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.
Is Davey going to get roughly the same vote share as Swinson, in a low turnout election, and end up with 70 seats?
I regret that politics nowadays only gives you one shot and you're out. Swinson made some mistakes, but she was young and could have learnt from them. It's a loss to politics when young people have to leave after they have failed once.
Not sure it's true you get one shot and out in politics.
Swinson herself came back as an MP having lost her seat in 2015, and she probably would've won her seat back again yesterday had she wanted to go again - they party would certainly have been fine with it. But she's got a young family and probably has other things she wanted to do with her life. She's not unique in losing in 2015 and coming back to lead the Lib Dems - both her predecessor and successor did it.
Lots of other examples too. Hague and IDS were notably unsuccessful LOTOs who went on to Cabinet careers. Ed Miliband will join that club presumably when Starmer appoints in the next few days. The first Labour gain of the night was Heidi Alexander in Swindon... she'd left as Lewisham MP having become disillusioned with Corbyn, worked for Khan for a while, and is probably eyeing ministerial office. Ministers have spells on the backbenches and come back in again. And Lord Cameron was even Foreign Secretary for a while. It's not uncommon at all.
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.
I think you're right!
Driveways are far superior for actually keeping cars on, off-road. Garages are far superior for storage.
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.
Lots of 1960s suburban houses were built with garages but most of them have been converted into dens, workshops or spare bedrooms. Of course, modern cars wouldn't fit in them anyway and they only allowed for one per family. What we need is a national policy for households with four SUVs at their disposal.
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.
Unfortunately, you cannot just send them home and keep education and social care running while cutting taxes. So Reform were always lying.
Just watched Liz Truss blame the previous Labour govt for her defeat last night. Apparently 14 years in power was not enough for proper Conservatism to work...
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.
I'd agree with that, though it's why we need to tax land rather than anything else. Reward efficient use of it.
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.
Luckily for the Conservatives they were able to pass the punishment onto the LibDems.
Then came Corbyn and Brexit to give them another eight years in government.
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.
I think we are not comparing apples with apples. The slow decline of the 2-(and-a-half-)party vote split has come to a head in this election.
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".
The current leader could do it as his most useful contribution to the party.
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.
I agree with this.
Though I hope Starmer also reflects on what a narrow mountaintop he is sitting on: sharp edges on both sides with historically unusual votes for independents and greens on the left, and a right that is currently divided but may not be in five years .
He needs to show bold and decisive action within the first 100 days, or I think he will lose voters to both left and right. And with only about 35% of the vote he really cannot afford this.
Personally I think he can afford to tack left; I think a lot of the anti-labour vote is anti-managerial centrism rather than a positive vote for a Trussite slashing of the state or a Reform cuddle with Putin.
But whatever he does, almost the worst thing he could do is be cautious for the next year hoping to hold onto the gains he has...people will tire of this very quickly as others on here have said.
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.
Stayed at home not went home
Plenty voted for Islamic candidates or Greens or right-wing parties.
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".
Best solution might be a caretaker, a bunch of reforms internally and then an leadership election in 12 months. IT would be a mistake to immediately rush given the divides in the party.
Just watched Liz Truss blame the previous Labour govt for her defeat last night. Apparently 14 years in power was not enough for proper Conservatism to work...
The Anti Growth Coalition are everywhere, at all times.
Just watched Liz Truss blame the previous Labour govt for her defeat last night. Apparently 14 years in power was not enough for proper Conservatism to work...
Like Communism, it is never that Conservatism doesn't work, it's the fact it wasn't "done enough".
Just watched Liz Truss blame the previous Labour govt for her defeat last night. Apparently 14 years in power was not enough for proper Conservatism to work...
Even among politicians Dizzy Lizzy stands out for her refusal to accept responsibility for her own actions.
Just watched Liz Truss blame the previous Labour govt for her defeat last night. Apparently 14 years in power was not enough for proper Conservatism to work...
Well we were told that if we voted labour we would be back to 2010 - and back in 2010 the Labour Government (even at the very end) was way more competent than the last few years of this Tory Government.
Yesterday when I went to vote there was an older lady who I think didn't have the correct id to vote. I'm pretty sure I heard them say she came back three times to vote with the wrong type of IDs. I hope this hasn't been repeated up and down the country and I hope that isn't the main reason for the fall in turnout
Just had a 2 hour nap - the soundcheck for the first of the big summer gigs in Finsbury Park has just started, so no chance of any more sleep until after 2300 or whenever it all finishes.
Looks like a poor night's betting for me. Of the substantial bets I let run to the end, I:
LOST Con to win 50-99 seats LOST Labour to win Islington North
WON Labour majority WON APNI to win 1 seat (an emotional hedge; I really hoped that Naomi would win in Belfast East)
Overall, a small loss... at least it's better than a big loss!
I must congratulate you on your work. Your forecast was excellent once more.
I didn't do too badly myself with my forecast posted on July 3rd just before 2200.
Lab 424 Con127 LD 49 SNP 22 Gr 2 PC 3 REF 2 OTH 3 NI 18
Turnout 61%
This was based on much less rigorous work. I looked at my local seats and thought that Hinckley and Bosworth, Melton and Syston would stay Tory, and that both Mid Leics and Harborough were too much of a stretch. I then extrapolated to national figures.
I did think that the Independent would do well in Leicester South, and that Leicester East was chaotic but I did think Lab holds for them.
Dumfries & Galloway Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale & Tweeddale Basildon South & Thurrock East Poole Inverness, Skye & West Ross-shire
Labour wins Poole by 18 votes
Basildon not counting till 3pm after Lab objected to the Reform win of 120 and the returning Officer found irregularities with some of the count bundles so sent the staff home to have a 2nd go later
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.
Unfortunately, you cannot just send them home and keep education and social care running while cutting taxes. So Reform were always lying.
No debate about that. A lot of them are students that will not be staying long term and its inflated after covid, but its undoubtedly true that after Brexit, when people thought immigration would be under control, it appears to be out of control.
@TSE disappointed that last night's promised AV thread failed to materialise
I'm wondering whether AV would have flipped many seats, whether a lot of Ref second Prefs would have been Con or whether those voters were really intent on giving Sunak and co a kicking.
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.
I think we are not comparing apples with apples. The slow decline of the 2-(and-a-half-)party vote split has come to a head in this election.
Well, yes, but while there are some worrying reasons for this, (such as the growth of sectarian parties), there are also two big non-worrying reasons: 1) Labour isn't scary. People vote Tory to keep Labour out, and when Labour isn't scary they feel free to vote for who the like. 2) Labour were so clearly going to win anyway. When the result isn't in doubt, the voter has a little more freedom.
Is Davey going to get roughly the same vote share as Swinson, in a low turnout election, and end up with 70 seats?
I regret that politics nowadays only gives you one shot and you're out. Swinson made some mistakes, but she was young and could have learnt from them. It's a loss to politics when young people have to leave after they have failed once.
Not sure it's true you get one shot and out in politics.
Swinson herself came back as an MP having lost her seat in 2015, and she probably would've won her seat back again yesterday had she wanted to go again - they party would certainly have been fine with it. But she's got a young family and probably has other things she wanted to do with her life. She's not unique in losing in 2015 and coming back to lead the Lib Dems - both her predecessor and successor did it.
Lots of other examples too. Hague and IDS were notably unsuccessful LOTOs who went on to Cabinet careers. Ed Miliband will join that club presumably when Starmer appoints in the next few days. The first Labour gain of the night was Heidi Alexander in Swindon... she'd left as Lewisham MP having become disillusioned with Corbyn, worked for Khan for a while, and is probably eyeing ministerial office. Ministers have spells on the backbenches and come back in again. And Lord Cameron was even Foreign Secretary for a while. It's not uncommon at all.
You only get one shot at the top, though. Hague, IDS, Swinson, Cameron; whatever choices they made and however ambitious they had been, they weren't going to get another shot at leader. Neither is Johnson or Truss or Sunak. Cameron's done the best, and of course he has immunity to electoral pressure and was handed the job by his mate.
Dumfries & Galloway Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale & Tweeddale Basildon South & Thurrock East Poole Inverness, Skye & West Ross-shire
Labour wins Poole by 18 votes
Basildon not counting till 3pm after Lab objected to the Reform win of 120 and the returning Officer found irregularities with some of the count bundles so sent the staff home to have a 2nd go later
If a recount comes out with the opposite result, equally narrowly - which sounds quite possible in the circumstances you descibe, the party that won the first time is pretty much guaranteed a further recount, until two successive counts come out close enough to suggest they've got it right. So these could take some time.
Ironically if we had STV, those reform voters would have given the tories a lot more seats possibly
Maybe. But they'd also have risked losing some too, and some are really hard to say.
Take Hunt in Godalming is an example. 890 vote margin; RefUK had 4,815; Lab/Green/Women's Equality had 4,186 between them. Would enough of RefUK have broken for Hunt to increase his majority if (as seems likely) a lot of the others went Lib Dem second choice? Perhaps, but I tend to suspect it would've gone slightly the other way. RefUK is a bit of an "up yours" vote - a lot of them aren't going to be using second preference. And some would've gone Lib Dem - I know it's a bit odd, but a non-negligble proportion of people just want to protest against the Government. There have been quite a few vox pops of LD/RefUK waverers and although it's obviously going to be less common than Con/RefUK, I'm not sure it's that rare.
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
Ah ok - so possibly a fifth reform MP then
Odds on that happening. LDs could pick up another seat in Inverness.
A 7.4% fall in turnout is really worrying for our democracy.
It was 2% measured rejection rate at the locals due to voter ID, but perhaps a further 2% never set out to the polling station in the first place as didn't have ID to hand.
Then there's the postal vote fiasco, which may well have particularly impacted Scotland and NI by not arriving before booked holidays. The SNP could be rightly annoyed by this.
I hope the authorities look seriously at this and review or ease the ID rules and come up with a better Postal vote system.
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.
Naah, big picture is Bart Likes Cars. In a world where every household has two cars, you are making a socking great implied land grab over land which does not belong to you because you are implicitly demanding more roads. Nothing more socialist than road building. Unless Bart thinks it's up to individual landowners and the new M100 will be 8 lane motorway for a couple of miles, then a quaintly waymarked cycle track on the next landowners patch. And so on.
Comments
Swinson herself came back as an MP having lost her seat in 2015, and she probably would've won her seat back again yesterday had she wanted to go again - they party would certainly have been fine with it. But she's got a young family and probably has other things she wanted to do with her life. She's not unique in losing in 2015 and coming back to lead the Lib Dems - both her predecessor and successor did it.
Lots of other examples too. Hague and IDS were notably unsuccessful LOTOs who went on to Cabinet careers. Ed Miliband will join that club presumably when Starmer appoints in the next few days. The first Labour gain of the night was Heidi Alexander in Swindon... she'd left as Lewisham MP having become disillusioned with Corbyn, worked for Khan for a while, and is probably eyeing ministerial office. Ministers have spells on the backbenches and come back in again. And Lord Cameron was even Foreign Secretary for a while. It's not uncommon at all.
Driveways are far superior for actually keeping cars on, off-road. Garages are far superior for storage.
Then came Corbyn and Brexit to give them another eight years in government.
Though I hope Starmer also reflects on what a narrow mountaintop he is sitting on: sharp edges on both sides with historically unusual votes for independents and greens on the left, and a right that is currently divided but may not be in five years .
He needs to show bold and decisive action within the first 100 days, or I think he will lose voters to both left and right. And with only about 35% of the
vote he really cannot afford this.
Personally I think he can afford to tack left; I think
a lot of the anti-labour vote is anti-managerial centrism rather than a positive vote for a Trussite slashing of the state or a Reform cuddle with Putin.
But whatever he does, almost the worst thing he could do is be cautious for the next year hoping to hold onto the gains he has...people will tire of this very quickly as others on here have said.
What a pleasant contrast to Betfair in 2020
What a night!!!!
@holyroodmandy
John Swinney: "there is clearly more that has to be done" as his party loses 39 MPs #election2024
I hope this hasn't been repeated up and down the country and I hope that isn't the main reason for the fall in turnout
(I've been at work, so a bit out of touch.)
Lab gain from Con by 15 votes
Hendon
Looks like a poor night's betting for me. Of the substantial bets I let run to the end, I:
LOST Con to win 50-99 seats
LOST Labour to win Islington North
WON Labour majority
WON APNI to win 1 seat (an emotional hedge; I really hoped that Naomi would win in Belfast East)
Overall, a small loss... at least it's better than a big loss!
"Stuart Findlay
@PJ_sfindlay
No result for Inverness, Skye and West Ross-Shire today. It's going to a recount at 10.30am TOMORROW.
Lib Dems believe their candidate Angus MacDonald has gained the seat from the SNP's Drew Hendry."
https://x.com/PJ_sfindlay/status/1809148395577110709
I didn't do too badly myself with my forecast posted on July 3rd just before 2200.
Lab 424
Con127
LD 49
SNP 22
Gr 2
PC 3
REF 2
OTH 3
NI 18
Turnout 61%
This was based on much less rigorous work. I looked at my local seats and thought that Hinckley and Bosworth, Melton and Syston would stay Tory, and that both Mid Leics and Harborough were too much of a stretch. I then extrapolated to national figures.
I did think that the Independent would do well in Leicester South, and that Leicester East was chaotic but I did think Lab holds for them.
@estwebber
One Tory aide says there's disquiet at the idea of Sunak staying on and a proper post-mortem can't happen with him at the helm.
Some MPs would prefer an old hand e.g. Iain Duncan Smith or David Davis
I'm wondering whether AV would have flipped many seats, whether a lot of Ref second Prefs would have been Con or whether those voters were really intent on giving Sunak and co a kicking.
1) Labour isn't scary. People vote Tory to keep Labour out, and when Labour isn't scary they feel free to vote for who the like.
2) Labour were so clearly going to win anyway. When the result isn't in doubt, the voter has a little more freedom.
https://x.com/IanDunt/status/1809102698815332452
"@IanDunt
That was the single most beautiful thing I've ever seen on a television screen."
NEW THREAD
Take Hunt in Godalming is an example. 890 vote margin; RefUK had 4,815; Lab/Green/Women's Equality had 4,186 between them. Would enough of RefUK have broken for Hunt to increase his majority if (as seems likely) a lot of the others went Lib Dem second choice? Perhaps, but I tend to suspect it would've gone slightly the other way. RefUK is a bit of an "up yours" vote - a lot of them aren't going to be using second preference. And some would've gone Lib Dem - I know it's a bit odd, but a non-negligble proportion of people just want to protest against the Government. There have been quite a few vox pops of LD/RefUK waverers and although it's obviously going to be less common than Con/RefUK, I'm not sure it's that rare.
What will the Labour majority be? 162?
These people are thugs, dressing themselves in the Palestinian flag.
Then there's the postal vote fiasco, which may well have particularly impacted Scotland and NI by not arriving before booked holidays. The SNP could be rightly annoyed by this.
I hope the authorities look seriously at this and review or ease the ID rules and come up with a better Postal vote system.