
Warrington and Manchester are both in the North West. London and Guildford are both in the South East. That's why many people live in suburbs like Guildford or Warrington and commute into nearby cities like Manchester and London, because many people like to live in a suburban town where they can have a house and a garden and still commute into a city.
The fact London is bigger than Manchester doesn't change geography. London being in the South East is a simple matter of geographical fact.