Some advice to the Tories: do something about the raw sewage pouring into our rivers and seas. You own it and it is visceral.
Hasn't it always done so ?
Given that environmental standards have tended to steadily rise and that there's certainly less industrial pollution of the waterways I would be surprised if sewage dumping, as opposed to its reporting, is a new thing.
There is a general sense that things are going backwards. This may be unfair, but it’s what people feel. The water is dirtier and the Tories have taken ownership of it. That is not a great look. If it were me, I’d want voters to know that tackling any issues and putting them right was an absolute priority. As I say, it’s a visceral - and very visible - issue.
But isn't the problem that actually the water is not dirtier. At least not compared with any time in the last century or so. This is a manufactured issue. What can be argued is that the Tories should be dealing with it faster but the idea that our rivers have got worse in the last decade and a half is a myth.
The trigger seems to have been a relatively recent decision to extend deadlines for water companies to hit clean-up targets.
Yep I don't blame the opposition for jumping on this and making capital out of it but I kind of expect better of the PB conclave.
That's just plain dumb. If people are switching en masse to Labour and the LDs why would a swing to the right bring them back?
Never mind that Sunak is on the Tory right. Seen his immigration policy?
It was expected to be pretty bad for the party and that looks to be holding true. Nothing has really changed - they continue to cling on to the hope that they start off far enough ahead that they can cling in a GE.
So what can Sunak do?
He can't bury the past he was part of. He can't do change. He can't do down to Earth. He is struggling to recover on the competence front, but there is too much damage.
He could try to do compassionate conservatism, but would need to ditch Braverman and do a 180 on some key policies.
What can he do?
Nothing. The party members and MPs won't wear a 180. Boris in 2019 could realistically claim he would bring victory so they'd listen, but Sunak can't. As you note too much damage and baggage is in place to win on competence.
All he can do is look for easy wins and try to patch the biggest leaks in the boat. They'll go big on culture and fear if change, which will have some effect but not enough without more substance.
If they go that route, don't they need to change the leader from Sunak to some kind of bruiser?
Sam Allardyce is already taken, by Leeds. Their 3rd managerial change in a season, including a short lived caretaker. And they're running out of time to avoid relegation with the season almost finished. A bit like the Conservative Party.
That's just plain dumb. If people are switching en masse to Labour and the LDs why would a swing to the right bring them back?
Never mind that Sunak is on the Tory right. Seen his immigration policy?
It was expected to be pretty bad for the party and that looks to be holding true. Nothing has really changed - they continue to cling on to the hope that they start off far enough ahead that they can cling in a GE.
So what can Sunak do?
He can't bury the past he was part of. He can't do change. He can't do down to Earth. He is struggling to recover on the competence front, but there is too much damage.
He could try to do compassionate conservatism, but would need to ditch Braverman and do a 180 on some key policies.
What can he do?
Nothing. The party members and MPs won't wear a 180. Boris in 2019 could realistically claim he would bring victory so they'd listen, but Sunak can't. As you note too much damage and baggage is in place to win on competence.
All he can do is look for easy wins and try to patch the biggest leaks in the boat. They'll go big on culture and fear if change, which will have some effect but not enough without more substance.
If they go that route, don't they need to change the leader from Sunak to some kind of bruiser?
Barclay does seem to have been cleaning up his image, so may well stand but it is hard to see how he takes over in government as the last throw of the dice before the election.
I see the Conservative did well in Grimsby, Peterborough, Scunthorpe and Thurrock.
How the world changes.
I wonder how well the results correlate to housing affordability.
Probably more to do with house building because more supply -> more affordability.
Interestingly around here it's the new housing estates where the Tories do well.
My theory is that where new housing is seen as an improvement on what is already there then it is popular but when it is viewed as 'shitboxes' in 'pretty villages' then its opposed.
My theory is it's always opposed but the people who move in can see it's fine.
New housing is always opposed, but that isn't quite the same as saying it's always unpopular. Part of the role of councillors (and opposing parties in their wards) is to distinguish the inevitable howls of a vocal minority from a more widespread issue.
It isn't particularly unusual to have some people who, perfectly understandably, would rather have a view over a field than a housing estate and who are very vocal on it. But you then go down the road to many more people whose outlook from their living room window is entirely unaffected, and who see it as good news for kids who can't afford a home nearby, for the local shops, for the brand new school that is part of the development dividend and so on. The vocal opposition bandwagon can be, but certainly isn't necessarily, the one to jump on from a purely political perspective.
Trouble is, a lot are still waiting for the new school, the new GP surgery and the new dentist. The government should build new towns, and now Labour has said it, maybe it will.
Some advice to the Tories: do something about the raw sewage pouring into our rivers and seas. You own it and it is visceral.
Hasn't it always done so ?
Given that environmental standards have tended to steadily rise and that there's certainly less industrial pollution of the waterways I would be surprised if sewage dumping, as opposed to its reporting, is a new thing.
There is a general sense that things are going backwards. This may be unfair, but it’s what people feel. The water is dirtier and the Tories have taken ownership of it. That is not a great look. If it were me, I’d want voters to know that tackling any issues and putting them right was an absolute priority. As I say, it’s a visceral - and very visible - issue.
But isn't the problem that actually the water is not dirtier. At least not compared with any time in the last century or so. This is a manufactured issue. What can be argued is that the Tories should be dealing with it faster but the idea that our rivers have got worse in the last decade and a half is a myth.
Agreed, but some rivers have got dirtier and these (probably correctly) grab the headlines. 85% of teh world's chalk streams are in England. 85%! We have a responsibility to maintain these amazing habitats
I see the Conservative did well in Grimsby, Peterborough, Scunthorpe and Thurrock.
How the world changes.
I wonder how well the results correlate to housing affordability.
Probably more to do with house building because more supply -> more affordability.
Interestingly around here it's the new housing estates where the Tories do well.
My theory is that where new housing is seen as an improvement on what is already there then it is popular but when it is viewed as 'shitboxes' in 'pretty villages' then its opposed.
My theory is it's always opposed but the people who move in can see it's fine.
New housing is always opposed, but that isn't quite the same as saying it's always unpopular. Part of the role of councillors (and opposing parties in their wards) is to distinguish the inevitable howls of a vocal minority from a more widespread issue.
It isn't particularly unusual to have some people who, perfectly understandably, would rather have a view over a field than a housing estate and who are very vocal on it. But you then go down the road to many more people whose outlook from their living room window is entirely unaffected, and who see it as good news for kids who can't afford a home nearby, for the local shops, for the brand new school that is part of the development dividend and so on. The vocal opposition bandwagon can be, but certainly isn't necessarily, the one to jump on from a purely political perspective.
A large portion of the problem, is the form the housing estate will take.
A view of fair sized houses in a sane style, with a scattering of actual amenities vs an ocean of brick boxes the size of rabbit hutches....
Some advice to the Tories: do something about the raw sewage pouring into our rivers and seas. You own it and it is visceral.
Hasn't it always done so ?
Given that environmental standards have tended to steadily rise and that there's certainly less industrial pollution of the waterways I would be surprised if sewage dumping, as opposed to its reporting, is a new thing.
There is a general sense that things are going backwards. This may be unfair, but it’s what people feel. The water is dirtier and the Tories have taken ownership of it. That is not a great look. If it were me, I’d want voters to know that tackling any issues and putting them right was an absolute priority. As I say, it’s a visceral - and very visible - issue.
But isn't the problem that actually the water is not dirtier. At least not compared with any time in the last century or so. This is a manufactured issue. What can be argued is that the Tories should be dealing with it faster but the idea that our rivers have got worse in the last decade and a half is a myth.
But MY Oxfordshire rivers have got a great deal filthier in the past 20 years - and there's hard evidence, from bacteria count to a fall in fish numbers, to support this. Meanwhile, it's also the case that dividends paid to Thames Water (the main beneficiary of rising pollution levels in my two closest rivers) since privatisation have risen in spite of the undoubted investments in London's water system that simply never happened in the previous century and a half of State control.
All politics is local. And one of the reasons the anti-Tories were still seeing massive swings yesterday in what 20 years ago were some of Britain's safest Tory seats is that my neighbours' children can't swim in the rivers their parents moved here for a generation ago. Yesterday, our longest-standing Tory supporters declined to put up Tory posters, canvass Tory or tell for the Tories at polling stations. Because, quite literally, Tory inaction over river pollution has made the party stink.
I see the Conservative did well in Grimsby, Peterborough, Scunthorpe and Thurrock.
How the world changes.
I wonder how well the results correlate to housing affordability.
Probably more to do with house building because more supply -> more affordability.
Interestingly around here it's the new housing estates where the Tories do well.
My theory is that where new housing is seen as an improvement on what is already there then it is popular but when it is viewed as 'shitboxes' in 'pretty villages' then its opposed.
My theory is it's always opposed but the people who move in can see it's fine.
It really doesn't seem to be opposed further north.
I wonder if in southern England new housing provokes stronger views ie people are either very strongly against it or very strongly for it.
Whereas in cheaper areas a steady amount of new housing always being built is just accepted as part of life.
Looks like the Tories are being battered everywhere tbh. Plymouth, Medway and Stoke good results for Labour to pick out 3 working class places.
I think Anthony King will be getting up from his grave to comment on this one.
It looks to me like the Conservatives are heading for about 850 losses.
A rotten result, but actually *not* on a par with those of the mid 90's. The Conservatives have held onto councils that they lost quite comprehensively to Labour and the Lib Dems, back then.
500 to 1000 losses about the same as Labour suffered in 2007 but still better than the over 1000 losses May had in 2019 or the over 2000 losses Major had in 1995.
Sir Keir will be glad Labour have gained bellwether councils like Medway, Stoke and Plymouth but the results suggest they are heading for largest party in a hung parliament or small Labour majority but not a Labour landslide like 1997. For instance Harlow and Basildon and Redditch, which Blair won in 1997, have stayed blue
The tell will be what happens in the rest of the Blue and Red walls today. So far we have seen incursions against you by whichever party is best placed to defeat you. Labour wins against you in Middlesbrough, Stoke, Medway have to put the pulse racing a little, no?
But its not all about Labour. The other parties have conspired against you - look at Worcester where had people just voted Labour in seats they couldn't win you would likely have clung on in a minority. But they voted *against* you and that's a drop from power to third place. In Worcester!
It was always a funny old world where the Conservatives controlled places like Middlesbrough and Stoke. Thatcher could only dream of such things.
These are just signs of a return to a more normal (post Brexit) politics?
Likely. Though status quo ante is not a result for decaying hellholes like Middlesbrough - they need rescuing. The Tories promised these red wall rust belt towns the moon on a stick. Brexit and the Oven Ready Deal would see their lives improve, put a bit more money in their pockets and see pride come back into their communities.
And then the reverse has happened. So understandably ever larger numbers of people want the Tories out. They aren't stupid, they don't like being lied to. But then again Labour who had presided over some of these places since the Danelaw had let them go to ruin beforehand. "Its all the Tories fault, vote Labour" is no longer going to work.
Starmer's challenge is to actually turn some of these places around. Deliver actual levelling up projects. And investment is available - an ocean of public cash spent on Teesside, its just that it's all being handed over to a small number of the right people and not the town. Boro was refused tens of millions because the council wanted the money to be accountable and the mayor said it could only go to his no scrutiny cash in brown envelope operation...
"The reverse has happened" - because the money got spent on two once in a generation/century events: Covid furlough and the Ukraine War spike in energy requiring support to bill payers.
Without them, I reckon a lot of levelling up would have happened. But that would not have been without political consequence. There are plenty in the blue wall who resent money being sent "up north".
No, what I meant was that £450m has been spent so far decontaminating the former steelworks site (and dredging the Tees to kill all the fish). That is actual cash that has actually been spent. But not on the town - just on Teesworks. And 90% of the benefit of that cash goes into the pockets of the developer friends of the mayor who have invested £0 and paid £0 for that largesse.
Mr. Twelve, not to mention the blonde fool has no interest in the national interest, only indulging himself. Sunak's underwhelming, but Johnson's a drunken joyrider.
Would bringing back Boris make things better or worse for the Conservatives?
I suggest worse.
I fully agree, but that ship has long since sailed and is now well off over the horizon in any event.
The results are looking pretty bad for Sunak and the Tories. But he'll live and, in fairness to him, his Parliamentary party has pretty much bought into his strategy of broad stability, coupled with some red meat for the base on immigration, and pretend to be almost like normal people at the General Election before resuming internecine warfare thereafter. They are wise to do so.
"Bring back Boris" is now just a crazed howl from fringe people like Dorries and Rees-Mogg - who it now feels like a fever-dream to recall were once cabinet ministers. It's not on the agenda in any serious way.
Would bringing back Boris make things better or worse for the Conservatives?
I suggest worse.
I fully agree, but that ship has long since sailed and is now well off over the horizon in any event.
The results are looking pretty bad for Sunak and the Tories. But he'll live and, in fairness to him, his Parliamentary party has pretty much bought into his strategy of broad stability, coupled with some red meat for the base on immigration, and pretend to be almost like normal people at the General Election before resuming internecine warfare thereafter. They are wise to do so.
"Bring back Boris" is now just a crazed howl from fringe people like Dorries and Rees-Mogg - who it now feels like a fever-dream to recall were once cabinet ministers. It's not on the agenda in any serious way.
They call for him because they know he is the only idiot who would ever let them into the cabinet
Would bringing back Boris make things better or worse for the Conservatives?
I suggest worse.
If I am being charitable, Boris might be able to cling onto some seats that would otherwise be saved.
But he would probably lose the same amount elsewhere that Sunak has a decent shot at keeping right now.
That's probably about right - and he for all his many, many, many flaws he has a true narcissist's flair for campaigning. I'm sure he's still very appealing to a certain audience, but his broader brand (like the Tories) is shot.
There's also the nontrivial risk that he could do a Swinson and fail to defend his own seat.
Some advice to the Tories: do something about the raw sewage pouring into our rivers and seas. You own it and it is visceral.
Hasn't it always done so ?
Given that environmental standards have tended to steadily rise and that there's certainly less industrial pollution of the waterways I would be surprised if sewage dumping, as opposed to its reporting, is a new thing.
There is a general sense that things are going backwards. This may be unfair, but it’s what people feel. The water is dirtier and the Tories have taken ownership of it. That is not a great look. If it were me, I’d want voters to know that tackling any issues and putting them right was an absolute priority. As I say, it’s a visceral - and very visible - issue.
But isn't the problem that actually the water is not dirtier. At least not compared with any time in the last century or so. This is a manufactured issue. What can be argued is that the Tories should be dealing with it faster but the idea that our rivers have got worse in the last decade and a half is a myth.
The trigger seems to have been a relatively recent decision to extend deadlines for water companies to hit clean-up targets.
Yep I don't blame the opposition for jumping on this and making capital out of it but I kind of expect better of the PB conclave.
Some advice to the Tories: do something about the raw sewage pouring into our rivers and seas. You own it and it is visceral.
Hasn't it always done so ?
Given that environmental standards have tended to steadily rise and that there's certainly less industrial pollution of the waterways I would be surprised if sewage dumping, as opposed to its reporting, is a new thing.
There is a general sense that things are going backwards. This may be unfair, but it’s what people feel. The water is dirtier and the Tories have taken ownership of it. That is not a great look. If it were me, I’d want voters to know that tackling any issues and putting them right was an absolute priority. As I say, it’s a visceral - and very visible - issue.
But isn't the problem that actually the water is not dirtier. At least not compared with any time in the last century or so. This is a manufactured issue. What can be argued is that the Tories should be dealing with it faster but the idea that our rivers have got worse in the last decade and a half is a myth.
The trigger seems to have been a relatively recent decision to extend deadlines for water companies to hit clean-up targets.
Yep I don't blame the opposition for jumping on this and making capital out of it but I kind of expect better of the PB conclave.
It was the Tories voting to overturn the Lords ammendment to clean up the rivers that made it an issue.
Tories loosened rules via Brexit "freedoms" in order to pay shareholders rather than fix infrastructure is the meme.
Would bringing back Boris make things better or worse for the Conservatives?
I suggest worse.
I fully agree, but that ship has long since sailed and is now well off over the horizon in any event.
The results are looking pretty bad for Sunak and the Tories. But he'll live and, in fairness to him, his Parliamentary party has pretty much bought into his strategy of broad stability, coupled with some red meat for the base on immigration, and pretend to be almost like normal people at the General Election before resuming internecine warfare thereafter. They are wise to do so.
"Bring back Boris" is now just a crazed howl from fringe people like Dorries and Rees-Mogg - who it now feels like a fever-dream to recall were once cabinet ministers. It's not on the agenda in any serious way.
I see the Conservative did well in Grimsby, Peterborough, Scunthorpe and Thurrock.
How the world changes.
I wonder how well the results correlate to housing affordability.
Probably more to do with house building because more supply -> more affordability.
Interestingly around here it's the new housing estates where the Tories do well.
My theory is that where new housing is seen as an improvement on what is already there then it is popular but when it is viewed as 'shitboxes' in 'pretty villages' then its opposed.
My theory is it's always opposed but the people who move in can see it's fine.
It really doesn't seem to be opposed further north.
I wonder if in southern England new housing provokes stronger views ie people are either very strongly against it or very strongly for it.
Whereas in cheaper areas a steady amount of new housing always being built is just accepted as part of life.
Depressingly, both Labour and the Lib Dems in Hertsmere have done very well on the back of campaigning against new housing.
Would bringing back Boris make things better or worse for the Conservatives?
I suggest worse.
I fully agree, but that ship has long since sailed and is now well off over the horizon in any event.
The results are looking pretty bad for Sunak and the Tories. But he'll live and, in fairness to him, his Parliamentary party has pretty much bought into his strategy of broad stability, coupled with some red meat for the base on immigration, and pretend to be almost like normal people at the General Election before resuming internecine warfare thereafter. They are wise to do so.
"Bring back Boris" is now just a crazed howl from fringe people like Dorries and Rees-Mogg - who it now feels like a fever-dream to recall were once cabinet ministers. It's not on the agenda in any serious way.
Some advice to the Tories: do something about the raw sewage pouring into our rivers and seas. You own it and it is visceral.
Hasn't it always done so ?
Given that environmental standards have tended to steadily rise and that there's certainly less industrial pollution of the waterways I would be surprised if sewage dumping, as opposed to its reporting, is a new thing.
There is a general sense that things are going backwards. This may be unfair, but it’s what people feel. The water is dirtier and the Tories have taken ownership of it. That is not a great look. If it were me, I’d want voters to know that tackling any issues and putting them right was an absolute priority. As I say, it’s a visceral - and very visible - issue.
But isn't the problem that actually the water is not dirtier. At least not compared with any time in the last century or so. This is a manufactured issue. What can be argued is that the Tories should be dealing with it faster but the idea that our rivers have got worse in the last decade and a half is a myth.
The trigger seems to have been a relatively recent decision to extend deadlines for water companies to hit clean-up targets.
Yep I don't blame the opposition for jumping on this and making capital out of it but I kind of expect better of the PB conclave.
Some advice to the Tories: do something about the raw sewage pouring into our rivers and seas. You own it and it is visceral.
Hasn't it always done so ?
Given that environmental standards have tended to steadily rise and that there's certainly less industrial pollution of the waterways I would be surprised if sewage dumping, as opposed to its reporting, is a new thing.
There is a general sense that things are going backwards. This may be unfair, but it’s what people feel. The water is dirtier and the Tories have taken ownership of it. That is not a great look. If it were me, I’d want voters to know that tackling any issues and putting them right was an absolute priority. As I say, it’s a visceral - and very visible - issue.
But isn't the problem that actually the water is not dirtier. At least not compared with any time in the last century or so. This is a manufactured issue. What can be argued is that the Tories should be dealing with it faster but the idea that our rivers have got worse in the last decade and a half is a myth.
The trigger seems to have been a relatively recent decision to extend deadlines for water companies to hit clean-up targets.
Yep I don't blame the opposition for jumping on this and making capital out of it but I kind of expect better of the PB conclave.
It was the Tories voting to overturn the Lords ammendment to clean up the rivers that made it an issue.
Tories loosened rules via Brexit "freedoms" in order to pay shareholders rather than fix infrastructure is the meme.
Most of the "shareholders" are the pension schemes that doubtless a large number of people on here are benefitting/will benefit from.
Perhaps the wastrels and moaners who take early retirement should take one less holiday a year and give it to a river charity to redress the balance of their greed?
We have now reached the 'inevitability' stage that there will be a change of government at the next election. The tories would be wise to recognise this, make the best play of things they can, and look to the future for what a 21st century centre right party should be and prepare for that in oppostion.
(just for the record, I voted lib dem, if it were best to change, then bring it on)
I see the Conservative did well in Grimsby, Peterborough, Scunthorpe and Thurrock.
How the world changes.
I wonder how well the results correlate to housing affordability.
Probably more to do with house building because more supply -> more affordability.
Interestingly around here it's the new housing estates where the Tories do well.
My theory is that where new housing is seen as an improvement on what is already there then it is popular but when it is viewed as 'shitboxes' in 'pretty villages' then its opposed.
My theory is it's always opposed but the people who move in can see it's fine.
It really doesn't seem to be opposed further north.
I wonder if in southern England new housing provokes stronger views ie people are either very strongly against it or very strongly for it.
Whereas in cheaper areas a steady amount of new housing always being built is just accepted as part of life.
I went on the train to York on Wednesday. Looks like some serious house building going on at Newark.
The problem where I am (Woking) is that pretty much everything that can be built on has been built on. I think the council had a choice between building on New Zealand golf course (we do have quite a lot round here) or building more tower blocks. To be fair, I understand why they went for the tower blocks. The problem is, they were massively expensive to build and people aren't especially keen to live in them (oh, and the cladding fell off the Hilton Hotel!).
Some advice to the Tories: do something about the raw sewage pouring into our rivers and seas. You own it and it is visceral.
Hasn't it always done so ?
Given that environmental standards have tended to steadily rise and that there's certainly less industrial pollution of the waterways I would be surprised if sewage dumping, as opposed to its reporting, is a new thing.
There is a general sense that things are going backwards. This may be unfair, but it’s what people feel. The water is dirtier and the Tories have taken ownership of it. That is not a great look. If it were me, I’d want voters to know that tackling any issues and putting them right was an absolute priority. As I say, it’s a visceral - and very visible - issue.
But isn't the problem that actually the water is not dirtier. At least not compared with any time in the last century or so. This is a manufactured issue. What can be argued is that the Tories should be dealing with it faster but the idea that our rivers have got worse in the last decade and a half is a myth.
The trigger seems to have been a relatively recent decision to extend deadlines for water companies to hit clean-up targets.
That's not things getting worse though, its things not getting better.
Perhaps the wrong decision but investment costs money.
Now you and I wouldn't mind paying a pound or two more per month on our water rates but others would differ.
Some advice to the Tories: do something about the raw sewage pouring into our rivers and seas. You own it and it is visceral.
Hasn't it always done so ?
Given that environmental standards have tended to steadily rise and that there's certainly less industrial pollution of the waterways I would be surprised if sewage dumping, as opposed to its reporting, is a new thing.
There is a general sense that things are going backwards. This may be unfair, but it’s what people feel. The water is dirtier and the Tories have taken ownership of it. That is not a great look. If it were me, I’d want voters to know that tackling any issues and putting them right was an absolute priority. As I say, it’s a visceral - and very visible - issue.
But isn't the problem that actually the water is not dirtier. At least not compared with any time in the last century or so. This is a manufactured issue. What can be argued is that the Tories should be dealing with it faster but the idea that our rivers have got worse in the last decade and a half is a myth.
The trigger seems to have been a relatively recent decision to extend deadlines for water companies to hit clean-up targets.
Yep I don't blame the opposition for jumping on this and making capital out of it but I kind of expect better of the PB conclave.
Some advice to the Tories: do something about the raw sewage pouring into our rivers and seas. You own it and it is visceral.
Hasn't it always done so ?
Given that environmental standards have tended to steadily rise and that there's certainly less industrial pollution of the waterways I would be surprised if sewage dumping, as opposed to its reporting, is a new thing.
There is a general sense that things are going backwards. This may be unfair, but it’s what people feel. The water is dirtier and the Tories have taken ownership of it. That is not a great look. If it were me, I’d want voters to know that tackling any issues and putting them right was an absolute priority. As I say, it’s a visceral - and very visible - issue.
But isn't the problem that actually the water is not dirtier. At least not compared with any time in the last century or so. This is a manufactured issue. What can be argued is that the Tories should be dealing with it faster but the idea that our rivers have got worse in the last decade and a half is a myth.
The trigger seems to have been a relatively recent decision to extend deadlines for water companies to hit clean-up targets.
Yep I don't blame the opposition for jumping on this and making capital out of it but I kind of expect better of the PB conclave.
It was the Tories voting to overturn the Lords ammendment to clean up the rivers that made it an issue.
Tories loosened rules via Brexit "freedoms" in order to pay shareholders rather than fix infrastructure is the meme.
Most of the "shareholders" are the pension schemes that doubtless a large number of people on here are benefitting/will benefit from.
Perhaps the wastrels and moaners who take early retirement should take one less holiday a year and give it to a river charity to redress the balance of their greed?
Most of our water companies are overseas owned aren't they? Hence the dividends go there?
Oh dear, I have just looked at the weather forecast for tomorrow. It looks like Diana's tears will rain on Charles's parade.
I hope the weather holds out for Coronation day. I'm on a mini digger rerouting sewer pipes!
Let me guess - you work for Thames Water and you're taking the opportunity while everyone is watching the TV to surreptitiously reroute them into the nearest chalk stream?
He is the Tory equivalent of Angela Rayner. Can we have more Angela on the Telly to reduce the inevitable Labour majority please?
I think you grossly understate Rayner's appeal among important parts of the electorate Labour needs. She's a Marmite character, certainly, but actually a pretty important part of the picture as Prescott once was.
Some advice to the Tories: do something about the raw sewage pouring into our rivers and seas. You own it and it is visceral.
Hasn't it always done so ?
Given that environmental standards have tended to steadily rise and that there's certainly less industrial pollution of the waterways I would be surprised if sewage dumping, as opposed to its reporting, is a new thing.
There is a general sense that things are going backwards. This may be unfair, but it’s what people feel. The water is dirtier and the Tories have taken ownership of it. That is not a great look. If it were me, I’d want voters to know that tackling any issues and putting them right was an absolute priority. As I say, it’s a visceral - and very visible - issue.
But isn't the problem that actually the water is not dirtier. At least not compared with any time in the last century or so. This is a manufactured issue. What can be argued is that the Tories should be dealing with it faster but the idea that our rivers have got worse in the last decade and a half is a myth.
The trigger seems to have been a relatively recent decision to extend deadlines for water companies to hit clean-up targets.
Yep I don't blame the opposition for jumping on this and making capital out of it but I kind of expect better of the PB conclave.
Some advice to the Tories: do something about the raw sewage pouring into our rivers and seas. You own it and it is visceral.
Hasn't it always done so ?
Given that environmental standards have tended to steadily rise and that there's certainly less industrial pollution of the waterways I would be surprised if sewage dumping, as opposed to its reporting, is a new thing.
There is a general sense that things are going backwards. This may be unfair, but it’s what people feel. The water is dirtier and the Tories have taken ownership of it. That is not a great look. If it were me, I’d want voters to know that tackling any issues and putting them right was an absolute priority. As I say, it’s a visceral - and very visible - issue.
But isn't the problem that actually the water is not dirtier. At least not compared with any time in the last century or so. This is a manufactured issue. What can be argued is that the Tories should be dealing with it faster but the idea that our rivers have got worse in the last decade and a half is a myth.
The trigger seems to have been a relatively recent decision to extend deadlines for water companies to hit clean-up targets.
Yep I don't blame the opposition for jumping on this and making capital out of it but I kind of expect better of the PB conclave.
It was the Tories voting to overturn the Lords ammendment to clean up the rivers that made it an issue.
Tories loosened rules via Brexit "freedoms" in order to pay shareholders rather than fix infrastructure is the meme.
Most of the "shareholders" are the pension schemes that doubtless a large number of people on here are benefitting/will benefit from.
Perhaps the wastrels and moaners who take early retirement should take one less holiday a year and give it to a river charity to redress the balance of their greed?
Most of our water companies are overseas owned aren't they? Hence the dividends go there?
Last time I looked they were PLCs. Pension funds like utility companies. Utility greed= pensioner greed
We have now reached the 'inevitability' stage that there will be a change of government at the next election. The tories would be wise to recognise this, make the best play of things they can, and look to the future for what a 21st century centre right party should be and prepare for that in oppostion.
(just for the record, I voted lib dem, if it were best to change, then bring it on)
Clearly the public have decided it's time for a change and it would be in the Conservatives interest to lose power at the next election rather than somehow cling on for another five year and face a 97 style wipe out in 2029.
Would bringing back Boris make things better or worse for the Conservatives?
I suggest worse.
Would bringing back hanging make things better for the Conservatives?
As for Barclay. I wouldn't bank on it.
We go the way of Suella first.
Suella wouldn't get through Tory MPs, Barclay would
Well done to you and @MarqueeMark today for coming on here and putting your heads above the parapet. I note with interest that several of our most prolific Tory spinners seem to have had to go to work today for the first time since December 2019.
I see the Conservative did well in Grimsby, Peterborough, Scunthorpe and Thurrock.
How the world changes.
I wonder how well the results correlate to housing affordability.
Probably more to do with house building because more supply -> more affordability.
Interestingly around here it's the new housing estates where the Tories do well.
My theory is that where new housing is seen as an improvement on what is already there then it is popular but when it is viewed as 'shitboxes' in 'pretty villages' then its opposed.
My theory is it's always opposed but the people who move in can see it's fine.
It really doesn't seem to be opposed further north.
I wonder if in southern England new housing provokes stronger views ie people are either very strongly against it or very strongly for it.
Whereas in cheaper areas a steady amount of new housing always being built is just accepted as part of life.
It's a varied picture tbf. My local LDs (Stockport) were campaigning on saving a local golf course* from being built over with housing. The 'green space' issue is a bit tricksy there, it's more about infrastructural capacity - especially in road traffic, but also the usual GPs, dentists and so on.
*Whereas I'd happily turn every golf course in the country into affordable housing and skate parks if I could.
I see the Conservative did well in Grimsby, Peterborough, Scunthorpe and Thurrock.
How the world changes.
I wonder how well the results correlate to housing affordability.
Probably more to do with house building because more supply -> more affordability.
Interestingly around here it's the new housing estates where the Tories do well.
My theory is that where new housing is seen as an improvement on what is already there then it is popular but when it is viewed as 'shitboxes' in 'pretty villages' then its opposed.
My theory is it's always opposed but the people who move in can see it's fine.
It really doesn't seem to be opposed further north.
I wonder if in southern England new housing provokes stronger views ie people are either very strongly against it or very strongly for it.
Whereas in cheaper areas a steady amount of new housing always being built is just accepted as part of life.
I went on the train to York on Wednesday. Looks like some serious house building going on at Newark.
The problem where I am (Woking) is that pretty much everything that can be built on has been built on. I think the council had a choice between building on New Zealand golf course (we do have quite a lot round here) or building more tower blocks. To be fair, I understand why they went for the tower blocks. The problem is, they were massively expensive to build and people aren't especially keen to live in them (oh, and the cladding fell off the Hilton Hotel!).
When I was on Hertsmere council, I was one of only two people on the planning committee to vote against taking enforcement action against residents who had put up rose arches and Wendy houses, in a conservation area on the green belt. One rogue had even put a skylight in his roof.
Opposition to development in Hertsmere (and probably other boroughs) is really that petty.
He is the Tory equivalent of Angela Rayner. Can we have more Angela on the Telly to reduce the inevitable Labour majority please?
I think you grossly understate Rayner's appeal among important parts of the electorate Labour needs. She's a Marmite character, certainly, but actually a pretty important part of the picture as Prescott once was.
She’s nothing on Prescott but I agree she represents an important part of Labour.
Starmer has rather intelligently thought out-gunned her at every turn and instead pushed Reeves into the limelight. The man plays the smart and long game
That's just plain dumb. If people are switching en masse to Labour and the LDs why would a swing to the right bring them back?
Never mind that Sunak is on the Tory right. Seen his immigration policy?
It was expected to be pretty bad for the party and that looks to be holding true. Nothing has really changed - they continue to cling on to the hope that they start off far enough ahead that they can cling in a GE.
So what can Sunak do?
He can't bury the past he was part of. He can't do change. He can't do down to Earth. He is struggling to recover on the competence front, but there is too much damage.
He could try to do compassionate conservatism, but would need to ditch Braverman and do a 180 on some key policies.
What can he do?
Nothing. The party members and MPs won't wear a 180. Boris in 2019 could realistically claim he would bring victory so they'd listen, but Sunak can't. As you note too much damage and baggage is in place to win on competence.
All he can do is look for easy wins and try to patch the biggest leaks in the boat. They'll go big on culture and fear if change, which will have some effect but not enough without more substance.
If they go that route, don't they need to change the leader from Sunak to some kind of bruiser?
Even they cannot switch again.
They do seem to have really squandered 2019. I know covid disrupted everything but even with that they've run scared of big changes like planning reform. They got a Brexit deal through but other than that what have they spent political capital on? Restricting the vote and expanding ability to arrest protestors?
2019 delivered a big juicy majority to a party incapable of using it for anything constructive. Sad but maybe not a total surprise given the flaws of Boris Johnson and given the one tangible you mention - getting a Brexit deal through - was pretty much the single issue of the election.
Was there any serious talk or scrutiny of anything else? Not as I recall. Just him farting around in a bulldozer and saying "Britain" and "Brexit" and "Corbyn" a lot. Well, it worked, and you get what you pay for. He did. We did. Terrible few years for politics here. Surely things can only get better.
Some advice to the Tories: do something about the raw sewage pouring into our rivers and seas. You own it and it is visceral.
Hasn't it always done so ?
Given that environmental standards have tended to steadily rise and that there's certainly less industrial pollution of the waterways I would be surprised if sewage dumping, as opposed to its reporting, is a new thing.
There is a general sense that things are going backwards. This may be unfair, but it’s what people feel. The water is dirtier and the Tories have taken ownership of it. That is not a great look. If it were me, I’d want voters to know that tackling any issues and putting them right was an absolute priority. As I say, it’s a visceral - and very visible - issue.
But isn't the problem that actually the water is not dirtier. At least not compared with any time in the last century or so. This is a manufactured issue. What can be argued is that the Tories should be dealing with it faster but the idea that our rivers have got worse in the last decade and a half is a myth.
The trigger seems to have been a relatively recent decision to extend deadlines for water companies to hit clean-up targets.
Yep I don't blame the opposition for jumping on this and making capital out of it but I kind of expect better of the PB conclave.
Some advice to the Tories: do something about the raw sewage pouring into our rivers and seas. You own it and it is visceral.
Hasn't it always done so ?
Given that environmental standards have tended to steadily rise and that there's certainly less industrial pollution of the waterways I would be surprised if sewage dumping, as opposed to its reporting, is a new thing.
There is a general sense that things are going backwards. This may be unfair, but it’s what people feel. The water is dirtier and the Tories have taken ownership of it. That is not a great look. If it were me, I’d want voters to know that tackling any issues and putting them right was an absolute priority. As I say, it’s a visceral - and very visible - issue.
But isn't the problem that actually the water is not dirtier. At least not compared with any time in the last century or so. This is a manufactured issue. What can be argued is that the Tories should be dealing with it faster but the idea that our rivers have got worse in the last decade and a half is a myth.
The trigger seems to have been a relatively recent decision to extend deadlines for water companies to hit clean-up targets.
Yep I don't blame the opposition for jumping on this and making capital out of it but I kind of expect better of the PB conclave.
It was the Tories voting to overturn the Lords ammendment to clean up the rivers that made it an issue.
Tories loosened rules via Brexit "freedoms" in order to pay shareholders rather than fix infrastructure is the meme.
Most of the "shareholders" are the pension schemes that doubtless a large number of people on here are benefitting/will benefit from.
Perhaps the wastrels and moaners who take early retirement should take one less holiday a year and give it to a river charity to redress the balance of their greed?
Most of our water companies are overseas owned aren't they? Hence the dividends go there?
Last time I looked they were PLCs. Pension funds like utility companies. Utility greed= pensioner greed
71% of English water companies are overseas owned, often by foreign governments:
We have now reached the 'inevitability' stage that there will be a change of government at the next election. The tories would be wise to recognise this, make the best play of things they can, and look to the future for what a 21st century centre right party should be and prepare for that in oppostion.
(just for the record, I voted lib dem, if it were best to change, then bring it on)
Let's hope you don't go the full Corbyn in the process.
Whatever our stripe a good honest one-nation feudal Tory Party would be welcomed.
Would bringing back Boris make things better or worse for the Conservatives?
I suggest worse.
Would bringing back hanging make things better for the Conservatives?
As for Barclay. I wouldn't bank on it.
We go the way of Suella first.
Suella wouldn't get through Tory MPs, Barclay would
God preserve us (and the Conservative Party) from either of them. Barclay is a thug. All of the division of Johnson without any of the charismatic bonhomie.
Some advice to the Tories: do something about the raw sewage pouring into our rivers and seas. You own it and it is visceral.
Hasn't it always done so ?
Given that environmental standards have tended to steadily rise and that there's certainly less industrial pollution of the waterways I would be surprised if sewage dumping, as opposed to its reporting, is a new thing.
There is a general sense that things are going backwards. This may be unfair, but it’s what people feel. The water is dirtier and the Tories have taken ownership of it. That is not a great look. If it were me, I’d want voters to know that tackling any issues and putting them right was an absolute priority. As I say, it’s a visceral - and very visible - issue.
But isn't the problem that actually the water is not dirtier. At least not compared with any time in the last century or so. This is a manufactured issue. What can be argued is that the Tories should be dealing with it faster but the idea that our rivers have got worse in the last decade and a half is a myth.
The trigger seems to have been a relatively recent decision to extend deadlines for water companies to hit clean-up targets.
Yep I don't blame the opposition for jumping on this and making capital out of it but I kind of expect better of the PB conclave.
Some advice to the Tories: do something about the raw sewage pouring into our rivers and seas. You own it and it is visceral.
Hasn't it always done so ?
Given that environmental standards have tended to steadily rise and that there's certainly less industrial pollution of the waterways I would be surprised if sewage dumping, as opposed to its reporting, is a new thing.
There is a general sense that things are going backwards. This may be unfair, but it’s what people feel. The water is dirtier and the Tories have taken ownership of it. That is not a great look. If it were me, I’d want voters to know that tackling any issues and putting them right was an absolute priority. As I say, it’s a visceral - and very visible - issue.
But isn't the problem that actually the water is not dirtier. At least not compared with any time in the last century or so. This is a manufactured issue. What can be argued is that the Tories should be dealing with it faster but the idea that our rivers have got worse in the last decade and a half is a myth.
The trigger seems to have been a relatively recent decision to extend deadlines for water companies to hit clean-up targets.
Yep I don't blame the opposition for jumping on this and making capital out of it but I kind of expect better of the PB conclave.
It was the Tories voting to overturn the Lords ammendment to clean up the rivers that made it an issue.
Tories loosened rules via Brexit "freedoms" in order to pay shareholders rather than fix infrastructure is the meme.
Most of the "shareholders" are the pension schemes that doubtless a large number of people on here are benefitting/will benefit from.
Perhaps the wastrels and moaners who take early retirement should take one less holiday a year and give it to a river charity to redress the balance of their greed?
Most of our water companies are overseas owned aren't they? Hence the dividends go there?
Last time I looked they were PLCs. Pension funds like utility companies. Utility greed= pensioner greed
According to these good people:-
The English water companies are more than 90% owned by shareholders abroad, for example:
• Wessex Water is 100% owned by a Malaysian company, YTL • Northumbrian Water is owned by Hong Kong businessman Li Ka Shing • Thames Water is partly owned by investors from the United Arab Emirates, Kuwait, China and Australia
Had a look at the Bassetlaw results, the Tories have taken 2 independent seats (NO Labour standing there) and 1 seat from Labour (Ranskill) where it looks like going from 4 potential choices to a straight fight with Labour aided their cause. The Tory vote seems to have broadly held up here (In my ward Labour look to have gone forwards and the Conservatives back slightly) but the Conservatives have definitely underperformed their 2019 parliamentary strength here (No Worksop wards won for instance) - I guess in the context of likely losing between 800 and 1000 seats going very marginally forward is a triumph though !
John Curtice on the BBC thinks Labour are ahead by 8-10%, in terms of NEV.
5% Con to Lab swing would probably leave them a bit short of an overall majority but add in SNP implosion and tactical voting and they should be there of thereabouts.
We could end up with a reverse of the 2010 result.
The English Water Companies need a good kicking. They have been dumping the piss for too long. Fine the Directors loadsamoney. Make them do the right thing.
I see the Conservative did well in Grimsby, Peterborough, Scunthorpe and Thurrock.
How the world changes.
I wonder how well the results correlate to housing affordability.
Probably more to do with house building because more supply -> more affordability.
Interestingly around here it's the new housing estates where the Tories do well.
My theory is that where new housing is seen as an improvement on what is already there then it is popular but when it is viewed as 'shitboxes' in 'pretty villages' then its opposed.
My theory is it's always opposed but the people who move in can see it's fine.
It really doesn't seem to be opposed further north.
I wonder if in southern England new housing provokes stronger views ie people are either very strongly against it or very strongly for it.
Whereas in cheaper areas a steady amount of new housing always being built is just accepted as part of life.
I went on the train to York on Wednesday. Looks like some serious house building going on at Newark.
The problem where I am (Woking) is that pretty much everything that can be built on has been built on. I think the council had a choice between building on New Zealand golf course (we do have quite a lot round here) or building more tower blocks. To be fair, I understand why they went for the tower blocks. The problem is, they were massively expensive to build and people aren't especially keen to live in them (oh, and the cladding fell off the Hilton Hotel!).
There's vast tracts of empty land from Newark to Selby.
He is the Tory equivalent of Angela Rayner. Can we have more Angela on the Telly to reduce the inevitable Labour majority please?
I think you grossly understate Rayner's appeal among important parts of the electorate Labour needs. She's a Marmite character, certainly, but actually a pretty important part of the picture as Prescott once was.
Prescott was a thug, but he had a certain gravitas. She has none. She is the type of joke figure that only politics promotes to high office. She is the Nadine Dorries of the Labour Party.
He is the Tory equivalent of Angela Rayner. Can we have more Angela on the Telly to reduce the inevitable Labour majority please?
I think you grossly understate Rayner's appeal among important parts of the electorate Labour needs. She's a Marmite character, certainly, but actually a pretty important part of the picture as Prescott once was.
Indeed - definitely Starmer's Prescott, and a reassuringly normal looking and sounding person who has lived a life and faced challenges; very much not a private school --> Oxbridge --> think tank --> politician conveyor belt sort. Some might see her as an uppity little oik who drops her 'h's, but more will look at her and see a politician who, for once, isn't some chinless alien.
I would guess she's also considerably more competent than Prescott, who was a notoriously rubbish minister.
I see the Conservative did well in Grimsby, Peterborough, Scunthorpe and Thurrock.
How the world changes.
I wonder how well the results correlate to housing affordability.
Probably more to do with house building because more supply -> more affordability.
Interestingly around here it's the new housing estates where the Tories do well.
My theory is that where new housing is seen as an improvement on what is already there then it is popular but when it is viewed as 'shitboxes' in 'pretty villages' then its opposed.
My theory is it's always opposed but the people who move in can see it's fine.
It really doesn't seem to be opposed further north.
I wonder if in southern England new housing provokes stronger views ie people are either very strongly against it or very strongly for it.
Whereas in cheaper areas a steady amount of new housing always being built is just accepted as part of life.
I went on the train to York on Wednesday. Looks like some serious house building going on at Newark.
The problem where I am (Woking) is that pretty much everything that can be built on has been built on. I think the council had a choice between building on New Zealand golf course (we do have quite a lot round here) or building more tower blocks. To be fair, I understand why they went for the tower blocks. The problem is, they were massively expensive to build and people aren't especially keen to live in them (oh, and the cladding fell off the Hilton Hotel!).
When I was on Hertsmere council, I was one of only two people on the planning committee to vote against taking enforcement action against residents who had put up rose arches and Wendy houses, in a conservation area on the green belt. One rogue had even put a skylight in his roof.
Opposition to development in Hertsmere (and probably other boroughs) is really that petty.
I remember when a chap proposed opening a corner shop in an estate on the outskirts of Abingdon.
From the opposition you'd have thought he was suggesting a concentration camp of the less reputable kind.
The design actually improved the look of a brick shitbox. The idea of using shutters that weren't the usual roll-down shop shutters seemed especially good to me.
He is the Tory equivalent of Angela Rayner. Can we have more Angela on the Telly to reduce the inevitable Labour majority please?
I think you grossly understate Rayner's appeal among important parts of the electorate Labour needs. She's a Marmite character, certainly, but actually a pretty important part of the picture as Prescott once was.
Prescott was a thug, but he had a certain gravitas. She has none. She is the type of joke figure that only politics promotes to high office. She is the Nadine Dorries of the Labour Party.
Nah, she is a star. Disliked by snobs, but a real talent and her own person. If she had stood instead of the rather drippy RLB, she would be leader now.
If there was ever a metaphor for the Tory performance yesterday.
Let's off road! Braunston Wank Panzer. Edward Baines (Conservative), standing for local council elections today, 'parked' right opposite the Village Hall where voting takes place today!@Wankpanzer 👇
Some advice to the Tories: do something about the raw sewage pouring into our rivers and seas. You own it and it is visceral.
Hasn't it always done so ?
Given that environmental standards have tended to steadily rise and that there's certainly less industrial pollution of the waterways I would be surprised if sewage dumping, as opposed to its reporting, is a new thing.
There is a general sense that things are going backwards. This may be unfair, but it’s what people feel. The water is dirtier and the Tories have taken ownership of it. That is not a great look. If it were me, I’d want voters to know that tackling any issues and putting them right was an absolute priority. As I say, it’s a visceral - and very visible - issue.
But isn't the problem that actually the water is not dirtier. At least not compared with any time in the last century or so. This is a manufactured issue. What can be argued is that the Tories should be dealing with it faster but the idea that our rivers have got worse in the last decade and a half is a myth.
The trigger seems to have been a relatively recent decision to extend deadlines for water companies to hit clean-up targets.
Yep I don't blame the opposition for jumping on this and making capital out of it but I kind of expect better of the PB conclave.
Some advice to the Tories: do something about the raw sewage pouring into our rivers and seas. You own it and it is visceral.
Hasn't it always done so ?
Given that environmental standards have tended to steadily rise and that there's certainly less industrial pollution of the waterways I would be surprised if sewage dumping, as opposed to its reporting, is a new thing.
There is a general sense that things are going backwards. This may be unfair, but it’s what people feel. The water is dirtier and the Tories have taken ownership of it. That is not a great look. If it were me, I’d want voters to know that tackling any issues and putting them right was an absolute priority. As I say, it’s a visceral - and very visible - issue.
But isn't the problem that actually the water is not dirtier. At least not compared with any time in the last century or so. This is a manufactured issue. What can be argued is that the Tories should be dealing with it faster but the idea that our rivers have got worse in the last decade and a half is a myth.
The trigger seems to have been a relatively recent decision to extend deadlines for water companies to hit clean-up targets.
Yep I don't blame the opposition for jumping on this and making capital out of it but I kind of expect better of the PB conclave.
It was the Tories voting to overturn the Lords ammendment to clean up the rivers that made it an issue.
Tories loosened rules via Brexit "freedoms" in order to pay shareholders rather than fix infrastructure is the meme.
Most of the "shareholders" are the pension schemes that doubtless a large number of people on here are benefitting/will benefit from.
Perhaps the wastrels and moaners who take early retirement should take one less holiday a year and give it to a river charity to redress the balance of their greed?
Most of our water companies are overseas owned aren't they? Hence the dividends go there?
Last time I looked they were PLCs. Pension funds like utility companies. Utility greed= pensioner greed
According to these good people:-
The English water companies are more than 90% owned by shareholders abroad, for example:
• Wessex Water is 100% owned by a Malaysian company, YTL • Northumbrian Water is owned by Hong Kong businessman Li Ka Shing • Thames Water is partly owned by investors from the United Arab Emirates, Kuwait, China and Australia
Nothing like a bit of selective argument. Interesting though, thank you. My point still holds though. A large amount of whingers about private company dividends are people sitting on big fat pensions. Pure hypocrisy.
He is the Tory equivalent of Angela Rayner. Can we have more Angela on the Telly to reduce the inevitable Labour majority please?
I think you grossly understate Rayner's appeal among important parts of the electorate Labour needs. She's a Marmite character, certainly, but actually a pretty important part of the picture as Prescott once was.
Prescott was a thug, but he had a certain gravitas. She has none. She is the type of joke figure that only politics promotes to high office. She is the Nadine Dorries of the Labour Party.
Prescott had gravitas?
That is the best joke ever posted in the history of PB, if not the internet.
While there's a lull in results, two observations from listening to the radio through some of the night:
1. The Tories saying 'yes, but look at Peterborough, Bassetlaw and Sandwell' when it is put to them that they're not doing well is pretty thin gruel.
2. If Brendan-Clarke Smith MP and Richard Holden MP are the best they can come up with to leap to the Tories defence on R4, then they deserve to lose. Both remarkably incoherent and lacking in intelligence.
Had a look at the Bassetlaw results, the Tories have taken 2 independent seats (NO Labour standing there) and 1 seat from Labour (Ranskill) where it looks like going from 4 potential choices to a straight fight with Labour aided their cause. The Tory vote seems to have broadly held up here (In my ward Labour look to have gone forwards and the Conservatives back slightly) but the Conservatives have definitely underperformed their 2019 parliamentary strength here (No Worksop wards won for instance) - I guess in the context of likely losing between 800 and 1000 seats going very marginally forward is a triumph though !
John Curtice on the BBC thinks Labour are ahead by 8-10%, in terms of NEV.
That makes the Polling Companies look a bit silly. Never trust polls.
Not at all. This is an England only extrapolation on much lower turnout and much higher figures from LD, Green and Indie, than one would expect at the GE. If the figure is circa 10 I would suggest the polling companies have done reasonably well
If Labour finish just five points ahead, you have a point.
I see the Conservative did well in Grimsby, Peterborough, Scunthorpe and Thurrock.
How the world changes.
I wonder how well the results correlate to housing affordability.
Probably more to do with house building because more supply -> more affordability.
Interestingly around here it's the new housing estates where the Tories do well.
My theory is that where new housing is seen as an improvement on what is already there then it is popular but when it is viewed as 'shitboxes' in 'pretty villages' then its opposed.
My theory is it's always opposed but the people who move in can see it's fine.
It really doesn't seem to be opposed further north.
I wonder if in southern England new housing provokes stronger views ie people are either very strongly against it or very strongly for it.
Whereas in cheaper areas a steady amount of new housing always being built is just accepted as part of life.
I went on the train to York on Wednesday. Looks like some serious house building going on at Newark.
The problem where I am (Woking) is that pretty much everything that can be built on has been built on. I think the council had a choice between building on New Zealand golf course (we do have quite a lot round here) or building more tower blocks. To be fair, I understand why they went for the tower blocks. The problem is, they were massively expensive to build and people aren't especially keen to live in them (oh, and the cladding fell off the Hilton Hotel!).
Yep there is massive development going on around Newark. The plan was/is to effectively double the population of the town in 15 years as part of a 'Growth Point'. Sadly as with so many of these bright ideas they are not providing the facilities and infrastrucure to support it. There is a new school but no new doctors, no increase in fire or police service levels, continued downsizing/downgrading of the hospital and no investment in jobs. They are also impinging severely on the flood plain.
On the plus side the developments themselves look pretty good and much of the land was low grade farm land rather than areas with ecological value. The argument here should not be against the developers but the planners/local council/government who seem to be planning for crisis and failure with such developments by not ensuring they have the necessary support and infrastructure.
Some advice to the Tories: do something about the raw sewage pouring into our rivers and seas. You own it and it is visceral.
Hasn't it always done so ?
Given that environmental standards have tended to steadily rise and that there's certainly less industrial pollution of the waterways I would be surprised if sewage dumping, as opposed to its reporting, is a new thing.
There is a general sense that things are going backwards. This may be unfair, but it’s what people feel. The water is dirtier and the Tories have taken ownership of it. That is not a great look. If it were me, I’d want voters to know that tackling any issues and putting them right was an absolute priority. As I say, it’s a visceral - and very visible - issue.
But isn't the problem that actually the water is not dirtier. At least not compared with any time in the last century or so. This is a manufactured issue. What can be argued is that the Tories should be dealing with it faster but the idea that our rivers have got worse in the last decade and a half is a myth.
The trigger seems to have been a relatively recent decision to extend deadlines for water companies to hit clean-up targets.
Yep I don't blame the opposition for jumping on this and making capital out of it but I kind of expect better of the PB conclave.
Some advice to the Tories: do something about the raw sewage pouring into our rivers and seas. You own it and it is visceral.
Hasn't it always done so ?
Given that environmental standards have tended to steadily rise and that there's certainly less industrial pollution of the waterways I would be surprised if sewage dumping, as opposed to its reporting, is a new thing.
There is a general sense that things are going backwards. This may be unfair, but it’s what people feel. The water is dirtier and the Tories have taken ownership of it. That is not a great look. If it were me, I’d want voters to know that tackling any issues and putting them right was an absolute priority. As I say, it’s a visceral - and very visible - issue.
But isn't the problem that actually the water is not dirtier. At least not compared with any time in the last century or so. This is a manufactured issue. What can be argued is that the Tories should be dealing with it faster but the idea that our rivers have got worse in the last decade and a half is a myth.
The trigger seems to have been a relatively recent decision to extend deadlines for water companies to hit clean-up targets.
Yep I don't blame the opposition for jumping on this and making capital out of it but I kind of expect better of the PB conclave.
It was the Tories voting to overturn the Lords ammendment to clean up the rivers that made it an issue.
Tories loosened rules via Brexit "freedoms" in order to pay shareholders rather than fix infrastructure is the meme.
Most of the "shareholders" are the pension schemes that doubtless a large number of people on here are benefitting/will benefit from.
Perhaps the wastrels and moaners who take early retirement should take one less holiday a year and give it to a river charity to redress the balance of their greed?
Most of our water companies are overseas owned aren't they? Hence the dividends go there?
Last time I looked they were PLCs. Pension funds like utility companies. Utility greed= pensioner greed
Pension funds like utilities not due to massive returns, but due to relative stability (you can be very confident that they will be there in ten years and regulation means there aren't wild swings in policy or return).
My personal view is that, in practical terms, there needs to be tighter regulation of water but it needs to be coupled with either higher bills or funding for some things through tax (which either way means the public paying).
It's quite easy to be annoyed at bonuses for bosses, or the overall dividends over 30 years or so, or privatisation of a natural monopoly in the first place. But starting from where we are, I don't actually think there is a practical way of seeing the improvements we want to see, but for the "bad guys" out there to pay.
He is the Tory equivalent of Angela Rayner. Can we have more Angela on the Telly to reduce the inevitable Labour majority please?
I think you grossly understate Rayner's appeal among important parts of the electorate Labour needs. She's a Marmite character, certainly, but actually a pretty important part of the picture as Prescott once was.
Prescott was a thug, but he had a certain gravitas. She has none. She is the type of joke figure that only politics promotes to high office. She is the Nadine Dorries of the Labour Party.
Prescott had gravitas?
That is the best joke ever posted in the history of PB, if not the internet.
He is the Tory equivalent of Angela Rayner. Can we have more Angela on the Telly to reduce the inevitable Labour majority please?
I think you grossly understate Rayner's appeal among important parts of the electorate Labour needs. She's a Marmite character, certainly, but actually a pretty important part of the picture as Prescott once was.
Prescott was a thug, but he had a certain gravitas. She has none. She is the type of joke figure that only politics promotes to high office. She is the Nadine Dorries of the Labour Party.
Nah, she is a star. Disliked by snobs, but a real talent and her own person. If she had stood instead of the rather drippy RLB, she would be leader now.
I see the Conservative did well in Grimsby, Peterborough, Scunthorpe and Thurrock.
How the world changes.
I wonder how well the results correlate to housing affordability.
Probably more to do with house building because more supply -> more affordability.
Interestingly around here it's the new housing estates where the Tories do well.
My theory is that where new housing is seen as an improvement on what is already there then it is popular but when it is viewed as 'shitboxes' in 'pretty villages' then its opposed.
My theory is it's always opposed but the people who move in can see it's fine.
It really doesn't seem to be opposed further north.
I wonder if in southern England new housing provokes stronger views ie people are either very strongly against it or very strongly for it.
Whereas in cheaper areas a steady amount of new housing always being built is just accepted as part of life.
I went on the train to York on Wednesday. Looks like some serious house building going on at Newark.
The problem where I am (Woking) is that pretty much everything that can be built on has been built on. I think the council had a choice between building on New Zealand golf course (we do have quite a lot round here) or building more tower blocks. To be fair, I understand why they went for the tower blocks. The problem is, they were massively expensive to build and people aren't especially keen to live in them (oh, and the cladding fell off the Hilton Hotel!).
When I was on Hertsmere council, I was one of only two people on the planning committee to vote against taking enforcement action against residents who had put up rose arches and Wendy houses, in a conservation area on the green belt. One rogue had even put a skylight in his roof.
Opposition to development in Hertsmere (and probably other boroughs) is really that petty.
I remember when a chap proposed opening a corner shop in an estate on the outskirts of Abingdon.
From the opposition you'd have thought he was suggesting a concentration camp of the less reputable kind.
The design actually improved the look of a brick shitbox. The idea of using shutters that weren't the usual roll-down shop shutters seemed especially good to me.
Sounds about right.
When I lived in Mill Hill, the local Methodist Church closed. Every proposed development met massive opposition from local residents. So, it was empty for years, until a group of Nigerian holy rollers turned up and offered to buy it. And, there were no planning grounds for objection!
I see the Conservative did well in Grimsby, Peterborough, Scunthorpe and Thurrock.
How the world changes.
I wonder how well the results correlate to housing affordability.
Probably more to do with house building because more supply -> more affordability.
Interestingly around here it's the new housing estates where the Tories do well.
My theory is that where new housing is seen as an improvement on what is already there then it is popular but when it is viewed as 'shitboxes' in 'pretty villages' then its opposed.
My theory is it's always opposed but the people who move in can see it's fine.
It really doesn't seem to be opposed further north.
I wonder if in southern England new housing provokes stronger views ie people are either very strongly against it or very strongly for it.
Whereas in cheaper areas a steady amount of new housing always being built is just accepted as part of life.
I went on the train to York on Wednesday. Looks like some serious house building going on at Newark.
The problem where I am (Woking) is that pretty much everything that can be built on has been built on. I think the council had a choice between building on New Zealand golf course (we do have quite a lot round here) or building more tower blocks. To be fair, I understand why they went for the tower blocks. The problem is, they were massively expensive to build and people aren't especially keen to live in them (oh, and the cladding fell off the Hilton Hotel!).
There's vast tracts of empty land from Newark to Selby.
He is the Tory equivalent of Angela Rayner. Can we have more Angela on the Telly to reduce the inevitable Labour majority please?
I think you grossly understate Rayner's appeal among important parts of the electorate Labour needs. She's a Marmite character, certainly, but actually a pretty important part of the picture as Prescott once was.
Prescott was a thug, but he had a certain gravitas. She has none. She is the type of joke figure that only politics promotes to high office. She is the Nadine Dorries of the Labour Party.
Nah, she is a star. Disliked by snobs, but a real talent and her own person. If she had stood instead of the rather drippy RLB, she would be leader now.
I am certainly no snob, but I know a lightweight when I see one. She would struggle to get above lower middle management in a corporate company. Sadly the same can be said of many frontbenchers of all stripes
I see the Conservative did well in Grimsby, Peterborough, Scunthorpe and Thurrock.
How the world changes.
I wonder how well the results correlate to housing affordability.
Probably more to do with house building because more supply -> more affordability.
Interestingly around here it's the new housing estates where the Tories do well.
My theory is that where new housing is seen as an improvement on what is already there then it is popular but when it is viewed as 'shitboxes' in 'pretty villages' then its opposed.
My theory is it's always opposed but the people who move in can see it's fine.
It really doesn't seem to be opposed further north.
I wonder if in southern England new housing provokes stronger views ie people are either very strongly against it or very strongly for it.
Whereas in cheaper areas a steady amount of new housing always being built is just accepted as part of life.
It's a varied picture tbf. My local LDs (Stockport) were campaigning on saving a local golf course* from being built over with housing. The 'green space' issue is a bit tricksy there, it's more about infrastructural capacity - especially in road traffic, but also the usual GPs, dentists and so on.
*Whereas I'd happily turn every golf course in the country into affordable housing and skate parks if I could.
I see the Conservative did well in Grimsby, Peterborough, Scunthorpe and Thurrock.
How the world changes.
I wonder how well the results correlate to housing affordability.
Probably more to do with house building because more supply -> more affordability.
Interestingly around here it's the new housing estates where the Tories do well.
My theory is that where new housing is seen as an improvement on what is already there then it is popular but when it is viewed as 'shitboxes' in 'pretty villages' then its opposed.
My theory is it's always opposed but the people who move in can see it's fine.
It really doesn't seem to be opposed further north.
I wonder if in southern England new housing provokes stronger views ie people are either very strongly against it or very strongly for it.
Whereas in cheaper areas a steady amount of new housing always being built is just accepted as part of life.
It's a varied picture tbf. My local LDs (Stockport) were campaigning on saving a local golf course* from being built over with housing. The 'green space' issue is a bit tricksy there, it's more about infrastructural capacity - especially in road traffic, but also the usual GPs, dentists and so on.
*Whereas I'd happily turn every golf course in the country into affordable housing and skate parks if I could.
Yes, in Greater Manchester in general there is a lot of vociferous opposition to new development. I have been involved in a few consultation events on these. Views I've heard include "everyone around here has already got a house" and "if we must have new housing, can't we just build really tiny flats?" and "can't we build on the tops of the moors so new houses are away from people?" Though in amongst all this, a cleaner - who happened to be there, rather than came to look at anything proposed - sidled up to me and said, sotto voce "Just build the things. Please. Just build them. I don't care what they look like. I've got two adult sons at home and I'm sleeping on the sofa. There's no houses for them. Don't listen to these people. Please just build them." I bet she didn't fill in the consultation form though.
Opponents of development in Greater Manchester have made this video, which is well worth a watch for its stark-staring-madness - if you are limited for time, listen to the first verse to get the general tone, marvel at the fact that they span this out for three minutes, and then forward to 3 minutes for the denouement. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KUVJ2ur_oMQ
I see the Conservative did well in Grimsby, Peterborough, Scunthorpe and Thurrock.
How the world changes.
I wonder how well the results correlate to housing affordability.
Probably more to do with house building because more supply -> more affordability.
Interestingly around here it's the new housing estates where the Tories do well.
My theory is that where new housing is seen as an improvement on what is already there then it is popular but when it is viewed as 'shitboxes' in 'pretty villages' then its opposed.
My theory is it's always opposed but the people who move in can see it's fine.
It really doesn't seem to be opposed further north.
I wonder if in southern England new housing provokes stronger views ie people are either very strongly against it or very strongly for it.
Whereas in cheaper areas a steady amount of new housing always being built is just accepted as part of life.
I went on the train to York on Wednesday. Looks like some serious house building going on at Newark.
The problem where I am (Woking) is that pretty much everything that can be built on has been built on. I think the council had a choice between building on New Zealand golf course (we do have quite a lot round here) or building more tower blocks. To be fair, I understand why they went for the tower blocks. The problem is, they were massively expensive to build and people aren't especially keen to live in them (oh, and the cladding fell off the Hilton Hotel!).
When I was on Hertsmere council, I was one of only two people on the planning committee to vote against taking enforcement action against residents who had put up rose arches and Wendy houses, in a conservation area on the green belt. One rogue had even put a skylight in his roof.
Opposition to development in Hertsmere (and probably other boroughs) is really that petty.
I remember when a chap proposed opening a corner shop in an estate on the outskirts of Abingdon.
From the opposition you'd have thought he was suggesting a concentration camp of the less reputable kind.
The design actually improved the look of a brick shitbox. The idea of using shutters that weren't the usual roll-down shop shutters seemed especially good to me.
Petty nastiness like that happens all over. A couple of (utterly inoffensive) kids' treehouses in gardens near me have had to be taken down because of complaints. Some people are just dicks.
He is the Tory equivalent of Angela Rayner. Can we have more Angela on the Telly to reduce the inevitable Labour majority please?
I think you grossly understate Rayner's appeal among important parts of the electorate Labour needs. She's a Marmite character, certainly, but actually a pretty important part of the picture as Prescott once was.
Prescott was a thug, but he had a certain gravitas. She has none. She is the type of joke figure that only politics promotes to high office. She is the Nadine Dorries of the Labour Party.
Prescott had gravitas?
That is the best joke ever posted in the history of PB, if not the internet.
He is the Tory equivalent of Angela Rayner. Can we have more Angela on the Telly to reduce the inevitable Labour majority please?
I think you grossly understate Rayner's appeal among important parts of the electorate Labour needs. She's a Marmite character, certainly, but actually a pretty important part of the picture as Prescott once was.
Prescott was a thug, but he had a certain gravitas. She has none. She is the type of joke figure that only politics promotes to high office. She is the Nadine Dorries of the Labour Party.
Prescott had gravitas?
That is the best joke ever posted in the history of PB, if not the internet.
I know someone that worked with him. I guess you set a low bar on the jokes if that is your view.
I thought they would, but they were in freefall after all. I really dont see how it would have made a positive difference. Even if her 'pray for growth' approach was going to work she'd brought in Hunt to do what he has done since. What else would she have done that would have altered things?
I see the Conservative did well in Grimsby, Peterborough, Scunthorpe and Thurrock.
How the world changes.
I wonder how well the results correlate to housing affordability.
Probably more to do with house building because more supply -> more affordability.
Interestingly around here it's the new housing estates where the Tories do well.
My theory is that where new housing is seen as an improvement on what is already there then it is popular but when it is viewed as 'shitboxes' in 'pretty villages' then its opposed.
My theory is it's always opposed but the people who move in can see it's fine.
It really doesn't seem to be opposed further north.
I wonder if in southern England new housing provokes stronger views ie people are either very strongly against it or very strongly for it.
Whereas in cheaper areas a steady amount of new housing always being built is just accepted as part of life.
It's a varied picture tbf. My local LDs (Stockport) were campaigning on saving a local golf course* from being built over with housing. The 'green space' issue is a bit tricksy there, it's more about infrastructural capacity - especially in road traffic, but also the usual GPs, dentists and so on.
*Whereas I'd happily turn every golf course in the country into affordable housing and skate parks if I could.
I see the Conservative did well in Grimsby, Peterborough, Scunthorpe and Thurrock.
How the world changes.
I wonder how well the results correlate to housing affordability.
Probably more to do with house building because more supply -> more affordability.
Interestingly around here it's the new housing estates where the Tories do well.
My theory is that where new housing is seen as an improvement on what is already there then it is popular but when it is viewed as 'shitboxes' in 'pretty villages' then its opposed.
My theory is it's always opposed but the people who move in can see it's fine.
It really doesn't seem to be opposed further north.
I wonder if in southern England new housing provokes stronger views ie people are either very strongly against it or very strongly for it.
Whereas in cheaper areas a steady amount of new housing always being built is just accepted as part of life.
It's a varied picture tbf. My local LDs (Stockport) were campaigning on saving a local golf course* from being built over with housing. The 'green space' issue is a bit tricksy there, it's more about infrastructural capacity - especially in road traffic, but also the usual GPs, dentists and so on.
*Whereas I'd happily turn every golf course in the country into affordable housing and skate parks if I could.
Yes, in Greater Manchester in general there is a lot of vociferous opposition to new development. I have been involved in a few consultation events on these. Views I've heard include "everyone around here has already got a house" and "if we must have new housing, can't we just build really tiny flats?" and "can't we build on the tops of the moors so new houses are away from people?" Though in amongst all this, a cleaner - who happened to be there, rather than came to look at anything proposed - sidled up to me and said, sotto voce "Just build the things. Please. Just build them. I don't care what they look like. I've got two adult sons at home and I'm sleeping on the sofa. There's no houses for them. Don't listen to these people. Please just build them." I bet she didn't fill in the consultation form though.
Opponents of development in Greater Manchester have made this video, which is well worth a watch for its stark-staring-madness - if you are limited for time, listen to the first verse to get the general tone, marvel at the fact that they span this out for three minutes, and then forward to 3 minutes for the denouement. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KUVJ2ur_oMQ
I'm sorry, I only got couple of lines in before imploding into tiny black hole singularity of pure cringe.
I see the Conservative did well in Grimsby, Peterborough, Scunthorpe and Thurrock.
How the world changes.
I wonder how well the results correlate to housing affordability.
Probably more to do with house building because more supply -> more affordability.
Interestingly around here it's the new housing estates where the Tories do well.
My theory is that where new housing is seen as an improvement on what is already there then it is popular but when it is viewed as 'shitboxes' in 'pretty villages' then its opposed.
My theory is it's always opposed but the people who move in can see it's fine.
It really doesn't seem to be opposed further north.
I wonder if in southern England new housing provokes stronger views ie people are either very strongly against it or very strongly for it.
Whereas in cheaper areas a steady amount of new housing always being built is just accepted as part of life.
It's a varied picture tbf. My local LDs (Stockport) were campaigning on saving a local golf course* from being built over with housing. The 'green space' issue is a bit tricksy there, it's more about infrastructural capacity - especially in road traffic, but also the usual GPs, dentists and so on.
*Whereas I'd happily turn every golf course in the country into affordable housing and skate parks if I could.
I don't understand the attachment of people to golf courses they don't play on. Almost every golf course in the country is struggling for members. A consolidation is needed. Yet people love having a golf course nearby that they can't actually use for anything except looking at. If you could take an under-membered golf course, you could accommodate around 1,000 houses along with a very fine park which the public could actually use; those members could join other clubs, and those clubs could be kept viable.
John Curtice on the BBC thinks Labour are ahead by 8-10%, in terms of NEV.
That makes the Polling Companies look a bit silly. Never trust polls.
It's not a like for like comparison. The Lib Dems, Greens, and Independents all do much better locally than nationally. Between them, they would win about 40% in local elections.
If there was ever a metaphor for the Tory performance yesterday.
Let's off road! Braunston Wank Panzer. Edward Baines (Conservative), standing for local council elections today, 'parked' right opposite the Village Hall where voting takes place today!@Wankpanzer 👇
Eddie Baines is a Rutland legend. 81 years old, standing for election once again. Used to run a really old-fashioned secondhand bookshop in Uppingham. Now his daughter runs both the bookshop and the council. Reversing his muddy 4x4 into a ditch is entirely on brand and very Rutland.
Rutland politics always amuses me (as a former resident) because you get the impression that anyone can basically rock up and get elected without much scrutiny at all, spend two months in the Conservatives and then form your own People's Front of Rutland splinter group because you got served a decaf coffee by mistake at the branch meeting in the Vicky Hall. It's kind of like Powys or Herefordshire but with lower stakes.
I see the Conservative did well in Grimsby, Peterborough, Scunthorpe and Thurrock.
How the world changes.
I wonder how well the results correlate to housing affordability.
Probably more to do with house building because more supply -> more affordability.
Interestingly around here it's the new housing estates where the Tories do well.
My theory is that where new housing is seen as an improvement on what is already there then it is popular but when it is viewed as 'shitboxes' in 'pretty villages' then its opposed.
My theory is it's always opposed but the people who move in can see it's fine.
It really doesn't seem to be opposed further north.
I wonder if in southern England new housing provokes stronger views ie people are either very strongly against it or very strongly for it.
Whereas in cheaper areas a steady amount of new housing always being built is just accepted as part of life.
It's a varied picture tbf. My local LDs (Stockport) were campaigning on saving a local golf course* from being built over with housing. The 'green space' issue is a bit tricksy there, it's more about infrastructural capacity - especially in road traffic, but also the usual GPs, dentists and so on.
*Whereas I'd happily turn every golf course in the country into affordable housing and skate parks if I could.
I see the Conservative did well in Grimsby, Peterborough, Scunthorpe and Thurrock.
How the world changes.
I wonder how well the results correlate to housing affordability.
Probably more to do with house building because more supply -> more affordability.
Interestingly around here it's the new housing estates where the Tories do well.
My theory is that where new housing is seen as an improvement on what is already there then it is popular but when it is viewed as 'shitboxes' in 'pretty villages' then its opposed.
My theory is it's always opposed but the people who move in can see it's fine.
It really doesn't seem to be opposed further north.
I wonder if in southern England new housing provokes stronger views ie people are either very strongly against it or very strongly for it.
Whereas in cheaper areas a steady amount of new housing always being built is just accepted as part of life.
It's a varied picture tbf. My local LDs (Stockport) were campaigning on saving a local golf course* from being built over with housing. The 'green space' issue is a bit tricksy there, it's more about infrastructural capacity - especially in road traffic, but also the usual GPs, dentists and so on.
*Whereas I'd happily turn every golf course in the country into affordable housing and skate parks if I could.
Yes, in Greater Manchester in general there is a lot of vociferous opposition to new development. I have been involved in a few consultation events on these. Views I've heard include "everyone around here has already got a house" and "if we must have new housing, can't we just build really tiny flats?" and "can't we build on the tops of the moors so new houses are away from people?" Though in amongst all this, a cleaner - who happened to be there, rather than came to look at anything proposed - sidled up to me and said, sotto voce "Just build the things. Please. Just build them. I don't care what they look like. I've got two adult sons at home and I'm sleeping on the sofa. There's no houses for them. Don't listen to these people. Please just build them." I bet she didn't fill in the consultation form though.
Opponents of development in Greater Manchester have made this video, which is well worth a watch for its stark-staring-madness - if you are limited for time, listen to the first verse to get the general tone, marvel at the fact that they span this out for three minutes, and then forward to 3 minutes for the denouement. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KUVJ2ur_oMQ
I'm sorry, I only got couple of lines in before imploding into tiny black hole singularity of pure cringe.
It's horrible, isn't it? And gets more and more embarrassing as you go on.
I see the Conservative did well in Grimsby, Peterborough, Scunthorpe and Thurrock.
How the world changes.
I wonder how well the results correlate to housing affordability.
Probably more to do with house building because more supply -> more affordability.
Interestingly around here it's the new housing estates where the Tories do well.
My theory is that where new housing is seen as an improvement on what is already there then it is popular but when it is viewed as 'shitboxes' in 'pretty villages' then its opposed.
My theory is it's always opposed but the people who move in can see it's fine.
It really doesn't seem to be opposed further north.
I wonder if in southern England new housing provokes stronger views ie people are either very strongly against it or very strongly for it.
Whereas in cheaper areas a steady amount of new housing always being built is just accepted as part of life.
I went on the train to York on Wednesday. Looks like some serious house building going on at Newark.
The problem where I am (Woking) is that pretty much everything that can be built on has been built on. I think the council had a choice between building on New Zealand golf course (we do have quite a lot round here) or building more tower blocks. To be fair, I understand why they went for the tower blocks. The problem is, they were massively expensive to build and people aren't especially keen to live in them (oh, and the cladding fell off the Hilton Hotel!).
When I was on Hertsmere council, I was one of only two people on the planning committee to vote against taking enforcement action against residents who had put up rose arches and Wendy houses, in a conservation area on the green belt. One rogue had even put a skylight in his roof.
Opposition to development in Hertsmere (and probably other boroughs) is really that petty.
I remember when a chap proposed opening a corner shop in an estate on the outskirts of Abingdon.
From the opposition you'd have thought he was suggesting a concentration camp of the less reputable kind.
The design actually improved the look of a brick shitbox. The idea of using shutters that weren't the usual roll-down shop shutters seemed especially good to me.
Petty nastiness like that happens all over. A couple of (utterly inoffensive) kids' treehouses in gardens near me have had to be taken down because of complaints. Some people are just dicks.
You can see how the Stasi had no difficulty recruiting informers. Some people just like hurting their neighbours.
I see the Conservative did well in Grimsby, Peterborough, Scunthorpe and Thurrock.
How the world changes.
I wonder how well the results correlate to housing affordability.
Probably more to do with house building because more supply -> more affordability.
Interestingly around here it's the new housing estates where the Tories do well.
My theory is that where new housing is seen as an improvement on what is already there then it is popular but when it is viewed as 'shitboxes' in 'pretty villages' then its opposed.
My theory is it's always opposed but the people who move in can see it's fine.
It really doesn't seem to be opposed further north.
I wonder if in southern England new housing provokes stronger views ie people are either very strongly against it or very strongly for it.
Whereas in cheaper areas a steady amount of new housing always being built is just accepted as part of life.
I went on the train to York on Wednesday. Looks like some serious house building going on at Newark.
The problem where I am (Woking) is that pretty much everything that can be built on has been built on. I think the council had a choice between building on New Zealand golf course (we do have quite a lot round here) or building more tower blocks. To be fair, I understand why they went for the tower blocks. The problem is, they were massively expensive to build and people aren't especially keen to live in them (oh, and the cladding fell off the Hilton Hotel!).
There's vast tracts of empty land from Newark to Selby.
John Curtice on the BBC thinks Labour are ahead by 8-10%, in terms of NEV.
5% Con to Lab swing would probably leave them a bit short of an overall majority but add in SNP implosion and tactical voting and they should be there of thereabouts.
We could end up with a reverse of the 2010 result.
Yes this is where we appear to be.
LAB should be pleased with an 8% to 10% NEV lead but it doesn't guarantee an overall majority as there will probably be a lot of CON supporters who didn't vote or voted for someone else this time who might come back at the GE.
He is the Tory equivalent of Angela Rayner. Can we have more Angela on the Telly to reduce the inevitable Labour majority please?
I think you grossly understate Rayner's appeal among important parts of the electorate Labour needs. She's a Marmite character, certainly, but actually a pretty important part of the picture as Prescott once was.
Prescott was a thug, but he had a certain gravitas. She has none. She is the type of joke figure that only politics promotes to high office. She is the Nadine Dorries of the Labour Party.
Nah, she is a star. Disliked by snobs, but a real talent and her own person. If she had stood instead of the rather drippy RLB, she would be leader now.
If only.. Labour would lose badly. I don't think I know a single person who thinks well of her.
Had a look at the Bassetlaw results, the Tories have taken 2 independent seats (NO Labour standing there) and 1 seat from Labour (Ranskill) where it looks like going from 4 potential choices to a straight fight with Labour aided their cause. The Tory vote seems to have broadly held up here (In my ward Labour look to have gone forwards and the Conservatives back slightly) but the Conservatives have definitely underperformed their 2019 parliamentary strength here (No Worksop wards won for instance) - I guess in the context of likely losing between 800 and 1000 seats going very marginally forward is a triumph though !
Have Labour really won Blyth ward again ?
Yes, two votes for Jack in my household. From a local farming family - if he's a Corbynite well he hides it well. Seemed to put in more of an effort compared to the Tories, we were canvassed whereas just leafletted by the Tories. He's also promised glass recycling, and Nottinghamshire county council run by the Tories has an astonishingly high council tax charge portion. I think if/when he becomes an MP (He's very young so it's likely) the Conservatives can definitely win here again though - but he has a definite solid local vote.
If there was ever a metaphor for the Tory performance yesterday.
Let's off road! Braunston Wank Panzer. Edward Baines (Conservative), standing for local council elections today, 'parked' right opposite the Village Hall where voting takes place today!@Wankpanzer 👇
Eddie Baines is a Rutland legend. 81 years old, standing for election once again. Used to run a really old-fashioned secondhand bookshop in Uppingham. Now his daughter runs both the bookshop and the council. Reversing his muddy 4x4 into a ditch is entirely on brand and very Rutland.
Rutland politics always amuses me (as a former resident) because you get the impression that anyone can basically rock up and get elected without much scrutiny at all, spend two months in the Conservatives and then form your own People's Front of Rutland splinter group because you got served a decaf coffee by mistake at the branch meeting in the Vicky Hall. It's kind of like Powys or Herefordshire but with lower stakes.
I always loved the story that when it was subsumed into Leicestershire in the 70s local government reorg (before more latterly becoming unitary), Leicestershire removed all the Rutland signs only for them to mysteriously reappear over night. This happened on enough occasions for the Leicestershire council nazis to give up. This may all be myth, but a nice myth nonetheless!
Comments
Good morning PB.
140/1 next PM, not so much.
Cons saying Bassetlaw result is good…
They now have 8 councillors
There are only two years when they did worse than that.
In 2019 they won 5
In 1996 they won 6
Labour on the other hand now have the most councillors they’ve ever had there - 38/48
Rishi Sunak is 10/1 (from 12/1) to be replaced as PM this year #LocalElections2023
2023 - 10/1
2024 - 11/10
2025 or later - 10/11
A view of fair sized houses in a sane style, with a scattering of actual amenities vs an ocean of brick boxes the size of rabbit hutches....
All politics is local. And one of the reasons the anti-Tories were still seeing massive swings yesterday in what 20 years ago were some of Britain's safest Tory seats is that my neighbours' children can't swim in the rivers their parents moved here for a generation ago. Yesterday, our longest-standing Tory supporters declined to put up Tory posters, canvass Tory or tell for the Tories at polling stations. Because, quite literally, Tory inaction over river pollution has made the party stink.
But he would probably lose the same amount elsewhere that Sunak has a decent shot at keeping right now.
I wonder if in southern England new housing provokes stronger views ie people are either very strongly against it or very strongly for it.
Whereas in cheaper areas a steady amount of new housing always being built is just accepted as part of life.
The results are looking pretty bad for Sunak and the Tories. But he'll live and, in fairness to him, his Parliamentary party has pretty much bought into his strategy of broad stability, coupled with some red meat for the base on immigration, and pretend to be almost like normal people at the General Election before resuming internecine warfare thereafter. They are wise to do so.
"Bring back Boris" is now just a crazed howl from fringe people like Dorries and Rees-Mogg - who it now feels like a fever-dream to recall were once cabinet ministers. It's not on the agenda in any serious way.
As for Barclay. I wouldn't bank on it.
We go the way of Suella first.
There's also the nontrivial risk that he could do a Swinson and fail to defend his own seat.
Tories loosened rules via Brexit "freedoms" in order to pay shareholders rather than fix infrastructure is the meme.
📈13pt Labour lead
🌹Lab 44 (+2)
🌳Con 31 (=)
🔶LD 9 (=)
➡️Reform 5 (-2)
🎗️SNP 4 (+1)
🌍Gre 3 (=)
⬜️Other 4 (-1)
2,241 UK adults, 28-30 April
(chg from 21-23 April)
Perhaps the wastrels and moaners who take early retirement should take one less holiday a year and give it to a river charity to redress the balance of their greed?
Any small improvement will be wiped out by tactical voting .
(just for the record, I voted lib dem, if it were best to change, then bring it on)
The problem where I am (Woking) is that pretty much everything that can be built on has been built on. I think the council had a choice between building on New Zealand golf course (we do have quite a lot round here) or building more tower blocks. To be fair, I understand why they went for the tower blocks. The problem is, they were massively expensive to build and people aren't especially keen to live in them (oh, and the cladding fell off the Hilton Hotel!).
Perhaps the wrong decision but investment costs money.
Now you and I wouldn't mind paying a pound or two more per month on our water rates but others would differ.
Green +16 17
C -25 16
LD +6 10
L +3 5
NOC with Greens the largest party.
On that note, I better do some too.
*Whereas I'd happily turn every golf course in the country into affordable housing and skate parks if I could.
Opposition to development in Hertsmere (and probably other boroughs) is really that petty.
Making progress in Bassetlaw? He is another Ed Miliband, totally out of his depth
Starmer has rather intelligently thought out-gunned her at every turn and instead pushed Reeves into the limelight. The man plays the smart and long game
Was there any serious talk or scrutiny of anything else? Not as I recall. Just him farting around in a bulldozer and saying "Britain" and "Brexit" and "Corbyn" a lot. Well, it worked, and you get what you pay for. He did. We did. Terrible few years for politics here. Surely things can only get better.
https://www.gmb.org.uk/news/more-70-englands-water-industry-owned-foreign-companies#:~:text=40% of Southern Water is,Emirates, Kuwait, China and Australia
Whatever our stripe a good honest one-nation feudal Tory Party would be welcomed.
The English water companies are more than 90% owned by shareholders abroad, for example:
• Wessex Water is 100% owned by a Malaysian company, YTL
• Northumbrian Water is owned by Hong Kong businessman Li Ka Shing
• Thames Water is partly owned by investors from the United Arab Emirates, Kuwait, China and Australia
Welsh Water is a not for profit. Scottish Water and Northern Irish Water are both in public ownership.
https://weownit.org.uk/public-ownership/water
They had no new ideas then and they have no new ideas now.
The Tory vote seems to have broadly held up here (In my ward Labour look to have gone forwards and the Conservatives back slightly) but the Conservatives have definitely underperformed their 2019 parliamentary strength here (No Worksop wards won for instance) - I guess in the context of likely losing between 800 and 1000 seats going very marginally forward is a triumph though !
We could end up with a reverse of the 2010 result.
Abandoned mining land, abandoned railway land, abandoned military land, abandoned agricultural land.
Bassetlaw has a similar population to Woking but only 10% of the population density.
"Mr Starmer, you're trying to seduce me, aren't you?"
I would guess she's also considerably more competent than Prescott, who was a notoriously rubbish minister.
From the opposition you'd have thought he was suggesting a concentration camp of the less reputable kind.
The design actually improved the look of a brick shitbox. The idea of using shutters that weren't the usual roll-down shop shutters seemed especially good to me.
Let's off road! Braunston Wank Panzer. Edward Baines (Conservative), standing for local council elections today, 'parked' right opposite the Village Hall where voting takes place today!@Wankpanzer 👇
https://twitter.com/drpaul_stanley/status/1654093281247088642
That is the best joke ever posted in the history of PB, if not the internet.
1. The Tories saying 'yes, but look at Peterborough, Bassetlaw and Sandwell' when it is put to them that they're not doing well is pretty thin gruel.
2. If Brendan-Clarke Smith MP and Richard Holden MP are the best they can come up with to leap to the Tories defence on R4, then they deserve to lose. Both remarkably incoherent and lacking in intelligence.
If Labour finish just five points ahead, you have a point.
On the plus side the developments themselves look pretty good and much of the land was low grade farm land rather than areas with ecological value. The argument here should not be against the developers but the planners/local council/government who seem to be planning for crisis and failure with such developments by not ensuring they have the necessary support and infrastructure.
My personal view is that, in practical terms, there needs to be tighter regulation of water but it needs to be coupled with either higher bills or funding for some things through tax (which either way means the public paying).
It's quite easy to be annoyed at bonuses for bosses, or the overall dividends over 30 years or so, or privatisation of a natural monopoly in the first place. But starting from where we are, I don't actually think there is a practical way of seeing the improvements we want to see, but for the "bad guys" out there to pay.
When I lived in Mill Hill, the local Methodist Church closed. Every proposed development met massive opposition from local residents. So, it was empty for years, until a group of Nigerian holy rollers turned up and offered to buy it. And, there were no planning grounds for objection!
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@53.3842131,-1.1175824,3a,75y,177.78h,89.23t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sDDYSRQsHfYwOcGgjhlagtQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@53.3688653,-1.1205981,3a,75y,269.02h,92.33t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s9jTAvAB2lqGS227frGcAQg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192
I have been involved in a few consultation events on these. Views I've heard include "everyone around here has already got a house" and "if we must have new housing, can't we just build really tiny flats?" and "can't we build on the tops of the moors so new houses are away from people?"
Though in amongst all this, a cleaner - who happened to be there, rather than came to look at anything proposed - sidled up to me and said, sotto voce "Just build the things. Please. Just build them. I don't care what they look like. I've got two adult sons at home and I'm sleeping on the sofa. There's no houses for them. Don't listen to these people. Please just build them."
I bet she didn't fill in the consultation form though.
Opponents of development in Greater Manchester have made this video, which is well worth a watch for its stark-staring-madness - if you are limited for time, listen to the first verse to get the general tone, marvel at the fact that they span this out for three minutes, and then forward to 3 minutes for the denouement.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KUVJ2ur_oMQ
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kL-m5Nocb-g
Rutland politics always amuses me (as a former resident) because you get the impression that anyone can basically rock up and get elected without much scrutiny at all, spend two months in the Conservatives and then form your own People's Front of Rutland splinter group because you got served a decaf coffee by mistake at the branch meeting in the Vicky Hall. It's kind of like Powys or Herefordshire but with lower stakes.
And to your east two developments currently in Blyth and another in Ranskill plus the big development in Haworth.
Big developments all along the M18 as well.
LAB should be pleased with an 8% to 10% NEV lead but it doesn't guarantee an overall majority as there will probably be a lot of CON supporters who didn't vote or voted for someone else this time who might come back at the GE.
I think if/when he becomes an MP (He's very young so it's likely) the Conservatives can definitely win here again though - but he has a definite solid local vote.