The Tories could do a lot worse than choose Hunt as their new leader.
Did you hear his speech BR? Well worth catching it if you can on bbc replay.
A super speech. Very honest, very gracious.
I think the tories should appoint him leader for at least 12 months and spend some time analysing properly what went wrong and why.
I fear, however, that the party will listen to the likes of Leon on the Far Right and head further down the rabbit hole out there with people like Badenoch or Braverman.
I wouldn't say I fear it - I would like to see it due to the shares I have in popcorn manufacturers.
What an amazing election! in many ways, far more fascinating and surprising than 1997, wouldn't you agree?
Good morning. What on earth happened in Ilford North? I thought Wes was going to win easily.
A lot of people are fed up with the major parties, which they see as ignoring them. Or, worse, hearing them and then deliberately going another way.
The Tories have made more people fed up than Labour, by a long way. So the next step is to see if Labour can actually do something (in the style of Biden) to actually answer some questions. Otherwise, their turn will come.
And next time round - there won't be a mainstream party left to vote for...
There’s no denying that Labour’s castle is currently built on sand. They better deliver!
Unfortunately what people want is mostly undeliverable and often the opposite what other people want delivered.
Worse what many people are going to receive is likely to be something they don't want.
Starmer and Reeves have my sympathy.
Well, yes, try being honest with the voters.
"An ageing population means that you're going to have get used to paying more, in order to receive less. And, you won't get to retire till you're 70. Globalisation means there are millions of people who are just as clever as you, who are willing to work for 40% of what you get paid. But, this is still a prosperous, free, state, and you're still better off than almost any of your predecessors."
You'd get 10% of the vote, if you were lucky.
Take the handbrake off growth, remove the planning red tape that prevents growth, and we can be more prosperous, more free, and have the economic growth that will generate better living standards and more taxation.
The problem isn't globalisation, the problem is facing down those who have a vested interest in opposing growth.
I would add, tax unused building land heavily, while reducing taxation on new house builds.
Just tax all land like they do in Japan, that works really well at getting unused land at valuable sites into productive use.
Combined with Japan removing our planning style system and changing the law, nationally, so that people have a right to build on their own land without seeking consent first.
We could and should learn a lot from Japan. Who have far worse demographics than us, but good living standards.
They also have restrictions on on-street parking, opening up loads of space for housing and transport.
They like a decisive win. We have 5 years of stable Gov’t and they won’t lose next time, so a solid 10 years.
33 percent of the vote assured 10 years. I'll have what you're smoking.
The Tories have an even greater problem than Labour.
How do they attract the 13% of Reform voters without alienating even more of the 23% they already hold?
I don't think they can. Not least because those 15% (not 13%) of Reform voters are not necessarily natural Tory voters. Many of them came from Labour and if they are to be pealed away from Reform it will be down to Labour to achieve that.
People on here are making the same mistakes we all made in 2019.
Please do not assume any future result is a given. With a result like this, doubly so.
SKS has shown with the right conditions a huge majority can be overturned. Our electorate are volatile now, and at the moment they are on a move away from the Big 2 parties.
I could quite easily see Labour building on their vote share from this GE. Similarly I could see them hammered by opposition parties just where it hurts to cost them their majority. Or a Reform/Tory combo surging.
I will feel more comfortable having a think about 2029 in a couple of years time. Right now, it feels like a fools errand to forecast. Take that from someone who predicted Tory victory in 2024 right after Boris won.
There’s no denying that Labour’s castle is currently built on sand. They better deliver!
Unfortunately what people want is mostly undeliverable and often the opposite what other people want delivered.
Worse what many people are going to receive is likely to be something they don't want.
Starmer and Reeves have my sympathy.
Well, yes, try being honest with the voters.
"An ageing population means that you're going to have get used to paying more, in order to receive less. And, you won't get to retire till you're 70. Globalisation means there are millions of people who are just as clever as you, who are willing to work for 40% of what you get paid. But, this is still a prosperous, free, state, and you're still better off than almost any of your predecessors."
You'd get 10% of the vote, if you were lucky.
Take the handbrake off growth, remove the planning red tape that prevents growth, and we can be more prosperous, more free, and have the economic growth that will generate better living standards and more taxation.
The problem isn't globalisation, the problem is facing down those who have a vested interest in opposing growth.
I would add, tax unused building land heavily, while reducing taxation on new house builds.
Just tax all land like they do in Japan, that works really well at getting unused land at valuable sites into productive use.
Combined with Japan removing our planning style system and changing the law, nationally, so that people have a right to build on their own land without seeking consent first.
We could and should learn a lot from Japan. Who have far worse demographics than us, but good living standards.
They also have restrictions on on-street parking, opening up lots of space for transport and housing.
I much prefer off-road parking to on-street parking. Its what we need as we switch to EVs too, all new homes should preferably come with 2 off-road parking spaces each. 👍
Stayed the course, did a lot of hard work to help bring the party back from the brink.
Loses to a Gaza candidate as labour come back to power.
And what about Streeting? He only won by 500.
Does he stay put? Risk of him losing his seat could impact his chances of being next leader.
Hadn’t spotted that. Labour have an issue potentially in future. Holding on in the cities where the Gaza vote hit them but also holding on in the red wall and the new red seats in the shires. A coalition as potentially fragile as the Tory one in 2019.
By next time, hopefully, the Gaza loons will be neutered as it won’t be an issue.
Israel has been inept in Gaza trying to defeat Hamas but it won’t take them another five years.
I wonder if this will affect votes for 16-17 year olds.
We can be sure it will be something else by then. There’s always trouble in MENA. And there are other issues, like sharia, or criticism of Islam, to rile them.
The country will also be a percent or three more muslim by the next election as well.
Good point and I did say here after the locals labour could have problems in some seats due to Gaza. They did.
My estimate for Workers Party votes - 225,000 Actual - 210,000 They were within a few votes in Rochdale, Yardley and Hodge Hill. They come away empty handed
If you lump in the five "Gaza" independents with them the picture changes a little. I suspect they will be forming a party before too long, possibly led by Corbyn, which will be a "Reform" style headache for labour on their left flank.
Corbyn has way more allies within Labour than the independents. And with the greatest of respect to new MPs completely ignored by the media who I personally know little about: leading a primarily Islamic bloc would entail challenges and compromises that don't come with the Socialist Campaign Group - e.g. how many of your new party think Andrew Tate is primo?
Our Political Party Scene is now a bit like Northern Irelands in the 80s. Tory and Labour are still the top dogs but hardliners on both sides (Reform-DUP and Corbynite Independents-SinnFein) have broken through on both sides and won parliamentary seats.
Briefly, I can think of a couple of reasons why the next election might be even worse for the Tories than this election: tactical voting and losing some of the elder vote. Tactical voting - look at a seat like The Wrekin, held by the Tories with only 32.6% of the vote, and with Labour only 883 votes behind. If the elderly voters tend to vote for incumbents, i.e. if they are conservative, rather than Conservative, then you can plausibly see the Tories losing further votes, even if they don't make a mess of opposition.
I can also see a couple of paths to Labour losing all of their majority - and then some - all in one go. Clearly, not that many people are enthusiastic about voting Labour, and both the Greens and Lib Dems have shown that voting for them is not a wasted vote, and doesn't let the Tories in. There seem to be quite a few seats where the Greens are now second behind Labour. They are defending lots of seats now with small majorities. Wes Streeting only received 33.4% of the vote in Ilford North, for example.
The success of the LDs is at least as significant as that of Farage, yet the Tories will obsess about Reform.
Yup these were the Tory heartlands
Coo - a LD could walk all the way from EAstbourne to Barnstaple in one's Birkenstock sandals.
Walking would work, the Eastbourne to Ilfracombe LibDem memorial walk.
Driving, you would need to navigate carefully.
You start with a problem in the Lewes seat, where the hills north of Brighton block your way to the north west of that seat, since the road connections run either through Labour/Green Brighton or into Tory East Grinstead & Uckfield. On the A27 near the University of Sussex you need to get up towards Ditchling, but it's bridleways rather than roads. The bridleway across to Ditchling Beacon is likely legally barred to traffic but it it's Forestry Commission, as it looks, you could probably make it on a motorbike or in a 4WD, opening a few gates as you go.
There's then a pinch point in Maidenhead, and you'd have to stick to the B3017 past Mill Ride golf course to avoid straying into Tory Windsor or Labour Bracknell.
You then skirt round north of Reading, but to get round Swindon you'd have to carefully squeeze below Tory North Cotswolds, coming into Lechlade along Langley Lane.
After that, the swathe of LibDem seats is wide enough to give you plenty of choice as to how to travel through Somerset and into Devon.
If you could get a boat in Ilfracombe and make it around Hartland Point to land below Marsland Cliff, you could then continue your LibDem journey into Cornwall.
The Tories could do a lot worse than choose Hunt as their new leader.
Did you hear his speech BR? Well worth catching it if you can on bbc replay.
A super speech. Very honest, very gracious.
I think the tories should appoint him leader for at least 12 months and spend some time analysing properly what went wrong and why.
I fear, however, that the party will listen to the likes of Leon on the Far Right and head further down the rabbit hole out there with people like Badenoch or Braverman.
Hunt has proven what can be done with status, influence, resources and sheer willpower, to overcome a vicious swing against an unpopular incumbent government.
Hunt's 2024 Godalming campaign will surely go down in legend.
IIRC, @NickPalmer lives around those parts. I wonder what the story is like from his side?
The Tories could do a lot worse than choose Hunt as their new leader.
Did you hear his speech BR? Well worth catching it if you can on bbc replay.
A super speech. Very honest, very gracious.
I think the tories should appoint him leader for at least 12 months and spend some time analysing properly what went wrong and why.
I fear, however, that the party will listen to the likes of Leon on the Far Right and head further down the rabbit hole out there with people like Badenoch or Braverman.
I think he is the obvious choice if the Tories are serious about getting back into the game. By all means we can have discussions and debates behind the scenes but we need someone articulate and informed about the economic challenges that Reeves faces. The remarkable result by the Lib Dems complicates matters somewhat because the Tories are being squeezed from both sides. Again, I think that Hunt can address this better than anyone else still in the Commons. A leap to the right to assuage those who voted Remain at this point would be fatal.
Not sure if anyone has pointed it out yet but it is quite ironic/amusing to find the Lib dems to be the key beneficiary of the first past the post system!
Isn’t their seat count pretty proportional to their vote share?
To be fair that is true. It is just that for so long they were grossly underrepresented in Parliament due to FPTP and now the system works for them. The true winners are labour who get a huge majority on a relatively low vote share. It is a victory engineered by the voting system not the popular will.
So will the Tories have the good sense to avoid Badenoch and Braverman?
Where's your sense of fun? They could have both in quick succession, I'm also looking forward to seeing what's been elected as a Lib Dem MP, hopefully some entertaining vetting failures there.
BBC R4 doing an outstanding job of fulfilling it's remit, Mandelson interrupted in the middle of a very thoughtful and balanced analysis so that they could describe Jeremy Hunt having some family snaps taken with the dog as they leave Downing street.
The hard work starts here, Starmer is going to have to start delivering on the repair job to earn the majority he's been gifted.
There’s no denying that Labour’s castle is currently built on sand. They better deliver!
Unfortunately what people want is mostly undeliverable and often the opposite what other people want delivered.
Worse what many people are going to receive is likely to be something they don't want.
Starmer and Reeves have my sympathy.
Well, yes, try being honest with the voters.
"An ageing population means that you're going to have get used to paying more, in order to receive less. And, you won't get to retire till you're 70. Globalisation means there are millions of people who are just as clever as you, who are willing to work for 40% of what you get paid. But, this is still a prosperous, free, state, and you're still better off than almost any of your predecessors."
You'd get 10% of the vote, if you were lucky.
Take the handbrake off growth, remove the planning red tape that prevents growth, and we can be more prosperous, more free, and have the economic growth that will generate better living standards and more taxation.
The problem isn't globalisation, the problem is facing down those who have a vested interest in opposing growth.
I would add, tax unused building land heavily, while reducing taxation on new house builds.
Just tax all land like they do in Japan, that works really well at getting unused land at valuable sites into productive use.
Combined with Japan removing our planning style system and changing the law, nationally, so that people have a right to build on their own land without seeking consent first.
We could and should learn a lot from Japan. Who have far worse demographics than us, but good living standards.
They also have restrictions on on-street parking, opening up lots of space for transport and housing.
I much prefer off-road parking to on-street parking. Its what we need as we switch to EVs too, all new homes should preferably come with 2 off-road parking spaces each. 👍
And charge people appropriately for existing on-street parking. Any land tax should extend to the parking spots too. Bonkers that I can rent out that much space in the centre of Edinburgh for £100 per year.
We’re a moderate nation and the only dog-whistling we follow is with our canine friends.
More like Sunaks message of stop the supermajority worked and many who would of voted reform went back to the Tories.
It did work, but I suspect net beneficiaries were the Greens, the LDs, the Gazans and Reform. A net two or three points onto the Tories which saved what? Half a dozen to a dozen seats? Hunt, Stride and couple of other big beasts.
The success of the LDs is at least as significant as that of Farage, yet the Tories will obsess about Reform.
Yup these were the Tory heartlands
Coo - a LD could walk all the way from EAstbourne to Barnstaple in one's Birkenstock sandals.
Walking would work, the Eastbourne to Ilfracombe LibDem memorial walk.
Driving, you would need to navigate carefully.
You start with a problem in the Lewes seat, where the hills north of Brighton block your way to the north west of that seat, since the road connections run either through Labour/Green Brighton or into Tory East Grinstead & Uckfield. On the A27 near the University of Sussex you need to get up towards Ditchling, but it's bridleways rather than roads. The bridleway across to Ditchling Beacon is likely legally barred to traffic but it it's Forestry Commission, as it looks, you could probably make it on a motorbike or in a 4WD, opening a few gates as you go.
There's then a pinch point in Maidenhead, and you'd have to stick to the B3017 past Mill Ride golf course to avoid straying into Tory Windsor or Labour Bracknell.
You then skirt round north of Reading, but to get round Swindon you'd have to carefully squeeze below Tory North Cotswolds, coming into Lechlade along Langley Lane.
After that, the swathe of LibDem seats is wide enough to give you plenty of choice as to how to travel through Somerset and into Devon.
If you could get a boat in Ilfracombe and make it around Hartland Point to land below Marsland Cliff, you could then continue your LibDem journey into Cornwall.
You could easily travel between all the Tory seats on Rishi's helicopter.
There’s no denying that Labour’s castle is currently built on sand. They better deliver!
Unfortunately what people want is mostly undeliverable and often the opposite what other people want delivered.
Worse what many people are going to receive is likely to be something they don't want.
Starmer and Reeves have my sympathy.
Well, yes, try being honest with the voters.
"An ageing population means that you're going to have get used to paying more, in order to receive less. And, you won't get to retire till you're 70. Globalisation means there are millions of people who are just as clever as you, who are willing to work for 40% of what you get paid. But, this is still a prosperous, free, state, and you're still better off than almost any of your predecessors."
You'd get 10% of the vote, if you were lucky.
Take the handbrake off growth, remove the planning red tape that prevents growth, and we can be more prosperous, more free, and have the economic growth that will generate better living standards and more taxation.
The problem isn't globalisation, the problem is facing down those who have a vested interest in opposing growth.
I would add, tax unused building land heavily, while reducing taxation on new house builds.
Just tax all land like they do in Japan, that works really well at getting unused land at valuable sites into productive use.
Combined with Japan removing our planning style system and changing the law, nationally, so that people have a right to build on their own land without seeking consent first.
We could and should learn a lot from Japan. Who have far worse demographics than us, but good living standards.
They also have restrictions on on-street parking, opening up lots of space for transport and housing.
I much prefer off-road parking to on-street parking. Its what we need as we switch to EVs too, all new homes should preferably come with 2 off-road parking spaces each. 👍
See, here you are saying that preferably we should make housing construction more costly in terms of land acquisitions for enough space to park and manouevre two cars per household. If the point is to reduce the cost of doing stuff, this is exactly what misses the point.
There’s no denying that Labour’s castle is currently built on sand. They better deliver!
Unfortunately what people want is mostly undeliverable and often the opposite what other people want delivered.
Worse what many people are going to receive is likely to be something they don't want.
Starmer and Reeves have my sympathy.
Well, yes, try being honest with the voters.
"An ageing population means that you're going to have get used to paying more, in order to receive less. And, you won't get to retire till you're 70. Globalisation means there are millions of people who are just as clever as you, who are willing to work for 40% of what you get paid. But, this is still a prosperous, free, state, and you're still better off than almost any of your predecessors."
You'd get 10% of the vote, if you were lucky.
Take the handbrake off growth, remove the planning red tape that prevents growth, and we can be more prosperous, more free, and have the economic growth that will generate better living standards and more taxation.
The problem isn't globalisation, the problem is facing down those who have a vested interest in opposing growth.
I would add, tax unused building land heavily, while reducing taxation on new house builds.
Just tax all land like they do in Japan, that works really well at getting unused land at valuable sites into productive use.
Combined with Japan removing our planning style system and changing the law, nationally, so that people have a right to build on their own land without seeking consent first.
We could and should learn a lot from Japan. Who have far worse demographics than us, but good living standards.
They also have restrictions on on-street parking, opening up lots of space for transport and housing.
I much prefer off-road parking to on-street parking. Its what we need as we switch to EVs too, all new homes should preferably come with 2 off-road parking spaces each. 👍
See, here you are saying that preferably we should make housing construction more costly in terms of land acquisitions for enough space to park and manouevre two cars per household. If the point is to reduce the cost of doing stuff, this is exactly what misses the point.
Land is cheap. The artificial cost of land with planning permission is just that. Artificial.
Good that Hunt survived. He's got to be made leader. I'll go and campaign for him if he runs.
I did some maths this morning
Labour got 20.3% of eligible voters vs Boris getting 29.6% of eligible voters and Blair getting 30.8% of eligible voters. Major got 32.6% in 1992 and Maggie got 33% in 1979. Even Dave got 23.5% share and that was a hung parliament.
Personal mandate this is not. Starmer is going to be even more timid than we expected, despite the big majority. A few percent swing from Lab to Tory and Reform to Tory wipes the majority out in 2029. It literally just needs 2-3 points from both to vote Tory next time and we're heading to hung parliament territory.
There’s no denying that Labour’s castle is currently built on sand. They better deliver!
Unfortunately what people want is mostly undeliverable and often the opposite what other people want delivered.
Worse what many people are going to receive is likely to be something they don't want.
Starmer and Reeves have my sympathy.
Well, yes, try being honest with the voters.
"An ageing population means that you're going to have get used to paying more, in order to receive less. And, you won't get to retire till you're 70. Globalisation means there are millions of people who are just as clever as you, who are willing to work for 40% of what you get paid. But, this is still a prosperous, free, state, and you're still better off than almost any of your predecessors."
You'd get 10% of the vote, if you were lucky.
Take the handbrake off growth, remove the planning red tape that prevents growth, and we can be more prosperous, more free, and have the economic growth that will generate better living standards and more taxation.
The problem isn't globalisation, the problem is facing down those who have a vested interest in opposing growth.
I would add, tax unused building land heavily, while reducing taxation on new house builds.
Just tax all land like they do in Japan, that works really well at getting unused land at valuable sites into productive use.
Combined with Japan removing our planning style system and changing the law, nationally, so that people have a right to build on their own land without seeking consent first.
We could and should learn a lot from Japan. Who have far worse demographics than us, but good living standards.
They also have restrictions on on-street parking, opening up lots of space for transport and housing.
I much prefer off-road parking to on-street parking. Its what we need as we switch to EVs too, all new homes should preferably come with 2 off-road parking spaces each. 👍
And charge people appropriately for existing on-street parking. Any land tax should extend to the parking spots too. Bonkers that I can rent out that much space in the centre of Edinburgh for £100 per year.
This may surprise you, but I completely agree.
I don't have a front-garden, what could be my front garden is two driving spaces instead. I have a back garden instead, with a trampoline etc for my kids to play on.
Having a front-garden with no off-road parking so that you then park on public land is an externality that means you're taking public land for yourself rather than using your own land.
However on-street parking is very valuable for people who don't live there, so apart from city centres I wouldn't ban it. Eg when I drop my kids off at school, or pick them up, then I park on the road by the houses next to the school - whom if they have a car have their car on their driveway, so the space is free for us to use for 10 minutes while picking up/dropping off and then able to move away again.
Anyhow, I won’t be around here an awful lot until the next GE (if I still have breath).
I said this election would be more about how badly the Conservatives did than how well Labour won, and called the Labour landslide.
I have little interest in engaging in discussions with those on the Right about ‘anti-woke’ culture wars. There is work to be done and it’s not my job to sort out the Conservative Party. I certainly have no desire to listen to Leon’s shouty hyperbole about this, that, and the other.
The tories will need to sort out what they stand for, and why. They need to appoint the best leader to bring themselves back and they will only do so when they recover the centre-right. I doubt the tories will listen which is one of the reasons Labour will carry on winning until they do. It may take two more defeats before the penny drops for you Conservatives.
We’re a moderate country. You win in the middle.
And for goodness sake DO drop the nastiness. That would be a start. Take your cue from Jeremy Hunt’s gracious speech last night. He should be made leader in the interim now.
On topic - our system is FPTP. The big winners were Lab and the LDs ran a brilliant campaign. The Greens and Reform performed well but while one performed as well as realistically they could have the other has grimly under-performed the unrealistic expectations of the Farage Fan Club. Being out-performed in seats by Jezza and his Gaza allies a revolution does not make.
I don't know if you heard but Liz Truss lost. I still haven't stopped laughing!
There’s no denying that Labour’s castle is currently built on sand. They better deliver!
Unfortunately what people want is mostly undeliverable and often the opposite what other people want delivered.
Worse what many people are going to receive is likely to be something they don't want.
Starmer and Reeves have my sympathy.
Well, yes, try being honest with the voters.
"An ageing population means that you're going to have get used to paying more, in order to receive less. And, you won't get to retire till you're 70. Globalisation means there are millions of people who are just as clever as you, who are willing to work for 40% of what you get paid. But, this is still a prosperous, free, state, and you're still better off than almost any of your predecessors."
You'd get 10% of the vote, if you were lucky.
Take the handbrake off growth, remove the planning red tape that prevents growth, and we can be more prosperous, more free, and have the economic growth that will generate better living standards and more taxation.
The problem isn't globalisation, the problem is facing down those who have a vested interest in opposing growth.
I would add, tax unused building land heavily, while reducing taxation on new house builds.
Just tax all land like they do in Japan, that works really well at getting unused land at valuable sites into productive use.
Combined with Japan removing our planning style system and changing the law, nationally, so that people have a right to build on their own land without seeking consent first.
We could and should learn a lot from Japan. Who have far worse demographics than us, but good living standards.
They also have restrictions on on-street parking, opening up lots of space for transport and housing.
I much prefer off-road parking to on-street parking. Its what we need as we switch to EVs too, all new homes should preferably come with 2 off-road parking spaces each. 👍
See, here you are saying that preferably we should make housing construction more costly in terms of land acquisitions for enough space to park and manouevre two cars per household. If the point is to reduce the cost of doing stuff, this is exactly what misses the point.
Exactly. Bart has outed himself as a nimby. Some folks like views of fields and trees, he wants off street parking spaces.
There’s no denying that Labour’s castle is currently built on sand. They better deliver!
Unfortunately what people want is mostly undeliverable and often the opposite what other people want delivered.
Worse what many people are going to receive is likely to be something they don't want.
Starmer and Reeves have my sympathy.
Well, yes, try being honest with the voters.
"An ageing population means that you're going to have get used to paying more, in order to receive less. And, you won't get to retire till you're 70. Globalisation means there are millions of people who are just as clever as you, who are willing to work for 40% of what you get paid. But, this is still a prosperous, free, state, and you're still better off than almost any of your predecessors."
You'd get 10% of the vote, if you were lucky.
Take the handbrake off growth, remove the planning red tape that prevents growth, and we can be more prosperous, more free, and have the economic growth that will generate better living standards and more taxation.
The problem isn't globalisation, the problem is facing down those who have a vested interest in opposing growth.
I would add, tax unused building land heavily, while reducing taxation on new house builds.
Just tax all land like they do in Japan, that works really well at getting unused land at valuable sites into productive use.
Combined with Japan removing our planning style system and changing the law, nationally, so that people have a right to build on their own land without seeking consent first.
We could and should learn a lot from Japan. Who have far worse demographics than us, but good living standards.
They also have restrictions on on-street parking, opening up lots of space for transport and housing.
I much prefer off-road parking to on-street parking. Its what we need as we switch to EVs too, all new homes should preferably come with 2 off-road parking spaces each. 👍
See, here you are saying that preferably we should make housing construction more costly in terms of land acquisitions for enough space to park and manouevre two cars per household. If the point is to reduce the cost of doing stuff, this is exactly what misses the point.
No I'm not, almost all semis or terraces that are constructed near me already have the space for two cars per household.
The thing is some have driveways and some have front gardens.
I prefer the former over the latter and as we move to electric vehicles the former is more important too.
Another thing that stands out from this election is a friend who is part of the inner circle of the labour candidate told me a couple of weeks ago that they were easily at over 50%. But on the day the candidate polled around 40% in the constituency concerned and whilst the majority looks massive on paper it is only very slightly above the combined con/ref vote. Also nothing was seen of reform in the campaign in the constituency concerned and they got 16% of the vote. I think there are a lot of quiet reform voters and sympathisers and we are going through the usual circuit of the 'sensible centrists' thinking 'the fascists/racists have been defeated' when in fact they are in denial about a situation they should be very worried about, echoes of the run up to the EU referendum.
Good that Hunt survived. He's got to be made leader. I'll go and campaign for him if he runs.
I did some maths this morning
Labour got 20.3% of eligible voters vs Boris getting 29.6% of eligible voters and Blair getting 30.8% of eligible voters. Major got 32.6% in 1992 and Maggie got 33% in 1979. Even Dave got 23.5% share and that was a hung parliament.
Personal mandate this is not. Starmer is going to be even more timid than we expected, despite the big majority. A few percent swing from Lab to Tory and Reform to Tory wipes the majority out in 2029. It literally just needs 2-3 points from both to vote Tory next time and we're heading to hung parliament territory.
There is also the probability of a Lab to Reform swing at the next election if Farage follows through on his speech about taking the battle to Labour. If Lab don’t deal with the small boats and immigration with the “Border Command” then that flank is exposed.
The new Lib Dem caucus will be quite a thing. Although, being Lib Dems I guess it will be more akin to a Quaker prayer session than a rave.
I wonder if there are any stars in there, allowing Ed to refresh his front bench a bit.
Quaker prayer session my arse. Clearly you've never been anywhere near a LibDem Group meeting!
I remember when my group of nine on the council was suddenly increased to twelve as we received three defectors from the Labour group. The first LibDem group meeting they came to, we opened the council agenda to work through it as usual, and fairly quickly we were having a lively discussion about our differing views on one of the items. For about ten minutes the Labour guys just sat there quietly listening to us arguing with each other. Then one of them put their hand up and rather gingerly asked whether they could, as it seemed, say whatever they liked about the items on the agenda?
The rest of us just looked at them with puzzled expressions, until someone asked what happens, then, at Labour Group meetings? They explained that Labour has the leader and cabinet members come in and tell them how the Group will vote on each item on the agenda and who will speak and who will make which arguments, and the backbenchers' role is simply to write all this down and prepare for their alloted roles.
Someone on ITV coverage said she went out and did interviews in the Muslim Wall, and although Gaza was a key issue, voters were as likely to bring up the two-child benefits cap. That's more plausible to me that purely foreign policy based voting that goes away by 2025: the more general phenomenon of wanting more money for less work.
The success of the LDs is at least as significant as that of Farage, yet the Tories will obsess about Reform.
Yup these were the Tory heartlands
Coo - a LD could walk all the way from EAstbourne to Barnstaple in one's Birkenstock sandals.
Walking would work, the Eastbourne to Ilfracombe LibDem memorial walk.
Driving, you would need to navigate carefully.
You start with a problem in the Lewes seat, where the hills north of Brighton block your way to the north west of that seat, since the road connections run either through Labour/Green Brighton or into Tory East Grinstead & Uckfield. On the A27 near the University of Sussex you need to get up towards Ditchling, but it's bridleways rather than roads. The bridleway across to Ditchling Beacon is likely legally barred to traffic but it it's Forestry Commission, as it looks, you could probably make it on a motorbike or in a 4WD, opening a few gates as you go.
There's then a pinch point in Maidenhead, and you'd have to stick to the B3017 past Mill Ride golf course to avoid straying into Tory Windsor or Labour Bracknell.
You then skirt round north of Reading, but to get round Swindon you'd have to carefully squeeze below Tory North Cotswolds, coming into Lechlade along Langley Lane.
After that, the swathe of LibDem seats is wide enough to give you plenty of choice as to how to travel through Somerset and into Devon.
If you could get a boat in Ilfracombe and make it around Hartland Point to land below Marsland Cliff, you could then continue your LibDem journey into Cornwall.
You could easily travel between all the Tory seats on Rishi's helicopter.
I'd go south-about and nip round Exmouth. Longer journey north and fierce tides round Hartland.
So will the Tories have the good sense to avoid Badenoch and Braverman?
Where's your sense of fun? They could have both in quick succession, I'm also looking forward to seeing what's been elected as a Lib Dem MP, hopefully some entertaining vetting failures there.
BBC R4 doing an outstanding job of fulfilling it's remit, Mandelson interrupted in the middle of a very thoughtful and balanced analysis so that they could describe Jeremy Hunt having some family snaps taken with the dog as they leave Downing street.
The hard work starts here, Starmer is going to have to start delivering on the repair job to earn the majority he's been gifted.
That's the other thing that Starmer is capable of. He is a poor campaigner, but an able manager with a ruthless streak, and a clear sense of how to organise. The header shows how the Tory government was destroyed by incompetence. Being competent and getting stuff done is both his task and his talent.
There’s no denying that Labour’s castle is currently built on sand. They better deliver!
Unfortunately what people want is mostly undeliverable and often the opposite what other people want delivered.
Worse what many people are going to receive is likely to be something they don't want.
Starmer and Reeves have my sympathy.
Well, yes, try being honest with the voters.
"An ageing population means that you're going to have get used to paying more, in order to receive less. And, you won't get to retire till you're 70. Globalisation means there are millions of people who are just as clever as you, who are willing to work for 40% of what you get paid. But, this is still a prosperous, free, state, and you're still better off than almost any of your predecessors."
You'd get 10% of the vote, if you were lucky.
Take the handbrake off growth, remove the planning red tape that prevents growth, and we can be more prosperous, more free, and have the economic growth that will generate better living standards and more taxation.
The problem isn't globalisation, the problem is facing down those who have a vested interest in opposing growth.
I would add, tax unused building land heavily, while reducing taxation on new house builds.
Just tax all land like they do in Japan, that works really well at getting unused land at valuable sites into productive use.
Combined with Japan removing our planning style system and changing the law, nationally, so that people have a right to build on their own land without seeking consent first.
We could and should learn a lot from Japan. Who have far worse demographics than us, but good living standards.
They also have restrictions on on-street parking, opening up lots of space for transport and housing.
I much prefer off-road parking to on-street parking. Its what we need as we switch to EVs too, all new homes should preferably come with 2 off-road parking spaces each. 👍
See, here you are saying that preferably we should make housing construction more costly in terms of land acquisitions for enough space to park and manouevre two cars per household. If the point is to reduce the cost of doing stuff, this is exactly what misses the point.
It's these kind of planning regulations that need to go in the bin. Room for two cars is two bedrooms lost.
We’re a moderate nation and the only dog-whistling we follow is with our canine friends.
More like Sunaks message of stop the supermajority worked and many who would of voted reform went back to the Tories.
It did work, but I suspect net beneficiaries were the Greens, the LDs, the Gazans and Reform. A net two or three points onto the Tories which saved what? Half a dozen to a dozen seats? Hunt, Stride and couple of other big beasts.
Under FPTP it might have saved the Tories a lot more than that. The Tories have held on by tiny majorities in many seats. But I'll leave the painstaking analysis to someone (paging Andy...)
One thing we haven't really commented on this morning - I feel like the broadcasters had a very, very poor night.
Hanging on in interviews the content of which we could have written ourselves, missing most of the actual declarations, broom-cupboard feel to the studios.
There’s no denying that Labour’s castle is currently built on sand. They better deliver!
Unfortunately what people want is mostly undeliverable and often the opposite what other people want delivered.
Worse what many people are going to receive is likely to be something they don't want.
Starmer and Reeves have my sympathy.
Well, yes, try being honest with the voters.
"An ageing population means that you're going to have get used to paying more, in order to receive less. And, you won't get to retire till you're 70. Globalisation means there are millions of people who are just as clever as you, who are willing to work for 40% of what you get paid. But, this is still a prosperous, free, state, and you're still better off than almost any of your predecessors."
You'd get 10% of the vote, if you were lucky.
Take the handbrake off growth, remove the planning red tape that prevents growth, and we can be more prosperous, more free, and have the economic growth that will generate better living standards and more taxation.
The problem isn't globalisation, the problem is facing down those who have a vested interest in opposing growth.
I would add, tax unused building land heavily, while reducing taxation on new house builds.
Just tax all land like they do in Japan, that works really well at getting unused land at valuable sites into productive use.
Combined with Japan removing our planning style system and changing the law, nationally, so that people have a right to build on their own land without seeking consent first.
We could and should learn a lot from Japan. Who have far worse demographics than us, but good living standards.
They also have restrictions on on-street parking, opening up lots of space for transport and housing.
I much prefer off-road parking to on-street parking. Its what we need as we switch to EVs too, all new homes should preferably come with 2 off-road parking spaces each. 👍
See, here you are saying that preferably we should make housing construction more costly in terms of land acquisitions for enough space to park and manouevre two cars per household. If the point is to reduce the cost of doing stuff, this is exactly what misses the point.
Exactly. Bart has outed himself as a nimby. Some folks like views of fields and trees, he wants off street parking spaces.
Having a preference != having restrictions.
NIMBYs want to block what they dislike, I don't.
I'm not against houses being built without off-road parking, I just prefer if they're built with it.
There’s no denying that Labour’s castle is currently built on sand. They better deliver!
Unfortunately what people want is mostly undeliverable and often the opposite what other people want delivered.
Worse what many people are going to receive is likely to be something they don't want.
Starmer and Reeves have my sympathy.
If they do sort out our planning regime, unlock growth, then they can address many of the countries problems - and screw any anti-growth NIMBYs.
If they don't, they don't deserve sympathy, or to be re-elected.
It's the infrastructure stupid.
It's perfectly possible to build a modern transport, water and energy system with enough political will. Thames Water weren't always (pumping out) shit. Go read up on Bazalgette, the London Ring Main. Read Dominic Davies' book on infrastructure.
I love how some on here still feel the Truss / Tufton Street extreme neoliberalism should still be given a chance, and we'll just magically get infrastructure. We all stand higher and taller on properly built infrastructure platforms, and that's the basis of sustained growth.
Not in five years it isn't. Even if you get rid of the bureaucratic hurdles, find the money and can buy the land, there is still the materials to obtain and the need to find and train a vast army of skilled workers to do it.
Yes, but with that attitude we'd neve start anything. It's like Lucas and nuclear power: saying it was pointless because it won't be ready for x years, then in x years when it would have come in handy, still saying it's pointless because it won't be ready for x years...
Agree, but I can't see Starmer doing it. He would have to implement an almost Trumpian disregard for bureaucracy, and regulations and pass laws to ride roughshod over judicial reviews etc.
Look how long Stonehenge A303 is taking. Seven years since the preferred route announcement and all but preliminary enabling works on hold for the best part of a year thanks to yet another fucking vexatious appeal.
There’s no denying that Labour’s castle is currently built on sand. They better deliver!
Unfortunately what people want is mostly undeliverable and often the opposite what other people want delivered.
Worse what many people are going to receive is likely to be something they don't want.
Starmer and Reeves have my sympathy.
Well, yes, try being honest with the voters.
"An ageing population means that you're going to have get used to paying more, in order to receive less. And, you won't get to retire till you're 70. Globalisation means there are millions of people who are just as clever as you, who are willing to work for 40% of what you get paid. But, this is still a prosperous, free, state, and you're still better off than almost any of your predecessors."
You'd get 10% of the vote, if you were lucky.
Take the handbrake off growth, remove the planning red tape that prevents growth, and we can be more prosperous, more free, and have the economic growth that will generate better living standards and more taxation.
The problem isn't globalisation, the problem is facing down those who have a vested interest in opposing growth.
I would add, tax unused building land heavily, while reducing taxation on new house builds.
Just tax all land like they do in Japan, that works really well at getting unused land at valuable sites into productive use.
Combined with Japan removing our planning style system and changing the law, nationally, so that people have a right to build on their own land without seeking consent first.
We could and should learn a lot from Japan. Who have far worse demographics than us, but good living standards.
They also have restrictions on on-street parking, opening up lots of space for transport and housing.
I much prefer off-road parking to on-street parking. Its what we need as we switch to EVs too, all new homes should preferably come with 2 off-road parking spaces each. 👍
See, here you are saying that preferably we should make housing construction more costly in terms of land acquisitions for enough space to park and manouevre two cars per household. If the point is to reduce the cost of doing stuff, this is exactly what misses the point.
It's these kind of planning regulations that need to go in the bin. Room for two cars is two bedrooms lost.
Who said anything about planning regulations? Not me.
Room for two cars takes very minimal space and means that you can keep the road clear for other users - what's your problem with that?
You seem to be against both on-street parking and off-road parking. You can't have it both ways!
Another thing that stands out from this election is a friend who is part of the inner circle of the labour candidate told me a couple of weeks ago that they were easily at over 50%. But on the day the candidate polled around 40% in the constituency concerned and whilst the majority looks massive on paper it is only very slightly above the combined con/ref vote. Also nothing was seen of reform in the campaign in the constituency concerned and they got 16% of the vote. I think there are a lot of quiet reform voters and sympathisers and we are going through the usual circuit of the 'sensible centrists' thinking 'the fascists/racists have been defeated' when in fact they are in denial about a situation they should be very worried about, echoes of the run up to the EU referendum.
I can recall French friends telling me the NF had a ceiling, that they were quite regional, that they would be blocked forever by decent people.
Together with its construction depression Germany has this:
According to preliminary data from the Federal Statistical Office (Destatis), real (price-adjusted) production in the manufacturing sector fell by 2.5% in May 2024 compared to April 2024, adjusted for seasonal and calendar effects. In a three-month comparison, production from March 2024 to May 2024 remained at the same level (0.0%) as in the previous three months. In April 2024, production rose by 0.1% compared to March 2024 after revision of the preliminary results (preliminary value: -0.1%). Compared to the same month last year, May 2023, production in May 2024 was 6.7% lower, adjusted for calendar effects.
There’s no denying that Labour’s castle is currently built on sand. They better deliver!
Unfortunately what people want is mostly undeliverable and often the opposite what other people want delivered.
Worse what many people are going to receive is likely to be something they don't want.
Starmer and Reeves have my sympathy.
Well, yes, try being honest with the voters.
"An ageing population means that you're going to have get used to paying more, in order to receive less. And, you won't get to retire till you're 70. Globalisation means there are millions of people who are just as clever as you, who are willing to work for 40% of what you get paid. But, this is still a prosperous, free, state, and you're still better off than almost any of your predecessors."
You'd get 10% of the vote, if you were lucky.
Take the handbrake off growth, remove the planning red tape that prevents growth, and we can be more prosperous, more free, and have the economic growth that will generate better living standards and more taxation.
The problem isn't globalisation, the problem is facing down those who have a vested interest in opposing growth.
I would add, tax unused building land heavily, while reducing taxation on new house builds.
Just tax all land like they do in Japan, that works really well at getting unused land at valuable sites into productive use.
Combined with Japan removing our planning style system and changing the law, nationally, so that people have a right to build on their own land without seeking consent first.
We could and should learn a lot from Japan. Who have far worse demographics than us, but good living standards.
They also have restrictions on on-street parking, opening up lots of space for transport and housing.
I much prefer off-road parking to on-street parking. Its what we need as we switch to EVs too, all new homes should preferably come with 2 off-road parking spaces each. 👍
See, here you are saying that preferably we should make housing construction more costly in terms of land acquisitions for enough space to park and manouevre two cars per household. If the point is to reduce the cost of doing stuff, this is exactly what misses the point.
It's these kind of planning regulations that need to go in the bin. Room for two cars is two bedrooms lost.
Who said anything about planning regulations? Not me.
Room for two cars takes very minimal space and means that you can keep the road clear for other users - what's your problem with that?
You seem to be against both on-street parking and off-road parking. You can't have it both ways!
Anyhow, I won’t be around here an awful lot until the next GE (if I still have breath).
I said this election would be more about how badly the Conservatives did than how well Labour won, and called the Labour landslide.
I have little interest in engaging in discussions with those on the Right about ‘anti-woke’ culture wars. There is work to be done and it’s not my job to sort out the Conservative Party. I certainly have no desire to listen to Leon’s shouty hyperbole about this, that, and the other.
The tories will need to sort out what they stand for, and why. They need to appoint the best leader to bring themselves back and they will only do so when they recover the centre-right. I doubt the tories will listen which is one of the reasons Labour will carry on winning until they do. It may take two more defeats before the penny drops for you Conservatives.
We’re a moderate country. You win in the middle.
And for goodness sake DO drop the nastiness. That would be a start. Take your cue from Jeremy Hunt’s gracious speech last night. He should be made leader in the interim now.
Stay happy.
xx
Well done for sticking to your guns about a Labour landslide. You called it right from the start even if the votes didn't actually warrant it!
There’s no denying that Labour’s castle is currently built on sand. They better deliver!
Unfortunately what people want is mostly undeliverable and often the opposite what other people want delivered.
Worse what many people are going to receive is likely to be something they don't want.
Starmer and Reeves have my sympathy.
Well, yes, try being honest with the voters.
"An ageing population means that you're going to have get used to paying more, in order to receive less. And, you won't get to retire till you're 70. Globalisation means there are millions of people who are just as clever as you, who are willing to work for 40% of what you get paid. But, this is still a prosperous, free, state, and you're still better off than almost any of your predecessors."
You'd get 10% of the vote, if you were lucky.
Take the handbrake off growth, remove the planning red tape that prevents growth, and we can be more prosperous, more free, and have the economic growth that will generate better living standards and more taxation.
The problem isn't globalisation, the problem is facing down those who have a vested interest in opposing growth.
I would add, tax unused building land heavily, while reducing taxation on new house builds.
Just tax all land like they do in Japan, that works really well at getting unused land at valuable sites into productive use.
Combined with Japan removing our planning style system and changing the law, nationally, so that people have a right to build on their own land without seeking consent first.
We could and should learn a lot from Japan. Who have far worse demographics than us, but good living standards.
They also have restrictions on on-street parking, opening up lots of space for transport and housing.
I much prefer off-road parking to on-street parking. Its what we need as we switch to EVs too, all new homes should preferably come with 2 off-road parking spaces each. 👍
See, here you are saying that preferably we should make housing construction more costly in terms of land acquisitions for enough space to park and manouevre two cars per household. If the point is to reduce the cost of doing stuff, this is exactly what misses the point.
It's these kind of planning regulations that need to go in the bin. Room for two cars is two bedrooms lost.
Who said anything about planning regulations? Not me.
Room for two cars takes very minimal space and means that you can keep the road clear for other users - what's your problem with that?
You seem to be against both on-street parking and off-road parking. You can't have it both ways!
One thing we haven't really commented on this morning - I feel like the broadcasters had a very, very poor night.
Hanging on in interviews the content of which we could have written ourselves, missing most of the actual declarations, broom-cupboard feel to the studios.
I wonder if some time in the 21st century they saw the analytics that tells them "it's just a few anoraks who'd settle for an Excel spreadsheet".
There’s no denying that Labour’s castle is currently built on sand. They better deliver!
Unfortunately what people want is mostly undeliverable and often the opposite what other people want delivered.
Worse what many people are going to receive is likely to be something they don't want.
Starmer and Reeves have my sympathy.
Well, yes, try being honest with the voters.
"An ageing population means that you're going to have get used to paying more, in order to receive less. And, you won't get to retire till you're 70. Globalisation means there are millions of people who are just as clever as you, who are willing to work for 40% of what you get paid. But, this is still a prosperous, free, state, and you're still better off than almost any of your predecessors."
You'd get 10% of the vote, if you were lucky.
Take the handbrake off growth, remove the planning red tape that prevents growth, and we can be more prosperous, more free, and have the economic growth that will generate better living standards and more taxation.
The problem isn't globalisation, the problem is facing down those who have a vested interest in opposing growth.
I would add, tax unused building land heavily, while reducing taxation on new house builds.
Just tax all land like they do in Japan, that works really well at getting unused land at valuable sites into productive use.
Combined with Japan removing our planning style system and changing the law, nationally, so that people have a right to build on their own land without seeking consent first.
We could and should learn a lot from Japan. Who have far worse demographics than us, but good living standards.
They also have restrictions on on-street parking, opening up lots of space for transport and housing.
I much prefer off-road parking to on-street parking. Its what we need as we switch to EVs too, all new homes should preferably come with 2 off-road parking spaces each. 👍
See, here you are saying that preferably we should make housing construction more costly in terms of land acquisitions for enough space to park and manouevre two cars per household. If the point is to reduce the cost of doing stuff, this is exactly what misses the point.
It's these kind of planning regulations that need to go in the bin. Room for two cars is two bedrooms lost.
Who said anything about planning regulations? Not me.
Room for two cars takes very minimal space and means that you can keep the road clear for other users - what's your problem with that?
You seem to be against both on-street parking and off-road parking. You can't have it both ways!
The new houses round here have been built as terraces with a garage on the ground floor integral to the house. If people want space for their car enough to give up space in their house for it & aren’t taking up any road space then that seems like a thing we should let them do to me.
There’s no denying that Labour’s castle is currently built on sand. They better deliver!
Unfortunately what people want is mostly undeliverable and often the opposite what other people want delivered.
Worse what many people are going to receive is likely to be something they don't want.
Starmer and Reeves have my sympathy.
Well, yes, try being honest with the voters.
"An ageing population means that you're going to have get used to paying more, in order to receive less. And, you won't get to retire till you're 70. Globalisation means there are millions of people who are just as clever as you, who are willing to work for 40% of what you get paid. But, this is still a prosperous, free, state, and you're still better off than almost any of your predecessors."
You'd get 10% of the vote, if you were lucky.
Take the handbrake off growth, remove the planning red tape that prevents growth, and we can be more prosperous, more free, and have the economic growth that will generate better living standards and more taxation.
The problem isn't globalisation, the problem is facing down those who have a vested interest in opposing growth.
I would add, tax unused building land heavily, while reducing taxation on new house builds.
Just tax all land like they do in Japan, that works really well at getting unused land at valuable sites into productive use.
Combined with Japan removing our planning style system and changing the law, nationally, so that people have a right to build on their own land without seeking consent first.
We could and should learn a lot from Japan. Who have far worse demographics than us, but good living standards.
They also have restrictions on on-street parking, opening up lots of space for transport and housing.
I much prefer off-road parking to on-street parking. Its what we need as we switch to EVs too, all new homes should preferably come with 2 off-road parking spaces each. 👍
See, here you are saying that preferably we should make housing construction more costly in terms of land acquisitions for enough space to park and manouevre two cars per household. If the point is to reduce the cost of doing stuff, this is exactly what misses the point.
Exactly. Bart has outed himself as a nimby. Some folks like views of fields and trees, he wants off street parking spaces.
The other thing is that this adds more prescription to the proposed design code (2 car parking spaces, EV charging points) in contradiction to Bart's idea/belief that this is about 'sweeping away planning regulations', it is actually just creating more.
Good that Hunt survived. He's got to be made leader. I'll go and campaign for him if he runs.
I did some maths this morning
Labour got 20.3% of eligible voters vs Boris getting 29.6% of eligible voters and Blair getting 30.8% of eligible voters. Major got 32.6% in 1992 and Maggie got 33% in 1979. Even Dave got 23.5% share and that was a hung parliament.
Personal mandate this is not. Starmer is going to be even more timid than we expected, despite the big majority. A few percent swing from Lab to Tory and Reform to Tory wipes the majority out in 2029. It literally just needs 2-3 points from both to vote Tory next time and we're heading to hung parliament territory.
There is also the probability of a Lab to Reform swing at the next election if Farage follows through on his speech about taking the battle to Labour. If Lab don’t deal with the small boats and immigration with the “Border Command” then that flank is exposed.
Yes and not that the Tories are in opposition, a lot of the anger towards them will naturally dissipate so voters will start to drift back to them, especially from Reform in the South and South East.
Good that Hunt survived. He's got to be made leader. I'll go and campaign for him if he runs.
I did some maths this morning
Labour got 20.3% of eligible voters vs Boris getting 29.6% of eligible voters and Blair getting 30.8% of eligible voters. Major got 32.6% in 1992 and Maggie got 33% in 1979. Even Dave got 23.5% share and that was a hung parliament.
Personal mandate this is not. Starmer is going to be even more timid than we expected, despite the big majority. A few percent swing from Lab to Tory and Reform to Tory wipes the majority out in 2029. It literally just needs 2-3 points from both to vote Tory next time and we're heading to hung parliament territory.
Being timid is what has landed Labour in this bizarre position of winning a precarious landslide majority, and being timid is the way to lose it all in one huge defeat.
Making the following assumptions. 1. The voters will become frustrated at the failure of a Labour government to markedly improve things. 2. The voters will not quickly forgive the Tories for the failures of 2010-2024. 3. There is a ceiling to Reform support 4. The Lib Dem strategy has done very well to win 71 seats on only 12.2% of the vote, but it's a kind of cul-de-sac, and breaking out of it to challenge more widely will be difficult.
I struggle to see any party receiving more than 30% of the vote next time, which is going to have even more erratic consequences for seat totals. The exit poll still did remarkably well this time.
There’s no denying that Labour’s castle is currently built on sand. They better deliver!
Unfortunately what people want is mostly undeliverable and often the opposite what other people want delivered.
Worse what many people are going to receive is likely to be something they don't want.
Starmer and Reeves have my sympathy.
Well, yes, try being honest with the voters.
"An ageing population means that you're going to have get used to paying more, in order to receive less. And, you won't get to retire till you're 70. Globalisation means there are millions of people who are just as clever as you, who are willing to work for 40% of what you get paid. But, this is still a prosperous, free, state, and you're still better off than almost any of your predecessors."
You'd get 10% of the vote, if you were lucky.
Take the handbrake off growth, remove the planning red tape that prevents growth, and we can be more prosperous, more free, and have the economic growth that will generate better living standards and more taxation.
The problem isn't globalisation, the problem is facing down those who have a vested interest in opposing growth.
I would add, tax unused building land heavily, while reducing taxation on new house builds.
Just tax all land like they do in Japan, that works really well at getting unused land at valuable sites into productive use.
Combined with Japan removing our planning style system and changing the law, nationally, so that people have a right to build on their own land without seeking consent first.
We could and should learn a lot from Japan. Who have far worse demographics than us, but good living standards.
They also have restrictions on on-street parking, opening up lots of space for transport and housing.
I much prefer off-road parking to on-street parking. Its what we need as we switch to EVs too, all new homes should preferably come with 2 off-road parking spaces each. 👍
See, here you are saying that preferably we should make housing construction more costly in terms of land acquisitions for enough space to park and manouevre two cars per household. If the point is to reduce the cost of doing stuff, this is exactly what misses the point.
It's these kind of planning regulations that need to go in the bin. Room for two cars is two bedrooms lost.
Who said anything about planning regulations? Not me.
Room for two cars takes very minimal space and means that you can keep the road clear for other users - what's your problem with that?
You seem to be against both on-street parking and off-road parking. You can't have it both ways!
Minimal space? A two car garage is enormous. More than half the size of a typical one bed flat.
There’s no denying that Labour’s castle is currently built on sand. They better deliver!
Unfortunately what people want is mostly undeliverable and often the opposite what other people want delivered.
Worse what many people are going to receive is likely to be something they don't want.
Starmer and Reeves have my sympathy.
Well, yes, try being honest with the voters.
"An ageing population means that you're going to have get used to paying more, in order to receive less. And, you won't get to retire till you're 70. Globalisation means there are millions of people who are just as clever as you, who are willing to work for 40% of what you get paid. But, this is still a prosperous, free, state, and you're still better off than almost any of your predecessors."
You'd get 10% of the vote, if you were lucky.
Take the handbrake off growth, remove the planning red tape that prevents growth, and we can be more prosperous, more free, and have the economic growth that will generate better living standards and more taxation.
The problem isn't globalisation, the problem is facing down those who have a vested interest in opposing growth.
I would add, tax unused building land heavily, while reducing taxation on new house builds.
Just tax all land like they do in Japan, that works really well at getting unused land at valuable sites into productive use.
Combined with Japan removing our planning style system and changing the law, nationally, so that people have a right to build on their own land without seeking consent first.
We could and should learn a lot from Japan. Who have far worse demographics than us, but good living standards.
They also have restrictions on on-street parking, opening up lots of space for transport and housing.
I much prefer off-road parking to on-street parking. Its what we need as we switch to EVs too, all new homes should preferably come with 2 off-road parking spaces each. 👍
See, here you are saying that preferably we should make housing construction more costly in terms of land acquisitions for enough space to park and manouevre two cars per household. If the point is to reduce the cost of doing stuff, this is exactly what misses the point.
It's these kind of planning regulations that need to go in the bin. Room for two cars is two bedrooms lost.
Who said anything about planning regulations? Not me.
Room for two cars takes very minimal space and means that you can keep the road clear for other users - what's your problem with that?
You seem to be against both on-street parking and off-road parking. You can't have it both ways!
Minimal space? A two car garage is enormous. More than half the size of a typical one bed flat.
Good that Hunt survived. He's got to be made leader. I'll go and campaign for him if he runs.
I did some maths this morning
Labour got 20.3% of eligible voters vs Boris getting 29.6% of eligible voters and Blair getting 30.8% of eligible voters. Major got 32.6% in 1992 and Maggie got 33% in 1979. Even Dave got 23.5% share and that was a hung parliament.
Personal mandate this is not. Starmer is going to be even more timid than we expected, despite the big majority. A few percent swing from Lab to Tory and Reform to Tory wipes the majority out in 2029. It literally just needs 2-3 points from both to vote Tory next time and we're heading to hung parliament territory.
There is also the probability of a Lab to Reform swing at the next election if Farage follows through on his speech about taking the battle to Labour. If Lab don’t deal with the small boats and immigration with the “Border Command” then that flank is exposed.
Hunt is an outstanding politician but I think his leadership of the Conservative party would just be seen as continuity centrism and unlikely to win back reform voters.
We’re a moderate nation and the only dog-whistling we follow is with our canine friends.
More like Sunaks message of stop the supermajority worked and many who would of voted reform went back to the Tories.
It did work, but I suspect net beneficiaries were the Greens, the LDs, the Gazans and Reform. A net two or three points onto the Tories which saved what? Half a dozen to a dozen seats? Hunt, Stride and couple of other big beasts.
The first polls after the election will be interesting. Usually they coalesce around something close to the election result. If that happens without them changing methodology then it might imply the polling miss was due to late swing.
Most profitable ever political event for me, outdoing the POTUS 2020 one
With Lab getting less votes than Jezza in 2017 being the main one but also Islington North and Greens to win the 4 specific seats they did also coming in.
Well done to SKS fans who i am sure will be delighted with the size of the majority on such shockingly poor raw numbers.
FPTP is totally broken IMO but that aint going to change now.
There’s no denying that Labour’s castle is currently built on sand. They better deliver!
Twas ever thus.
Its a far, far harder job to what Labour had in 1997.
In fact its an impossible job.
That's what I said about Cameron in 2010. An election no one wants to win. A poisoned chalice! And here we are after 14 years of Conservative Governments.
And we were right, but forgot that we'd be the ones drinking from the chalice.
People are growing thoroughly fed up of a system that they don’t think is working, and increasingly opting for populist parties (or not voting at all).
This is not funny. Countries only do this when they’re in extreme distress.
Well it's not a UK problem. France, Italy, Germany, Canada and more are in the same boat. The US may not have the same party issues but the politics is of a kind though more extreme in some regards.
Who is going to be the first to wake up and realise that we need to rethink an awful lot of our assumptions about economics, government and politics, and to realise that authoritarian governments are a real threat to us?
This UK general election has been one of navel-gazing, the wider world barely getting a mention. I barely even care about the outcome because the stuff that worries me isn't happening here. I'm sure of one thing though, none of the UK political parties seems prepared or capable enough.
Good that Hunt survived. He's got to be made leader. I'll go and campaign for him if he runs.
I did some maths this morning
Labour got 20.3% of eligible voters vs Boris getting 29.6% of eligible voters and Blair getting 30.8% of eligible voters. Major got 32.6% in 1992 and Maggie got 33% in 1979. Even Dave got 23.5% share and that was a hung parliament.
Personal mandate this is not. Starmer is going to be even more timid than we expected, despite the big majority. A few percent swing from Lab to Tory and Reform to Tory wipes the majority out in 2029. It literally just needs 2-3 points from both to vote Tory next time and we're heading to hung parliament territory.
Being timid is what has landed Labour in this bizarre position of winning a precarious landslide majority, and being timid is the way to lose it all in one huge defeat.
Making the following assumptions. 1. The voters will become frustrated at the failure of a Labour government to markedly improve things. 2. The voters will not quickly forgive the Tories for the failures of 2010-2024. 3. There is a ceiling to Reform support 4. The Lib Dem strategy has done very well to win 71 seats on only 12.2% of the vote, but it's a kind of cul-de-sac, and breaking out of it to challenge more widely will be difficult.
I struggle to see any party receiving more than 30% of the vote next time, which is going to have even more erratic consequences for seat totals. The exit poll still did remarkably well this time.
Sooner or later polling will be exposed as witchcraft and contrarian investors will clean up. Not yet, alas.
There’s no denying that Labour’s castle is currently built on sand. They better deliver!
Unfortunately what people want is mostly undeliverable and often the opposite what other people want delivered.
Worse what many people are going to receive is likely to be something they don't want.
Starmer and Reeves have my sympathy.
Well, yes, try being honest with the voters.
"An ageing population means that you're going to have get used to paying more, in order to receive less. And, you won't get to retire till you're 70. Globalisation means there are millions of people who are just as clever as you, who are willing to work for 40% of what you get paid. But, this is still a prosperous, free, state, and you're still better off than almost any of your predecessors."
You'd get 10% of the vote, if you were lucky.
Take the handbrake off growth, remove the planning red tape that prevents growth, and we can be more prosperous, more free, and have the economic growth that will generate better living standards and more taxation.
The problem isn't globalisation, the problem is facing down those who have a vested interest in opposing growth.
I would add, tax unused building land heavily, while reducing taxation on new house builds.
Just tax all land like they do in Japan, that works really well at getting unused land at valuable sites into productive use.
Combined with Japan removing our planning style system and changing the law, nationally, so that people have a right to build on their own land without seeking consent first.
We could and should learn a lot from Japan. Who have far worse demographics than us, but good living standards.
They also have restrictions on on-street parking, opening up lots of space for transport and housing.
I much prefer off-road parking to on-street parking. Its what we need as we switch to EVs too, all new homes should preferably come with 2 off-road parking spaces each. 👍
See, here you are saying that preferably we should make housing construction more costly in terms of land acquisitions for enough space to park and manouevre two cars per household. If the point is to reduce the cost of doing stuff, this is exactly what misses the point.
Exactly. Bart has outed himself as a nimby. Some folks like views of fields and trees, he wants off street parking spaces.
The other thing is that this adds more prescription to the proposed design code (2 car parking spaces, EV charging points) in contradiction to Bart's idea/belief that this is about 'sweeping away planning regulations', it is actually just creating more.
I never said it should be in the design code!
I said its my preference.
Those are two completely different things.
As Phil says, if people are prepared to use their own land to house their vehicles and charge them then that's their choice.
Good that Hunt survived. He's got to be made leader. I'll go and campaign for him if he runs.
I did some maths this morning
Labour got 20.3% of eligible voters vs Boris getting 29.6% of eligible voters and Blair getting 30.8% of eligible voters. Major got 32.6% in 1992 and Maggie got 33% in 1979. Even Dave got 23.5% share and that was a hung parliament.
Personal mandate this is not. Starmer is going to be even more timid than we expected, despite the big majority. A few percent swing from Lab to Tory and Reform to Tory wipes the majority out in 2029. It literally just needs 2-3 points from both to vote Tory next time and we're heading to hung parliament territory.
There is also the probability of a Lab to Reform swing at the next election if Farage follows through on his speech about taking the battle to Labour. If Lab don’t deal with the small boats and immigration with the “Border Command” then that flank is exposed.
Hunt is an outstanding politician but I think his leadership of the Conservative party would just be seen as continuity centrism and unlikely to win back reform voters.
Hunt has shortened dramatically on Betfair. I don't think he will win though.
Good that Hunt survived. He's got to be made leader. I'll go and campaign for him if he runs.
I did some maths this morning
Labour got 20.3% of eligible voters vs Boris getting 29.6% of eligible voters and Blair getting 30.8% of eligible voters. Major got 32.6% in 1992 and Maggie got 33% in 1979. Even Dave got 23.5% share and that was a hung parliament.
Personal mandate this is not. Starmer is going to be even more timid than we expected, despite the big majority. A few percent swing from Lab to Tory and Reform to Tory wipes the majority out in 2029. It literally just needs 2-3 points from both to vote Tory next time and we're heading to hung parliament territory.
Thinking about the leadership vote, I can't see the remaining MPs voting for Braverman (and probably not Badenoch). I can't see the members voting for Hunt or Tugendhat. I'm wondering whether Barclay or Cleverly could be the candidate to come through the middle.
It's more that we have fallen into a consensus. And one which guards itself as a *moral issue*. So the repeated chorus is "Nothing can change. And you are evil for asking."
The answer to the populist questions is to come up with liberal, sensible *answers*. Not scream "THE QUESTION DOESN'T EXIST".
Exactly. So the vacumn is increasingly filled by cranks and dangerous types who don't have an answer, but at least acknowledge there are issues that the main parties ignore.
There’s no denying that Labour’s castle is currently built on sand. They better deliver!
Unfortunately what people want is mostly undeliverable and often the opposite what other people want delivered.
Worse what many people are going to receive is likely to be something they don't want.
Starmer and Reeves have my sympathy.
Well, yes, try being honest with the voters.
"An ageing population means that you're going to have get used to paying more, in order to receive less. And, you won't get to retire till you're 70. Globalisation means there are millions of people who are just as clever as you, who are willing to work for 40% of what you get paid. But, this is still a prosperous, free, state, and you're still better off than almost any of your predecessors."
You'd get 10% of the vote, if you were lucky.
Take the handbrake off growth, remove the planning red tape that prevents growth, and we can be more prosperous, more free, and have the economic growth that will generate better living standards and more taxation.
The problem isn't globalisation, the problem is facing down those who have a vested interest in opposing growth.
I would add, tax unused building land heavily, while reducing taxation on new house builds.
Just tax all land like they do in Japan, that works really well at getting unused land at valuable sites into productive use.
Combined with Japan removing our planning style system and changing the law, nationally, so that people have a right to build on their own land without seeking consent first.
We could and should learn a lot from Japan. Who have far worse demographics than us, but good living standards.
They also have restrictions on on-street parking, opening up lots of space for transport and housing.
I much prefer off-road parking to on-street parking. Its what we need as we switch to EVs too, all new homes should preferably come with 2 off-road parking spaces each. 👍
See, here you are saying that preferably we should make housing construction more costly in terms of land acquisitions for enough space to park and manouevre two cars per household. If the point is to reduce the cost of doing stuff, this is exactly what misses the point.
It's these kind of planning regulations that need to go in the bin. Room for two cars is two bedrooms lost.
Who said anything about planning regulations? Not me.
Room for two cars takes very minimal space and means that you can keep the road clear for other users - what's your problem with that?
You seem to be against both on-street parking and off-road parking. You can't have it both ways!
Minimal space? A two car garage is enormous. More than half the size of a typical one bed flat.
Who needs a garage?
And flats are total shite, yes, which is why so few people live or want them.
A driveway in front of a semi/terrace takes very minimal space, rather than having a tiny garden in front of the property.
Most profitable ever political event for me, outdoing the POTUS 2020 one
With Lab getting less votes than Jezza in 2017 being the main one but also Islington North and Greens to win the 4 specific seats they did also coming in.
Well done to SKS fans who i am sure will be delighted with the size of the majority on such shockingly poor raw numbers.
FPTP is totally broken IMO but that aint going to change now.
Enjoy the honeymoon
The Brexit tactical votes of 2017-19 went home. And how.
They like a decisive win. We have 5 years of stable Gov’t and they won’t lose next time, so a solid 10 years.
33 percent of the vote assured 10 years. I'll have what you're smoking.
Not assured, but still quite likely.
Con currently on 119 seats, so more than 200 gains needed for a majority. Thats an even bigger task than the task Starmer faced yesterday.
You can't simply add Con and Ref vote shares together, but even if you did the combined party would have to come up with more than "stop the boats" and unfunded tax cuts to have a credible alternative government.
And there are potentially some favourable winds. The economy is recovering, NHS waiting lists are dropping, immigration is falling, inflation has flattened. Without doing a lot, the country could be in a much better place in 5 years time.
All those reform voters voted for Reform because the Tories they voted for in 2019 didn't deliver. Labour won't deliver either - immigration is the huge issue that is driving this. I know Leon is a nutter, but on this he is surely right - 1 in 30 of people in the country came in the last three years. That's huge. Many on here don't experience the effects, but many who voted reform do.
There’s no denying that Labour’s castle is currently built on sand. They better deliver!
Unfortunately what people want is mostly undeliverable and often the opposite what other people want delivered.
Worse what many people are going to receive is likely to be something they don't want.
Starmer and Reeves have my sympathy.
Well, yes, try being honest with the voters.
"An ageing population means that you're going to have get used to paying more, in order to receive less. And, you won't get to retire till you're 70. Globalisation means there are millions of people who are just as clever as you, who are willing to work for 40% of what you get paid. But, this is still a prosperous, free, state, and you're still better off than almost any of your predecessors."
You'd get 10% of the vote, if you were lucky.
Take the handbrake off growth, remove the planning red tape that prevents growth, and we can be more prosperous, more free, and have the economic growth that will generate better living standards and more taxation.
The problem isn't globalisation, the problem is facing down those who have a vested interest in opposing growth.
I would add, tax unused building land heavily, while reducing taxation on new house builds.
Just tax all land like they do in Japan, that works really well at getting unused land at valuable sites into productive use.
Combined with Japan removing our planning style system and changing the law, nationally, so that people have a right to build on their own land without seeking consent first.
We could and should learn a lot from Japan. Who have far worse demographics than us, but good living standards.
They also have restrictions on on-street parking, opening up lots of space for transport and housing.
I much prefer off-road parking to on-street parking. Its what we need as we switch to EVs too, all new homes should preferably come with 2 off-road parking spaces each. 👍
See, here you are saying that preferably we should make housing construction more costly in terms of land acquisitions for enough space to park and manouevre two cars per household. If the point is to reduce the cost of doing stuff, this is exactly what misses the point.
Exactly. Bart has outed himself as a nimby. Some folks like views of fields and trees, he wants off street parking spaces.
This is silly. Not speaking for Barty, but a libertarian would probably argue that car owners who block the road by insisting on parking on the street should pay in proportion to the cost they impose on the rest of society, or be barred altogether given that they don’t own the land in question. Car owners who park on their own land can do what they like; they own the land. Don’t like the cost of parking on the street? Buy some land to put your car on.
Recount at 2. Reform were ahead but Labour requested recount (127 votes, Con 1000 further back) but checks found counting irregularities so they count from scratch at 2 I believe
There’s no denying that Labour’s castle is currently built on sand. They better deliver!
Unfortunately what people want is mostly undeliverable and often the opposite what other people want delivered.
Worse what many people are going to receive is likely to be something they don't want.
Starmer and Reeves have my sympathy.
Well, yes, try being honest with the voters.
"An ageing population means that you're going to have get used to paying more, in order to receive less. And, you won't get to retire till you're 70. Globalisation means there are millions of people who are just as clever as you, who are willing to work for 40% of what you get paid. But, this is still a prosperous, free, state, and you're still better off than almost any of your predecessors."
You'd get 10% of the vote, if you were lucky.
Take the handbrake off growth, remove the planning red tape that prevents growth, and we can be more prosperous, more free, and have the economic growth that will generate better living standards and more taxation.
The problem isn't globalisation, the problem is facing down those who have a vested interest in opposing growth.
I would add, tax unused building land heavily, while reducing taxation on new house builds.
Just tax all land like they do in Japan, that works really well at getting unused land at valuable sites into productive use.
Combined with Japan removing our planning style system and changing the law, nationally, so that people have a right to build on their own land without seeking consent first.
We could and should learn a lot from Japan. Who have far worse demographics than us, but good living standards.
They also have restrictions on on-street parking, opening up lots of space for transport and housing.
I much prefer off-road parking to on-street parking. Its what we need as we switch to EVs too, all new homes should preferably come with 2 off-road parking spaces each. 👍
See, here you are saying that preferably we should make housing construction more costly in terms of land acquisitions for enough space to park and manouevre two cars per household. If the point is to reduce the cost of doing stuff, this is exactly what misses the point.
It's these kind of planning regulations that need to go in the bin. Room for two cars is two bedrooms lost.
Who said anything about planning regulations? Not me.
Room for two cars takes very minimal space and means that you can keep the road clear for other users - what's your problem with that?
You seem to be against both on-street parking and off-road parking. You can't have it both ways!
Minimal space? A two car garage is enormous. More than half the size of a typical one bed flat.
Who needs a garage?
And flats are total shite, yes, which is why so few people live or want them.
A driveway in front of a semi/terrace takes very minimal space, rather than having a tiny garden in front of the property.
That's why everyone in Morningside is snapping up those detached 5 beds in Middlesbrough
There’s no denying that Labour’s castle is currently built on sand. They better deliver!
Unfortunately what people want is mostly undeliverable and often the opposite what other people want delivered.
Worse what many people are going to receive is likely to be something they don't want.
Starmer and Reeves have my sympathy.
Well, yes, try being honest with the voters.
"An ageing population means that you're going to have get used to paying more, in order to receive less. And, you won't get to retire till you're 70. Globalisation means there are millions of people who are just as clever as you, who are willing to work for 40% of what you get paid. But, this is still a prosperous, free, state, and you're still better off than almost any of your predecessors."
You'd get 10% of the vote, if you were lucky.
Take the handbrake off growth, remove the planning red tape that prevents growth, and we can be more prosperous, more free, and have the economic growth that will generate better living standards and more taxation.
The problem isn't globalisation, the problem is facing down those who have a vested interest in opposing growth.
I would add, tax unused building land heavily, while reducing taxation on new house builds.
Just tax all land like they do in Japan, that works really well at getting unused land at valuable sites into productive use.
Combined with Japan removing our planning style system and changing the law, nationally, so that people have a right to build on their own land without seeking consent first.
We could and should learn a lot from Japan. Who have far worse demographics than us, but good living standards.
They also have restrictions on on-street parking, opening up lots of space for transport and housing.
I much prefer off-road parking to on-street parking. Its what we need as we switch to EVs too, all new homes should preferably come with 2 off-road parking spaces each. 👍
See, here you are saying that preferably we should make housing construction more costly in terms of land acquisitions for enough space to park and manouevre two cars per household. If the point is to reduce the cost of doing stuff, this is exactly what misses the point.
It's these kind of planning regulations that need to go in the bin. Room for two cars is two bedrooms lost.
Who said anything about planning regulations? Not me.
Room for two cars takes very minimal space and means that you can keep the road clear for other users - what's your problem with that?
You seem to be against both on-street parking and off-road parking. You can't have it both ways!
Minimal space? A two car garage is enormous. More than half the size of a typical one bed flat.
Who needs a garage?
And flats are total shite, yes, which is why so few people live or want them.
A driveway in front of a semi/terrace takes very minimal space, rather than having a tiny garden in front of the property.
I have a unsubstantiated theory that more people use garages for general storage and utility than to actually keep cars in.
Most profitable ever political event for me, outdoing the POTUS 2020 one
With Lab getting less votes than Jezza in 2017 being the main one but also Islington North and Greens to win the 4 specific seats they did also coming in.
Well done to SKS fans who i am sure will be delighted with the size of the majority on such shockingly poor raw numbers.
FPTP is totally broken IMO but that aint going to change now.
Recount at 2. Reform were ahead but Labour requested recount (127 votes, Con 1000 further back) but checks found counting irregularities so they count from scratch at 2 I believe
Inverness recount tomorrow for some reason and DandG pending any time
Recount at 2. Reform were ahead but Labour requested recount (127 votes, Con 1000 further back) but checks found counting irregularities so they count from scratch at 2 I believe
There’s no denying that Labour’s castle is currently built on sand. They better deliver!
Unfortunately what people want is mostly undeliverable and often the opposite what other people want delivered.
Worse what many people are going to receive is likely to be something they don't want.
Starmer and Reeves have my sympathy.
Well, yes, try being honest with the voters.
"An ageing population means that you're going to have get used to paying more, in order to receive less. And, you won't get to retire till you're 70. Globalisation means there are millions of people who are just as clever as you, who are willing to work for 40% of what you get paid. But, this is still a prosperous, free, state, and you're still better off than almost any of your predecessors."
You'd get 10% of the vote, if you were lucky.
Take the handbrake off growth, remove the planning red tape that prevents growth, and we can be more prosperous, more free, and have the economic growth that will generate better living standards and more taxation.
The problem isn't globalisation, the problem is facing down those who have a vested interest in opposing growth.
I would add, tax unused building land heavily, while reducing taxation on new house builds.
Just tax all land like they do in Japan, that works really well at getting unused land at valuable sites into productive use.
Combined with Japan removing our planning style system and changing the law, nationally, so that people have a right to build on their own land without seeking consent first.
We could and should learn a lot from Japan. Who have far worse demographics than us, but good living standards.
They also have restrictions on on-street parking, opening up lots of space for transport and housing.
I much prefer off-road parking to on-street parking. Its what we need as we switch to EVs too, all new homes should preferably come with 2 off-road parking spaces each. 👍
See, here you are saying that preferably we should make housing construction more costly in terms of land acquisitions for enough space to park and manouevre two cars per household. If the point is to reduce the cost of doing stuff, this is exactly what misses the point.
It's these kind of planning regulations that need to go in the bin. Room for two cars is two bedrooms lost.
Who said anything about planning regulations? Not me.
Room for two cars takes very minimal space and means that you can keep the road clear for other users - what's your problem with that?
You seem to be against both on-street parking and off-road parking. You can't have it both ways!
Minimal space? A two car garage is enormous. More than half the size of a typical one bed flat.
Who needs a garage?
And flats are total shite, yes, which is why so few people live or want them.
A driveway in front of a semi/terrace takes very minimal space, rather than having a tiny garden in front of the property.
That's why everyone in Morningside is snapping up those detached 5 beds in Middlesbrough
Indeed, there isn't a single county in the entire country, including Middlesbrough, which doesn't have a housing shortage.
What an amazing election! in many ways, far more fascinating and surprising than 1997, wouldn't you agree?
Good morning. What on earth happened in Ilford North? I thought Wes was going to win easily.
A lot of people are fed up with the major parties, which they see as ignoring them. Or, worse, hearing them and then deliberately going another way.
The Tories have made more people fed up than Labour, by a long way. So the next step is to see if Labour can actually do something (in the style of Biden) to actually answer some questions. Otherwise, their turn will come.
Which is the pretty frank and decent answer that Mandleson gave last night, when asked about the low turnout and low Labour share, behind the apparent landslide.
The psephological research that needs doing urgently, is to go back to Reform voters and establish what they would have done had Reform not stood in their seat - not vote at all, vote Tory, or vote anti-Tory? That data is absolutely key.
This was done with Lib/SDP voters in 1983 and the research identified that more of them would plump for the Tories rather than Labour, given a forced choice. This got overwhelmed by the more widespread view that the SDP "split the left", but I'm sure the facts were noted by those inside Labour who needed to know.
The Tories will quickly take comfort in the "Reform split the right" excuse, because it's the easy one that offers up someone else to blame and enables them to deny other factors that are their real problem. Establishing the verdict that those Reform voters would have given on the Tory government could be very instructive data.
Good that Hunt survived. He's got to be made leader. I'll go and campaign for him if he runs.
I did some maths this morning
Labour got 20.3% of eligible voters vs Boris getting 29.6% of eligible voters and Blair getting 30.8% of eligible voters. Major got 32.6% in 1992 and Maggie got 33% in 1979. Even Dave got 23.5% share and that was a hung parliament.
Personal mandate this is not. Starmer is going to be even more timid than we expected, despite the big majority. A few percent swing from Lab to Tory and Reform to Tory wipes the majority out in 2029. It literally just needs 2-3 points from both to vote Tory next time and we're heading to hung parliament territory.
Thinking about the leadership vote, I can't see the remaining MPs voting for Braverman (and probably not Badenoch). I can't see the members voting for Hunt or Tugendhat. I'm wondering whether Barclay or Cleverly could be the candidate to come through the middle.
Will the members get a vote? I can see a caretaker leader and a total overhaul of the voting system "in these extraordinary circumstances".
Comments
Dumfries & Galloway
Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale & Tweeddale
Basildon South & Thurrock East
Poole
Inverness, Skye & West Ross-shire
A protest vote
They have been a damp squib compared to the hype.
We’re not an extremist country.
Please do not assume any future result is a given. With a result like this, doubly so.
SKS has shown with the right conditions a huge majority can be overturned. Our electorate are volatile now, and at the moment they are on a move away from the Big 2 parties.
I could quite easily see Labour building on their vote share from this GE. Similarly I could see them hammered by opposition parties just where it hurts to cost them their majority. Or a Reform/Tory combo surging.
I will feel more comfortable having a think about 2029 in a couple of years time. Right now, it feels like a fools errand to forecast. Take that from someone who predicted Tory victory in 2024 right after Boris won.
Tactical voting - look at a seat like The Wrekin, held by the Tories with only 32.6% of the vote, and with Labour only 883 votes behind.
If the elderly voters tend to vote for incumbents, i.e. if they are conservative, rather than Conservative, then you can plausibly see the Tories losing further votes, even if they don't make a mess of opposition.
I can also see a couple of paths to Labour losing all of their majority - and then some - all in one go.
Clearly, not that many people are enthusiastic about voting Labour, and both the Greens and Lib Dems have shown that voting for them is not a wasted vote, and doesn't let the Tories in. There seem to be quite a few seats where the Greens are now second behind Labour.
They are defending lots of seats now with small majorities. Wes Streeting only received 33.4% of the vote in Ilford North, for example.
Driving, you would need to navigate carefully.
You start with a problem in the Lewes seat, where the hills north of Brighton block your way to the north west of that seat, since the road connections run either through Labour/Green Brighton or into Tory East Grinstead & Uckfield. On the A27 near the University of Sussex you need to get up towards Ditchling, but it's bridleways rather than roads. The bridleway across to Ditchling Beacon is likely legally barred to traffic but it it's Forestry Commission, as it looks, you could probably make it on a motorbike or in a 4WD, opening a few gates as you go.
There's then a pinch point in Maidenhead, and you'd have to stick to the B3017 past Mill Ride golf course to avoid straying into Tory Windsor or Labour Bracknell.
You then skirt round north of Reading, but to get round Swindon you'd have to carefully squeeze below Tory North Cotswolds, coming into Lechlade along Langley Lane.
After that, the swathe of LibDem seats is wide enough to give you plenty of choice as to how to travel through Somerset and into Devon.
If you could get a boat in Ilfracombe and make it around Hartland Point to land below Marsland Cliff, you could then continue your LibDem journey into Cornwall.
Hunt's 2024 Godalming campaign will surely go down in legend.
IIRC, @NickPalmer lives around those parts. I wonder what the story is like from his side?
BBC R4 doing an outstanding job of fulfilling it's remit, Mandelson interrupted in the middle of a very thoughtful and balanced analysis so that they could describe Jeremy Hunt having some family snaps taken with the dog as they leave Downing street.
The hard work starts here, Starmer is going to have to start delivering on the repair job to earn the majority he's been gifted.
Damn it.
I had 34-35.99% band for Lab vote share at 43 with bf.
Are they going to finish a bit under that?? If so that would have been monster odds.
Labour have received less than 100,000 more votes in GE 2024, than John Major's Tories did in 1997.
I did some maths this morning
Labour got 20.3% of eligible voters vs Boris getting 29.6% of eligible voters and Blair getting 30.8% of eligible voters. Major got 32.6% in 1992 and Maggie got 33% in 1979. Even Dave got 23.5% share and that was a hung parliament.
Personal mandate this is not. Starmer is going to be even more timid than we expected, despite the big majority. A few percent swing from Lab to Tory and Reform to Tory wipes the majority out in 2029. It literally just needs 2-3 points from both to vote Tory next time and we're heading to hung parliament territory.
I don't have a front-garden, what could be my front garden is two driving spaces instead. I have a back garden instead, with a trampoline etc for my kids to play on.
Having a front-garden with no off-road parking so that you then park on public land is an externality that means you're taking public land for yourself rather than using your own land.
However on-street parking is very valuable for people who don't live there, so apart from city centres I wouldn't ban it. Eg when I drop my kids off at school, or pick them up, then I park on the road by the houses next to the school - whom if they have a car have their car on their driveway, so the space is free for us to use for 10 minutes while picking up/dropping off and then able to move away again.
I said this election would be more about how badly the Conservatives did than how well Labour won, and called the Labour landslide.
I have little interest in engaging in discussions with those on the Right about ‘anti-woke’ culture wars. There is work to be done and it’s not my job to sort out the Conservative Party. I certainly have no desire to listen to Leon’s shouty hyperbole about this, that, and the other.
The tories will need to sort out what they stand for, and why. They need to appoint the best leader to bring themselves back and they will only do so when they recover the centre-right. I doubt the tories will listen which is one of the reasons Labour will carry on winning until they do. It may take two more defeats before the penny drops for you Conservatives.
We’re a moderate country. You win in the middle.
And for goodness sake DO drop the nastiness. That would be a start. Take your cue from Jeremy Hunt’s gracious speech last night. He should be made leader in the interim now.
Stay happy.
xx
I don't know if you heard but Liz Truss lost. I still haven't stopped laughing!
Con 14,999
SNP 10,757
Lab 10,140
Ref 3,822
LD 2,800
Grn 1,488
Scot Fam 208
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election/2024/uk/constituencies/S14000074
4 to come.
The thing is some have driveways and some have front gardens.
I prefer the former over the latter and as we move to electric vehicles the former is more important too.
I remember when my group of nine on the council was suddenly increased to twelve as we received three defectors from the Labour group. The first LibDem group meeting they came to, we opened the council agenda to work through it as usual, and fairly quickly we were having a lively discussion about our differing views on one of the items. For about ten minutes the Labour guys just sat there quietly listening to us arguing with each other. Then one of them put their hand up and rather gingerly asked whether they could, as it seemed, say whatever they liked about the items on the agenda?
The rest of us just looked at them with puzzled expressions, until someone asked what happens, then, at Labour Group meetings? They explained that Labour has the leader and cabinet members come in and tell them how the Group will vote on each item on the agenda and who will speak and who will make which arguments, and the backbenchers' role is simply to write all this down and prepare for their alloted roles.
Hanging on in interviews the content of which we could have written ourselves, missing most of the actual declarations, broom-cupboard feel to the studios.
NIMBYs want to block what they dislike, I don't.
I'm not against houses being built without off-road parking, I just prefer if they're built with it.
Look how long Stonehenge A303 is taking. Seven years since the preferred route announcement and all but preliminary enabling works on hold for the best part of a year thanks to yet another fucking vexatious appeal.
Lab 14,168
Con 14,150
https://x.com/AlexSmithEcho/status/1809146555661684936
Room for two cars takes very minimal space and means that you can keep the road clear for other users - what's your problem with that?
You seem to be against both on-street parking and off-road parking. You can't have it both ways!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Rally#Election_results
According to preliminary data from the Federal Statistical Office (Destatis), real (price-adjusted) production in the manufacturing sector fell by 2.5% in May 2024 compared to April 2024, adjusted for seasonal and calendar effects. In a three-month comparison, production from March 2024 to May 2024 remained at the same level (0.0%) as in the previous three months. In April 2024, production rose by 0.1% compared to March 2024 after revision of the preliminary results (preliminary value: -0.1%). Compared to the same month last year, May 2023, production in May 2024 was 6.7% lower, adjusted for calendar effects.
Tory Britain: Eviscerated.
It also gives rise to the illusion that London labour spread across the country over the last 5 years.
Nothing could be further from the truth!
Making the following assumptions.
1. The voters will become frustrated at the failure of a Labour government to markedly improve things.
2. The voters will not quickly forgive the Tories for the failures of 2010-2024.
3. There is a ceiling to Reform support
4. The Lib Dem strategy has done very well to win 71 seats on only 12.2% of the vote, but it's a kind of cul-de-sac, and breaking out of it to challenge more widely will be difficult.
I struggle to see any party receiving more than 30% of the vote next time, which is going to have even more erratic consequences for seat totals. The exit poll still did remarkably well this time.
The lesson for us all is that we all could get exceedingly rich if we followed his modelling....
Andy JS is not a predictor, he is a prophet that sees into the future...
Most profitable ever political event for me, outdoing the POTUS 2020 one
With Lab getting less votes than Jezza in 2017 being the main one but also Islington North and Greens to win the 4 specific seats they did also coming in.
Well done to SKS fans who i am sure will be delighted with the size of the majority on such shockingly poor raw numbers.
FPTP is totally broken IMO but that aint going to change now.
Enjoy the honeymoon
Who is going to be the first to wake up and realise that we need to rethink an awful lot of our assumptions about economics, government and politics, and to realise that authoritarian governments are a real threat to us?
This UK general election has been one of navel-gazing, the wider world barely getting a mention. I barely even care about the outcome because the stuff that worries me isn't happening here. I'm sure of one thing though, none of the UK political parties seems prepared or capable enough.
Basildon South: Lab 13500, Ref 12750, Con 12500
Inverness: SNP 17000, LD 16000
Dumfries: Con 16250, SNP 14750
Not surprising if there are recounts in those 3 seats.
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1iFyVLRnJG_7HD1BrN6BQMzU_n2Vl-BjJEIz5H3qq6XA/edit?gid=0#gid=0
I said its my preference.
Those are two completely different things.
As Phil says, if people are prepared to use their own land to house their vehicles and charge them then that's their choice.
And flats are total shite, yes, which is why so few people live or want them.
A driveway in front of a semi/terrace takes very minimal space, rather than having a tiny garden in front of the property.
what is he now?
The psephological research that needs doing urgently, is to go back to Reform voters and establish what they would have done had Reform not stood in their seat - not vote at all, vote Tory, or vote anti-Tory? That data is absolutely key.
This was done with Lib/SDP voters in 1983 and the research identified that more of them would plump for the Tories rather than Labour, given a forced choice. This got overwhelmed by the more widespread view that the SDP "split the left", but I'm sure the facts were noted by those inside Labour who needed to know.
The Tories will quickly take comfort in the "Reform split the right" excuse, because it's the easy one that offers up someone else to blame and enables them to deny other factors that are their real problem. Establishing the verdict that those Reform voters would have given on the Tory government could be very instructive data.