There is nothing any mainstream party could say to appeal to Reform voters (nor SWP voters).
Such people want to see a refashioning of society to some mythical status when there wasn't, as an example, "cultural dilution", and globalisation and multiculturalism were back in their boxes. For these people The Establishment has conspired to keep them under the heel and deny them full rights to the rolling hills of our green and pleasant land, or the saloon bar of their old-fashioned local. There will always be The Establishment so there will always be Reform voters.
At present there is a lot to be rebelling against, what with high inflation, housing costs, news about immigration, and whatnot.
So whatever the retail offer of the Cons is, no matter how far it has tacked to the "right" (and it has tacked significantly), it won't be enough.
There is a natural 4-8% of such people which increases or decreases depending on how well off/comfortable we feel and perhaps how well England is doing at the footie (England men, that is).
I'd say so, although it depends (of course) on how you define the terms.
ML is sometimes used more broadly in ways that I wouldn't think of as AI, too (but those broader definitions I'd probably not count as ML, personally).
The example in the original post looks like ML as part of/an application of AI.
The bubbly nature and perfect inverse correlation of Tory-Reform switching means we should all take current Tory VI numbers with a pinch of salt. They’re being artificially suppressed.
RefCon numbers have been remarkably stable and if anything a bit up on LLG in the last 12 months.
If we were being generous and ReFUK disappeared tomorrow, you would only add 30% of their vote to the Tory total. If that. It just isn't true that the FUKers are all Tory.
But look at the polling charts. They have put on 5 or 6 percent in a matter of a few months, almost all at the expense of the Tories. These are not refuseniks: they’re people who were perfectly content to say they’d vote Conservative only last autumn. Happy to vote for the party of Truss, of Rishi, of 10% inflation and falling real wages.
Those recent conversions are just like the angry remainers who pushed up Lib Dem polling so high in 2019 that Jo Swinson started talking about being the next PM. Up to 20%, and then lost seats at the election.
It was bad already, but in the last few months people suddenly seem willing to give Reform a shot.
That may be an illusion, and Reform do nowhere near as well in a GE, but it surely shows discontent and, critically, that scaring people about a Labour government probably won't work very well. Too many Tories themselves expect and are OK with losing right now.
At this point the Tories would take a 1997 result if it was offered. They genuinely could do much worse.
Looks increasingly like it will take a generation to recover from making Truss the PM.
According to austerity Reeves they will inherit the worst position since WW2
Remind me did the incoming Labour Government decide austerity was the answer, or the complete opposite
It didn't stop that government from creating the NHS and modern welfare state, nor rearing for the Cold War with an Atomic programme.
Considering the economic conditions the Attlee government was remarkeable.
More of an evolutionary reorganisation from what had developed during state control in wartime.
Paid for by massive consumer austerity, Marshall Aid and with many of the UK's competitors (Germany and Japan especially) being unable to compete at the time.
Not necessarily the wrong decisions but not universally popular as the general elections of the 1950s showed.
And impossible to do now.
Corelli Barnett has entertaining views about the competence of the Atlee government:
There is nothing any mainstream party could say to appeal to Reform voters (nor SWP voters).
Such people want to see a refashioning of society to some mythical status when there wasn't, as an example, "cultural dilution", and globalisation and multiculturalism were back in their boxes. For these people The Establishment has conspired to keep them under the heel and deny them full rights to the rolling hills of our green and pleasant land, or the saloon bar of their old-fashioned local. There will always be The Establishment so there will always be Reform voters.
At present there is a lot to be rebelling against, what with high inflation, housing costs, news about immigration, and whatnot.
So whatever the retail offer of the Cons is, no matter how far it has tacked to the "right" (and it has tacked significantly), it won't be enough.
There is a natural 4-8% of such people which increases or decreases depending on how well off/comfortable we feel and perhaps how well England is doing at the footie (England men, that is).
That’s the Reform core vote. But how many of those 12-15% are protest voters? The sheer recency of their conversion to the cause is evidence it’s quite a few.
Yes. The opening paragraph of the AI article on Wikipedia puts it quite well:
"Artificial intelligence (AI), in its broadest sense, is intelligence exhibited by machines, particularly computer systems, as opposed to the natural intelligence of living beings. As a field of research in computer science focusing on the automation of intelligent behavior through machine learning, it develops and studies methods and software which enable machines to perceive their environment and take actions that maximize their chances of achieving defined goals, with the aim of performing tasks typically associated with human intelligence. Such machines may be called AIs."
We've had AI for decades. AI just means doing some sort of intelligent task with a computer. It doesn't mean building something that is indistinguishable from human intelligence or has consciousness. There are lots of different ways of building AI, with most focus these days on machine learning, although other approaches exist. There are lots of different forms of machine learning.
It was bad already, but in the last few months people suddenly seem willing to give Reform a shot.
That may be an illusion, and Reform do nowhere near as well in a GE, but it surely shows discontent and, critically, that scaring people about a Labour government probably won't work very well. Too many Tories themselves expect and are OK with losing right now.
At this point the Tories would take a 1997 result if it was offered. They genuinely could do much worse.
Looks increasingly like it will take a generation to recover from making Truss the PM.
According to austerity Reeves they will inherit the worst position since WW2
Remind me did the incoming Labour Government decide austerity was the answer, or the complete opposite
The polling ahead of the state Primaries has shown numbers for Trump which do not get matched on the day of polling. There is now much questioning of why polling is so broken.
One answer I've seen it reported is that many of the pollsters still use landlines to contact voters. This skews the sampling in favour of MAGA Republicans.
If you give a link I would be grateful please
Will see if I can find something - it was discussed in a podcast I listened to.
@eabhal another percentage for you, our over 60 population has increased by 33% in a decade. From 13.3 million to 17.7 million.
That's an increase of 33%, 4.4 million, of people who overwhelmingly (but not sntirelt) don't live with children, and might live on their own entirely. That 33% change far exceeds all the other percentage changes you've supplied.
That helps explain entirely all your other statistics, such as why the percentage growth in unoccupied homes is below the percentage growth in total homes, meaning that the ratio of unoccupied to total is down.
It was bad already, but in the last few months people suddenly seem willing to give Reform a shot.
That may be an illusion, and Reform do nowhere near as well in a GE, but it surely shows discontent and, critically, that scaring people about a Labour government probably won't work very well. Too many Tories themselves expect and are OK with losing right now.
At this point the Tories would take a 1997 result if it was offered. They genuinely could do much worse.
Looks increasingly like it will take a generation to recover from making Truss the PM.
According to austerity Reeves they will inherit the worst position since WW2
Remind me did the incoming Labour Government decide austerity was the answer, or the complete opposite
It didn't stop that government from creating the NHS and modern welfare state, nor rearing for the Cold War with an Atomic programme.
Considering the economic conditions the Attlee government was remarkeable.
And yet, for all that, the 1945 landslide melted away with remarkable speed.
If anyone knew a bit about the politics of how and why that happened it could make for an interesting thread header.
Hadn't a lot of diehard Tory voters simply lent Labour their vote in 1945, as an act of solidarity with the working class who they'd got to know during the war?
Yep, which just shows again why the self-indulgent Tory MPs shouldn’t have got rid of Truss. At least she had ideas, Sunak is a size-too-small empty suit, who doesn’t appear to be able to actually do anything.
Sunaks problem is the classic one of over promising and under delivering. No wonder the voters aren't convinced by further promises.
One thing that Starmer and Reeves cannot be accused of is over-promising. On delivery we will have to wait and see.
Politicians don't have to make promises any more.
People just imagine that they have made them and then complain when these imaginary promises are not achieved.
While anything that they do achieve will be immediately forgotten or taken as granted.
The Tories promised to cut immigration, but put it up to an all time high. They promised to cut taxes and put them to an all time high. They promised to Level up and abandoned it. They promised growth and got a recession.
Voters aren't daft.
They certainly failed on immigration but there have been world factors in the last five years which have had an effect on the economy and taxes.
Not to mention that we're continually told that voters support higher taxation.
And levelling up has been achieved.
The North has full employment to go with affordable housing outside a few posho bits.
Affordable housing, full employment and pay rises, even the northern weather is warmer that it was a generation ago.
Yep, which just shows again why the self-indulgent Tory MPs shouldn’t have got rid of Truss. At least she had ideas, Sunak is a size-too-small empty suit, who doesn’t appear to be able to actually do anything.
Sunaks problem is the classic one of over promising and under delivering. No wonder the voters aren't convinced by further promises.
One thing that Starmer and Reeves cannot be accused of is over-promising. On delivery we will have to wait and see.
Politicians don't have to make promises any more.
People just imagine that they have made them and then complain when these imaginary promises are not achieved.
While anything that they do achieve will be immediately forgotten or taken as granted.
The Tories promised to cut immigration, but put it up to an all time high. They promised to cut taxes and put them to an all time high. They promised to Level up and abandoned it. They promised growth and got a recession.
Voters aren't daft.
Covid buggered any chance of delivering a manifesto.
As it would have similarly buggered a Labour manifesto had they been in power.
The Tories spent what was required to save millions of jobs. They spent what was required to ensure electricity bills could remain sort of affordable. As a result, the national credit card got maxed out and has to be paid for.
Voters may not be daft, but they are pernicious and have short memories.
"No one" and "Don't know" are difficult to interpret. They could mean that the respondent is happy with Sunak and/or Starmer (presumably far more the latter).
There is nothing any mainstream party could say to appeal to Reform voters (nor SWP voters).
Such people want to see a refashioning of society to some mythical status when there wasn't, as an example, "cultural dilution", and globalisation and multiculturalism were back in their boxes. For these people The Establishment has conspired to keep them under the heel and deny them full rights to the rolling hills of our green and pleasant land, or the saloon bar of their old-fashioned local. There will always be The Establishment so there will always be Reform voters.
At present there is a lot to be rebelling against, what with high inflation, housing costs, news about immigration, and whatnot.
So whatever the retail offer of the Cons is, no matter how far it has tacked to the "right" (and it has tacked significantly), it won't be enough.
There is a natural 4-8% of such people which increases or decreases depending on how well off/comfortable we feel and perhaps how well England is doing at the footie (England men, that is).
Loving the expertise on the Red Wall and its voters and the Reform support here from posh boys who probably have no discernable real life experience of the red wall/Reform and form their views on what they read on social media.
It was bad already, but in the last few months people suddenly seem willing to give Reform a shot.
That may be an illusion, and Reform do nowhere near as well in a GE, but it surely shows discontent and, critically, that scaring people about a Labour government probably won't work very well. Too many Tories themselves expect and are OK with losing right now.
At this point the Tories would take a 1997 result if it was offered. They genuinely could do much worse.
Looks increasingly like it will take a generation to recover from making Truss the PM.
According to austerity Reeves they will inherit the worst position since WW2
Remind me did the incoming Labour Government decide austerity was the answer, or the complete opposite
It didn't stop that government from creating the NHS and modern welfare state, nor rearing for the Cold War with an Atomic programme.
Considering the economic conditions the Attlee government was remarkeable.
And yet, for all that, the 1945 landslide melted away with remarkable speed.
If anyone knew a bit about the politics of how and why that happened it could make for an interesting thread header.
Labour made several key mistakes:
1) prioritised building factories over permanent replacement housing, leaving people living in essentially Nissen huts 2) Didn't relegate Shinwell and Bevan, who went round abusing potential voters as 'not worth two hoots or a Tinker's cuss' and 'lower than vermin' to Ambassadors to Outer Mongolia 3) Pushed austerity hard and cleverly linked it to paying for welfare programmes (although that was actually paid for by Marshall Aid) 4) Failed to bring through younger ministers so the cabinet looked like refugees from the 2024 Presidential election.
They also faced some severe headwinds:
5) Due to poor harvests, rationing actually got stricter, making people think Labour were the party of hunger and mismanagement 6) Nationalisation was highly bureaucratic and made it difficult to order necessities, never mind luxuries (for example, failing to order coal by specific dates meant you couldn't get any). 7) Inflation due to currency devaluation 9) On top of this, dealing with major conflicts in Malaya, Greece etc and finally in Korea.
But if I was to pick one thing that really cost Labour, it was that they stupidly - and in many cases actually spitefully - gave goodies to working class voters and launched financial and political attacks on everyone without releasing that under the FPTP system that they brought to its current state you can't win elections on solely working class votes. They're too concentrated in particular seats. You need to appeal to a wider spectrum.
The polling ahead of the state Primaries has shown numbers for Trump which do not get matched on the day of polling. There is now much questioning of why polling is so broken.
One answer I've seen it reported is that many of the pollsters still use landlines to contact voters. This skews the sampling in favour of MAGA Republicans.
If you give a link I would be grateful please
Will see if I can find something - it was discussed in a podcast I listened to.
That's very kind of you thank you. @rcs1000 you have previous for US polling: any comment?
There is nothing any mainstream party could say to appeal to Reform voters (nor SWP voters).
Such people want to see a refashioning of society to some mythical status when there wasn't, as an example, "cultural dilution", and globalisation and multiculturalism were back in their boxes. For these people The Establishment has conspired to keep them under the heel and deny them full rights to the rolling hills of our green and pleasant land, or the saloon bar of their old-fashioned local. There will always be The Establishment so there will always be Reform voters.
At present there is a lot to be rebelling against, what with high inflation, housing costs, news about immigration, and whatnot.
So whatever the retail offer of the Cons is, no matter how far it has tacked to the "right" (and it has tacked significantly), it won't be enough.
There is a natural 4-8% of such people which increases or decreases depending on how well off/comfortable we feel and perhaps how well England is doing at the footie (England men, that is).
And these people are a useful steer as to what makes good policy. Just do the opposite of what they want and you won't go far wrong.
Just saw and removed an antisemitic printed sticker saying 'With Jews you lose' with the sort of cartoon you'd expect from a lamppost in south west London on the way to school drop off.
Makes you wonder how widespread such things are.
I didnt realise London lampposts were good at drawing cartoons!
Talking of south west London, and following my cautionary tale the other day of seeing a mobile phone (or "phone" as I suppose we should call it) swiped from a Japanese tourist outside the Royal Academy, on Tuesday I was walking up to Sloane Square and the same thing happened, to a 30-something white bloke who had been idly walking along scrolling through his phone.
The perp was again on one of those motorised (electric?) bicycles and was half way down Eaton Square before the guy had moved 10 yards.
And on the tube there are now posters saying be careful of device theft.
Let's be careful out there, folks.
A friend of mine in her mid-70's was knocked over by one of these motorised bikes in central London. Her front teeth were all smashed in the fall.
There is nothing any mainstream party could say to appeal to Reform voters (nor SWP voters).
Such people want to see a refashioning of society to some mythical status when there wasn't, as an example, "cultural dilution", and globalisation and multiculturalism were back in their boxes. For these people The Establishment has conspired to keep them under the heel and deny them full rights to the rolling hills of our green and pleasant land, or the saloon bar of their old-fashioned local. There will always be The Establishment so there will always be Reform voters.
At present there is a lot to be rebelling against, what with high inflation, housing costs, news about immigration, and whatnot.
So whatever the retail offer of the Cons is, no matter how far it has tacked to the "right" (and it has tacked significantly), it won't be enough.
There is a natural 4-8% of such people which increases or decreases depending on how well off/comfortable we feel and perhaps how well England is doing at the footie (England men, that is).
Loving the expertise on the Red Wall and its voters and the Reform support here from posh boys who probably have no discernable real life experience of the red wall/Reform and form their views on what they read on social media.
Tell me I'm wrong. And why.
What exactly do Reform voters want in your expert opinion. What is their policy on education, social care, the NHS, and international relations.
Yep, which just shows again why the self-indulgent Tory MPs shouldn’t have got rid of Truss. At least she had ideas, Sunak is a size-too-small empty suit, who doesn’t appear to be able to actually do anything.
Sunaks problem is the classic one of over promising and under delivering. No wonder the voters aren't convinced by further promises.
One thing that Starmer and Reeves cannot be accused of is over-promising. On delivery we will have to wait and see.
Politicians don't have to make promises any more.
People just imagine that they have made them and then complain when these imaginary promises are not achieved.
While anything that they do achieve will be immediately forgotten or taken as granted.
The Tories promised to cut immigration, but put it up to an all time high. They promised to cut taxes and put them to an all time high. They promised to Level up and abandoned it. They promised growth and got a recession.
Voters aren't daft.
Covid buggered any chance of delivering a manifesto.
As it would have similarly buggered a Labour manifesto had they been in power.
The Tories spent what was required to save millions of jobs. They spent what was required to ensure electricity bills could remain sort of affordable. As a result, the national credit card got maxed out and has to be paid for.
Voters may not be daft, but they are pernicious and have short memories.
In my experience those who had the longest time on furlough are among the loudest complainers about taxes rising afterwards.
As AI is a much discussed topic on the forum, here is an example of using the technology to its strengths: early detection of cancers. Much more interesting than the creation of derivative content IMV.
That is a poor article. It states, “the results of the evaluation have not yet been peer reviewed”. You shouldn’t be doing press before peer review.
The article focuses on cancer detection. However, the downsides of these systems are (a) high false positive rates, and (b) detecting cancers that are not clinically significant. The article also fails to mention that double reading, as is standard in the UK, avoids most of the problems of fatigue they talk about.
AI systems in screening mammography have been around for many years. They are getting better. They will probably be better than humans at some point. But that article is hype.
You're missing the real use of the system, which is for AI to replace the second human check in negative findings. The AI negative findings in that case have been 100% reliable in the study.
That alone would save a very large workload.
It doesn't say that in the BBC article. There's no peer reviewed publication to check. Earlier generation screening mammography had high false positive rates (see our review, https://discovery.ucl.ac.uk/id/eprint/5173/ ).
No, it doesn't. But I listened to the interview with the NHS consultant on the Today program.
Plenty of caveats, as you say, but it sounded as though it's fairly likely to be in frontline use relatively soon.
The Grauniad is utterly insane if they think we don't need housing construction.
There simply aren't enough houses in the country. We need millions more, not hundreds of thousands more.
We need villages to become towns, towns to become cities and cities to become bigger. We need new towns. We need massive, mammoth house building.
Any NIMBYs need to go to hell. No tolerance for their BS.
1. It's not The Guardian saying we don't need more houses, it's a barrister writing in The Guardian, a paper which often publishes views outside the Overton window.
2. How do you answer the assertion in the article, supported by OECD data, that the UK has in fact about the average number of homes per capita when compared with the rest of the developed world?
Like you, my position has been that we need more housing, but now I wonder. It's not as if we have 10,000s of people on the streets or living in temporary camps. The vast majority of people are housed right now. Arguably, building more houses would just lead to more empty houses.
The issue seems to be our wealth inequality, particularly between the over-45s and the under-45s, which distorts the housing market.
So, I (living on a pension, 100% equity in a large house) could afford to buy a 3-bed house locally, without a mortgage (but I could easily get a competitive mortgage if needed which I can service with the rental income), whereas a young working family on low-pay cannot get a look-in because they can't save enough to get a deposit.
Thus, controlling rents would seem to be a way to go. At implementation fix the level at the rents being charged at the time the bill was published. Freeze rents for 10 years and allow inflation to do its work.
Of course the BLT landlords would squeal as would free-marketeers, but let them squeal - they can always sell up if they think they can more money elsewhere.
In time, lower real rents mean a lower cost to the taxpayer for Housing Benefit and Universal Credit too as an added fiscal benefit (and indeed every new home-owner is a potential future Housing Benefit claimant avoided).
It's certainly more complicated than national supply/demand.
The number of spare bedrooms in the UK has increased by 2 million over the last decade, even while the population has increased. So, at the very least, we're building the wrong kind of housing in the wrong place.
You could plaster Benbecula with homes and it isn't going to do anything for the housing crisis in Manchester.
Spare bedrooms is an irrelevant statistic.
It's the circle of life that people get a home they need, get a bit older, their kids leave home, then they continue living until they die and someone else moves into the home who may need all those rooms once more. Until their kids get older and the cycle continues.
Build more 3 plus bedroom homes and the problem is solved. Then young adults and migrants alike can have a home of their own, while existing homeowners can continue to live where they've put down roots.
Or should old people be forced to live 3 couples sharing a 3 bedroom house rather than each having their own home?
Plus of course studies where people work from home are classed as spare rooms.
The total number of bedrooms available in the UK is increasing faster than the population.
If your concern is solving the housing crisis, building lots of half empty or entirely empty homes is not very clever.
You might want to check your facts as they don't add up.
Spare bedrooms have risen by 2 million according to you in the last decade. Our population has grown by 4 million in the last decade.
How is 2 million more than 4 million? In what universe?
We aren't building lots of empty homes, we need more homes for young people, young people have kids, so we need to build three bedroom homes.
That old people remain where they already were is irrelevant.
I said total bedrooms, not spare bedrooms. Detail is important for some of us.
You were claiming spare bedrooms was the problem originally, so nice way to slip from one irrelevant statistic to another.
You're claiming that spare bedrooms are the problem, yet our spare bedrooms have grown by 2 million in the same time as our population (and our over 60s population) has grown by double that figure, which shows that actually proportionately it is falling.
That we're building more bedrooms is a good thing, we shouldn't build slums, but we aren't building enough of them still. We need millions more houses to make up for our population growth.
There always should be more bedrooms than people, as people get three bedroom homes as that's what they need, but then their kids move on and they still have their home but then their kids need a 3 bed and the circle of life goes on.
The fact my nan still lives in her home she brought her kids up in sixty years ago doesn't stop her grandchildren and greatgrandchildren from needing somewhere to live too.
She's not moved in the past sixty years, but grandchildren and great-grandchildren have.
I'm just pointing out that we're actually building housing faster than the population is growing. Nowt to do with your nan.
🤦♂️
No, we're not.
You've switched data again, and this is categorically easier to disprove. Our population is rising far, far, faster than the number of houses we're building.
The number of rooms ≠ the number of houses.
Children grow up and need a home of their own. Ten, twenty years ago all my nan's grandchildren were already alive and in the population count, but many were living with their own parents. They now need a house of their own, but the population count has not changed for them.
Every Millennial now is an adult that should have their own home, its younger generations that aren't.
Again, circle of life.
We have 4 million extra over 60s alive today who live in homes they lived in for decades predominantly with many more rooms than they need. This again is not a bad thing, they've set down roots and have support networks etc and when they do 'move on' then the house is free for someone else, circle of life. We also have millions of adults today who need a home of their own. Many will move in to houses with more rooms than they "need" because they intend to have kids but don't necessarily have them yet.
Redundancy is a good not a bad thing in a system. If you're building a house anyway, almost always better a 3 or 4 bed house than a 1 bed bungalow. Especially since they pretty much take the same footprint anyway.
Good morning!
I stated earlier that the total number of bedrooms available has increased more than the population. That is incorrect - sorry.
The population in E&W increased by 6.2% from 2011 and 2021, while the number of households increased by 6.1%.
The total number of bedrooms has increased by 6.1%. The total number of spare bedrooms increased by 7.4%.
The total number of dwellings increased by 8.4%. 1.6 million dwellings are now unoccupied (on top of the 26 million spare bedrooms), a 4.5% increase.
So wildly insufficient construction, especially since the demographic changes, and we are going backwards not forwards in having slack in the system of unoccupied buildings too which are again a good thing not a bad thing.
So your claim has been comprehensively dismissed. We just need more construction.
I do not see how anyone, other than the most rabid of NIMBYs can claim otherwise. We need more and we need it now. Also the link I posted last night showed that there are some areas of the country where we are building more than is needed.
Even if Eabhal was right it still does not make the mix right. We need far more homes where they are needed. London and the South East predominantly.
I'd like to see any evidence there's anywhere in the country with more than needed. We need massively more here in the North too.
I agree that, all else held equal, building more homes will help with the housing crisis. That is obvious.
I also agree that the costs of infrastructure should not fall on developers. That's very difficult to solve, but I agree in principle.
Where we disagree is whether building homes is a silver bullet. I've demonstrated that home-building is happening faster than population growth. That the number of empty homes is growing. That the number of spare bedrooms is growing.
The evidence suggests that something else is going on other than pure national demand and supply. The most simple answer is geographical asymmetries, with economic growth massively unbalanced across the country.
At the very least, homebuilding is grossly inefficient in the UK.
Eh?
Home building is absolutely and categorically less than population growth.
Use absolute numbers and that is crystal clear.
Our quantity of population has grown by millions more than our quantity of homes. That is a fact, pretending otherwise is a lie or ignorance.
In absolute terms the number of empty homes and spare rooms SHOULD be growing. They're not growing by enough. It's a failure that there is insufficient empty homes and the proportion of homes empty, by your own percentages, is down.
You can't use absolute numbers, because more than one person can live in each home. I, for example, share a flat with my partner.
This is desperate stuff. AGAIN, I agree that building more homes COULD help with the housing crisis. The great puzzle is even while the number of homes is growing faster than the population, there remains a housing problem.
Even MORE puzzling is that this has happened during mass immigration - immigrants are more likely to live in larger households. It's very weird and just spouting "more houses" ignores a much more interesting question.
You must use absolute numbers if you are making the fallacious claim that housing has grown faster than population, it has not. The number of houses is an absolute, the number of population is an absolute.
The number of houses is growing less than the number of population, that is a fact.
Yes more than one person CAN live in a house, but not every house has more than one person living in it. And as people live longer we have more people now living either with only their partner or after their partner has died, literally on their own.
It's only fallacious in a UK where everyone lives by themselves. That's a very odd opening assumption.
But it's good to see you recognise that household composition is playing a role. I reckon it's by a far a bigger driver of this than say immigration.
Population up by 6.2%. Households up by 6.1%. Bedrooms up by 6.1%. Homes up by 8.4%. Spare bedrooms up by 7.4%. Unoccupied homes up by 4.5%.
As previously pointed out, “households” is nonsense. People in an impromptu HMO are a “household”.
Mr. Sandpit, I've watched a few YouTube vids on economics/politics that covered the German situation. So, pinch of salt, but apparently German manufacturing might be in trouble due to high costs (energy especially), difficulty getting Germans or migrants to learn at the high degree of skill needed for many jobs, and competition as China and others move into more high end manufacturing/engineering. Some German firms may try licensing out their brands, capitalising on excellent reputations, but the downside is the jobs will be elsewhere.
There is nothing any mainstream party could say to appeal to Reform voters (nor SWP voters).
Such people want to see a refashioning of society to some mythical status when there wasn't, as an example, "cultural dilution", and globalisation and multiculturalism were back in their boxes. For these people The Establishment has conspired to keep them under the heel and deny them full rights to the rolling hills of our green and pleasant land, or the saloon bar of their old-fashioned local. There will always be The Establishment so there will always be Reform voters.
At present there is a lot to be rebelling against, what with high inflation, housing costs, news about immigration, and whatnot.
So whatever the retail offer of the Cons is, no matter how far it has tacked to the "right" (and it has tacked significantly), it won't be enough.
There is a natural 4-8% of such people which increases or decreases depending on how well off/comfortable we feel and perhaps how well England is doing at the footie (England men, that is).
A Labour government could
- intellligent reform of public services to make them more user friendly and productive. - subsidy of domestic production of various items. Think EV batteries and my proposal to pay be unit actually delivered. - move to building services first, housing follows. - hammer employers of illegal labour - usually paying below minimum wage etc.
That's a surprisingly good showing for Ed Davey - almost up there with Tory wet dream Penny.
Beat me to it. Bearing in mind how few people know who he is and this is the red wall after all, he ties with Richard Tice and Martin Lewis, both of whom I would expect to beat him.
Downside of course is the LDs don't need votes here.
Yep, which just shows again why the self-indulgent Tory MPs shouldn’t have got rid of Truss. At least she had ideas, Sunak is a size-too-small empty suit, who doesn’t appear to be able to actually do anything.
Sunaks problem is the classic one of over promising and under delivering. No wonder the voters aren't convinced by further promises.
One thing that Starmer and Reeves cannot be accused of is over-promising. On delivery we will have to wait and see.
Politicians don't have to make promises any more.
People just imagine that they have made them and then complain when these imaginary promises are not achieved.
While anything that they do achieve will be immediately forgotten or taken as granted.
The Tories promised to cut immigration, but put it up to an all time high. They promised to cut taxes and put them to an all time high. They promised to Level up and abandoned it. They promised growth and got a recession.
Voters aren't daft.
Covid buggered any chance of delivering a manifesto.
As it would have similarly buggered a Labour manifesto had they been in power.
The Tories spent what was required to save millions of jobs. They spent what was required to ensure electricity bills could remain sort of affordable. As a result, the national credit card got maxed out and has to be paid for.
Voters may not be daft, but they are pernicious and have short memories.
In my experience those who had the longest time on furlough are among the loudest complainers about taxes rising afterwards.
Ironically a long period of high inflation would have reduced the real terms size of the covid debt overhang. Sunak is having to pretend it is good news that heading to less than 2% very soon.
Ouch for mainland Europe, that German manufacturing figure is full-on depression.
Someone I know has replaced their BMW with a GWM.
Seems symbolic of a changing world.
The Chinese cars are definitely coming in large numbers of units and smal number of price, and the German cars are being smashed by high interest rates that mean personal leases make it impossible for anyone coming to the end of a lease to trade in for the same model again.
Also blame Merkel for shutting down the nuclear industry in favour of gas from you-know-where, that large enemy to the East.
Mr. Sandpit, I've watched a few YouTube vids on economics/politics that covered the German situation. So, pinch of salt, but apparently German manufacturing might be in trouble due to high costs (energy especially), difficulty getting Germans or migrants to learn at the high degree of skill needed for many jobs, and competition as China and others move into more high end manufacturing/engineering. Some German firms may try licensing out their brands, capitalising on excellent reputations, but the downside is the jobs will be elsewhere.
Tagline: The future of Deutschland is not looking bright. There are three unsolvable problems that will lead to Germany's collapse as a modern economy in the coming 20 - 30 years.
Ouch for mainland Europe, that German manufacturing figure is full-on depression.
They are awful stats, particularly for Germany. We all have to hope that in US election year there's enough stimulus across the Atlantic to keep global trade moving.
This will lead to growing strength for Sterling. Bad for trade balance but good for inflation. Sods law just after I finish paying off my Euro mortgage and funding a French barn conversion, and in time for me to start earning letting income in Euros.
Oh No, bad news for SKS. Owen Jones has quit Labour after 24 years.
expect a polling slump.
Heading for the Greens?
Looks like he is starting his own grassroots movement, "we deserve better" to support Left wing Labour MP's, Green Candidates and Independents.
I am sure it will get a bit of publicity and achieve nothing but if someone like Carla Denyer did win in Bristol Central, which there is a chance, the credit will be taken.
As AI is a much discussed topic on the forum, here is an example of using the technology to its strengths: early detection of cancers. Much more interesting than the creation of derivative content IMV.
That is a poor article. It states, “the results of the evaluation have not yet been peer reviewed”. You shouldn’t be doing press before peer review.
The article focuses on cancer detection. However, the downsides of these systems are (a) high false positive rates, and (b) detecting cancers that are not clinically significant. The article also fails to mention that double reading, as is standard in the UK, avoids most of the problems of fatigue they talk about.
AI systems in screening mammography have been around for many years. They are getting better. They will probably be better than humans at some point. But that article is hype.
You're missing the real use of the system, which is for AI to replace the second human check in negative findings. The AI negative findings in that case have been 100% reliable in the study.
That alone would save a very large workload.
It doesn't say that in the BBC article. There's no peer reviewed publication to check. Earlier generation screening mammography had high false positive rates (see our review, https://discovery.ucl.ac.uk/id/eprint/5173/ ).
No, it doesn't. But I listened to the interview with the NHS consultant on the Today program.
Plenty of caveats, as you say, but it sounded as though it's fairly likely to be in frontline use relatively soon.
There have been commercially available AI/ML systems in screening mammography for maybe two decades? Much more uptake of them in the US than the UK. The systems can be made better, which will be a good thing. However, ultimately, the benefits of breast cancer screening are pretty marginal, so making breast cancer screening a bit better isn't going to have a huge impact on healthcare outcomes. There may be cost savings. AI has proven more helpful in some other screening areas.
YouGov typically has Conservative around 2.5% lower than the average of other polling companies. It is an outlier in this regard.
The only other polling company with such a significant negative difference for the conservatives is People Polling.
The February Ipsos had conservatives on 20% so their March poll (which is probably in the field at the moment) could well have a lower conservative vote.
It would be a real concern for the conservatives if other polling companies go below 20% (assuming that it is not a real concern now!).
That's a surprisingly good showing for Ed Davey - almost up there with Tory wet dream Penny.
Beat me to it. Bearing in mind how few people know who he is and this is the red wall after all, he ties with Richard Tice and Martin Lewis, both of whom I would expect to beat him.
Downside of course is the LDs don't need votes here.
There is a big difference between Red Wall voters and REFUK voters, so not surprising that LDs and Green leaders feature.
I note too that Zara Sultana features, not an obvious one for REFUK voters to go for.
In light of the Owen news it's interesting that long standing Labour leftie Paul Mason has been on a different journey. Here he is full throated behind the current leadership:
"Labour's @RachelReevesMP spells out her vision for workers rights, at the heart of a state-directed green growth strategy. Never been a better time to join Labour. ✊ My five takeaways from the Mais Lecture..."
Ouch for mainland Europe, that German manufacturing figure is full-on depression.
Someone I know has replaced their BMW with a GWM.
Seems symbolic of a changing world.
The Chinese cars are definitely coming in large numbers of units and smal number of price, and the German cars are being smashed by high interest rates that mean personal leases make it impossible for anyone coming to the end of a lease to trade in for the same model again.
Also blame Merkel for shutting down the nuclear industry in favour of gas from you-know-where, that large enemy to the East.
Chinese car manufacturers are a threat to the car industries of every developed economy. They're out in front of the front of the EV transition, subject to real market discipline (the state is happy to let the weaker players go bust), and have a huge domestic market to give them economies of scale.
Biden's huge startup subsidies for new manufacturing have given the US a chance, but there's going to be a very tough decade for western manufacturers. Only the best capitalised and/or the most nimble are likely to get through it.
Essentially most Reform voters are nationalists rather than libertarians as the polling shows. However the fact a plurality would vote Conservative if no Reform candidate shows why Sunak will still target them
Oh No, bad news for SKS. Owen Jones has quit Labour after 24 years.
expect a polling slump.
A tragedy.
Tragedy?
Magic grandpa's gone and you can't go on It's tragedy When Keir Starmer flies and you don't know why It's hard to bear With 'We Deserve Better', you're goin' nowhere
But for him personally it's no worse to go later than now, so later it is.
That's not true.
He can go now, on his own terms, or he can be ousted by forces beyond his control and end in disgrace.
The "something might turn up" narrative only works when the "something" isn't career ending...
Sunak's career is ending in failure whether he goes now (forced out by his own failings), whether he is deposed by Tory MPs, or whether he loses at a general election. I don't buy that one of these failures is particularly better or worse than another. He'll be a short-term PM who failed any which way. He'll still be able to get plenty of speaking jobs (even Truss has), a decent advance for an autobiography, or a cushy job in Silicon Valley.
So the election is shaping up to be a Tory party offering Thatcherism and a Labour Party offering Thatcherism. What the people need is an end to Thatcherism when you look at Thatcherism it’s the reason why the country is in the mess it is. We need an alternative to Thatcherism.
In light of the Owen news it's interesting that long standing Labour leftie Paul Mason has been on a different journey. Here he is full throated behind the current leadership:
"Labour's @RachelReevesMP spells out her vision for workers rights, at the heart of a state-directed green growth strategy. Never been a better time to join Labour. ✊ My five takeaways from the Mais Lecture..."
My partner spent the day practicing "hospital in the home", travelling around on a bicycle with all her doctoring kit stowed in panniers. Quicker than driving (and especially parking), frees up hospital bed, plus all the other goodies that come with cycling. What a fascinating modern age we live in.
The only flaw in the plan is that the nurses still need to go round by car to keep the drugs refrigerated. But that's easily fixed with an e-bike.
In light of the Owen news it's interesting that long standing Labour leftie Paul Mason has been on a different journey. Here he is full throated behind the current leadership:
"Labour's @RachelReevesMP spells out her vision for workers rights, at the heart of a state-directed green growth strategy. Never been a better time to join Labour. ✊ My five takeaways from the Mais Lecture..."
The Grauniad is utterly insane if they think we don't need housing construction.
There simply aren't enough houses in the country. We need millions more, not hundreds of thousands more.
We need villages to become towns, towns to become cities and cities to become bigger. We need new towns. We need massive, mammoth house building.
Any NIMBYs need to go to hell. No tolerance for their BS.
1. It's not The Guardian saying we don't need more houses, it's a barrister writing in The Guardian, a paper which often publishes views outside the Overton window.
2. How do you answer the assertion in the article, supported by OECD data, that the UK has in fact about the average number of homes per capita when compared with the rest of the developed world?
Like you, my position has been that we need more housing, but now I wonder. It's not as if we have 10,000s of people on the streets or living in temporary camps. The vast majority of people are housed right now. Arguably, building more houses would just lead to more empty houses.
The issue seems to be our wealth inequality, particularly between the over-45s and the under-45s, which distorts the housing market.
So, I (living on a pension, 100% equity in a large house) could afford to buy a 3-bed house locally, without a mortgage (but I could easily get a competitive mortgage if needed which I can service with the rental income), whereas a young working family on low-pay cannot get a look-in because they can't save enough to get a deposit.
Thus, controlling rents would seem to be a way to go. At implementation fix the level at the rents being charged at the time the bill was published. Freeze rents for 10 years and allow inflation to do its work.
Of course the BLT landlords would squeal as would free-marketeers, but let them squeal - they can always sell up if they think they can more money elsewhere.
In time, lower real rents mean a lower cost to the taxpayer for Housing Benefit and Universal Credit too as an added fiscal benefit (and indeed every new home-owner is a potential future Housing Benefit claimant avoided).
It's certainly more complicated than national supply/demand.
The number of spare bedrooms in the UK has increased by 2 million over the last decade, even while the population has increased. So, at the very least, we're building the wrong kind of housing in the wrong place.
You could plaster Benbecula with homes and it isn't going to do anything for the housing crisis in Manchester.
Spare bedrooms is an irrelevant statistic.
It's the circle of life that people get a home they need, get a bit older, their kids leave home, then they continue living until they die and someone else moves into the home who may need all those rooms once more. Until their kids get older and the cycle continues.
Build more 3 plus bedroom homes and the problem is solved. Then young adults and migrants alike can have a home of their own, while existing homeowners can continue to live where they've put down roots.
Or should old people be forced to live 3 couples sharing a 3 bedroom house rather than each having their own home?
Plus of course studies where people work from home are classed as spare rooms.
The total number of bedrooms available in the UK is increasing faster than the population.
If your concern is solving the housing crisis, building lots of half empty or entirely empty homes is not very clever.
You might want to check your facts as they don't add up.
Spare bedrooms have risen by 2 million according to you in the last decade. Our population has grown by 4 million in the last decade.
How is 2 million more than 4 million? In what universe?
We aren't building lots of empty homes, we need more homes for young people, young people have kids, so we need to build three bedroom homes.
That old people remain where they already were is irrelevant.
I said total bedrooms, not spare bedrooms. Detail is important for some of us.
You were claiming spare bedrooms was the problem originally, so nice way to slip from one irrelevant statistic to another.
You're claiming that spare bedrooms are the problem, yet our spare bedrooms have grown by 2 million in the same time as our population (and our over 60s population) has grown by double that figure, which shows that actually proportionately it is falling.
That we're building more bedrooms is a good thing, we shouldn't build slums, but we aren't building enough of them still. We need millions more houses to make up for our population growth.
There always should be more bedrooms than people, as people get three bedroom homes as that's what they need, but then their kids move on and they still have their home but then their kids need a 3 bed and the circle of life goes on.
The fact my nan still lives in her home she brought her kids up in sixty years ago doesn't stop her grandchildren and greatgrandchildren from needing somewhere to live too.
She's not moved in the past sixty years, but grandchildren and great-grandchildren have.
I'm just pointing out that we're actually building housing faster than the population is growing. Nowt to do with your nan.
🤦♂️
No, we're not.
You've switched data again, and this is categorically easier to disprove. Our population is rising far, far, faster than the number of houses we're building.
The number of rooms ≠ the number of houses.
Children grow up and need a home of their own. Ten, twenty years ago all my nan's grandchildren were already alive and in the population count, but many were living with their own parents. They now need a house of their own, but the population count has not changed for them.
Every Millennial now is an adult that should have their own home, its younger generations that aren't.
Again, circle of life.
We have 4 million extra over 60s alive today who live in homes they lived in for decades predominantly with many more rooms than they need. This again is not a bad thing, they've set down roots and have support networks etc and when they do 'move on' then the house is free for someone else, circle of life. We also have millions of adults today who need a home of their own. Many will move in to houses with more rooms than they "need" because they intend to have kids but don't necessarily have them yet.
Redundancy is a good not a bad thing in a system. If you're building a house anyway, almost always better a 3 or 4 bed house than a 1 bed bungalow. Especially since they pretty much take the same footprint anyway.
Good morning!
I stated earlier that the total number of bedrooms available has increased more than the population. That is incorrect - sorry.
The population in E&W increased by 6.2% from 2011 and 2021, while the number of households increased by 6.1%.
The total number of bedrooms has increased by 6.1%. The total number of spare bedrooms increased by 7.4%.
The total number of dwellings increased by 8.4%. 1.6 million dwellings are now unoccupied (on top of the 26 million spare bedrooms), a 4.5% increase.
So wildly insufficient construction, especially since the demographic changes, and we are going backwards not forwards in having slack in the system of unoccupied buildings too which are again a good thing not a bad thing.
So your claim has been comprehensively dismissed. We just need more construction.
I do not see how anyone, other than the most rabid of NIMBYs can claim otherwise. We need more and we need it now. Also the link I posted last night showed that there are some areas of the country where we are building more than is needed.
Even if Eabhal was right it still does not make the mix right. We need far more homes where they are needed. London and the South East predominantly.
I'd like to see any evidence there's anywhere in the country with more than needed. We need massively more here in the North too.
I agree that, all else held equal, building more homes will help with the housing crisis. That is obvious.
I also agree that the costs of infrastructure should not fall on developers. That's very difficult to solve, but I agree in principle.
Where we disagree is whether building homes is a silver bullet. I've demonstrated that home-building is happening faster than population growth. That the number of empty homes is growing. That the number of spare bedrooms is growing.
The evidence suggests that something else is going on other than pure national demand and supply. The most simple answer is geographical asymmetries, with economic growth massively unbalanced across the country.
At the very least, homebuilding is grossly inefficient in the UK.
Eh?
Home building is absolutely and categorically less than population growth.
Use absolute numbers and that is crystal clear.
Our quantity of population has grown by millions more than our quantity of homes. That is a fact, pretending otherwise is a lie or ignorance.
In absolute terms the number of empty homes and spare rooms SHOULD be growing. They're not growing by enough. It's a failure that there is insufficient empty homes and the proportion of homes empty, by your own percentages, is down.
You can't use absolute numbers, because more than one person can live in each home. I, for example, share a flat with my partner.
This is desperate stuff. AGAIN, I agree that building more homes COULD help with the housing crisis. The great puzzle is even while the number of homes is growing faster than the population, there remains a housing problem.
Even MORE puzzling is that this has happened during mass immigration - immigrants are more likely to live in larger households. It's very weird and just spouting "more houses" ignores a much more interesting question.
You must use absolute numbers if you are making the fallacious claim that housing has grown faster than population, it has not. The number of houses is an absolute, the number of population is an absolute.
The number of houses is growing less than the number of population, that is a fact.
Yes more than one person CAN live in a house, but not every house has more than one person living in it. And as people live longer we have more people now living either with only their partner or after their partner has died, literally on their own.
It's only fallacious in a UK where everyone lives by themselves. That's a very odd opening assumption.
But it's good to see you recognise that household composition is playing a role. I reckon it's by a far a bigger driver of this than say immigration.
Population up by 6.2%. Households up by 6.1%. Bedrooms up by 6.1%. Homes up by 8.4%. Spare bedrooms up by 7.4%. Unoccupied homes up by 4.5%.
As previously pointed out, “households” is nonsense. People in an impromptu HMO are a “household”.
So going all out Evangelical (US style) and banning divorce, bringing in capital punishment for adultery, etc., would improve the housing situation, as would the return of the workhouse and the orphanage? I'm surprised one or two of us haven't pointed that out as a feature of their social and ideological programme.
My partner spent the day practicing "hospital in the home", travelling around on a bicycle with all her doctoring kit stowed in panniers. Quicker than driving (and especially parking), frees up hospital bed, plus all the other goodies that come with cycling. What a fascinating modern age we live in.
The only flaw in the plan is that the nurses still need to go round by car to keep the drugs refrigerated. But that's easily fixed with an e-bike.
Another is possibly that it's easier to steal a bike with all the nice drugs in the panniers. Presumably they are removable!
That's a surprisingly good showing for Ed Davey - almost up there with Tory wet dream Penny.
Beat me to it. Bearing in mind how few people know who he is and this is the red wall after all, he ties with Richard Tice and Martin Lewis, both of whom I would expect to beat him.
Downside of course is the LDs don't need votes here.
There is a big difference between Red Wall voters and REFUK voters, so not surprising that LDs and Green leaders feature.
I note too that Zara Sultana features, not an obvious one for REFUK voters to go for.
Oh I agree; I'm not surprised they feature, but Ed Davey appears prominently (unlike Caroline Lucas). That is what surprises me. When asked most people don't have a clue who he is and this is the Red Wall where he will be even less relevant. This is Richard Tice land and he has been on the news lately and Reform are out polling the LDs and Martin Lewis is well known, yet they appear the same size.
The Grauniad is utterly insane if they think we don't need housing construction.
There simply aren't enough houses in the country. We need millions more, not hundreds of thousands more.
We need villages to become towns, towns to become cities and cities to become bigger. We need new towns. We need massive, mammoth house building.
Any NIMBYs need to go to hell. No tolerance for their BS.
1. It's not The Guardian saying we don't need more houses, it's a barrister writing in The Guardian, a paper which often publishes views outside the Overton window.
2. How do you answer the assertion in the article, supported by OECD data, that the UK has in fact about the average number of homes per capita when compared with the rest of the developed world?
Like you, my position has been that we need more housing, but now I wonder. It's not as if we have 10,000s of people on the streets or living in temporary camps. The vast majority of people are housed right now. Arguably, building more houses would just lead to more empty houses.
The issue seems to be our wealth inequality, particularly between the over-45s and the under-45s, which distorts the housing market.
So, I (living on a pension, 100% equity in a large house) could afford to buy a 3-bed house locally, without a mortgage (but I could easily get a competitive mortgage if needed which I can service with the rental income), whereas a young working family on low-pay cannot get a look-in because they can't save enough to get a deposit.
Thus, controlling rents would seem to be a way to go. At implementation fix the level at the rents being charged at the time the bill was published. Freeze rents for 10 years and allow inflation to do its work.
Of course the BLT landlords would squeal as would free-marketeers, but let them squeal - they can always sell up if they think they can more money elsewhere.
In time, lower real rents mean a lower cost to the taxpayer for Housing Benefit and Universal Credit too as an added fiscal benefit (and indeed every new home-owner is a potential future Housing Benefit claimant avoided).
It's certainly more complicated than national supply/demand.
The number of spare bedrooms in the UK has increased by 2 million over the last decade, even while the population has increased. So, at the very least, we're building the wrong kind of housing in the wrong place.
You could plaster Benbecula with homes and it isn't going to do anything for the housing crisis in Manchester.
Spare bedrooms is an irrelevant statistic.
It's the circle of life that people get a home they need, get a bit older, their kids leave home, then they continue living until they die and someone else moves into the home who may need all those rooms once more. Until their kids get older and the cycle continues.
Build more 3 plus bedroom homes and the problem is solved. Then young adults and migrants alike can have a home of their own, while existing homeowners can continue to live where they've put down roots.
Or should old people be forced to live 3 couples sharing a 3 bedroom house rather than each having their own home?
Plus of course studies where people work from home are classed as spare rooms.
The total number of bedrooms available in the UK is increasing faster than the population.
If your concern is solving the housing crisis, building lots of half empty or entirely empty homes is not very clever.
You might want to check your facts as they don't add up.
Spare bedrooms have risen by 2 million according to you in the last decade. Our population has grown by 4 million in the last decade.
How is 2 million more than 4 million? In what universe?
We aren't building lots of empty homes, we need more homes for young people, young people have kids, so we need to build three bedroom homes.
That old people remain where they already were is irrelevant.
I said total bedrooms, not spare bedrooms. Detail is important for some of us.
You were claiming spare bedrooms was the problem originally, so nice way to slip from one irrelevant statistic to another.
You're claiming that spare bedrooms are the problem, yet our spare bedrooms have grown by 2 million in the same time as our population (and our over 60s population) has grown by double that figure, which shows that actually proportionately it is falling.
That we're building more bedrooms is a good thing, we shouldn't build slums, but we aren't building enough of them still. We need millions more houses to make up for our population growth.
There always should be more bedrooms than people, as people get three bedroom homes as that's what they need, but then their kids move on and they still have their home but then their kids need a 3 bed and the circle of life goes on.
The fact my nan still lives in her home she brought her kids up in sixty years ago doesn't stop her grandchildren and greatgrandchildren from needing somewhere to live too.
She's not moved in the past sixty years, but grandchildren and great-grandchildren have.
I'm just pointing out that we're actually building housing faster than the population is growing. Nowt to do with your nan.
🤦♂️
No, we're not.
You've switched data again, and this is categorically easier to disprove. Our population is rising far, far, faster than the number of houses we're building.
The number of rooms ≠ the number of houses.
Children grow up and need a home of their own. Ten, twenty years ago all my nan's grandchildren were already alive and in the population count, but many were living with their own parents. They now need a house of their own, but the population count has not changed for them.
Every Millennial now is an adult that should have their own home, its younger generations that aren't.
Again, circle of life.
We have 4 million extra over 60s alive today who live in homes they lived in for decades predominantly with many more rooms than they need. This again is not a bad thing, they've set down roots and have support networks etc and when they do 'move on' then the house is free for someone else, circle of life. We also have millions of adults today who need a home of their own. Many will move in to houses with more rooms than they "need" because they intend to have kids but don't necessarily have them yet.
Redundancy is a good not a bad thing in a system. If you're building a house anyway, almost always better a 3 or 4 bed house than a 1 bed bungalow. Especially since they pretty much take the same footprint anyway.
Good morning!
I stated earlier that the total number of bedrooms available has increased more than the population. That is incorrect - sorry.
The population in E&W increased by 6.2% from 2011 and 2021, while the number of households increased by 6.1%.
The total number of bedrooms has increased by 6.1%. The total number of spare bedrooms increased by 7.4%.
The total number of dwellings increased by 8.4%. 1.6 million dwellings are now unoccupied (on top of the 26 million spare bedrooms), a 4.5% increase.
So wildly insufficient construction, especially since the demographic changes, and we are going backwards not forwards in having slack in the system of unoccupied buildings too which are again a good thing not a bad thing.
So your claim has been comprehensively dismissed. We just need more construction.
I do not see how anyone, other than the most rabid of NIMBYs can claim otherwise. We need more and we need it now. Also the link I posted last night showed that there are some areas of the country where we are building more than is needed.
Even if Eabhal was right it still does not make the mix right. We need far more homes where they are needed. London and the South East predominantly.
I'd like to see any evidence there's anywhere in the country with more than needed. We need massively more here in the North too.
I agree that, all else held equal, building more homes will help with the housing crisis. That is obvious.
I also agree that the costs of infrastructure should not fall on developers. That's very difficult to solve, but I agree in principle.
Where we disagree is whether building homes is a silver bullet. I've demonstrated that home-building is happening faster than population growth. That the number of empty homes is growing. That the number of spare bedrooms is growing.
The evidence suggests that something else is going on other than pure national demand and supply. The most simple answer is geographical asymmetries, with economic growth massively unbalanced across the country.
At the very least, homebuilding is grossly inefficient in the UK.
Eh?
Home building is absolutely and categorically less than population growth.
Use absolute numbers and that is crystal clear.
Our quantity of population has grown by millions more than our quantity of homes. That is a fact, pretending otherwise is a lie or ignorance.
In absolute terms the number of empty homes and spare rooms SHOULD be growing. They're not growing by enough. It's a failure that there is insufficient empty homes and the proportion of homes empty, by your own percentages, is down.
You can't use absolute numbers, because more than one person can live in each home. I, for example, share a flat with my partner.
This is desperate stuff. AGAIN, I agree that building more homes COULD help with the housing crisis. The great puzzle is even while the number of homes is growing faster than the population, there remains a housing problem.
Even MORE puzzling is that this has happened during mass immigration - immigrants are more likely to live in larger households. It's very weird and just spouting "more houses" ignores a much more interesting question.
You must use absolute numbers if you are making the fallacious claim that housing has grown faster than population, it has not. The number of houses is an absolute, the number of population is an absolute.
The number of houses is growing less than the number of population, that is a fact.
Yes more than one person CAN live in a house, but not every house has more than one person living in it. And as people live longer we have more people now living either with only their partner or after their partner has died, literally on their own.
It's only fallacious in a UK where everyone lives by themselves. That's a very odd opening assumption.
But it's good to see you recognise that household composition is playing a role. I reckon it's by a far a bigger driver of this than say immigration.
Population up by 6.2%. Households up by 6.1%. Bedrooms up by 6.1%. Homes up by 8.4%. Spare bedrooms up by 7.4%. Unoccupied homes up by 4.5%.
As previously pointed out, “households” is nonsense. People in an impromptu HMO are a “household”.
So going all out Evangelical (US style) and banning divorce, bringing in capital punishment for adultery, etc., would improve the housing situation, as would the return of the workhouse and the orphanage? I'm surprised one or two of us haven't pointed that out as a feature of their social and ideological programme.
Slacker.
Think concentration camps. One household per x hundred thousand.
Ouch for mainland Europe, that German manufacturing figure is full-on depression.
They are awful stats, particularly for Germany. We all have to hope that in US election year there's enough stimulus across the Atlantic to keep global trade moving.
This will lead to growing strength for Sterling. Bad for trade balance but good for inflation. Sods law just after I finish paying off my Euro mortgage and funding a French barn conversion, and in time for me to start earning letting income in Euros.
Until recently I was the other way around, salary in in US dollars but paying the mortgage in Sterling.
Ouch for mainland Europe, that German manufacturing figure is full-on depression.
They are awful stats, particularly for Germany. We all have to hope that in US election year there's enough stimulus across the Atlantic to keep global trade moving.
This will lead to growing strength for Sterling. Bad for trade balance but good for inflation. Sods law just after I finish paying off my Euro mortgage and funding a French barn conversion, and in time for me to start earning letting income in Euros.
My partner spent the day practicing "hospital in the home", travelling around on a bicycle with all her doctoring kit stowed in panniers. Quicker than driving (and especially parking), frees up hospital bed, plus all the other goodies that come with cycling. What a fascinating modern age we live in.
The only flaw in the plan is that the nurses still need to go round by car to keep the drugs refrigerated. But that's easily fixed with an e-bike.
Another is possibly that it's easier to steal a bike with all the nice drugs in the panniers. Presumably they are removable!
Good point. Wonder how often say district nurse gets their car broken into.
(I've just been told that very few drugs need refrigerated, at those that are are rarely used in care in the home)
So the election is shaping up to be a Tory party offering Thatcherism and a Labour Party offering Thatcherism. What the people need is an end to Thatcherism when you look at Thatcherism it’s the reason why the country is in the mess it is. We need an alternative to Thatcherism.
So the election is shaping up to be a Tory party offering Thatcherism and a Labour Party offering Thatcherism. What the people need is an end to Thatcherism when you look at Thatcherism it’s the reason why the country is in the mess it is. We need an alternative to Thatcherism.
If that's so why is Thatcherism so popular both main parties offer it? What, in your view, have those opposing Thatcherism done wrong to be so unpopular?
I would be less concerned if it was anything like Thatcherism. Where are the supply-side reforms? Where is the investment in small business? Where is the outward-looking global perspective? Where is the investment in public health, science and innovation? Where is the recognition of climate as major issue to be addressed by every possible means? Where is the intellect? The determination to drive out vested interests and get things done? All were characteristic of Thatcher.
Whether you agreed with the actual policies or not, it's nothing remotely like Thatcherism now.
My train to Manchester this morning - six carriages.
But....
Technical fault, rear three locked out of use, very cosy in the front three.
Fortunately, I was waiting on the right bit of the platform and struck lucky for a seat.
TPE.
DfT: You cost too much money TPE: You made us have 3 separate incompatible fleets of trains DfT: You need to make cuts TPE: But our services are crush loaded because we don't have enough trains in service DfT: You don't need the loco-hauled trains TPE: The ones you made us buy DfT: We're instructing you to remove them from service
Then passengers blame TPE for trains getting even busier. Blame the Tories - they literally micromanage all of the train companies now.
Ouch for mainland Europe, that German manufacturing figure is full-on depression.
Someone I know has replaced their BMW with a GWM.
Seems symbolic of a changing world.
The Chinese cars are definitely coming in large numbers of units and smal number of price, and the German cars are being smashed by high interest rates that mean personal leases make it impossible for anyone coming to the end of a lease to trade in for the same model again.
Also blame Merkel for shutting down the nuclear industry in favour of gas from you-know-where, that large enemy to the East.
Chinese car manufacturers are a threat to the car industries of every developed economy. They're out in front of the front of the EV transition, subject to real market discipline (the state is happy to let the weaker players go bust), and have a huge domestic market to give them economies of scale.
Biden's huge startup subsidies for new manufacturing have given the US a chance, but there's going to be a very tough decade for western manufacturers. Only the best capitalised and/or the most nimble are likely to get through it.
Tesla have already said that the Chinese are making a car with an 80kW battery, for less money than it costs Tesla just for an 80kW battery out of the Chinese factory. Now it’s in his interest to say that, and the numbers are confidential, but it’s an idea of where we are at the moment.
The CCP are clearly throwing subsidies at the industry in order to destabilise Western car markets, and I suspect we’ll start to see governments treading the fine line between wanting more people in electric cars and applying tarrifs to let their domestic manufacturers compete on price.
Donald Trump and Elon Musk met in Florida last week, and the rumour on Twitter is that someone is about to underwrite the President’s appeal bond. Well who else can get their hands on half a billion in cash at short notice?
Today is D-Day for Sunak. Either he goes to the palace, or...
1. Rwanda bill buried in the Lords. They won't back down - and by *they* I mean the ex Tory Home Secretaries leading the rebellion there. 2. Funereal / Desperate / Fed up mood in the '22. The idea they will sit there quietly and just accept their fate is for the birds 3. Crossover claxon incoming. The FUKers are gaining ground fast, and despite the Tory delusion that these are Tory voters who will come "home", they're not, they won't, and they never were going to do.
Sunak goes to the Palace today, or it is the end for him.
CON could be below REF in the weekend polls as traditional supporters turn away!
Definite GE being called today
(DYOR 😈)
I'm starting to encounter a few voters on the doorstep spontaneously saying "I may try Reform", which is new. They are all hazy about what they're about - essentially they're ex-Tory non-Labour voters. Farage returning to the leadership would IMO make them quite a serious competitor for second place in terms of votes. I note that in the YouGov subsample they are now just ahead of the Tories in the North, though their strength is pretty even across regions outside London.
Thanks to ydoethur for his interesting analysis of why Labour's huge 1945 majority collapsed - I've often wondered about that and haven't seen a clear overview of reasons before.
On topic, this shows a lack of consistency in far-right voters' opinions in different countries.
As with Reform, the common factor seems to be populist rejection of the centrist parties and vague nationalism and immigration fears. I don't believe in the finding that in several countries they're more worried about emigration than immigration - I think that's probably a semantic misunderstanding.
Donald Trump and Elon Musk met in Florida last week, and the rumour on Twitter is that someone is about to underwrite the President’s appeal bond. Well who else can get their hands on half a billion in cash at short notice?
Makes sense. Musk really wants to see Trump elected in November.
Donald Trump and Elon Musk met in Florida last week, and the rumour on Twitter is that someone is about to underwrite the President’s appeal bond. Well who else can get their hands on half a billion in cash at short notice?
Makes sense. Musk really wants to see Trump elected in November.
He really really does. Bonkers when you consider what Trump says about electric cars.
It was bad already, but in the last few months people suddenly seem willing to give Reform a shot.
That may be an illusion, and Reform do nowhere near as well in a GE, but it surely shows discontent and, critically, that scaring people about a Labour government probably won't work very well. Too many Tories themselves expect and are OK with losing right now.
At this point the Tories would take a 1997 result if it was offered. They genuinely could do much worse.
The last definite Tory voter in my family (once quite firmly but not universally Tory) has announced that she’s either spoiling her ballot or voting Reform
Donald Trump and Elon Musk met in Florida last week, and the rumour on Twitter is that someone is about to underwrite the President’s appeal bond. Well who else can get their hands on half a billion in cash at short notice?
Makes sense. Musk really wants to see Trump elected in November.
He really really does. Bonkers when you consider what Trump says about electric cars.
“China now is building a couple of massive plants where they’re going to build the cars in Mexico, and they think they’re going to sell those cars into the United States — no,” Trump said Saturday during a rally near Dayton, Ohio. “We’re going to put a 100 percent tariff on every single car that comes across the line and you’re not going to be able to sell those cars — if I get elected.”
“Now if I don’t get elected, it’s going to be a bloodbath for the whole — that’s going to be the least of it,” he continued, adding: “But they’re not going to sell those cars.”
Donald Trump and Elon Musk met in Florida last week, and the rumour on Twitter is that someone is about to underwrite the President’s appeal bond. Well who else can get their hands on half a billion in cash at short notice?
Makes sense. Musk really wants to see Trump elected in November.
I think Musk saw how much influence Zuckerberg managed to peddle last time around, and is positioning himself to do the same on the other side. The election battle of the social media moguls, with both of them putting tens or even hundreds of millions up for their favoured candidates in November, plus whatever their platforms can do to favour one party over the other.
YouGov typically has Conservative around 2.5% lower than the average of other polling companies. It is an outlier in this regard.
The only other polling company with such a significant negative difference for the conservatives is People Polling.
The February Ipsos had conservatives on 20% so their March poll (which is probably in the field at the moment) could well have a lower conservative vote.
It would be a real concern for the conservatives if other polling companies go below 20% (assuming that it is not a real concern now!).
All general elections ask two questions. Who will form the next government is the first. The second is which way of altering the crude data you get from polling is the least sub-optimal. This only becomes objectively something that can be analysed in the very short period before polling, and John Curtice gives us the correct answer.
On Topic. No. I’m Not convinced by this analysis at all.
I’m of the alternate analysis, until we have had 3 weeks of an election campaign proper, headers like this is merely guesswork with high probability of being very wrong.
The Conservative Party has not polled less than 30% at an election for a very long time, and currently have an eighty seat majority. Anything above 3% Ref on any poll is soft and could come home to the Conservatives on election day, particularly in May or June with the good economic mood music at its sweetest, and the boat problem being whackamoled.
You can be completely wrong on this TSE, because the missing bit in the header is how FPTP trumps everything, like a magic wand that quickly changes everything previously suspected of peoples thoughts and what they vowed to do. Voters give a salute to pollsters and focus groups without realising just how they will later change their minds and desert.
A year ago mood music is gloom, a day in May or June 2024 it can optimistic, a vibe of triumph and alls going to go well from here, five months later it can be gloom and struggle again - does the analysis above take this into account or think it plays a big part at all? Well I think it does 🫡
Donald Trump and Elon Musk met in Florida last week, and the rumour on Twitter is that someone is about to underwrite the President’s appeal bond. Well who else can get their hands on half a billion in cash at short notice?
Makes sense. Musk really wants to see Trump elected in November.
He really really does. Bonkers when you consider what Trump says about electric cars.
“In a surprise move, President Donald Trump has reversed previous policies on electric cars. He is now proposing massive new tax credit based on the US content of the car….”
So the election is shaping up to be a Tory party offering Thatcherism and a Labour Party offering Thatcherism. What the people need is an end to Thatcherism when you look at Thatcherism it’s the reason why the country is in the mess it is. We need an alternative to Thatcherism.
Biden now leads Trump by 1 point in The Economist's polling tracker.
Monday is a huge day for Trump. He either lets his assets - including Trump Tower - get taken in settlement of his New York civil fraud case to settle his $500m+ award plus interest obligations. Or somebody buys him and puts up the cash. Either way, his opponents get to make hay at his wrecked schtick as a guy so rich and so successful in business he can't be bought.
It's also going to be very difficult for the legacy media to continue with their "nothing to see here" line.
I'm not sure whether its GOP idiocy, Dem cleverness, luck or a combination but a mentally disintegrating, financially crippled, politically discredited Trump is the easiest, perhaps only, opponent that Sleepy Joe can beat.
Sleepy Joe was wide awake for the State of the Union address, which shot many of the medias "he's not up to it" foxes.
As I've said before, he's a sharp enough mind in a very frail body.
I definitely want some of whatever is in his doctor’s bag. They can wake him right up for set-piece events and speeches, it’s really quite impressive.
Both parties really need to agree a maximum age of 70 to run, which would be 75 by the end of the term.
My genuine guess is that they gave him a shot of amphetamines, or the equivalent. Ephedrine?
He was pumped. He is not normally pumped
Hitler was on amphetamines for the last years of WW2
Today is D-Day for Sunak. Either he goes to the palace, or...
1. Rwanda bill buried in the Lords. They won't back down - and by *they* I mean the ex Tory Home Secretaries leading the rebellion there. 2. Funereal / Desperate / Fed up mood in the '22. The idea they will sit there quietly and just accept their fate is for the birds 3. Crossover claxon incoming. The FUKers are gaining ground fast, and despite the Tory delusion that these are Tory voters who will come "home", they're not, they won't, and they never were going to do.
Sunak goes to the Palace today, or it is the end for him.
CON could be below REF in the weekend polls as traditional supporters turn away!
Definite GE being called today
(DYOR 😈)
I'm starting to encounter a few voters on the doorstep spontaneously saying "I may try Reform", which is new. They are all hazy about what they're about - essentially they're ex-Tory non-Labour voters. Farage returning to the leadership would IMO make them quite a serious competitor for second place in terms of votes. I note that in the YouGov subsample they are now just ahead of the Tories in the North, though their strength is pretty even across regions outside London.
Thanks to ydoethur for his interesting analysis of why Labour's huge 1945 majority collapsed - I've often wondered about that and haven't seen a clear overview of reasons before.
On topic, this shows a lack of consistency in far-right voters' opinions in different countries.
As with Reform, the common factor seems to be populist rejection of the centrist parties and vague nationalism and immigration fears. I don't believe in the finding that in several countries they're more worried about emigration than immigration - I think that's probably a semantic misunderstanding.
Nick where are these doorsteps? I particularly ask because I know both places where you reside are LD/Tory areas so I assume you are not campaigning there.
Today is D-Day for Sunak. Either he goes to the palace, or...
1. Rwanda bill buried in the Lords. They won't back down - and by *they* I mean the ex Tory Home Secretaries leading the rebellion there. 2. Funereal / Desperate / Fed up mood in the '22. The idea they will sit there quietly and just accept their fate is for the birds 3. Crossover claxon incoming. The FUKers are gaining ground fast, and despite the Tory delusion that these are Tory voters who will come "home", they're not, they won't, and they never were going to do.
Sunak goes to the Palace today, or it is the end for him.
CON could be below REF in the weekend polls as traditional supporters turn away!
Definite GE being called today
(DYOR 😈)
I'm starting to encounter a few voters on the doorstep spontaneously saying "I may try Reform", which is new. They are all hazy about what they're about - essentially they're ex-Tory non-Labour voters. Farage returning to the leadership would IMO make them quite a serious competitor for second place in terms of votes. I note that in the YouGov subsample they are now just ahead of the Tories in the North, though their strength is pretty even across regions outside London.
Thanks to ydoethur for his interesting analysis of why Labour's huge 1945 majority collapsed - I've often wondered about that and haven't seen a clear overview of reasons before.
On topic, this shows a lack of consistency in far-right voters' opinions in different countries.
As with Reform, the common factor seems to be populist rejection of the centrist parties and vague nationalism and immigration fears. I don't believe in the finding that in several countries they're more worried about emigration than immigration - I think that's probably a semantic misunderstanding.
Must be tempting to say: "Yes, well, I can see your point, if that's the way you feel maybe you should give Reform a try".
Donald Trump and Elon Musk met in Florida last week, and the rumour on Twitter is that someone is about to underwrite the President’s appeal bond. Well who else can get their hands on half a billion in cash at short notice?
On Topic. No. I’m Not convinced by this analysis at all.
I’m of the alternate analysis, until we have had 3 weeks of an election campaign proper, headers like this is merely guesswork with high probability of being very wrong.
The Conservative Party has not polled less than 30% at an election for a very long time, and currently have an eighty seat majority. Anything above 3% Ref on any poll is soft and could come home to the Conservatives on election day, particularly in May or June with the good economic mood music at its sweetest, and the boat problem being whackamoled.
You can be completely wrong on this TSE, because the missing bit in the header is how FPTP trumps everything, like a magic wand that quickly changes everything previously suspected of peoples thoughts and what they vowed to do. Voters give a salute to pollsters and focus groups without realising just how they will later change their minds and desert.
A year ago mood music is gloom, a day in May or June 2024 it can optimistic, a vibe of triumph and alls going to go well from here, five months later it can be gloom and struggle again - does the analysis above take this into account or think it plays a big part at all? Well I think it does 🫡
The Tory Party polled 8.8% in a nationwide election just under 5 years ago.
Donald Trump and Elon Musk met in Florida last week, and the rumour on Twitter is that someone is about to underwrite the President’s appeal bond. Well who else can get their hands on half a billion in cash at short notice?
Makes sense. Musk really wants to see Trump elected in November.
He really really does. Bonkers when you consider what Trump says about electric cars.
“In a surprise move, President Donald Trump has reversed previous policies on electric cars. He is now proposing massive new tax credit based on the US content of the car….”
Comments
Such people want to see a refashioning of society to some mythical status when there wasn't, as an example, "cultural dilution", and globalisation and multiculturalism were back in their boxes. For these people The Establishment has conspired to keep them under the heel and deny them full rights to the rolling hills of our green and pleasant land, or the saloon bar of their old-fashioned local. There will always be The Establishment so there will always be Reform voters.
At present there is a lot to be rebelling against, what with high inflation, housing costs, news about immigration, and whatnot.
So whatever the retail offer of the Cons is, no matter how far it has tacked to the "right" (and it has tacked significantly), it won't be enough.
There is a natural 4-8% of such people which increases or decreases depending on how well off/comfortable we feel and perhaps how well England is doing at the footie (England men, that is).
https://x.com/redfieldwilton/status/1770567089448771829?s=46&t=CW4pL-mMpTqsJXCdjW0Z6Q
ML is sometimes used more broadly in ways that I wouldn't think of as AI, too (but those broader definitions I'd probably not count as ML, personally).
The example in the original post looks like ML as part of/an application of AI.
ETA: MS definitions, FWIW: https://azure.microsoft.com/en-us/resources/cloud-computing-dictionary/artificial-intelligence-vs-machine-learning
Those recent conversions are just like the angry remainers who pushed up Lib Dem polling so high in 2019 that Jo Swinson started talking about being the next PM. Up to 20%, and then lost seats at the election.
They won’t all go back Tory but many will.
Paid for by massive consumer austerity, Marshall Aid and with many of the UK's competitors (Germany and Japan especially) being unable to compete at the time.
Not necessarily the wrong decisions but not universally popular as the general elections of the 1950s showed.
And impossible to do now.
Corelli Barnett has entertaining views about the competence of the Atlee government:
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Lost-Victory-British-Realities-1945-1950/dp/0333480457/ref=sr_1_5?crid=1DWTWZ83VD8Y1&dib=eyJ2IjoiMSJ9.AXrKMnUlaTMaHMbywFoF_cE-dSasBk1K0nXtRPfUBLGMJLvEqCUokYlHvXRKZBPVl4c_ny9P1DA0_TmtFnC1QbCruh4oiKYvQTpvq53GUE5DSzYllLPD_SYrxbECZWYNJNzgVdnrlOlYgQgSt5GiUXxmQp5nzdHrkDYyI0iviKh8wfwFrS1nyZVHDKGgxdBPUR-u2rRls1HP3ZUM3Xo-DgwCXYeoQ71ByAUGMamwd4s.Diok_ARvwTu7ygwVUqOeIrgpwRPaBgyOl077zuUvZjQ&dib_tag=se&keywords=correlli+barnett&qid=1711013242&sprefix=correlli+barnett,aps,82&sr=8-5
"Artificial intelligence (AI), in its broadest sense, is intelligence exhibited by machines, particularly computer systems, as opposed to the natural intelligence of living beings. As a field of research in computer science focusing on the automation of intelligent behavior through machine learning, it develops and studies methods and software which enable machines to perceive their environment and take actions that maximize their chances of achieving defined goals, with the aim of performing tasks typically associated with human intelligence. Such machines may be called AIs."
We've had AI for decades. AI just means doing some sort of intelligent task with a computer. It doesn't mean building something that is indistinguishable from human intelligence or has consciousness. There are lots of different ways of building AI, with most focus these days on machine learning, although other approaches exist. There are lots of different forms of machine learning.
If anyone knew a bit about the politics of how and why that happened it could make for an interesting thread header.
That's an increase of 33%, 4.4 million, of people who overwhelmingly (but not sntirelt) don't live with children, and might live on their own entirely. That 33% change far exceeds all the other percentage changes you've supplied.
That helps explain entirely all your other statistics, such as why the percentage growth in unoccupied homes is below the percentage growth in total homes, meaning that the ratio of unoccupied to total is down.
Not to mention that we're continually told that voters support higher taxation.
And levelling up has been achieved.
The North has full employment to go with affordable housing outside a few posho bits.
Affordable housing, full employment and pay rises, even the northern weather is warmer that it was a generation ago.
As it would have similarly buggered a Labour manifesto had they been in power.
The Tories spent what was required to save millions of jobs. They spent what was required to ensure electricity bills could remain sort of affordable. As a result, the national credit card got maxed out and has to be paid for.
Voters may not be daft, but they are pernicious and have short memories.
1) prioritised building factories over permanent replacement housing, leaving people living in essentially Nissen huts
2) Didn't relegate Shinwell and Bevan, who went round abusing potential voters as 'not worth two hoots or a Tinker's cuss' and 'lower than vermin' to Ambassadors to Outer Mongolia
3) Pushed austerity hard and cleverly linked it to paying for welfare programmes (although that was actually paid for by Marshall Aid)
4) Failed to bring through younger ministers so the cabinet looked like refugees from the 2024 Presidential election.
They also faced some severe headwinds:
5) Due to poor harvests, rationing actually got stricter, making people think Labour were the party of hunger and mismanagement
6) Nationalisation was highly bureaucratic and made it difficult to order necessities, never mind luxuries (for example, failing to order coal by specific dates meant you couldn't get any).
7) Inflation due to currency devaluation
9) On top of this, dealing with major conflicts in Malaya, Greece etc and finally in Korea.
But if I was to pick one thing that really cost Labour, it was that they stupidly - and in many cases actually spitefully - gave goodies to working class voters and launched financial and political attacks on everyone without releasing that under the FPTP system that they brought to its current state you can't win elections on solely working class votes. They're too concentrated in particular seats. You need to appeal to a wider spectrum.
https://www1.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2020/10/18/the-battle-of-trafalgar/
Of course the perp never stopped.
But....
Technical fault, rear three locked out of use, very cosy in the front three.
Fortunately, I was waiting on the right bit of the platform and struck lucky for a seat.
TPE.
Manufacturing
UK 49.9
France 45.8
Germany 41.6
Services
UK 53.4
Germany 49.8
France 47.8
https://www.forexfactory.com/calendar
What exactly do Reform voters want in your expert opinion. What is their policy on education, social care, the NHS, and international relations.
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/world/jared-kushner-says-israel-should-move-palestinians-out-of-gaza-waterfront-property-to-desert/ar-BB1kcDWo
expect a polling slump.
But I listened to the interview with the NHS consultant on the Today program.
Plenty of caveats, as you say, but it sounded as though it's fairly likely to be in frontline use relatively soon.
Seems symbolic of a changing world.
- intellligent reform of public services to make them more user friendly and productive.
- subsidy of domestic production of various items. Think EV batteries and my proposal to pay be unit actually delivered.
- move to building services first, housing follows.
- hammer employers of illegal labour - usually paying below minimum wage etc.
Downside of course is the LDs don't need votes here.
Sunny should go.
And go now.
Only then can we shut @bigjohnowls up.
SKS fans please explain.
Also blame Merkel for shutting down the nuclear industry in favour of gas from you-know-where, that large enemy to the East.
"The End of Germany as a Modern Economy", Zeihan on Geopolitics, 11 Oct 2023, YouTube, see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xmEhTFjQB1g
Tagline: The future of Deutschland is not looking bright. There are three unsolvable problems that will lead to Germany's collapse as a modern economy in the coming 20 - 30 years.
This will lead to growing strength for Sterling. Bad for trade balance but good for inflation. Sods law just after I finish paying off my Euro mortgage and funding a French barn conversion, and in time for me to start earning letting income in Euros.
I am sure it will get a bit of publicity and achieve nothing but if someone like Carla Denyer did win in Bristol Central, which there is a chance, the credit will be taken.
https://davidallengreen.com/2024/03/the-curious-incident-of-the-afghanistan-war-crimes-statutory-inquiry-being-set-up/
The only other polling company with such a significant negative difference for the conservatives is People Polling.
The February Ipsos had conservatives on 20% so their March poll (which is probably in the field at the moment) could well have a lower conservative vote.
It would be a real concern for the conservatives if other polling companies go below 20% (assuming that it is not a real concern now!).
I note too that Zara Sultana features, not an obvious one for REFUK voters to go for.
He can go now, on his own terms, or he can be ousted by forces beyond his control and end in disgrace.
The "something might turn up" narrative only works when the "something" isn't career ending...
Sombre scenes as Labour HQ receive Owen's direct debit cancellation.
https://x.com/StephenCVGraham/status/1770709191700685037?s=20
"Labour's
@RachelReevesMP
spells out her vision for workers rights, at the heart of a state-directed green growth strategy. Never been a better time to join Labour. ✊ My five takeaways from the Mais Lecture..."
https://x.com/paulmasonnews/status/1770731793424986402?s=20
And he's actually written that in the Speccie..
Ukraine seems to have been the main trigger for his turning away from the Corbynites.
Biden's huge startup subsidies for new manufacturing have given the US a chance, but there's going to be a very tough decade for western manufacturers.
Only the best capitalised and/or the most nimble are likely to get through it.
2. No they won't
3. He is a fool
Magic grandpa's gone and you can't go on
It's tragedy
When Keir Starmer flies and you don't know why
It's hard to bear
With 'We Deserve Better', you're goin' nowhere
https://www.thenational.scot/news/24200358.donald-trumps-scottish-properties-could-seized-within-days/
The only flaw in the plan is that the nurses still need to go round by car to keep the drugs refrigerated. But that's easily fixed with an e-bike.
Think concentration camps. One household per x hundred thousand.
There’s a Holocaust joke in there, somewhere.
(I've just been told that very few drugs need refrigerated, at those that are are rarely used in care in the home)
What is your favourite SKS policy that you are looking forward to him implementing?
Whether you agreed with the actual policies or not, it's nothing remotely like Thatcherism now.
TPE: You made us have 3 separate incompatible fleets of trains
DfT: You need to make cuts
TPE: But our services are crush loaded because we don't have enough trains in service
DfT: You don't need the loco-hauled trains
TPE: The ones you made us buy
DfT: We're instructing you to remove them from service
Then passengers blame TPE for trains getting even busier. Blame the Tories - they literally micromanage all of the train companies now.
The CCP are clearly throwing subsidies at the industry in order to destabilise Western car markets, and I suspect we’ll start to see governments treading the fine line between wanting more people in electric cars and applying tarrifs to let their domestic manufacturers compete on price.
Thanks to ydoethur for his interesting analysis of why Labour's huge 1945 majority collapsed - I've often wondered about that and haven't seen a clear overview of reasons before.
On topic, this shows a lack of consistency in far-right voters' opinions in different countries.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/mar/21/populist-parties-divisions-jeopardise-chances-of-setting-european-agenda
As with Reform, the common factor seems to be populist rejection of the centrist parties and vague nationalism and immigration fears. I don't believe in the finding that in several countries they're more worried about emigration than immigration - I think that's probably a semantic misunderstanding.
Women hit by state pension age rise 'owed' payouts
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-68622764
The Tories are facing annihilation
Oh...
@matt_dathan
New: 514 migrants crossed the Channel in 10 boats yesterday, a new daily high for 2024.
It takes the total for this year to over 4,000 - 10% higher than this time last year.
“China now is building a couple of massive plants where they’re going to build the cars in Mexico, and they think they’re going to sell those cars into the United States — no,” Trump said Saturday during a rally near Dayton, Ohio. “We’re going to put a 100 percent tariff on every single car that comes across the line and you’re not going to be able to sell those cars — if I get elected.”
“Now if I don’t get elected, it’s going to be a bloodbath for the whole — that’s going to be the least of it,” he continued, adding: “But they’re not going to sell those cars.”
I’m of the alternate analysis, until we have had 3 weeks of an election campaign proper, headers like this is merely guesswork with high probability of being very wrong.
The Conservative Party has not polled less than 30% at an election for a very long time, and currently have an eighty seat majority.
Anything above 3% Ref on any poll is soft and could come home to the Conservatives on election day, particularly in May or June with the good economic mood music at its sweetest, and the boat problem being whackamoled.
You can be completely wrong on this TSE, because the missing bit in the header is how FPTP trumps everything, like a magic wand that quickly changes everything previously suspected of peoples thoughts and what they vowed to do. Voters give a salute to pollsters and focus groups without realising just how they will later change their minds and desert.
A year ago mood music is gloom, a day in May or June 2024 it can optimistic, a vibe of triumph and alls going to go well from here, five months later it can be gloom and struggle again - does the analysis above take this into account or think it plays a big part at all? Well I think it does 🫡
Perhaps it's too difficult a question so I give you a multiple choice options
a) Austerity on stilts
b) Further privatisation of the NHS to please the donors.
c) The promise not to make the well off pay more tax
d) A kind of PFI for energy with the taxpayer taking all the risks and the private sector taking all the rewards
Feel free to add your own policy
Last year Peter Kellner opined that Labour may need a 12/13 point lead for a majority at all.
A bit of Baxtering recently, with a similar Labour lead, gave a large Labour majority.
No doubt there is a mean between extremes. Is it possible (betting post) for PB expertise to discuss this a bit?
ie what figures give what result.
He was pumped. He is not normally pumped
Hitler was on amphetamines for the last years of WW2