Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

Options

Can the LDs become the 3rd party once again? – politicalbetting.com

SystemSystem Posts: 11,794
edited June 2023 in General
imageCan the LDs become the 3rd party once again? – politicalbetting.com

Ed Davey’s party might have been smashed in the Stop Corbyn Tory surge at GE2019 but they have had one of their best parliaments ever in terms of winning Westminster by elections. They’ve taken three seats (two of them from third place) from the Tories and have a great chance of gaining another in Mid Bedfordshire if Nadine is made a peer in BoJo’s resignation honours.

Read the full story here

«134567

Comments

  • Options
    TazTaz Posts: 12,015
    Only if the SNP collapse.
  • Options
    TazTaz Posts: 12,015
    Also, as is tradition, FIRST
  • Options
    ydoethurydoethur Posts: 68,280
    Taz said:

    Also, as is tradition, FIRST

    Third, unlike the Lib Dems.

    I can't see the SNP falling far enough for them to be overtaken, although I do expect them to go backwards.
  • Options
    TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 115,339
    I thought the only way the Lib Dems become the third party was if the SNP imploded but the way the blue wall is going it is entirely possible for the Lib Dems to become the third party even if the SNP don't lose many seats.
  • Options
    TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 115,339
    On topic, also this will help the yellow peril and bugger the Tories.

    Food inflation has fallen for the first time in almost two years as lower energy and commodity costs filter through to some staples including milk, butter and fruit.

    Food inflation fell to 15.4 per cent this month, from 15.7 per cent in April, according to figures compiled by the British Retail Consortium (BRC) and the data firm Nielsen. The last time food inflation slowed was in August 2021. In fresh food, inflation fell from 17.8 per cent in April to 17.2 per cent this month.

    While May’s figure is a little lower than the food inflation seen in April, it is still the second fastest annual increase the BRC has measured. Also, overall shop price inflation has edged up to high of 9 per cent this month, from 8.8 per cent the month before. This was the result of labour costs, energy costs for shops, contract prices and a weak pound which is only just starting to recover.


    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/uk-food-inflation-falls-for-the-first-time-in-almost-two-years-0tqr9xj5t
  • Options
    ydoethurydoethur Posts: 68,280
    edited May 2023

    I thought the only way the Lib Dems become the third party was if the SNP imploded but the way the blue wall is going it is entirely possible for the Lib Dems to become the third party even if the SNP don't lose many seats.

    They would need to win 38 to overtake the SNP (assuming no SNP losses).

    Have they ever gained that many in one election? I'm pretty sure the answer's 'not since 1923.'
  • Options
    MonksfieldMonksfield Posts: 2,394
    ydoethur said:

    I thought the only way the Lib Dems become the third party was if the SNP imploded but the way the blue wall is going it is entirely possible for the Lib Dems to become the third party even if the SNP don't lose many seats.

    They would need to win 38 to overtake the SNP (assuming no SNP losses).

    Have they ever gained that many in one election? I'm pretty sure the answer's 'not since 1923.'
    Eh? That Assumes the SNP hold all their seats. Which they won’t under current circumstances.
  • Options
    TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 115,339
    ydoethur said:

    I thought the only way the Lib Dems become the third party was if the SNP imploded but the way the blue wall is going it is entirely possible for the Lib Dems to become the third party even if the SNP don't lose many seats.

    They would need to win 38 to overtake the SNP.

    Have they ever gained that many in one election? I'm pretty sure the answer's 'not since 1923.'
    28 in 1997 is the most recent record.

    See, I've started to do some deep dives, and I've started wondering if seats like Epsom & Ewell might be in play, add in tactical ABC voting, with Labour voters voting tactically en masse and you'd need only a 7.5% swing on top of that to overturn a near 18,000 majority.


  • Options
    GhedebravGhedebrav Posts: 3,475
    There’s probably an optimistic upper limit of expectation for the LDs of maybe 45 seats, and a lower limit for the SNP of maybe 30 - so while it’s less likely than likely, it’s certainly possible. I hope so, anyway.
  • Options
    ydoethurydoethur Posts: 68,280

    ydoethur said:

    I thought the only way the Lib Dems become the third party was if the SNP imploded but the way the blue wall is going it is entirely possible for the Lib Dems to become the third party even if the SNP don't lose many seats.

    They would need to win 38 to overtake the SNP (assuming no SNP losses).

    Have they ever gained that many in one election? I'm pretty sure the answer's 'not since 1923.'
    Eh? That Assumes the SNP hold all their seats. Which they won’t under current circumstances.
    I know.

    I think it's a daft assumption, but Mr Eagles said 'even if the SNP don't lose many seats.' So I was taking that to extremes.

    Personally I think it's realistic to assume the SNP might lose twenty seats, mostly to Labour, but a couple of things give me pause: (a) there are some seats they could also pick up from the Tories and (b) nobody has got rich in the last fifteen years betting against the SNP. Even in 2017 which was their worst performance by far since 2010 they still won 35 seats.
  • Options
    ydoethurydoethur Posts: 68,280

    ydoethur said:

    I thought the only way the Lib Dems become the third party was if the SNP imploded but the way the blue wall is going it is entirely possible for the Lib Dems to become the third party even if the SNP don't lose many seats.

    They would need to win 38 to overtake the SNP.

    Have they ever gained that many in one election? I'm pretty sure the answer's 'not since 1923.'
    28 in 1997 is the most recent record.

    See, I've started to do some deep dives, and I've started wondering if seats like Epsom & Ewell might be in play, add in tactical ABC voting, with Labour voters voting tactically en masse and you'd need only a 7.5% swing on top of that to overturn a near 18,000 majority.


    It would be immensely funny to see Failing Grayling lose his seat, if he's standing, but I think it unlikely. Even with tactical voting there are several hurdles to overcome.
  • Options
    MonksfieldMonksfield Posts: 2,394
    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    I thought the only way the Lib Dems become the third party was if the SNP imploded but the way the blue wall is going it is entirely possible for the Lib Dems to become the third party even if the SNP don't lose many seats.

    They would need to win 38 to overtake the SNP (assuming no SNP losses).

    Have they ever gained that many in one election? I'm pretty sure the answer's 'not since 1923.'
    Eh? That Assumes the SNP hold all their seats. Which they won’t under current circumstances.
    I know.

    I think it's a daft assumption, but Mr Eagles said 'even if the SNP don't lose many seats.' So I was taking that to extremes.

    Personally I think it's realistic to assume the SNP might lose twenty seats, mostly to Labour, but a couple of things give me pause: (a) there are some seats they could also pick up from the Tories and (b) nobody has got rich in the last fifteen years betting against the SNP. Even in 2017 which was their worst performance by far since 2010 they still won 35 seats.
    With the Labour vs SNP battle it’s all about the central belt. SNP could either lose just a couple of seats or as you say 15-20. I think it’s more likely to be the latter this time as they will face the same incumbency issues and time for a change zeitgeist that the Tories face in England.

  • Options
    RochdalePioneersRochdalePioneers Posts: 27,963
    Not sure about Epsom and Ewell, but there are an awful lot of seats where the LibDem threat is real. Remember that we now have validated evidence that the Anyone But Conservative tactical voting machine is alive and well. People are perfectly willing to change their vote if it gets the Tory out of office.

    On paper that should answer the question with "yes". The SNP look set to lose a stack of seats, so a similar stack of LD gains swaps the two over.
  • Options
    Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 60,962
    Good morning

    It is not impossible but I am not confident the SNP will fold as much as predicted

    In other news Moscow comes under drone attack
  • Options
    NigelbNigelb Posts: 64,113
    Is there a Betfair market ?
    Ought to be more interesting odds than offered for Labour majority.
  • Options
    HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 117,972
    Certainly if Labour take many SNP seats from the hapless Yousaf and the LDs gain a lot of Tory Remain seats in the Home Counties and wider South then it is possible the LDs will be 3rd party again. Indeed, as the local elections showed in most of the South and East of England outside London it is now the LDs who are the Tories main rivals again rather than Labour.

    Indeed the local elections suggest if the next general election was in England alone Starmer would win most seats but fall short of a majority and need LD support to form a government. If Starmer does form a majority Labour government it will be Labour MPs in Wales and Labour gains from the SNP in Scotland that likely take him over the line
  • Options
    MonksfieldMonksfield Posts: 2,394
    HYUFD said:

    Certainly if Labour take many SNP seats from the hapless Yousaf and the LDs gain a lot of Tory Remain seats in the Home Counties and wider South then it is possible the LDs will be 3rd party again. Indeed, as the local elections showed in most of the South and East of England outside London it is now the LDs who are the Tories main rivals again rather than Labour.

    Indeed the local elections suggest if the next general election was in England alone Starmer would win most seats but fall short of a majority and need LD support to form a government. If Starmer does form a majority Labour government it will be Labour MPs in Wales and Labour gains from the SNP in Scotland that likely take him over the line

    Nothing wrong with that. We are one United Kingdom so a vote in the Celtic Fringe is worth every bit as much as one in Epping.
  • Options
    HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 117,972

    ydoethur said:

    I thought the only way the Lib Dems become the third party was if the SNP imploded but the way the blue wall is going it is entirely possible for the Lib Dems to become the third party even if the SNP don't lose many seats.

    They would need to win 38 to overtake the SNP.

    Have they ever gained that many in one election? I'm pretty sure the answer's 'not since 1923.'
    28 in 1997 is the most recent record.

    See, I've started to do some deep dives, and I've started wondering if seats like Epsom & Ewell might be in play, add in tactical ABC voting, with Labour voters voting tactically en masse and you'd need only a 7.5% swing on top of that to overturn a near 18,000 majority.


    Locally Epsom and Ewell is dominated by Independents, currently it has 26 Residents' Association district councillors, 4 LDs, 3 Labour and 2 Tories. Where the Independents go at the general election will be crucial, normally most of them go Tory again at national level
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election/2023/england/councils/E07000208
  • Options
    HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 117,972
    edited May 2023

    HYUFD said:

    Certainly if Labour take many SNP seats from the hapless Yousaf and the LDs gain a lot of Tory Remain seats in the Home Counties and wider South then it is possible the LDs will be 3rd party again. Indeed, as the local elections showed in most of the South and East of England outside London it is now the LDs who are the Tories main rivals again rather than Labour.

    Indeed the local elections suggest if the next general election was in England alone Starmer would win most seats but fall short of a majority and need LD support to form a government. If Starmer does form a majority Labour government it will be Labour MPs in Wales and Labour gains from the SNP in Scotland that likely take him over the line

    Nothing wrong with that. We are one United Kingdom so a vote in the Celtic Fringe is worth every bit as much as one in Epping.
    I didn't say there wasn't, indeed in 1964 and Feb 1974 Wilson only got in thanks to Labour MPs in Scotland and Wales, Labour did not win a majority in England and Home and Heath won most seats there. In fact only in 1945 and 1997 has an incoming Labour government won a majority of seats in England. It looks like Starmer may end up being more Wilson than Blair and Attlee.

    The difference now of course is that Scotland and Wales and NI have their own parliaments for most of their domestic policy if there is a UK Tory government they didn't elect. England doesn't if there is a UK Labour government it didn't elect, nor does it even have EVEL formally either after the government wrongly in my view scrapped it in 2021. While the SNP to their credit don't allow their MPs to vote on English law, there is no guarantee Scottish and Welsh Labour MPs won't vote on English domestic policy if Starmer needs their votes to get it through
  • Options
    FoxyFoxy Posts: 45,811
    Nigelb said:

    Is there a Betfair market ?
    Ought to be more interesting odds than offered for Labour majority.

    There are some markets on numbers of LD seats, but I don't see any value. The ABC vote is difficult to organise, and many will vote Labour even where LD are the challenger. I think there will be some surprise Lab gains in the Blue Wall, and a lot of Tories scraping home.

  • Options
    NigelbNigelb Posts: 64,113
    Reflections on Anderson's last Ashes.
    https://www.theguardian.com/sport/blog/2023/may/29/we-cling-because-where-else-do-we-go-when-its-over-for-jimmy-anderson-cricket
    ...But of course Anderson is more than his limbs, more than his labour, more than his records, more than simply another guy in a cap. And when he goes he will take with him not just his skills but an idea: the idea that playing Test cricket for England can be a vocation. Not just an ambition. Not just part of a career. Not just a string to a bow. But the sort of thing to which one devotes their life, their waking moments, an end to which every fibre of improvement is directed. This, I think, is the part we are not remotely prepared for...
  • Options
    londonpubmanlondonpubman Posts: 3,403
    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Certainly if Labour take many SNP seats from the hapless Yousaf and the LDs gain a lot of Tory Remain seats in the Home Counties and wider South then it is possible the LDs will be 3rd party again. Indeed, as the local elections showed in most of the South and East of England outside London it is now the LDs who are the Tories main rivals again rather than Labour.

    Indeed the local elections suggest if the next general election was in England alone Starmer would win most seats but fall short of a majority and need LD support to form a government. If Starmer does form a majority Labour government it will be Labour MPs in Wales and Labour gains from the SNP in Scotland that likely take him over the line

    Nothing wrong with that. We are one United Kingdom so a vote in the Celtic Fringe is worth every bit as much as one in Epping.
    I didn't say there wasn't, indeed in 1964 and Feb 1974 Wilson only got in thanks to Labour MPs in Scotland and Wales, Labour did not win a majority in England and Home and Heath won most seats there. In fact only in 1945 and 1997 has an incoming Labour government won a majority of seats in England. It looks like Starmer may end up being more Wilson than Blair and Attlee
    Indeed a very small 1964 type majority for LAB with lots of gains in Scotland seems entirely plausible.
  • Options
    OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 32,362
    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Certainly if Labour take many SNP seats from the hapless Yousaf and the LDs gain a lot of Tory Remain seats in the Home Counties and wider South then it is possible the LDs will be 3rd party again. Indeed, as the local elections showed in most of the South and East of England outside London it is now the LDs who are the Tories main rivals again rather than Labour.

    Indeed the local elections suggest if the next general election was in England alone Starmer would win most seats but fall short of a majority and need LD support to form a government. If Starmer does form a majority Labour government it will be Labour MPs in Wales and Labour gains from the SNP in Scotland that likely take him over the line

    Nothing wrong with that. We are one United Kingdom so a vote in the Celtic Fringe is worth every bit as much as one in Epping.
    I didn't say there wasn't, indeed in 1964 and Feb 1974 Wilson only got in thanks to Labour MPs in Scotland and Wales, Labour did not win a majority in England and Home and Heath won most seats there. In fact only in 1945 and 1997 has an incoming Labour government won a majority of seats in England. It looks like Starmer may end up being more Wilson than Blair and Attlee
    Starmer with a pipe and raincoat? I don’t think so. I’m not sure that he’s as cunning as Wilson either.

    And good morning to all; not very sunny here today. Sadly!
  • Options
    NigelbNigelb Posts: 64,113
    edited May 2023
    Foxy said:

    Nigelb said:

    Is there a Betfair market ?
    Ought to be more interesting odds than offered for Labour majority.

    There are some markets on numbers of LD seats, but I don't see any value. The ABC vote is difficult to organise, and many will vote Labour even where LD are the challenger. I think there will be some surprise Lab gains in the Blue Wall, and a lot of Tories scraping home.

    A market for third largest party would be interesting nonetheless. Particularly if yours are the views of the majority.
  • Options
    strawbrickstrawbrick Posts: 21
    Good to see that the rate of food inflation has fallen from 15.7% to 15.4%.

    £100.00
    15.70% £15.70
    £115.70
    15.40% £17.82
    £133.52
  • Options
    rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 54,653
    ydoethur said:

    I thought the only way the Lib Dems become the third party was if the SNP imploded but the way the blue wall is going it is entirely possible for the Lib Dems to become the third party even if the SNP don't lose many seats.

    They would need to win 38 to overtake the SNP (assuming no SNP losses).

    Have they ever gained that many in one election? I'm pretty sure the answer's 'not since 1923.'
    I would reckon the LibDems will end up somewhere in the 23-29 seat range, and the SNP in 30-38 range.

    It is worth noting, of course, that (a) Scotland loses two seats at the next General Election, and (b) that the SNP's seat number is pretty volatile. If the SNP replicates their 2017 performance, they'd end up with with 34 to 35 seats.

    However.... I think a couple of things make it unlikely (i.e. no more than a 15-20% shot), that the LDs will do it:

    (1) A large number of the SNP's seats are at threat from the Conservatives, not Labour. And it is unlikely the Cons will be gaining many seats in Scotland.
    (2) There are 10-12 "easy" LibDem gains, but after that it gets pretty tough for them,.
  • Options
    SandpitSandpit Posts: 50,756

    Good to see that the rate of food inflation has fallen from 15.7% to 15.4%.

    £100.00
    15.70% £15.70
    £115.70
    15.40% £17.82
    £133.52

    They are monthly year-on-year figures, not annual year-on-year figures.
  • Options
    NigelbNigelb Posts: 64,113
    I still think this is the big story this morning.

    Labour plans to allow local authorities to buy land cheaply for development
    Exclusive: If elected next year, party would allow officials to buy up land at fraction of potential cost as part of ‘pro-building’ agenda
    https://amp.theguardian.com/politics/2023/may/29/labour-allow-local-authorities-buy-land-cheaply-for-development
  • Options
    SandpitSandpit Posts: 50,756
    Nigelb said:

    Reflections on Anderson's last Ashes.
    https://www.theguardian.com/sport/blog/2023/may/29/we-cling-because-where-else-do-we-go-when-its-over-for-jimmy-anderson-cricket
    ...But of course Anderson is more than his limbs, more than his labour, more than his records, more than simply another guy in a cap. And when he goes he will take with him not just his skills but an idea: the idea that playing Test cricket for England can be a vocation. Not just an ambition. Not just part of a career. Not just a string to a bow. But the sort of thing to which one devotes their life, their waking moments, an end to which every fibre of improvement is directed. This, I think, is the part we are not remotely prepared for...

    A remarkable player, who will be very badly missed by England.
  • Options
    rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 54,653
    Sandpit said:

    Good to see that the rate of food inflation has fallen from 15.7% to 15.4%.

    £100.00
    15.70% £15.70
    £115.70
    15.40% £17.82
    £133.52

    They are monthly year-on-year figures, not annual year-on-year figures.
    It would be useful if they also published the month-on-month number.
  • Options
    CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 40,872
    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Certainly if Labour take many SNP seats from the hapless Yousaf and the LDs gain a lot of Tory Remain seats in the Home Counties and wider South then it is possible the LDs will be 3rd party again. Indeed, as the local elections showed in most of the South and East of England outside London it is now the LDs who are the Tories main rivals again rather than Labour.

    Indeed the local elections suggest if the next general election was in England alone Starmer would win most seats but fall short of a majority and need LD support to form a government. If Starmer does form a majority Labour government it will be Labour MPs in Wales and Labour gains from the SNP in Scotland that likely take him over the line

    Nothing wrong with that. We are one United Kingdom so a vote in the Celtic Fringe is worth every bit as much as one in Epping.
    I didn't say there wasn't, indeed in 1964 and Feb 1974 Wilson only got in thanks to Labour MPs in Scotland and Wales, Labour did not win a majority in England and Home and Heath won most seats there. In fact only in 1945 and 1997 has an incoming Labour government won a majority of seats in England. It looks like Starmer may end up being more Wilson than Blair and Attlee.

    The difference now of course is that Scotland and Wales and NI have their own parliaments for most of their domestic policy if there is a UK Tory government they didn't elect. England doesn't if there is a UK Labour government it didn't elect, nor does it even have EVEL formally either after the government wrongly in my view scrapped it in 2021. While the SNP to their credit don't allow their MPs to vote on English law, there is no guarantee Scottish and Welsh Labour MPs won't vote on English domestic policy if Starmer needs their votes to get it through
    Good to se us agreeing - that is the issue that has been overlooked. Scottish and Welsh MPs are of only limited value to Labour.
  • Options
    StuartinromfordStuartinromford Posts: 15,206
    rcs1000 said:

    ydoethur said:

    I thought the only way the Lib Dems become the third party was if the SNP imploded but the way the blue wall is going it is entirely possible for the Lib Dems to become the third party even if the SNP don't lose many seats.

    They would need to win 38 to overtake the SNP (assuming no SNP losses).

    Have they ever gained that many in one election? I'm pretty sure the answer's 'not since 1923.'
    I would reckon the LibDems will end up somewhere in the 23-29 seat range, and the SNP in 30-38 range.

    It is worth noting, of course, that (a) Scotland loses two seats at the next General Election, and (b) that the SNP's seat number is pretty volatile. If the SNP replicates their 2017 performance, they'd end up with with 34 to 35 seats.

    However.... I think a couple of things make it unlikely (i.e. no more than a 15-20% shot), that the LDs will do it:

    (1) A large number of the SNP's seats are at threat from the Conservatives, not Labour. And it is unlikely the Cons will be gaining many seats in Scotland.
    (2) There are 10-12 "easy" LibDem gains, but after that it gets pretty tough for them,.
    At some point soon, Lib Dem ambitions for 2024 will become visible from space, simply by looking for where they are doing high-intensity campaigning. Go to recycling centres and look for the piles of Focus leaflets or something.
  • Options
    HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 117,972
    edited May 2023
    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Certainly if Labour take many SNP seats from the hapless Yousaf and the LDs gain a lot of Tory Remain seats in the Home Counties and wider South then it is possible the LDs will be 3rd party again. Indeed, as the local elections showed in most of the South and East of England outside London it is now the LDs who are the Tories main rivals again rather than Labour.

    Indeed the local elections suggest if the next general election was in England alone Starmer would win most seats but fall short of a majority and need LD support to form a government. If Starmer does form a majority Labour government it will be Labour MPs in Wales and Labour gains from the SNP in Scotland that likely take him over the line

    Nothing wrong with that. We are one United Kingdom so a vote in the Celtic Fringe is worth every bit as much as one in Epping.
    I didn't say there wasn't, indeed in 1964 and Feb 1974 Wilson only got in thanks to Labour MPs in Scotland and Wales, Labour did not win a majority in England and Home and Heath won most seats there. In fact only in 1945 and 1997 has an incoming Labour government won a majority of seats in England. It looks like Starmer may end up being more Wilson than Blair and Attlee.

    The difference now of course is that Scotland and Wales and NI have their own parliaments for most of their domestic policy if there is a UK Tory government they didn't elect. England doesn't if there is a UK Labour government it didn't elect, nor does it even have EVEL formally either after the government wrongly in my view scrapped it in 2021. While the SNP to their credit don't allow their MPs to vote on English law, there is no guarantee Scottish and Welsh Labour MPs won't vote on English domestic policy if Starmer needs their votes to get it through
    Good to se us agreeing - that is the issue that has been overlooked. Scottish and Welsh MPs are of only limited value to Labour.
    If we still had EVEL yes. Now we don't have EVEL anymore if Starmer wins a UK majority but not an English majority Scottish and Welsh Labour MPs could be very useful to Starmer in passing laws, especially if they relate to English only matters where a majority of English Tory and LD MPs oppose Labour government proposals. For example, building all over the southern English greenbelt
  • Options
    StuartinromfordStuartinromford Posts: 15,206
    Nigelb said:

    I still think this is the big story this morning.

    Labour plans to allow local authorities to buy land cheaply for development
    Exclusive: If elected next year, party would allow officials to buy up land at fraction of potential cost as part of ‘pro-building’ agenda
    https://amp.theguardian.com/politics/2023/may/29/labour-allow-local-authorities-buy-land-cheaply-for-development

    I think it's an example of something I said a while back- to get big changes to happen, you can either excite the public by emphasising the bigness, or soothe them by making them sound boring and technical.

    This sounds dull, but is probably dead important. After all, the money that goes to owners of arbitrarily rationed developable land is one of the big reasons we can't afford nice things.
  • Options
    TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 40,670
    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Certainly if Labour take many SNP seats from the hapless Yousaf and the LDs gain a lot of Tory Remain seats in the Home Counties and wider South then it is possible the LDs will be 3rd party again. Indeed, as the local elections showed in most of the South and East of England outside London it is now the LDs who are the Tories main rivals again rather than Labour.

    Indeed the local elections suggest if the next general election was in England alone Starmer would win most seats but fall short of a majority and need LD support to form a government. If Starmer does form a majority Labour government it will be Labour MPs in Wales and Labour gains from the SNP in Scotland that likely take him over the line

    Nothing wrong with that. We are one United Kingdom so a vote in the Celtic Fringe is worth every bit as much as one in Epping.
    I didn't say there wasn't, indeed in 1964 and Feb 1974 Wilson only got in thanks to Labour MPs in Scotland and Wales, Labour did not win a majority in England and Home and Heath won most seats there. In fact only in 1945 and 1997 has an incoming Labour government won a majority of seats in England. It looks like Starmer may end up being more Wilson than Blair and Attlee.

    The difference now of course is that Scotland and Wales and NI have their own parliaments for most of their domestic policy if there is a UK Tory government they didn't elect. England doesn't if there is a UK Labour government it didn't elect, nor does it even have EVEL formally either after the government wrongly in my view scrapped it in 2021. While the SNP to their credit don't allow their MPs to vote on English law, there is no guarantee Scottish and Welsh Labour MPs won't vote on English domestic policy if Starmer needs their votes to get it through
    Haven’t SCon MPs already voted on English domestic policy?
  • Options
    kjhkjh Posts: 10,855
    edited May 2023
    rcs1000 said:

    ydoethur said:

    I thought the only way the Lib Dems become the third party was if the SNP imploded but the way the blue wall is going it is entirely possible for the Lib Dems to become the third party even if the SNP don't lose many seats.

    They would need to win 38 to overtake the SNP (assuming no SNP losses).

    Have they ever gained that many in one election? I'm pretty sure the answer's 'not since 1923.'
    I would reckon the LibDems will end up somewhere in the 23-29 seat range, and the SNP in 30-38 range.

    It is worth noting, of course, that (a) Scotland loses two seats at the next General Election, and (b) that the SNP's seat number is pretty volatile. If the SNP replicates their 2017 performance, they'd end up with with 34 to 35 seats.

    However.... I think a couple of things make it unlikely (i.e. no more than a 15-20% shot), that the LDs will do it:

    (1) A large number of the SNP's seats are at threat from the Conservatives, not Labour. And it is unlikely the Cons will be gaining many seats in Scotland.
    (2) There are 10-12 "easy" LibDem gains, but after that it gets pretty tough for them,.
    What did you have in mind for the easy gains @rcs1000? I'm just thinking about around my way and nearly every seat is becoming a possible target eg Esher and Walton, Guildford, Mole Valley, the 2 seats created out of S W Surrey, Woking. That is 6 straight off.. All were targeted last time, admittedly they all became detargeted except E&W as the campaign floundered.

    You even have TSE talking about Epsom and Ewell now, which has never been targeted and the LDs have been doing spectacularly well in Surrey Heath (3 more seats will be added to their control of the council shortly after delayed election of the the locals through a death of a candidate)

    PS I'm not expecting the last 2 to fall but all the others are on the cards.
  • Options
    HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 117,972

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Certainly if Labour take many SNP seats from the hapless Yousaf and the LDs gain a lot of Tory Remain seats in the Home Counties and wider South then it is possible the LDs will be 3rd party again. Indeed, as the local elections showed in most of the South and East of England outside London it is now the LDs who are the Tories main rivals again rather than Labour.

    Indeed the local elections suggest if the next general election was in England alone Starmer would win most seats but fall short of a majority and need LD support to form a government. If Starmer does form a majority Labour government it will be Labour MPs in Wales and Labour gains from the SNP in Scotland that likely take him over the line

    Nothing wrong with that. We are one United Kingdom so a vote in the Celtic Fringe is worth every bit as much as one in Epping.
    I didn't say there wasn't, indeed in 1964 and Feb 1974 Wilson only got in thanks to Labour MPs in Scotland and Wales, Labour did not win a majority in England and Home and Heath won most seats there. In fact only in 1945 and 1997 has an incoming Labour government won a majority of seats in England. It looks like Starmer may end up being more Wilson than Blair and Attlee.

    The difference now of course is that Scotland and Wales and NI have their own parliaments for most of their domestic policy if there is a UK Tory government they didn't elect. England doesn't if there is a UK Labour government it didn't elect, nor does it even have EVEL formally either after the government wrongly in my view scrapped it in 2021. While the SNP to their credit don't allow their MPs to vote on English law, there is no guarantee Scottish and Welsh Labour MPs won't vote on English domestic policy if Starmer needs their votes to get it through
    Haven’t SCon MPs already voted on English domestic policy?
    Not that I am aware of
  • Options
    CiceroCicero Posts: 2,518
    The SNP currently has 45 seats, the Lib Dems 14.

    There are two moving targets: SNP losses and Lib Dem gains. Both are now the central case.

    The question is how many seats change hands in each category.

    If the SNP lose net 15 seats, they are down to 30. If the Lib Dems gain 16, they are up to 30.

    Even leaving aside the "Blue Wall" in the Home Counties, there are quite a few ex Lib Dem seats in Devon and Somerset, plus places like Cheltenham, that look nailed on for the Lib Dems next time. Equally, there are at least 15 seats that look like Labour gains from the SNP, especially in the the greater Glasgow area, and I see no SNP surge against the Tories in the North East and the Borders, so no likely SNP gains.

    If counties like Surrey also swing Lib Dem, then Ed Davey will outdo Paddy Ashdown for gains.

    I think the odds favour the Lib Dems over the SNP at this point.
  • Options
    SandpitSandpit Posts: 50,756
    edited May 2023
  • Options
    HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 117,972
    Cicero said:

    The SNP currently has 45 seats, the Lib Dems 14.

    There are two moving targets: SNP losses and Lib Dem gains. Both are now the central case.

    The question is how many seats change hands in each category.

    If the SNP lose net 15 seats, they are down to 30. If the Lib Dems gain 16, they are up to 30.

    Even leaving aside the "Blue Wall" in the Home Counties, there are quite a few ex Lib Dem seats in Devon and Somerset, plus places like Cheltenham, that look nailed on for the Lib Dems next time. Equally, there are at least 15 seats that look like Labour gains from the SNP, especially in the the greater Glasgow area, and I see no SNP surge against the Tories in the North East and the Borders, so no likely SNP gains.

    If counties like Surrey also swing Lib Dem, then Ed Davey will outdo Paddy Ashdown for gains.

    I think the odds favour the Lib Dems over the SNP at this point.

    In a change from 1997, it looks likely the LDs will win more MPs in Surrey, Oxfordshire and Hertfordshire than Cornwall, Devon and Somerset. The Brexit effect
  • Options
    tlg86tlg86 Posts: 25,460

    ydoethur said:

    I thought the only way the Lib Dems become the third party was if the SNP imploded but the way the blue wall is going it is entirely possible for the Lib Dems to become the third party even if the SNP don't lose many seats.

    They would need to win 38 to overtake the SNP.

    Have they ever gained that many in one election? I'm pretty sure the answer's 'not since 1923.'
    28 in 1997 is the most recent record.

    See, I've started to do some deep dives, and I've started wondering if seats like Epsom & Ewell might be in play, add in tactical ABC voting, with Labour voters voting tactically en masse and you'd need only a 7.5% swing on top of that to overturn a near 18,000 majority.


    You only have to look at that very seat in 1997 to see that tactical voting is tricky in such seats.
  • Options
    NigelbNigelb Posts: 64,113
    edited May 2023

    Nigelb said:

    I still think this is the big story this morning.

    Labour plans to allow local authorities to buy land cheaply for development
    Exclusive: If elected next year, party would allow officials to buy up land at fraction of potential cost as part of ‘pro-building’ agenda
    https://amp.theguardian.com/politics/2023/may/29/labour-allow-local-authorities-buy-land-cheaply-for-development

    I think it's an example of something I said a while back- to get big changes to happen, you can either excite the public by emphasising the bigness, or soothe them by making them sound boring and technical.

    This sounds dull, but is probably dead important. After all, the money that goes to owners of arbitrarily rationed developable land is one of the big reasons we can't afford nice things.
    It sounds like a very large transfer of power to councils - which is (depending on the details) probably a very good thing.

    And possibly makes them more significant players in the housing market than they have been since Thatcher.

    Definitely not boring.
  • Options
    Dura_AceDura_Ace Posts: 13,295

    Nigelb said:

    I still think this is the big story this morning.

    Labour plans to allow local authorities to buy land cheaply for development
    Exclusive: If elected next year, party would allow officials to buy up land at fraction of potential cost as part of ‘pro-building’ agenda
    https://amp.theguardian.com/politics/2023/may/29/labour-allow-local-authorities-buy-land-cheaply-for-development

    I think it's an example of something I said a while back- to get big changes to happen, you can either excite the public by emphasising the bigness, or soothe them by making them sound boring and technical.

    This sounds dull, but is probably dead important. After all, the money that goes to owners of arbitrarily rationed developable land is one of the big reasons we can't afford nice things.
    The tories may have to decide whether it is politically less damaging to steal this policy than to oppose it. Of course, the actuality utility of it is of no moment to them.
  • Options
    SandpitSandpit Posts: 50,756
    tlg86 said:

    ydoethur said:

    I thought the only way the Lib Dems become the third party was if the SNP imploded but the way the blue wall is going it is entirely possible for the Lib Dems to become the third party even if the SNP don't lose many seats.

    They would need to win 38 to overtake the SNP.

    Have they ever gained that many in one election? I'm pretty sure the answer's 'not since 1923.'
    28 in 1997 is the most recent record.

    See, I've started to do some deep dives, and I've started wondering if seats like Epsom & Ewell might be in play, add in tactical ABC voting, with Labour voters voting tactically en masse and you'd need only a 7.5% swing on top of that to overturn a near 18,000 majority.


    You only have to look at that very seat in 1997 to see that tactical voting is tricky in such seats.
    Labour aren’t going to soft-pedal seats like that, at least not if they are thinking about a majority. They’ll want to split the Con/LD vote and hope to come through the middle.
  • Options
    SandpitSandpit Posts: 50,756
    Nigelb said:

    Nigelb said:

    I still think this is the big story this morning.

    Labour plans to allow local authorities to buy land cheaply for development
    Exclusive: If elected next year, party would allow officials to buy up land at fraction of potential cost as part of ‘pro-building’ agenda
    https://amp.theguardian.com/politics/2023/may/29/labour-allow-local-authorities-buy-land-cheaply-for-development

    I think it's an example of something I said a while back- to get big changes to happen, you can either excite the public by emphasising the bigness, or soothe them by making them sound boring and technical.

    This sounds dull, but is probably dead important. After all, the money that goes to owners of arbitrarily rationed developable land is one of the big reasons we can't afford nice things.
    It sounds like a very large transfer of power to councils - which is (depending on the details) probably a very good thing.

    And possibly makes them more significant players in the housing market than they have been since Thatcher.

    Definitely not boring.
    All building is good at this point, but how many people aspire to be allocated a council house?
  • Options
    TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 40,670
    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Certainly if Labour take many SNP seats from the hapless Yousaf and the LDs gain a lot of Tory Remain seats in the Home Counties and wider South then it is possible the LDs will be 3rd party again. Indeed, as the local elections showed in most of the South and East of England outside London it is now the LDs who are the Tories main rivals again rather than Labour.

    Indeed the local elections suggest if the next general election was in England alone Starmer would win most seats but fall short of a majority and need LD support to form a government. If Starmer does form a majority Labour government it will be Labour MPs in Wales and Labour gains from the SNP in Scotland that likely take him over the line

    Nothing wrong with that. We are one United Kingdom so a vote in the Celtic Fringe is worth every bit as much as one in Epping.
    I didn't say there wasn't, indeed in 1964 and Feb 1974 Wilson only got in thanks to Labour MPs in Scotland and Wales, Labour did not win a majority in England and Home and Heath won most seats there. In fact only in 1945 and 1997 has an incoming Labour government won a majority of seats in England. It looks like Starmer may end up being more Wilson than Blair and Attlee.

    The difference now of course is that Scotland and Wales and NI have their own parliaments for most of their domestic policy if there is a UK Tory government they didn't elect. England doesn't if there is a UK Labour government it didn't elect, nor does it even have EVEL formally either after the government wrongly in my view scrapped it in 2021. While the SNP to their credit don't allow their MPs to vote on English law, there is no guarantee Scottish and Welsh Labour MPs won't vote on English domestic policy if Starmer needs their votes to get it through
    Haven’t SCon MPs already voted on English domestic policy?
    Not that I am aware of
    It appears that they did then they didn’t. Given Douglas Ross’s vacillation, they’re probably at it again.



    https://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/why-scottish-tory-mps-will-no-longer-vote-on-english-only-issues-3015212
  • Options
    kjhkjh Posts: 10,855
    On far more important news than who runs the country, I've just seen on my phone that my local that went into adminstration a few months ago is reopening soon. Yaaay.
  • Options
    Can they? Yes, they obviously can. Especially if the SNP collapse, which should not be ruled out of the realms of possibility currently.

    Will they? Probably not.
  • Options
    boulayboulay Posts: 4,599
    Sandpit said:
    The chap on R4 from RUSI made a good point this morning that this attack not so clever as it bolsters Putin when he claims Russia being attacked by west etc (despite the west not supplying that kit or planning) and will make donors feel concerned about providing weapons that can strike into Russia.

    Morally Ukraine should be able to blow the shit out of anywhere in Russia but in Ukraine’s interest to be the good guys whatever provocation.
  • Options
    JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 39,635
    Sandpit said:
    Sounds like quite a 'heavy' attack: some reports say over 30 drones; plus, of course, the remains of Russian anti-air missiles coming down as well.

    Which all leads to interesting speculation. A false flag by Russia? Ukraine giving back some of what they've been given? And attempt by Ukraine to get Russia to move more air defence from the front lines to rear areas such as Moscow or St Petersburg?

    What's interesting is that Moscow is hundreds of kilometres from the Ukrainian border, and yet the Russia air-defence systems only take them out over Moscow, despite Russia's much-vaunted detection systems. Shades of Mathias Rust?
  • Options
    ydoethurydoethur Posts: 68,280
    Sandpit said:

    Nigelb said:

    Reflections on Anderson's last Ashes.
    https://www.theguardian.com/sport/blog/2023/may/29/we-cling-because-where-else-do-we-go-when-its-over-for-jimmy-anderson-cricket
    ...But of course Anderson is more than his limbs, more than his labour, more than his records, more than simply another guy in a cap. And when he goes he will take with him not just his skills but an idea: the idea that playing Test cricket for England can be a vocation. Not just an ambition. Not just part of a career. Not just a string to a bow. But the sort of thing to which one devotes their life, their waking moments, an end to which every fibre of improvement is directed. This, I think, is the part we are not remotely prepared for...

    A remarkable player, who will be very badly missed by England.
    Since 2009, 577 wickets in 148 Tests at 24.26.

    Comparisons to McGrath on that basis are in the latter's favour, but not by a lot. Certainly you would say that record is comparable to Walsh's.

    And played more tests than anyone other than Tendulkar, who was a batsman and throughout his career was literally undroppable.

    Fantastic athlete and a remarkable talent.
  • Options
    kjhkjh Posts: 10,855
    Sandpit said:

    tlg86 said:

    ydoethur said:

    I thought the only way the Lib Dems become the third party was if the SNP imploded but the way the blue wall is going it is entirely possible for the Lib Dems to become the third party even if the SNP don't lose many seats.

    They would need to win 38 to overtake the SNP.

    Have they ever gained that many in one election? I'm pretty sure the answer's 'not since 1923.'
    28 in 1997 is the most recent record.

    See, I've started to do some deep dives, and I've started wondering if seats like Epsom & Ewell might be in play, add in tactical ABC voting, with Labour voters voting tactically en masse and you'd need only a 7.5% swing on top of that to overturn a near 18,000 majority.


    You only have to look at that very seat in 1997 to see that tactical voting is tricky in such seats.
    Labour aren’t going to soft-pedal seats like that, at least not if they are thinking about a majority. They’ll want to split the Con/LD vote and hope to come through the middle.
    If Labour ever win Epsom and Ewell there won't be a single Tory left in the rest of the country.
  • Options
    ydoethurydoethur Posts: 68,280
    Sandpit said:

    Nigelb said:

    Nigelb said:

    I still think this is the big story this morning.

    Labour plans to allow local authorities to buy land cheaply for development
    Exclusive: If elected next year, party would allow officials to buy up land at fraction of potential cost as part of ‘pro-building’ agenda
    https://amp.theguardian.com/politics/2023/may/29/labour-allow-local-authorities-buy-land-cheaply-for-development

    I think it's an example of something I said a while back- to get big changes to happen, you can either excite the public by emphasising the bigness, or soothe them by making them sound boring and technical.

    This sounds dull, but is probably dead important. After all, the money that goes to owners of arbitrarily rationed developable land is one of the big reasons we can't afford nice things.
    It sounds like a very large transfer of power to councils - which is (depending on the details) probably a very good thing.

    And possibly makes them more significant players in the housing market than they have been since Thatcher.

    Definitely not boring.
    All building is good at this point, but how many people aspire to be allocated a council house?
    All those who can't get any other sort of house...
  • Options
    Nigelb said:

    I still think this is the big story this morning.

    Labour plans to allow local authorities to buy land cheaply for development
    Exclusive: If elected next year, party would allow officials to buy up land at fraction of potential cost as part of ‘pro-building’ agenda
    https://amp.theguardian.com/politics/2023/may/29/labour-allow-local-authorities-buy-land-cheaply-for-development

    This line sums up everything that is broken with our planning system.

    An analysis by the Centre for Progressive Policy in 2018 found that planning permission inflated the price of agricultural land by 275 times, pushing it up from £22,520 per hectare to £6.2m per hectare.

    And still we have people on this site pushing the myth that planning is not the root of the problem.

    Planning permission being granted should not inflate the price of land. The fact that it does by a factor of 27,500% sums up everything wrong with the system.
  • Options
    Andy_CookeAndy_Cooke Posts: 4,852
    Sandpit said:

    Nigelb said:

    Nigelb said:

    I still think this is the big story this morning.

    Labour plans to allow local authorities to buy land cheaply for development
    Exclusive: If elected next year, party would allow officials to buy up land at fraction of potential cost as part of ‘pro-building’ agenda
    https://amp.theguardian.com/politics/2023/may/29/labour-allow-local-authorities-buy-land-cheaply-for-development

    I think it's an example of something I said a while back- to get big changes to happen, you can either excite the public by emphasising the bigness, or soothe them by making them sound boring and technical.

    This sounds dull, but is probably dead important. After all, the money that goes to owners of arbitrarily rationed developable land is one of the big reasons we can't afford nice things.
    It sounds like a very large transfer of power to councils - which is (depending on the details) probably a very good thing.

    And possibly makes them more significant players in the housing market than they have been since Thatcher.

    Definitely not boring.
    All building is good at this point, but how many people aspire to be allocated a council house?
    The nearly 100,000 households in temporary accommodation would probably like one.
    Especially the 10,000 families in B&B-style accommodation.
  • Options
    UnpopularUnpopular Posts: 819
    Sandpit said:

    Nigelb said:

    Nigelb said:

    I still think this is the big story this morning.

    Labour plans to allow local authorities to buy land cheaply for development
    Exclusive: If elected next year, party would allow officials to buy up land at fraction of potential cost as part of ‘pro-building’ agenda
    https://amp.theguardian.com/politics/2023/may/29/labour-allow-local-authorities-buy-land-cheaply-for-development

    I think it's an example of something I said a while back- to get big changes to happen, you can either excite the public by emphasising the bigness, or soothe them by making them sound boring and technical.

    This sounds dull, but is probably dead important. After all, the money that goes to owners of arbitrarily rationed developable land is one of the big reasons we can't afford nice things.
    It sounds like a very large transfer of power to councils - which is (depending on the details) probably a very good thing.

    And possibly makes them more significant players in the housing market than they have been since Thatcher.

    Definitely not boring.
    All building is good at this point, but how many people aspire to be allocated a council house?
    Would this change allow Councils to purchase land cheaply and then sell off the houses under a right to buy? Could be a powerful money spinner for the Council.
  • Options
    Unpopular said:

    Sandpit said:

    Nigelb said:

    Nigelb said:

    I still think this is the big story this morning.

    Labour plans to allow local authorities to buy land cheaply for development
    Exclusive: If elected next year, party would allow officials to buy up land at fraction of potential cost as part of ‘pro-building’ agenda
    https://amp.theguardian.com/politics/2023/may/29/labour-allow-local-authorities-buy-land-cheaply-for-development

    I think it's an example of something I said a while back- to get big changes to happen, you can either excite the public by emphasising the bigness, or soothe them by making them sound boring and technical.

    This sounds dull, but is probably dead important. After all, the money that goes to owners of arbitrarily rationed developable land is one of the big reasons we can't afford nice things.
    It sounds like a very large transfer of power to councils - which is (depending on the details) probably a very good thing.

    And possibly makes them more significant players in the housing market than they have been since Thatcher.

    Definitely not boring.
    All building is good at this point, but how many people aspire to be allocated a council house?
    Would this change allow Councils to purchase land cheaply and then sell off the houses under a right to buy? Could be a powerful money spinner for the Council.
    While ideally fixing the planning system would be a preferred solution, that combination would be much better than nothing.

    At the moment Starmer is at least trying to tackle the problems in the country, and Sunak is just putting his head in the sand and siding with NIMBYs.

    I hate to say it, but at this rate I'll end up voting Labour at the next election. And I still don't like Labour, but there seems to be no alternative. :(
  • Options
    glwglw Posts: 9,595

    What's interesting is that Moscow is hundreds of kilometres from the Ukrainian border, and yet the Russia air-defence systems only take them out over Moscow, despite Russia's much-vaunted detection systems. Shades of Mathias Rust?

    The evidence from the last 15 months is that a Russian claim about their military and equipment is either a wild exaggeration or an outright lie. I can't think of any other nation in living memory who has seen their image implode to the extent Russia's has.

    We know the bomber gap was a mirage, but I now wonder how wrong the West was about the Soviet military throughout the entire Cold War.
  • Options
    noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 21,343
    Nigelb said:

    Is there a Betfair market ?
    Ought to be more interesting odds than offered for Labour majority.

    I would like to back the tie! At about 20/1 or so.
  • Options
    JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 39,635
    I went for a pre-brekkie stroll this morning, across the Itchen Bridge and into Woolston. There are now large, modern tower blocks where the old Vosper Thornycroft shipyard used to be. I chatted to an old man, who purchased one of the flats as a new-build (he moved back to the area after 30 years away). He said the main problem was that all the original owners had already moved out, and were renting, generally as short lets. This meant the tenants cared less for the area. Also, they had been promised a supermarket than had not been built, and the local shops were very expensive (I assume high ground rent).

    On the other hand, the area is much tidier than when VT was there; and he was amazed that people now swim off the 'beach' at Weston.

    It was interesting to hear a local's view on a new high-density development.
  • Options
    another_richardanother_richard Posts: 25,382
    Sandpit said:

    Nigelb said:

    Nigelb said:

    I still think this is the big story this morning.

    Labour plans to allow local authorities to buy land cheaply for development
    Exclusive: If elected next year, party would allow officials to buy up land at fraction of potential cost as part of ‘pro-building’ agenda
    https://amp.theguardian.com/politics/2023/may/29/labour-allow-local-authorities-buy-land-cheaply-for-development

    I think it's an example of something I said a while back- to get big changes to happen, you can either excite the public by emphasising the bigness, or soothe them by making them sound boring and technical.

    This sounds dull, but is probably dead important. After all, the money that goes to owners of arbitrarily rationed developable land is one of the big reasons we can't afford nice things.
    It sounds like a very large transfer of power to councils - which is (depending on the details) probably a very good thing.

    And possibly makes them more significant players in the housing market than they have been since Thatcher.

    Definitely not boring.
    All building is good at this point, but how many people aspire to be allocated a council house?
    One factor is where the council house is.

    By 1980 council housing had become associated with slums in the sky and edge of conurbation sink estates or in the worst cases slums in the sky in edge of conurbation sink estates.

    A thin scattering about of council houses, especially in unaffordable rural areas, would work better.
  • Options
    ClippPClippP Posts: 1,780
    HYUFD said:

    Cicero said:

    The SNP currently has 45 seats, the Lib Dems 14.

    There are two moving targets: SNP losses and Lib Dem gains. Both are now the central case.

    The question is how many seats change hands in each category.

    If the SNP lose net 15 seats, they are down to 30. If the Lib Dems gain 16, they are up to 30.

    Even leaving aside the "Blue Wall" in the Home Counties, there are quite a few ex Lib Dem seats in Devon and Somerset, plus places like Cheltenham, that look nailed on for the Lib Dems next time. Equally, there are at least 15 seats that look like Labour gains from the SNP, especially in the the greater Glasgow area, and I see no SNP surge against the Tories in the North East and the Borders, so no likely SNP gains.

    If counties like Surrey also swing Lib Dem, then Ed Davey will outdo Paddy Ashdown for gains.

    I think the odds favour the Lib Dems over the SNP at this point.

    In a change from 1997, it looks likely the LDs will win more MPs in Surrey, Oxfordshire and Hertfordshire than Cornwall, Devon and Somerset. The Brexit effect
    Which seats do you think are likely to fall to the Lib Dems in each group, young HY?
  • Options
    tlg86tlg86 Posts: 25,460
    kjh said:

    Sandpit said:

    tlg86 said:

    ydoethur said:

    I thought the only way the Lib Dems become the third party was if the SNP imploded but the way the blue wall is going it is entirely possible for the Lib Dems to become the third party even if the SNP don't lose many seats.

    They would need to win 38 to overtake the SNP.

    Have they ever gained that many in one election? I'm pretty sure the answer's 'not since 1923.'
    28 in 1997 is the most recent record.

    See, I've started to do some deep dives, and I've started wondering if seats like Epsom & Ewell might be in play, add in tactical ABC voting, with Labour voters voting tactically en masse and you'd need only a 7.5% swing on top of that to overturn a near 18,000 majority.


    You only have to look at that very seat in 1997 to see that tactical voting is tricky in such seats.
    Labour aren’t going to soft-pedal seats like that, at least not if they are thinking about a majority. They’ll want to split the Con/LD vote and hope to come through the middle.
    If Labour ever win Epsom and Ewell there won't be a single Tory left in the rest of the country.
    I disagree. Labour winning in Epsom and Ewell would be reminiscent of Labour winning Hastings and Rye in 1997.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hastings_and_Rye_(UK_Parliament_constituency)#Elections_in_the_1990s

    In Hasting and Rye in 1992, the Tories had a 12.3 percentage point lead over the Lib Dems and a 31.8 percentage point lead over Labour.

    In Epsom and Ewell in 2019, the Tories had a 30.1 percentage point lead over the Lib Dems and a 36.3 percentage point lead over Labour.

    So whilst Labour start further back in Epsom and Ewell, the Lib Dems are much further back than they were in Hasting and Rye.

    Yes, I know, boundary changes etc., but I think the point stands.

    Overall, there were 235 seats with a bigger Tory share of the vote in 2019 than Epsom and Ewell. It really isn't Tory heartland.
  • Options
    Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 56,932

    Nigelb said:

    Is there a Betfair market ?
    Ought to be more interesting odds than offered for Labour majority.

    I would like to back the tie! At about 20/1 or so.
    You need to talk to @TheScreamingEagles about his George Osborne experience in 2012.
  • Options
    BartholomewRobertsBartholomewRoberts Posts: 19,301
    edited May 2023

    I went for a pre-brekkie stroll this morning, across the Itchen Bridge and into Woolston. There are now large, modern tower blocks where the old Vosper Thornycroft shipyard used to be. I chatted to an old man, who purchased one of the flats as a new-build (he moved back to the area after 30 years away). He said the main problem was that all the original owners had already moved out, and were renting, generally as short lets. This meant the tenants cared less for the area. Also, they had been promised a supermarket than had not been built, and the local shops were very expensive (I assume high ground rent).

    On the other hand, the area is much tidier than when VT was there; and he was amazed that people now swim off the 'beach' at Weston.

    It was interesting to hear a local's view on a new high-density development.

    BiB: This is another part of the problem with the broken rentier economic model some want to push.

    Owner occupiers look after and care for their home and its surrounding area much better than BTL landlords and tenants do.

    Our housing model will be fixed when there are sufficient empty houses that slumlords who buy to let end up having to pay their own mortgage, as they find that there's no tenants who want to let it because they can either let a well maintained home instead at an affordable amount or buy their own instead.
  • Options
    JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 39,635
    boulay said:

    Sandpit said:
    The chap on R4 from RUSI made a good point this morning that this attack not so clever as it bolsters Putin when he claims Russia being attacked by west etc (despite the west not supplying that kit or planning) and will make donors feel concerned about providing weapons that can strike into Russia.

    Morally Ukraine should be able to blow the shit out of anywhere in Russia but in Ukraine’s interest to be the good guys whatever provocation.
    There is that - although it is annoying to force Ukraine to fight with one hand tied behind its back.

    However there might be a strategy over this; like the incursion into Belgorod, it may force Russia to move forces around, to protect more of their territory and deplete the forces at the active front. In this case, and air defence moved away from the front to protect Moscow or other settlements they care about, cannot be used to defend the front.
  • Options
    SandpitSandpit Posts: 50,756

    Sandpit said:
    Sounds like quite a 'heavy' attack: some reports say over 30 drones; plus, of course, the remains of Russian anti-air missiles coming down as well.

    Which all leads to interesting speculation. A false flag by Russia? Ukraine giving back some of what they've been given? And attempt by Ukraine to get Russia to move more air defence from the front lines to rear areas such as Moscow or St Petersburg?

    What's interesting is that Moscow is hundreds of kilometres from the Ukrainian border, and yet the Russia air-defence systems only take them out over Moscow, despite Russia's much-vaunted detection systems. Shades of Mathias Rust?
    It does seem rather unlikely that a wave of drones launched from Ukraine, managed to make it close to Moscow undetected.

    Therefore the more likely options are some sort of Ukranian special forces operation, a pro-Ukraine Russian terrorist organisation, or a false flag by the Russian military.

    The bigger the scale, the more likely the latter options - I doubt that UA special forces can get 30 drones close to Moscow, unless they’ve been buying up DJIs from China and bringing them in that way.

    An interesting feature of Ukranian social media in the last few days, is that there are official posts telling people not to share photos online, the suggestion being that such photos can help the enemy calibrate and better target their attacks.
  • Options
    noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 21,343

    Nigelb said:

    I still think this is the big story this morning.

    Labour plans to allow local authorities to buy land cheaply for development
    Exclusive: If elected next year, party would allow officials to buy up land at fraction of potential cost as part of ‘pro-building’ agenda
    https://amp.theguardian.com/politics/2023/may/29/labour-allow-local-authorities-buy-land-cheaply-for-development

    This line sums up everything that is broken with our planning system.

    An analysis by the Centre for Progressive Policy in 2018 found that planning permission inflated the price of agricultural land by 275 times, pushing it up from £22,520 per hectare to £6.2m per hectare.

    And still we have people on this site pushing the myth that planning is not the root of the problem.

    Planning permission being granted should not inflate the price of land. The fact that it does by a factor of 27,500% sums up everything wrong with the system.
    On that basis if the govt mandated the auctioning off of 2% of agricultural land for housing, and attached a 50% windfall tax gain on the profits, we could halve the national debt.
  • Options
    Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 56,932
    I'm surprised no-one has mentioned this today. Sunak has a potential path, albeit it's a very narrow one.

    He has rather good favourability ratings with 25-40 year olds, particularly those in their 30s, who favour their taxes being lowered over redistribution. If he can solidify the 50-64 year old group and win a chunk of the older Millennials (big ask) then there's possibly a game still on:

    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/millennials-who-like-rishi-sunak-but-not-tories-could-help-him-win-lpsszkbd2



  • Options
    noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 21,343

    Nigelb said:

    Is there a Betfair market ?
    Ought to be more interesting odds than offered for Labour majority.

    I would like to back the tie! At about 20/1 or so.
    You need to talk to @TheScreamingEagles about his George Osborne experience in 2012.
    Need I check if this involves Mrs Osborne snr first?
  • Options
    NerysHughesNerysHughes Posts: 3,375

    I went for a pre-brekkie stroll this morning, across the Itchen Bridge and into Woolston. There are now large, modern tower blocks where the old Vosper Thornycroft shipyard used to be. I chatted to an old man, who purchased one of the flats as a new-build (he moved back to the area after 30 years away). He said the main problem was that all the original owners had already moved out, and were renting, generally as short lets. This meant the tenants cared less for the area. Also, they had been promised a supermarket than had not been built, and the local shops were very expensive (I assume high ground rent).

    On the other hand, the area is much tidier than when VT was there; and he was amazed that people now swim off the 'beach' at Weston.

    It was interesting to hear a local's view on a new high-density development.

    There is a Lidl supermarket right next to the new flats. I work with someone who lives in a Housing Association flat within the new development, he is very happy there. His one complaint was that he did use to have a "sea view" until they built another block in the way.
  • Options
    noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 21,343

    I'm surprised no-one has mentioned this today. Sunak has a potential path, albeit it's a very narrow one.

    He has rather good favourability ratings with 25-40 year olds, particularly those in their 30s, who favour their taxes being lowered over redistribution. If he can solidify the 50-64 year old group and win a chunk of the older Millennials (big ask) then there's possibly a game still on:

    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/millennials-who-like-rishi-sunak-but-not-tories-could-help-him-win-lpsszkbd2



    A cabinet of Rishi's would be competitive. But then Braverman or Jenrick or Coffey or Cleverly etc come out and cause him problems, and time after time he does not deal with them until its too late.
  • Options
    boulayboulay Posts: 4,599
    Sandpit said:

    Sandpit said:
    Sounds like quite a 'heavy' attack: some reports say over 30 drones; plus, of course, the remains of Russian anti-air missiles coming down as well.

    Which all leads to interesting speculation. A false flag by Russia? Ukraine giving back some of what they've been given? And attempt by Ukraine to get Russia to move more air defence from the front lines to rear areas such as Moscow or St Petersburg?

    What's interesting is that Moscow is hundreds of kilometres from the Ukrainian border, and yet the Russia air-defence systems only take them out over Moscow, despite Russia's much-vaunted detection systems. Shades of Mathias Rust?
    It does seem rather unlikely that a wave of drones launched from Ukraine, managed to make it close to Moscow undetected.

    Therefore the more likely options are some sort of Ukranian special forces operation, a pro-Ukraine Russian terrorist organisation, or a false flag by the Russian military.

    The bigger the scale, the more likely the latter options - I doubt that UA special forces can get 30 drones close to Moscow, unless they’ve been buying up DJIs from China and bringing them in that way.

    An interesting feature of Ukranian social media in the last few days, is that there are official posts telling people not to share photos online, the suggestion being that such photos can help the enemy calibrate and better target their attacks.
    The RUSI person pointed out that these drones are so low tech, materials, altitude and speed, that it’s really hard to pick them up on radar so modern air defences actually are at a disadvantage.
  • Options
    DougSealDougSeal Posts: 11,796
    Britain Elects
    @BritainElects
    Westminster voting intention:

    LAB: 43% (+1)
    CON: 28% (-2)
    LDEM: 12% (-1)
    GRN: 7% (+3)
    REF: 5% (-)

    via
    @RedfieldWilton
    , 28 May

    https://twitter.com/BritainElects/status/1663451175151366144?ref_src=twsrc^google|twcamp^serp|twgr^tweet
  • Options
    kinabalukinabalu Posts: 39,795

    Nigelb said:

    I still think this is the big story this morning.

    Labour plans to allow local authorities to buy land cheaply for development
    Exclusive: If elected next year, party would allow officials to buy up land at fraction of potential cost as part of ‘pro-building’ agenda
    https://amp.theguardian.com/politics/2023/may/29/labour-allow-local-authorities-buy-land-cheaply-for-development

    I think it's an example of something I said a while back- to get big changes to happen, you can either excite the public by emphasising the bigness, or soothe them by making them sound boring and technical.

    This sounds dull, but is probably dead important. After all, the money that goes to owners of arbitrarily rationed developable land is one of the big reasons we can't afford nice things.
    Said to me in fact in reply to my 'campaign in prose, govern in poetry' musings about Starmer Labour. It's evidence that (in a subversion of the norm) the reality of PM Starmer could be more radical and interesting than the image. And, yes, perhaps the two things are related, the bland image facilitating punchy policies. As Gordon Brown might have put it, it's blandness with a purpose.
  • Options
    SandpitSandpit Posts: 50,756
    edited May 2023

    I'm surprised no-one has mentioned this today. Sunak has a potential path, albeit it's a very narrow one.

    He has rather good favourability ratings with 25-40 year olds, particularly those in their 30s, who favour their taxes being lowered over redistribution. If he can solidify the 50-64 year old group and win a chunk of the older Millennials (big ask) then there's possibly a game still on:

    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/millennials-who-like-rishi-sunak-but-not-tories-could-help-him-win-lpsszkbd2



    The answer for Mr Sunak is obvious, and Labour are making the running on it this morning. Face down the NIMBYs.

    Build. More. Houses.
  • Options
    SandpitSandpit Posts: 50,756

    Nigelb said:

    I still think this is the big story this morning.

    Labour plans to allow local authorities to buy land cheaply for development
    Exclusive: If elected next year, party would allow officials to buy up land at fraction of potential cost as part of ‘pro-building’ agenda
    https://amp.theguardian.com/politics/2023/may/29/labour-allow-local-authorities-buy-land-cheaply-for-development

    This line sums up everything that is broken with our planning system.

    An analysis by the Centre for Progressive Policy in 2018 found that planning permission inflated the price of agricultural land by 275 times, pushing it up from £22,520 per hectare to £6.2m per hectare.

    And still we have people on this site pushing the myth that planning is not the root of the problem.

    Planning permission being granted should not inflate the price of land. The fact that it does by a factor of 27,500% sums up everything wrong with the system.
    On that basis if the govt mandated the auctioning off of 2% of agricultural land for housing, and attached a 50% windfall tax gain on the profits, we could halve the national debt.
    That’s like saying that if we doubled the income tax rates to 40%, 80%, and 90%, we’d double the tax take.

    The total land area covered in housing is around 5% at the moment, so you’d be adding 40% to housing land, which would dramatically reduce the uplift, while still adding about £50k in tax to the average cost of a new-build house.
  • Options
    JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 39,635

    I went for a pre-brekkie stroll this morning, across the Itchen Bridge and into Woolston. There are now large, modern tower blocks where the old Vosper Thornycroft shipyard used to be. I chatted to an old man, who purchased one of the flats as a new-build (he moved back to the area after 30 years away). He said the main problem was that all the original owners had already moved out, and were renting, generally as short lets. This meant the tenants cared less for the area. Also, they had been promised a supermarket than had not been built, and the local shops were very expensive (I assume high ground rent).

    On the other hand, the area is much tidier than when VT was there; and he was amazed that people now swim off the 'beach' at Weston.

    It was interesting to hear a local's view on a new high-density development.

    There is a Lidl supermarket right next to the new flats. I work with someone who lives in a Housing Association flat within the new development, he is very happy there. His one complaint was that he did use to have a "sea view" until they built another block in the way.
    The gent mentioned a Morrisons (I was actually talking to him outside the Lidl!) As ever, different perspectives from different people.
  • Options

    I'm surprised no-one has mentioned this today. Sunak has a potential path, albeit it's a very narrow one.

    He has rather good favourability ratings with 25-40 year olds, particularly those in their 30s, who favour their taxes being lowered over redistribution. If he can solidify the 50-64 year old group and win a chunk of the older Millennials (big ask) then there's possibly a game still on:

    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/millennials-who-like-rishi-sunak-but-not-tories-could-help-him-win-lpsszkbd2



    If Sunak wants to win a chunk of Millennials then siding with retirees and NIMBYs every time doesn't seem to be a good way to go about it.

    Sunak is running a hardcore core vote strategy. He's not aiming for the middle. Its a losing strategy and it deserves to lose unless he changes course.
  • Options
    HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 117,972
    edited May 2023
    Sandpit said:

    I'm surprised no-one has mentioned this today. Sunak has a potential path, albeit it's a very narrow one.

    He has rather good favourability ratings with 25-40 year olds, particularly those in their 30s, who favour their taxes being lowered over redistribution. If he can solidify the 50-64 year old group and win a chunk of the older Millennials (big ask) then there's possibly a game still on:

    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/millennials-who-like-rishi-sunak-but-not-tories-could-help-him-win-lpsszkbd2



    The answer for Mr Sunak is obvious, and Labour are making the running on it this morning.

    Build. More. Houses.
    Not really.

    The main swing to Labour since 2019 is from 40-65 year olds who own their own home with a mortgage after the cost of living rise and Truss and Kwarteng budget disaster. Most under 40 renters voted Labour in 2019 even when the Tories won a landslide nationally.

    Yes it might be nice to get more 30 to 40 year olds on the housing ladder and win a few more Tory voters from younger age groups at general elections but as 2019 proved the Tories can win without them. Building more homes in the greenbelt also sees more over 50s vote LD or Independent locally, as the local elections this month proved when the Tories lost control of most of their southern and home counties councils in a NIMBY revolt over Tory councils local plans to allow more homes to be built on green fields near them

  • Options
    SandpitSandpit Posts: 50,756

    Nigelb said:

    I still think this is the big story this morning.

    Labour plans to allow local authorities to buy land cheaply for development
    Exclusive: If elected next year, party would allow officials to buy up land at fraction of potential cost as part of ‘pro-building’ agenda
    https://amp.theguardian.com/politics/2023/may/29/labour-allow-local-authorities-buy-land-cheaply-for-development

    This line sums up everything that is broken with our planning system.

    An analysis by the Centre for Progressive Policy in 2018 found that planning permission inflated the price of agricultural land by 275 times, pushing it up from £22,520 per hectare to £6.2m per hectare.

    And still we have people on this site pushing the myth that planning is not the root of the problem.

    Planning permission being granted should not inflate the price of land. The fact that it does by a factor of 27,500% sums up everything wrong with the system.
    Because it costs millions to get planning permission for agri land, involving numerous studies and surveys, and making sure there’s a relocation plan for the newts and otters. A bonfire of planning red tape, would decrease that uplift considerably and reduce the cost of new-build housing.
  • Options
    kjhkjh Posts: 10,855
    tlg86 said:

    kjh said:

    Sandpit said:

    tlg86 said:

    ydoethur said:

    I thought the only way the Lib Dems become the third party was if the SNP imploded but the way the blue wall is going it is entirely possible for the Lib Dems to become the third party even if the SNP don't lose many seats.

    They would need to win 38 to overtake the SNP.

    Have they ever gained that many in one election? I'm pretty sure the answer's 'not since 1923.'
    28 in 1997 is the most recent record.

    See, I've started to do some deep dives, and I've started wondering if seats like Epsom & Ewell might be in play, add in tactical ABC voting, with Labour voters voting tactically en masse and you'd need only a 7.5% swing on top of that to overturn a near 18,000 majority.


    You only have to look at that very seat in 1997 to see that tactical voting is tricky in such seats.
    Labour aren’t going to soft-pedal seats like that, at least not if they are thinking about a majority. They’ll want to split the Con/LD vote and hope to come through the middle.
    If Labour ever win Epsom and Ewell there won't be a single Tory left in the rest of the country.
    I disagree. Labour winning in Epsom and Ewell would be reminiscent of Labour winning Hastings and Rye in 1997.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hastings_and_Rye_(UK_Parliament_constituency)#Elections_in_the_1990s

    In Hasting and Rye in 1992, the Tories had a 12.3 percentage point lead over the Lib Dems and a 31.8 percentage point lead over Labour.

    In Epsom and Ewell in 2019, the Tories had a 30.1 percentage point lead over the Lib Dems and a 36.3 percentage point lead over Labour.

    So whilst Labour start further back in Epsom and Ewell, the Lib Dems are much further back than they were in Hasting and Rye.

    Yes, I know, boundary changes etc., but I think the point stands.

    Overall, there were 235 seats with a bigger Tory share of the vote in 2019 than Epsom and Ewell. It really isn't Tory heartland.
    @tlg86 I think they are very different. Hastings and Rye went through some significant social changes. There definitely are seats where Labour power through from 3rd like H&R. I don't see E&E being one.
  • Options
    noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 21,343
    Sandpit said:

    Nigelb said:

    I still think this is the big story this morning.

    Labour plans to allow local authorities to buy land cheaply for development
    Exclusive: If elected next year, party would allow officials to buy up land at fraction of potential cost as part of ‘pro-building’ agenda
    https://amp.theguardian.com/politics/2023/may/29/labour-allow-local-authorities-buy-land-cheaply-for-development

    This line sums up everything that is broken with our planning system.

    An analysis by the Centre for Progressive Policy in 2018 found that planning permission inflated the price of agricultural land by 275 times, pushing it up from £22,520 per hectare to £6.2m per hectare.

    And still we have people on this site pushing the myth that planning is not the root of the problem.

    Planning permission being granted should not inflate the price of land. The fact that it does by a factor of 27,500% sums up everything wrong with the system.
    On that basis if the govt mandated the auctioning off of 2% of agricultural land for housing, and attached a 50% windfall tax gain on the profits, we could halve the national debt.
    That’s like saying that if we doubled the income tax rates to 40%, 80%, and 90%, we’d double the tax take.

    The total land area covered in housing is around 5% at the moment, so you’d be adding 40% to housing land, which would dramatically reduce the uplift, while still adding about £50k in tax to the average cost of a new-build house.
    Obviously doesn't need to be done in one go, could be over a generation or two, and numbers just for illustration of tax opportunity than a suggestion.

    Given we are really struggling for areas that can generate significant tax, and need to build shedloads of houses, windfall gains on planning permission should absolutely be shared with the state instead of split between farmers, developers and dodgy councillors.
  • Options
    CookieCookie Posts: 11,897
    Unpopular said:

    Sandpit said:

    Nigelb said:

    Nigelb said:

    I still think this is the big story this morning.

    Labour plans to allow local authorities to buy land cheaply for development
    Exclusive: If elected next year, party would allow officials to buy up land at fraction of potential cost as part of ‘pro-building’ agenda
    https://amp.theguardian.com/politics/2023/may/29/labour-allow-local-authorities-buy-land-cheaply-for-development

    I think it's an example of something I said a while back- to get big changes to happen, you can either excite the public by emphasising the bigness, or soothe them by making them sound boring and technical.

    This sounds dull, but is probably dead important. After all, the money that goes to owners of arbitrarily rationed developable land is one of the big reasons we can't afford nice things.
    It sounds like a very large transfer of power to councils - which is (depending on the details) probably a very good thing.

    And possibly makes them more significant players in the housing market than they have been since Thatcher.

    Definitely not boring.
    All building is good at this point, but how many people aspire to be allocated a council house?
    Would this change allow Councils to purchase land cheaply and then sell off the houses under a right to buy? Could be a powerful money spinner for the Council.
    I'm quite pleased by this policy announcement.

    All serious policies have winners and losers, of course, and governing is just about balancing them appropriately. But non-homeowners have been getting the shitty end of the stick pretty much ever since I can remember.

    My view is that we need more housing of all tenures. If all this does is build big council estates, it's still a positive. But (with apologies for rehashing a hobbyhorse of mine) what I'd really like to see if the public sector as private developer - or, rather, as developer of mixed neighbourhoods. One problem with the current model of delivery is that all building impacts the existing population: visual impact, environmental impact, severance, increased traffic, and so on - but developers - quite reasonably - have an interest only in what they sell to their customers; they need planning permission, but that is pretty binary. If councils were able to develop themselves, they could not only provide the housing stock (of all tenures) that they require but also improve the lot of the existing population. And also, as noted above, recycle revenues back into the public purse.

    As with any potentially good policy, there are risks and there are downsides: the risk is that the public sector hasn't got the best of records for developing lovely neighbourhoods. But I think we have moved on sufficiently since the 60s that that risk can at least be managed. And the downside is that less profit will go to landowners. I'm trying to think of a way of phrasing this which doesn't sound like 'hooray, the baddies lose out' because that is not what I mean; it's genuinely to be regretted, because profit provides incentive to do things, and also because landowners [sorry - f key has packed in] oten aren't top-hatted baddies but are broadly owned companies in which many pension unds have shares. It's just that in my view loss o proit to devlopers is to be regretted less than a serious shortage o housing.
  • Options

    Sandpit said:

    Nigelb said:

    I still think this is the big story this morning.

    Labour plans to allow local authorities to buy land cheaply for development
    Exclusive: If elected next year, party would allow officials to buy up land at fraction of potential cost as part of ‘pro-building’ agenda
    https://amp.theguardian.com/politics/2023/may/29/labour-allow-local-authorities-buy-land-cheaply-for-development

    This line sums up everything that is broken with our planning system.

    An analysis by the Centre for Progressive Policy in 2018 found that planning permission inflated the price of agricultural land by 275 times, pushing it up from £22,520 per hectare to £6.2m per hectare.

    And still we have people on this site pushing the myth that planning is not the root of the problem.

    Planning permission being granted should not inflate the price of land. The fact that it does by a factor of 27,500% sums up everything wrong with the system.
    On that basis if the govt mandated the auctioning off of 2% of agricultural land for housing, and attached a 50% windfall tax gain on the profits, we could halve the national debt.
    That’s like saying that if we doubled the income tax rates to 40%, 80%, and 90%, we’d double the tax take.

    The total land area covered in housing is around 5% at the moment, so you’d be adding 40% to housing land, which would dramatically reduce the uplift, while still adding about £50k in tax to the average cost of a new-build house.
    Obviously doesn't need to be done in one go, could be over a generation or two, and numbers just for illustration of tax opportunity than a suggestion.

    Given we are really struggling for areas that can generate significant tax, and need to build shedloads of houses, windfall gains on planning permission should absolutely be shared with the state instead of split between farmers, developers and dodgy councillors.
    Or reform the system to eliminate the windfall gains so that buyers pay less.

    Just a suggestion.
  • Options
    HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 117,972
    edited May 2023
    ClippP said:

    HYUFD said:

    Cicero said:

    The SNP currently has 45 seats, the Lib Dems 14.

    There are two moving targets: SNP losses and Lib Dem gains. Both are now the central case.

    The question is how many seats change hands in each category.

    If the SNP lose net 15 seats, they are down to 30. If the Lib Dems gain 16, they are up to 30.

    Even leaving aside the "Blue Wall" in the Home Counties, there are quite a few ex Lib Dem seats in Devon and Somerset, plus places like Cheltenham, that look nailed on for the Lib Dems next time. Equally, there are at least 15 seats that look like Labour gains from the SNP, especially in the the greater Glasgow area, and I see no SNP surge against the Tories in the North East and the Borders, so no likely SNP gains.

    If counties like Surrey also swing Lib Dem, then Ed Davey will outdo Paddy Ashdown for gains.

    I think the odds favour the Lib Dems over the SNP at this point.

    In a change from 1997, it looks likely the LDs will win more MPs in Surrey, Oxfordshire and Hertfordshire than Cornwall, Devon and Somerset. The Brexit effect
    Which seats do you think are likely to fall to the Lib Dems in each group, young HY?
    Guildford, Esher and Walton, Surrey SW, Woking and Mole Valley in Surrey. Wantage and Henley in Oxfordshire and in Hertfordshire the LDs could gain Hitchen and Harpenden to add to their gain of St Albans in 2019
  • Options
    NigelbNigelb Posts: 64,113
    Dura_Ace said:

    Nigelb said:

    I still think this is the big story this morning.

    Labour plans to allow local authorities to buy land cheaply for development
    Exclusive: If elected next year, party would allow officials to buy up land at fraction of potential cost as part of ‘pro-building’ agenda
    https://amp.theguardian.com/politics/2023/may/29/labour-allow-local-authorities-buy-land-cheaply-for-development

    I think it's an example of something I said a while back- to get big changes to happen, you can either excite the public by emphasising the bigness, or soothe them by making them sound boring and technical.

    This sounds dull, but is probably dead important. After all, the money that goes to owners of arbitrarily rationed developable land is one of the big reasons we can't afford nice things.
    The tories may have to decide whether it is politically less damaging to steal this policy than to oppose it. Of course, the actuality utility of it is of no moment to them.
    It's a quandary for them. Not an easy policy for them to steal - particularly this close to an election - and get a net benefit from.
    The utility of the policy is obvious - with the proviso that the details will determine just how useful it is.
  • Options
    JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 39,635
    In other news, it looks as though the environmental @sshats who delayed the A428 Black Cat to Caxton Gibbett upgrade have finally been defeated in court, and work can begin.

    Hurrah!

    It's already been delayed six months, and allegedly the delay has cost a lot of money.

    https://www.geplus.co.uk/news/a428-black-cat-road-scheme-to-go-ahead-as-legal-action-ends-26-05-2023/
  • Options
    StuartinromfordStuartinromford Posts: 15,206

    I'm surprised no-one has mentioned this today. Sunak has a potential path, albeit it's a very narrow one.

    He has rather good favourability ratings with 25-40 year olds, particularly those in their 30s, who favour their taxes being lowered over redistribution. If he can solidify the 50-64 year old group and win a chunk of the older Millennials (big ask) then there's possibly a game still on:

    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/millennials-who-like-rishi-sunak-but-not-tories-could-help-him-win-lpsszkbd2



    There's always a potential path in the future. If we get to spring 2024 and the Conservatives are still well behind, they will wait until the autumn to call the general election, even if that risks them doing even worse. And that will be the rational thing to do.

    There's always hope. Even if it's the John Cleese in Clockwise "It's not the despair, Laura. I can take the despair. It's the hope I can't stand." sort of hope. And it won't be easy to please the Sunak-curious millenials without annoying an equal number of older voters.

    I wonder why the thirtysomethings are relatively keen on Sunak and the fiftysomethings relatively unkeen? (First guess, gen X really don't like having a PM obviously younger than us erm.. them.)

    The Onward report found millennials were more likely to reject the “vibes” of the Conservative Party, with 62 per cent believing the party deserves to lose the next general election.

    In focus groups, it was found the top three descriptions of the party were “dishonest”, “incompetent” and “out of touch”.

    They were more favourable towards Sunak. Feedback included that he “might be able to sort the economy out” and “if he can’t solve it for Tories, nobody can”.
  • Options
    kjhkjh Posts: 10,855
    edited May 2023
    ClippP said:

    HYUFD said:

    Cicero said:

    The SNP currently has 45 seats, the Lib Dems 14.

    There are two moving targets: SNP losses and Lib Dem gains. Both are now the central case.

    The question is how many seats change hands in each category.

    If the SNP lose net 15 seats, they are down to 30. If the Lib Dems gain 16, they are up to 30.

    Even leaving aside the "Blue Wall" in the Home Counties, there are quite a few ex Lib Dem seats in Devon and Somerset, plus places like Cheltenham, that look nailed on for the Lib Dems next time. Equally, there are at least 15 seats that look like Labour gains from the SNP, especially in the the greater Glasgow area, and I see no SNP surge against the Tories in the North East and the Borders, so no likely SNP gains.

    If counties like Surrey also swing Lib Dem, then Ed Davey will outdo Paddy Ashdown for gains.

    I think the odds favour the Lib Dems over the SNP at this point.

    In a change from 1997, it looks likely the LDs will win more MPs in Surrey, Oxfordshire and Hertfordshire than Cornwall, Devon and Somerset. The Brexit effect
    Which seats do you think are likely to fall to the Lib Dems in each group, young HY?
    It would be good to hear @HYUFD list and his comments on my list posted below. It isn't often I am aligned with @hyufd but I think I am on this topic. My area in Surrey is all blue, every seat around me will be a LD target. At least 6 of them.
  • Options
    Beibheirli_CBeibheirli_C Posts: 7,986

    I'm surprised no-one has mentioned this today. Sunak has a potential path, albeit it's a very narrow one.

    He has rather good favourability ratings with 25-40 year olds, particularly those in their 30s, who favour their taxes being lowered over redistribution. If he can solidify the 50-64 year old group and win a chunk of the older Millennials (big ask) then there's possibly a game still on:

    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/millennials-who-like-rishi-sunak-but-not-tories-could-help-him-win-lpsszkbd2



    If Sunak wants to win a chunk of Millennials then siding with retirees and NIMBYs every time doesn't seem to be a good way to go about it.

    Sunak is running a hardcore core vote strategy. He's not aiming for the middle. Its a losing strategy and it deserves to lose unless he changes course.
    The problem with Casino's theory is that only one constituency votes for Sunak, the rest of us have to vote for the more tarnished Conservative brand, and even if you do vote Conservative, there is no guarantee that they will keep Sunak as PM. The right-wing nutters have ambitions...
  • Options
    noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 21,343

    Sandpit said:

    Nigelb said:

    I still think this is the big story this morning.

    Labour plans to allow local authorities to buy land cheaply for development
    Exclusive: If elected next year, party would allow officials to buy up land at fraction of potential cost as part of ‘pro-building’ agenda
    https://amp.theguardian.com/politics/2023/may/29/labour-allow-local-authorities-buy-land-cheaply-for-development

    This line sums up everything that is broken with our planning system.

    An analysis by the Centre for Progressive Policy in 2018 found that planning permission inflated the price of agricultural land by 275 times, pushing it up from £22,520 per hectare to £6.2m per hectare.

    And still we have people on this site pushing the myth that planning is not the root of the problem.

    Planning permission being granted should not inflate the price of land. The fact that it does by a factor of 27,500% sums up everything wrong with the system.
    On that basis if the govt mandated the auctioning off of 2% of agricultural land for housing, and attached a 50% windfall tax gain on the profits, we could halve the national debt.
    That’s like saying that if we doubled the income tax rates to 40%, 80%, and 90%, we’d double the tax take.

    The total land area covered in housing is around 5% at the moment, so you’d be adding 40% to housing land, which would dramatically reduce the uplift, while still adding about £50k in tax to the average cost of a new-build house.
    Obviously doesn't need to be done in one go, could be over a generation or two, and numbers just for illustration of tax opportunity than a suggestion.

    Given we are really struggling for areas that can generate significant tax, and need to build shedloads of houses, windfall gains on planning permission should absolutely be shared with the state instead of split between farmers, developers and dodgy councillors.
    Or reform the system to eliminate the windfall gains so that buyers pay less.

    Just a suggestion.
    Absolutely happy for some reforms to make it easier to build, penalise land banking so that buyers pay less. Not happy with virtually abandoning the idea of planning and leaving it entirely to the market as you have at times advocated for. As with everyone else, pretty convinced that would be a nightmare.
  • Options
    SandpitSandpit Posts: 50,756
    HYUFD said:

    Sandpit said:

    I'm surprised no-one has mentioned this today. Sunak has a potential path, albeit it's a very narrow one.

    He has rather good favourability ratings with 25-40 year olds, particularly those in their 30s, who favour their taxes being lowered over redistribution. If he can solidify the 50-64 year old group and win a chunk of the older Millennials (big ask) then there's possibly a game still on:

    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/millennials-who-like-rishi-sunak-but-not-tories-could-help-him-win-lpsszkbd2



    The answer for Mr Sunak is obvious, and Labour are making the running on it this morning.

    Build. More. Houses.
    Not really.

    The main swing to Labour since 2019 is from 40-65 year olds who own their own home with a mortgage after the cost of living rise and Truss and Kwarteng budget disaster. Most under 40 renters voted Labour in 2019 even when the Tories won a landslide nationally.

    Yes it might be nice to get more 30 to 40 year olds on the housing ladder and win a few more Tory voters from younger age groups at general elections but as 2019 proved the Tories can win without them. Building more homes in the greenbelt also sees more over 50s vote LD or Independent locally, as the local elections this month proved when the Tories lost control of most of their southern and home counties councils in a NIMBY revolt over Tory councils local plans to allow more homes to be built on green fields near them

    The calculation of voting at a GE is different to that a local elections though.

    Unless one thinks that the price of the LDs going into coalition with Labour, will be to bend over to the NIMBYs, the LDs having learned their lesson when they bent over on tuition fees last time out?

    IMHO, as someone generally preferring of a Conservative government, there’s plenty of evidence that today’s 30 somethings are not getting more conservative as they grow older, because they aren’t buying houses and not having children.

    As life expectancy rises, so people don’t inherit until their 50s and 60s, there’s at least as many pensioners worried about their children not being able to buy a house, as there are worried about their children’s inheritance. Which leads to the explosion in reverse mortgages, the next massive mis-selling scandal, and something I’ve just had to talk my own parents out of doing.
  • Options
    NigelbNigelb Posts: 64,113
    ydoethur said:

    Sandpit said:

    Nigelb said:

    Nigelb said:

    I still think this is the big story this morning.

    Labour plans to allow local authorities to buy land cheaply for development
    Exclusive: If elected next year, party would allow officials to buy up land at fraction of potential cost as part of ‘pro-building’ agenda
    https://amp.theguardian.com/politics/2023/may/29/labour-allow-local-authorities-buy-land-cheaply-for-development

    I think it's an example of something I said a while back- to get big changes to happen, you can either excite the public by emphasising the bigness, or soothe them by making them sound boring and technical.

    This sounds dull, but is probably dead important. After all, the money that goes to owners of arbitrarily rationed developable land is one of the big reasons we can't afford nice things.
    It sounds like a very large transfer of power to councils - which is (depending on the details) probably a very good thing.

    And possibly makes them more significant players in the housing market than they have been since Thatcher.

    Definitely not boring.
    All building is good at this point, but how many people aspire to be allocated a council house?
    All those who can't get any other sort of house...
    There are well over a million households on social housing waiting lists.
  • Options
    noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 21,343

    I'm surprised no-one has mentioned this today. Sunak has a potential path, albeit it's a very narrow one.

    He has rather good favourability ratings with 25-40 year olds, particularly those in their 30s, who favour their taxes being lowered over redistribution. If he can solidify the 50-64 year old group and win a chunk of the older Millennials (big ask) then there's possibly a game still on:

    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/millennials-who-like-rishi-sunak-but-not-tories-could-help-him-win-lpsszkbd2



    There's always a potential path in the future. If we get to spring 2024 and the Conservatives are still well behind, they will wait until the autumn to call the general election, even if that risks them doing even worse. And that will be the rational thing to do.

    There's always hope. Even if it's the John Cleese in Clockwise "It's not the despair, Laura. I can take the despair. It's the hope I can't stand." sort of hope. And it won't be easy to please the Sunak-curious millenials without annoying an equal number of older voters.

    I wonder why the thirtysomethings are relatively keen on Sunak and the fiftysomethings relatively unkeen? (First guess, gen X really don't like having a PM obviously younger than us erm.. them.)

    The Onward report found millennials were more likely to reject the “vibes” of the Conservative Party, with 62 per cent believing the party deserves to lose the next general election.

    In focus groups, it was found the top three descriptions of the party were “dishonest”, “incompetent” and “out of touch”.

    They were more favourable towards Sunak. Feedback included that he “might be able to sort the economy out” and “if he can’t solve it for Tories, nobody can”.
    Isnt it pretty obvious?

    Sunak ranks relatively higher in the Cameron, May, Johnson, Truss, Sunak group of PMs than he does in the Thatcher, Major, Blair, Brown, Cameron, May, Johnson, Truss, Sunak group of PMs.
  • Options
    NigelbNigelb Posts: 64,113
    Sandpit said:

    I'm surprised no-one has mentioned this today. Sunak has a potential path, albeit it's a very narrow one.

    He has rather good favourability ratings with 25-40 year olds, particularly those in their 30s, who favour their taxes being lowered over redistribution. If he can solidify the 50-64 year old group and win a chunk of the older Millennials (big ask) then there's possibly a game still on:

    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/millennials-who-like-rishi-sunak-but-not-tories-could-help-him-win-lpsszkbd2



    The answer for Mr Sunak is obvious, and Labour are making the running on it this morning. Face down the NIMBYs.

    Build. More. Houses.
    Probably. Too. Late.
  • Options
    148grss148grss Posts: 3,919
    edited May 2023
    Sandpit said:

    I'm surprised no-one has mentioned this today. Sunak has a potential path, albeit it's a very narrow one.

    He has rather good favourability ratings with 25-40 year olds, particularly those in their 30s, who favour their taxes being lowered over redistribution. If he can solidify the 50-64 year old group and win a chunk of the older Millennials (big ask) then there's possibly a game still on:

    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/millennials-who-like-rishi-sunak-but-not-tories-could-help-him-win-lpsszkbd2



    The answer for Mr Sunak is obvious, and Labour are making the running on it this morning. Face down the NIMBYs.

    Build. More. Houses.
    Building more houses isn't really the answer. There are 1/4 million long term empty homes in the UK (figure from Nov 2022). The issue is the housing market is broken and more supply won't help. Housing in this country is broken by hugely inflated prices, an excess of landlordism and a refusal from the government to really deal with that. Along with the fact that wages have not risen with inflation, it means that people of my generation (I was born in '91) have no real chance of getting on the housing ladder unless we have rich parents.

    The house my parents moved into in their 20s was £55k; in my 20s it was worth £360k. It is an ex council house. Allowing more private developers (whose profits are protected in legislation) to build more high price houses (which is what they always do) and flog them off to landlords or people who use them as "investments" (see money laundering) will not help my generation.

    Taking back unused houses from landlords and investors, bringing back affordable housing as a domain of the state and not housing associations, and defining affordable housing as something people can actually afford (instead of 80% of local market prices) is what is really needed.

    https://www.bigissue.com/news/housing/how-many-empty-homes-are-there-in-the-uk/
  • Options
    kjhkjh Posts: 10,855
    HYUFD said:

    ClippP said:

    HYUFD said:

    Cicero said:

    The SNP currently has 45 seats, the Lib Dems 14.

    There are two moving targets: SNP losses and Lib Dem gains. Both are now the central case.

    The question is how many seats change hands in each category.

    If the SNP lose net 15 seats, they are down to 30. If the Lib Dems gain 16, they are up to 30.

    Even leaving aside the "Blue Wall" in the Home Counties, there are quite a few ex Lib Dem seats in Devon and Somerset, plus places like Cheltenham, that look nailed on for the Lib Dems next time. Equally, there are at least 15 seats that look like Labour gains from the SNP, especially in the the greater Glasgow area, and I see no SNP surge against the Tories in the North East and the Borders, so no likely SNP gains.

    If counties like Surrey also swing Lib Dem, then Ed Davey will outdo Paddy Ashdown for gains.

    I think the odds favour the Lib Dems over the SNP at this point.

    In a change from 1997, it looks likely the LDs will win more MPs in Surrey, Oxfordshire and Hertfordshire than Cornwall, Devon and Somerset. The Brexit effect
    Which seats do you think are likely to fall to the Lib Dems in each group, young HY?
    Guildford, Esher and Walton, Surrey SW, Woking and Mole Valley in Surrey. Wantage and Henley in Oxfordshire and in Hertfordshire the LDs could gain Hitchen and Harpenden to add to their gain of St Albans in 2019
    Excellent list (I would say that because it aligns with mine as far as Surrey is concerned).Surrey SW will now be 2 seats so another one as both would be targeted. As an outside shot Surrey Heath. LDs appear very well organised and did spectacularly well in the locals
  • Options
    SandpitSandpit Posts: 50,756
    Another thought on the Moscow attacks. Could the Ukranians be playing the Russians at their own game here, by flying a bunch of cheap hobby drones around, attracting expensive and depletable air defences to shoot them down?

    Using a $1m S400 to hit a $10k DJI drone, is a good way to quickly run out of air defence capability.
  • Options
    noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 21,343
    148grss said:

    Sandpit said:

    I'm surprised no-one has mentioned this today. Sunak has a potential path, albeit it's a very narrow one.

    He has rather good favourability ratings with 25-40 year olds, particularly those in their 30s, who favour their taxes being lowered over redistribution. If he can solidify the 50-64 year old group and win a chunk of the older Millennials (big ask) then there's possibly a game still on:

    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/millennials-who-like-rishi-sunak-but-not-tories-could-help-him-win-lpsszkbd2



    The answer for Mr Sunak is obvious, and Labour are making the running on it this morning. Face down the NIMBYs.

    Build. More. Houses.
    Building more houses isn't really the answer. There are 1/4 million long term empty homes in the UK (figure from Nov 2022). The issue is the housing market is broken and more supply won't help. Housing in this country is broken by hugely inflated prices, an excess of landlordism and a refusal from the government to really deal with that. Along with the fact that wages have not risen with inflation, it means that people of my generation (I was born in '91) have no real chance of getting on the housing ladder unless we have rich parents.

    The house my parents moved into in their 20s was £55k; in my 20s it was worth £360k. It is an ex council house. Allowing more private developers (whose profits are protected in legislation) to build more high price houses (which is what they always do) and flog them off to landlords or people who use them as "investments" (see money laundering) will not help my generation.

    Taking back unused houses from landlords and investors, bringing back affordable housing as a domain of the state and not housing associations, and defining affordable housing as something people can actually afford (instead of 80% of local market prices) is what is really needed.

    https://www.bigissue.com/news/housing/how-many-empty-homes-are-there-in-the-uk/
    Because there are maybe a dozen or so significant causes of our housing problems, people often assume it is only a subset of them. All the things you listed are broken and significant. As is the shortage of new homes being built.
This discussion has been closed.