I just had a look at my Linkedin feed. There are a lot of 'professionals' engaging in a bit of defamation/slander against Reform UK, calling them racist, against multiculturalism, etc. They are doing this on the false assumption that everyone reading their feed agrees with them and taking the absence of criticism as validation for their views. But actually a lot of the people reading these outbursts voted for Reform UK and many more will be sympathetic to them.
The facts are 1 in 7 of the electorate voted reform, 1 in 3 of the electorate voted labour. It is not some mad fascist fringe movement. Reform UK are a mainstream party representing a significant quantum of public opinion.
Starmer and Reeves have to go for planning reform, to go for growth, and they have a mandate for it.
If they do, they'll get growth and they'll have done the right thing.
If they don't, the UK will continue to languish.
I agree. The hard question is what sort of planning reform. There are a lot of new MPs who have been voted in on a vague platform of "things can only get better", and are not going to be energised at the thought of telling their electors there's a 5,000-house estate going in over the road.
(For what it's worth, I think the sane way forward is really aggressive zoning in the "grey belt" and Labour appears to be making some tentative moves towards that. But saying it is easy, pushing it forward is harder.)
The bigger problem with planning reform is the rampant non-compliance from the water companies in England. It might be counter-intuitive, but if you want to bring the public along with you, you need to enforce planning rules even as you loosen them. Fund LA planning departments properly.
The other problem is being clear about what you want to achieve. On housing, the optimal outcome for developers (maximising profit) is not the same as the government (maximising the number of new homes in areas of housing pressure). Whatever reforms you make should try to align these two better.
Of course, the easiest (and historically proven) way to do it is council housing, where you skewer both obstructions at the same time.
Good point on enforcement. Many areas it has suffered and it builds a lot of cynicism.
That's the other cynical aspect of Council Housing. It has a democratic mandate, so very difficult for NIMBYs to oppose.
I use the same tactics for cycle lanes. Almost all political parties are broadly in favour of them, so when they get elected and the cycle lane starts to go in, you can just point to the manifesto and shout THIS IS DEMOCRACY MANIFEST.
So 121 Con MPs - which means 41 needed to make the Leadership Final 2. (40 would guarantee 2nd=).
@HYUFD - have you done an analysis yet re who will make the Final?
Has Braverman got the numbers?
I think Barclay or Cleverly are the likeliest contenders to be next leader, I don't think Tory MPs will put Braverman in the last 2 and her former campaign manager Steve Barclay lost his seat
Barclay is so dull though? For me, Hunt is head and shoulders above what’s left. And the likes of Braverman need to be sat on, heavily.
People called Starmer and Davey dull. Now one is PM and the other is some kind of aspiring youtube daredevil or something?
Big questions for how the Tories go up against this.
It would be interesting to know the split between seats where MP was restanding against compared to new candidates, and also interesting to know what would have hypothetically happened under the old boundaries.
So 121 Con MPs - which means 41 needed to make the Leadership Final 2. (40 would guarantee 2nd=).
@HYUFD - have you done an analysis yet re who will make the Final?
Has Braverman got the numbers?
I think Barclay or Cleverly are the likeliest contenders to be next leader, I don't think Tory MPs will put Braverman in the last 2 and her former campaign manager Steve Barclay lost his seat
Presume you meant to say Steve Baker lost his seat.
No, I was just pointing out the stupidity of your comment that to have concern about the Palestinians made you a Hamas supporter.
Your language is the language of Netanyahu which should make you reflect.
Having concerns for the Palestinians is fine. Having concerns for the Jews in Israel is fine.
When you put one of those as your top priority, in this country, over everything else - then it's very easy to appear a Hamas or Bibi supporter.
And I see a worrying amount of people whose 'concern' for the Palestinians appears to trump everything else that is happening in the world. And yes, I would class many of those people as Hamas supporters.
No. Absolutely not. You don't get to accuse people of being terrorist supporters just because you feel they are too concerned about casualties among Palestine civilians.
Read what I wrote. When that 'concern' becomes the most important thing in a UK election, then it's rather sussy, to say the least.
If green and Reform votes had been in line with previous elections where there was a two party squeeze (3 and 2% respectively), the vote shares would have been:
Starmer and Reeves have to go for planning reform, to go for growth, and they have a mandate for it.
If they do, they'll get growth and they'll have done the right thing.
If they don't, the UK will continue to languish.
I agree. The hard question is what sort of planning reform. There are a lot of new MPs who have been voted in on a vague platform of "things can only get better", and are not going to be energised at the thought of telling their electors there's a 5,000-house estate going in over the road.
(For what it's worth, I think the sane way forward is really aggressive zoning in the "grey belt" and Labour appears to be making some tentative moves towards that. But saying it is easy, pushing it forward is harder.)
I think we have to make passing this planning applications /patriotic/: we need a sustained PR campaign from all sides spelling it out to the oldies (it’s mostly the oldies) that by opposing planning applications that they are screwing over their own children & the entire country simultaneously.
Ripping control away from local authorities is probably also going to have to be part of this - which probably means more centralisation in the short term sadly. Ideally I think you’d give planning authority to regional authorities that roughly corresponded to the independent economic areas of the country - the hinterlands around the cities.
I'm not a fan of the idea of regional bodies but we need desperate action. I did like the idea of less ability to hold back significant projects with greater ability to hold back minor ones as a compromise, though frankly as a yimby I'd prefer less option in any case.
It's why I think we need to look at zoning, which hasn't as such ever been a big thing in the UK (Local Plans get close to it but not close enough). Effectively you say "this area is designated for houses, this is the design code to which the houses shall be built, and any planning application will automatically be approved as long as it conforms to the design code".
It would require the Government to come up with a decent national design code, which they are in theory capable of doing but which they would probably screw up.
Boris dropped the idea when there was rebellion (I'm not saying the specifics were without fault) but there's so much red tape needed with planning, it's just too much. I'm sure Labour were against his reforms but hopefully there's wiggle room from that to something positive.
I think the wins by independents fighting on Gaza, the close shaves in some other seats, and the toxicity of the campaigns particularly in seats with female MPs like Jess Phillips and Shabana Mahmood is just as if not a bigger story as Reform in this election
No, I was just pointing out the stupidity of your comment that to have concern about the Palestinians made you a Hamas supporter.
Your language is the language of Netanyahu which should make you reflect.
Having concerns for the Palestinians is fine. Having concerns for the Jews in Israel is fine.
When you put one of those as your top priority, in this country, over everything else - then it's very easy to appear a Hamas or Bibi supporter.
And I see a worrying amount of people whose 'concern' for the Palestinians appears to trump everything else that is happening in the world. And yes, I would class many of those people as Hamas supporters.
I do hope these new 'independent' MPs will look after the interests of all their constituents, even Jewish ones.
Both the Orthodox and Liberal Synagogues in Leicester are in Adam's Constituency, and he has condemned antisemitism. He deserves the benefit of the doubt, for the present at least.
Glad to hear it. Hopefully he'll speak out for all his constituents, and all civilians in the Middle East.
Kamala Harris now clear favourite to be the Democratic nominee.
Harris 2.14-2.2 Biden 3.3-3.4
Well Biden seems to be going nowhere and he holds most of the delegates and still largely polls better than Harris v Trump so looks like she will stay No 2 not become No 1
There’s a weird delirium seizing Tories this morning. Worst election result ever but they can sniff an opening with Starmer’s low vote share. “This is the shittest landslide ever” one says “We can get back in five years”. If this view is widespread it may change who they pick for leader
The Tory belief in their divine right to rule as the natural party of power is both unshakable and remarkable, given they were inches from being pushed into third place. We'll be back in our rightful place in less than five years.
Thinking it will be easy to get back would be delirium, but spotting an opportunity from Labour's score not being as high as expected in not itself unreasonable.
Starmer and Reeves have to go for planning reform, to go for growth, and they have a mandate for it.
If they do, they'll get growth and they'll have done the right thing.
If they don't, the UK will continue to languish.
I agree. The hard question is what sort of planning reform. There are a lot of new MPs who have been voted in on a vague platform of "things can only get better", and are not going to be energised at the thought of telling their electors there's a 5,000-house estate going in over the road.
(For what it's worth, I think the sane way forward is really aggressive zoning in the "grey belt" and Labour appears to be making some tentative moves towards that. But saying it is easy, pushing it forward is harder.)
I think we have to make passing this planning applications /patriotic/: we need a sustained PR campaign from all sides spelling it out to the oldies (it’s mostly the oldies) that by opposing planning applications that they are screwing over their own children & the entire country simultaneously.
Ripping control away from local authorities is probably also going to have to be part of this - which probably means more centralisation in the short term sadly. Ideally I think you’d give planning authority to regional authorities that roughly corresponded to the independent economic areas of the country - the hinterlands around the cities.
I'm not a fan of the idea of regional bodies but we need desperate action. I did like the idea of less ability to hold back significant projects with greater ability to hold back minor ones as a compromise, though frankly as a yimby I'd prefer less option in any case.
It's why I think we need to look at zoning, which hasn't as such ever been a big thing in the UK (Local Plans get close to it but not close enough). Effectively you say "this area is designated for houses, this is the design code to which the houses shall be built, and any planning application will automatically be approved as long as it conforms to the design code".
It would require the Government to come up with a decent national design code, which they are in theory capable of doing but which they would probably screw up.
Boris dropped the idea when there was rebellion (I'm not saying the specifics were without fault) but there's so much red tape needed with planning, it's just too much. I'm sure Labour were against his reforms but hopefully there's wiggle room from that to something positive.
It's just so difficult. For example, a sensible condition on zoning would be great energy efficiency. But that has just led to developers giving all houses tiny windows rather than investing in proper insulation.
Starmer and Reeves have to go for planning reform, to go for growth, and they have a mandate for it.
If they do, they'll get growth and they'll have done the right thing.
If they don't, the UK will continue to languish.
It is time.
Build those phone masts.
Its not just phone masts, its everything.
Houses, phone masts, factories, shops, roads, rails, cycle paths, reservoirs, sewage treatment, you name it we need to stop NIMBYs from blocking it.
I shall believe, when I see it, that a left wing government, headed by a barrister, will cut down the thickets of legal challenges that can be mounted towards new development, on grounds of conservation, climate change, badgers, and everything that can be used by pressure groups, to stop things from happening.
"This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast."
Not to mention all the newly-minted Labour and Lib Dem MP's who will vigorously support development anywhere but in their own constituencies.
And not to mention those Tories who have survived the cull, such as Andrew Mitchell, who have bitterly opposed any and every new development in their constituency for decades and will no doubt continue to do so.
I just had a look at my Linkedin feed. There are a lot of 'professionals' engaging in a bit of defamation/slander against Reform UK, calling them racist, against multiculturalism, etc. They are doing this on the false assumption that everyone reading their feed agrees with them and taking the absence of criticism as validation for their views. But actually a lot of the people reading these outbursts voted for Reform UK and many more will be sympathetic to them.
The facts are 1 in 7 of the electorate voted reform, 1 in 3 of the electorate voted labour. It is not some mad fascist fringe movement. Reform UK are a mainstream party representing a significant quantum of public opinion.
These statements aren't necessarily a contradiction. It's quite possible for a racist and fascist party to get 1 in 7 of the vote. 1 in 7 would be too many people for a civilised and inclusive society. The consolation is 6 out of 7 don't vote for them.
Well, a quick sum-up of the Didcot & Wantage campaign.
Despite Nick Palmer's impressions, there was a strong ground war campaign as well as the air war campaign. It's just that the air war was so visible it could have appeared overwhelming. Canvassing teams, despite being active, can be very easy to not see if you're on the other side (and so not likely to be canvassed). For example, I only noticed a Labour campaigining team on the Tuesday before the election (which I mentioned here), despite them apparently having two teams out canvassing every day (and probably more on weekends).
We also had at least two teams out canvassing every day, and more on weekends. I've got all the schedules in my inbox, but I didn't forward them to the other side In fact, while I was telling (I had the 0900-1300 slot at Meadowhall in Didcot), I had a few of the voters come up to me and mention that "Oh, you [LDs] were round yesterday, weren't you? It worked" [literally the words used]. I received very positive vibes from the canvassers throughout the campaign, which boosted my confidence in the result.
We also did have an active telling setup (after all, I was one of them!). I didn't see any tellers from either the Tories or Labour at either Drayton or Meadowhall. Two people came up to me unprompted and said they were Labour, but we could count on their tactical vote, which was also gratifying. Olly's name was well recognised - several people mentioned him by name when they saw my rosette, all of them positively.
[In fact, almost everyone at Meadowhall was so friendly and positive. It's in south Didcot - our formerly weakest area and Labour's strongest (well, their only ward at District level)]
Our campaign started years ago - literally. Canvassing teams were out regularly (albeit not every day!) from the 2019 result, stepped up considerably in 2022, and very regularly from mid-2023. Leafleting also started being regular from about a year ago (aimed for monthly), as "you can't fatten a pig on market day." It stepped up, of course, when the election was called; we got our first one out within 24 hours of it being called. Many of them did feature Olly heavily (thus the name recognition) and on health care and water/sewage issues, but these were heavily skewed towards the hand-delivered ones, and it's possible that Nick and key Labour activists were filtered out of the delivery routes, so it's understandable he might not have seen them. The main thing about these that surprised me was that even right at the end, people seemed to be taking and reading them (when people were in their gardens and I came by, they'd get me to hand them to them, and rather than roll eyes, or mutter, or put them straight in the recycling, I'd come by on the way back and they were reading them. Which seemed too good to be true).
As we got out of the blocks first, I think we won the tactical vote war there and then (plus all the activity over the previous few years, I suppose...). The stakeboards also helped reinforce the awareness that this was a Lib Dem possibility, and remind people of that. We had over 350 sites up, and we didn't still didn't quite manage to put up all the ones offered. I think we outnumbered Labour ones by somewhere close to 10:1, Greens by over 20:1, and Tory and Reform each had none that I was aware of. It does have an effect air-war-wise, and sort of make it acceptable to vote Lib Dem.
But with all of this, I had real doubts. Yes, I was seeing all of these positives, but Nick seemed to have a very different impression. I know, he would say that, but he was vastly more experienced than me in election campaigns. Was I suffering from over-optimism? My feel by the end was LD 40, Con 30, Lab 15, Ref 10, Grn 5 (from about LD 35, Con 35, Lab 20 at the start; my guess for Reform also picked up from c. 5% to 10% during the campaign), but he indicated he genuinely thought the Tories could trail in third behind Labour - so Labour would have to do much better than my feel, and probably at our cost. Which could let the Tory slip through the middle.
As it turned out, I should have had much more self-belief in my feel of it. Result was actually within a point or two of my best guess. [3/3]
I just had a look at my Linkedin feed. There are a lot of 'professionals' engaging in a bit of defamation/slander against Reform UK, calling them racist, against multiculturalism, etc. They are doing this on the false assumption that everyone reading their feed agrees with them and taking the absence of criticism as validation for their views. But actually a lot of the people reading these outbursts voted for Reform UK and many more will be sympathetic to them.
The facts are 1 in 7 of the electorate voted reform, 1 in 3 of the electorate voted labour. It is not some mad fascist fringe movement. Reform UK are a mainstream party representing a significant quantum of public opinion.
Its not defamation/slander if its true.
If it is proven to be true, the burden being on the defendant. Yuuuge difference.
Starmer has just won a 1997 style Labour landslide on Neil Kinnock's losing 1992 voteshare. Nearly 70% of MPs will be Labour despite barely more than a third of voters voting Labour.
There is zero chance of Labour replacing FPTP with PR after this
I just had a look at my Linkedin feed. There are a lot of 'professionals' engaging in a bit of defamation/slander against Reform UK, calling them racist, against multiculturalism, etc. They are doing this on the false assumption that everyone reading their feed agrees with them and taking the absence of criticism as validation for their views. But actually a lot of the people reading these outbursts voted for Reform UK and many more will be sympathetic to them.
The facts are 1 in 7 of the electorate voted reform, 1 in 3 of the electorate voted labour. It is not some mad fascist fringe movement. Reform UK are a mainstream party representing a significant quantum of public opinion.
Its not defamation/slander if its true.
If it is proven to be true, the burden being on the defendant. Yuuuge difference.
There is no defendant, it is not sub-judice, and it has been proven. They are extremely racist.
Starmer and Reeves have to go for planning reform, to go for growth, and they have a mandate for it.
If they do, they'll get growth and they'll have done the right thing.
If they don't, the UK will continue to languish.
I agree. The hard question is what sort of planning reform. There are a lot of new MPs who have been voted in on a vague platform of "things can only get better", and are not going to be energised at the thought of telling their electors there's a 5,000-house estate going in over the road.
(For what it's worth, I think the sane way forward is really aggressive zoning in the "grey belt" and Labour appears to be making some tentative moves towards that. But saying it is easy, pushing it forward is harder.)
I think we have to make passing this planning applications /patriotic/: we need a sustained PR campaign from all sides spelling it out to the oldies (it’s mostly the oldies) that by opposing planning applications that they are screwing over their own children & the entire country simultaneously.
Ripping control away from local authorities is probably also going to have to be part of this - which probably means more centralisation in the short term sadly. Ideally I think you’d give planning authority to regional authorities that roughly corresponded to the independent economic areas of the country - the hinterlands around the cities.
I'm not a fan of the idea of regional bodies but we need desperate action. I did like the idea of less ability to hold back significant projects with greater ability to hold back minor ones as a compromise, though frankly as a yimby I'd prefer less option in any case.
It's why I think we need to look at zoning, which hasn't as such ever been a big thing in the UK (Local Plans get close to it but not close enough). Effectively you say "this area is designated for houses, this is the design code to which the houses shall be built, and any planning application will automatically be approved as long as it conforms to the design code".
It would require the Government to come up with a decent national design code, which they are in theory capable of doing but which they would probably screw up.
Most of the delays in planning are rooted in environmental legislation leading to endless legal challenges from objectors. A lot of these problems can be resolved by some courageous moves on retained EU legislation (the habitats directive, protected species rules, the EIA directive). The tories wouldn't go there because of the NIMBY vote but Labour don't have such a problem. But the delays are really just a reflection of complexity in the legal system which is hard to undo, particularly in one parliamentary term.
Starmer has just won a 1997 style Labour landslide on Neil Kinnock's losing 1992 voteshare. Nearly 70% of MPs will be Labour despite barely more than a third of voters voting Labour.
There is zero chance of Labour replacing FPTP with PR after this
There’s a weird delirium seizing Tories this morning. Worst election result ever but they can sniff an opening with Starmer’s low vote share. “This is the shittest landslide ever” one says “We can get back in five years”. If this view is widespread it may change who they pick for leader
The Tory belief in their divine right to rule as the natural party of power is both unshakable and remarkable, given they were inches from being pushed into third place. We'll be back in our rightful place in less than five years.
Thinking it will be easy to get back would be delirium, but spotting an opportunity from Labour's score not being as high as expected in not itself unreasonable.
It isn't unreasonable. I just note it's not accompanied by any thought that we have a bit of a problem.
Starmer has just won a 1997 style Labour landslide on Neil Kinnock's losing 1992 voteshare. Nearly 70% of MPs will be Labour despite barely more than a third of voters voting Labour.
There is zero chance of Labour replacing FPTP with PR after this
If they're behind in the polls by 2027-28 and a HP looms in 2029 then they might well put it in their manifesto...?
Mr. F, there's a difference, though, in that encouraging Reform to grow provides a rival to the Conservatives. Is that something they want in the long term?
Labour has learned to adapt to a left wing rival (the Lib Dems), that can win in seats they can't win in. The Conservatives can do the same.
Apart from isolated instances, such as our Mr Palmer insisting throughout that Didcot could be won by Labour despite all the evidence to the contrary, it does seem as if Labour and the LibDems have endeavoured to stay out of each other's way with their targetting, and it was also noticetable that the opposition parties didn't attack each other during the campaign, but all focused their fire on the principal enemy.
Starmer and Reeves have to go for planning reform, to go for growth, and they have a mandate for it.
If they do, they'll get growth and they'll have done the right thing.
If they don't, the UK will continue to languish.
I agree. The hard question is what sort of planning reform. There are a lot of new MPs who have been voted in on a vague platform of "things can only get better", and are not going to be energised at the thought of telling their electors there's a 5,000-house estate going in over the road.
(For what it's worth, I think the sane way forward is really aggressive zoning in the "grey belt" and Labour appears to be making some tentative moves towards that. But saying it is easy, pushing it forward is harder.)
I think we have to make passing this planning applications /patriotic/: we need a sustained PR campaign from all sides spelling it out to the oldies (it’s mostly the oldies) that by opposing planning applications that they are screwing over their own children & the entire country simultaneously.
Ripping control away from local authorities is probably also going to have to be part of this - which probably means more centralisation in the short term sadly. Ideally I think you’d give planning authority to regional authorities that roughly corresponded to the independent economic areas of the country - the hinterlands around the cities.
I'm not a fan of the idea of regional bodies but we need desperate action. I did like the idea of less ability to hold back significant projects with greater ability to hold back minor ones as a compromise, though frankly as a yimby I'd prefer less option in any case.
It's why I think we need to look at zoning, which hasn't as such ever been a big thing in the UK (Local Plans get close to it but not close enough). Effectively you say "this area is designated for houses, this is the design code to which the houses shall be built, and any planning application will automatically be approved as long as it conforms to the design code".
It would require the Government to come up with a decent national design code, which they are in theory capable of doing but which they would probably screw up.
Most of the delays in planning are rooted in environmental legislation leading to endless legal challenges from objectors. A lot of these problems can be resolved by some courageous moves on retained EU legislation (the habitats directive, protected species rules, the EIA directive). The tories wouldn't go there because of the NIMBY vote but Labour don't have such a problem. But the delays are really just a reflection of complexity in the legal system which is hard to undo, particularly in one parliamentary term.
And when making legal challenges generally easier elsewhere through vague 'duties' per a manifesto commitment.
Starmer has just won a 1997 style Labour landslide on Neil Kinnock's losing 1992 voteshare. Nearly 70% of MPs will be Labour despite barely more than a third of voters voting Labour.
There is zero chance of Labour replacing FPTP with PR after this
Tories should now be in favour of PR. After many decades of having 2 or 3 parties on the left, we now have 2 parties on the right - and the left parties are getting used to tactical voting.
Mr. F, there's a difference, though, in that encouraging Reform to grow provides a rival to the Conservatives. Is that something they want in the long term?
Labour has learned to adapt to a left wing rival (the Lib Dems), that can win in seats they can't win in. The Conservatives can do the same.
Apart from isolated instances, such as our Mr Palmer insisting throughout that Didcot could be won by Labour despite all the evidence to the contrary, it does seem as if Labour and the LibDems have endeavoured to stay out of each other's way with their targetting, and it was also noticetable that the opposition parties didn't attack each other during the campaign, but all focused their fire on the principal enemy.
In Oxfordshire there's been a notable difference between Labour HQ, which did indeed endeavour to stay out of the LibDems' way, and local CLPs/candidates, which have been a bit less keen to embrace the tactical voting gospel.
I expected the LibDems to win both Didcot and Henley, but was a bit nervous about Witney and Bicester & Woodstock. @NickPalmer's anecdote about HQ shutting off local access to data in non-target seats is very interesting.
Best gains by party? Leicester East, Aberdeenshire - Moray, North Herefordshire, Boston if Basildon doesn’t come through? And which ones for Lab/Lib?
What do you mean "if Basildon doesn't come through"? What have I missed there?
Basildon South is within a few hundred votes of returning Reform #5. Recount is this afternoon. Not sure who is ahead. It would be a surprise Reform win.
That's a dreadful picture of Chas - from the official photographer too, so presumably selected to make him look his best. Might spark further rumours about the reason for the election being called early.
Mr. F, there's a difference, though, in that encouraging Reform to grow provides a rival to the Conservatives. Is that something they want in the long term?
Labour has learned to adapt to a left wing rival (the Lib Dems), that can win in seats they can't win in. The Conservatives can do the same.
Apart from isolated instances, such as our Mr Palmer insisting throughout that Didcot could be won by Labour despite all the evidence to the contrary, it does seem as if Labour and the LibDems have endeavoured to stay out of each other's way with their targetting, and it was also noticetable that the opposition parties didn't attack each other during the campaign, but all focused their fire on the principal enemy.
It's an example of why you often don't need electoral parts. Parties and the public generally figure it out.
Sure a few Tories or SNP slipped through with split votes, but each of LD and Lab benefited, and they are distinct at the if the day, formal cooperation could also backfire.
Starmer and Reeves have to go for planning reform, to go for growth, and they have a mandate for it.
If they do, they'll get growth and they'll have done the right thing.
If they don't, the UK will continue to languish.
I agree. The hard question is what sort of planning reform. There are a lot of new MPs who have been voted in on a vague platform of "things can only get better", and are not going to be energised at the thought of telling their electors there's a 5,000-house estate going in over the road.
(For what it's worth, I think the sane way forward is really aggressive zoning in the "grey belt" and Labour appears to be making some tentative moves towards that. But saying it is easy, pushing it forward is harder.)
I think we have to make passing this planning applications /patriotic/: we need a sustained PR campaign from all sides spelling it out to the oldies (it’s mostly the oldies) that by opposing planning applications that they are screwing over their own children & the entire country simultaneously.
Ripping control away from local authorities is probably also going to have to be part of this - which probably means more centralisation in the short term sadly. Ideally I think you’d give planning authority to regional authorities that roughly corresponded to the independent economic areas of the country - the hinterlands around the cities.
I'm not a fan of the idea of regional bodies but we need desperate action. I did like the idea of less ability to hold back significant projects with greater ability to hold back minor ones as a compromise, though frankly as a yimby I'd prefer less option in any case.
It's why I think we need to look at zoning, which hasn't as such ever been a big thing in the UK (Local Plans get close to it but not close enough). Effectively you say "this area is designated for houses, this is the design code to which the houses shall be built, and any planning application will automatically be approved as long as it conforms to the design code".
It would require the Government to come up with a decent national design code, which they are in theory capable of doing but which they would probably screw up.
Most of the delays in planning are rooted in environmental legislation leading to endless legal challenges from objectors. A lot of these problems can be resolved by some courageous moves on retained EU legislation (the habitats directive, protected species rules, the EIA directive). The tories wouldn't go there because of the NIMBY vote but Labour don't have such a problem. But the delays are really just a reflection of complexity in the legal system which is hard to undo, particularly in one parliamentary term.
And when making legal challenges generally easier elsewhere through vague 'duties' per a manifesto commitment.
The duty to "have regard to" the need to reduce inequality, is another spoke in the wheel of building things.
I know we’ve said that Labour’s vote was incredibly efficient, but this chart (from the Electoral Reform Society, natch) really nails that:
FPTP is truly the GOAT of electoral systems!
For the Cons (who have consistently backed FPTP) it’s definitely “live by the sword, die by the sword” !
Indeed and it's fptp that offers them solace after such a huge defeat. They don't require large swings in the vote to come back from this.
Some of them do!
The prior assumption was that the LibDem campaign against the Tories in the 'blue wall' would run them close and there'd likely be a lot of seats decided one way or the other on very narrow margins.
Whereas actually the LDs made many of their gains by very comfortable margins - look, for example, at the swing in Chichester, which was considered one of their longer shots and they were up against a high profile minister. Yet they stormed it!
Starmer and Reeves have to go for planning reform, to go for growth, and they have a mandate for it.
If they do, they'll get growth and they'll have done the right thing.
If they don't, the UK will continue to languish.
It is time.
Build those phone masts.
Its not just phone masts, its everything.
Houses, phone masts, factories, shops, roads, rails, cycle paths, reservoirs, sewage treatment, you name it we need to stop NIMBYs from blocking it.
You may be right but you expose the weakness of your attempt to base yourself on libertarianism because if you want to build roads, rails, cycle paths, reservoirs it's not just nimbies abusing the planning system you are up against, it's landowners who quite often would like there not to be roads, rails, cycle paths, reservoirs on their land. I thought everyone should be allowed to do exactly as they please with their own property?
Mr. F, there's a difference, though, in that encouraging Reform to grow provides a rival to the Conservatives. Is that something they want in the long term?
Labour has learned to adapt to a left wing rival (the Lib Dems), that can win in seats they can't win in. The Conservatives can do the same.
Apart from isolated instances, such as our Mr Palmer insisting throughout that Didcot could be won by Labour despite all the evidence to the contrary, it does seem as if Labour and the LibDems have endeavoured to stay out of each other's way with their targetting, and it was also noticetable that the opposition parties didn't attack each other during the campaign, but all focused their fire on the principal enemy.
Sadly I think Labour did just enough in South Shropshire to stop the LibDems. But I also wonder whether the national party didn’t fully appreciate they were in the game. Still an excellent second.
But phew, politically, what a fascinating (!) GE. So many major narratives, some good some bad, some of them potentially game-changing, Don't know where to start so I won't until I've had some kip.
Best gains by party? Leicester East, Aberdeenshire - Moray, North Herefordshire, Boston if Basildon doesn’t come through? And which ones for Lab/Lib?
What do you mean "if Basildon doesn't come through"? What have I missed there?
Basildon South is within a few hundred votes of returning Reform #5. Recount is this afternoon. Not sure who is ahead. It would be a surprise Reform win.
Twitter saying Reform were ahead by 127 on first count.
There’s a weird delirium seizing Tories this morning. Worst election result ever but they can sniff an opening with Starmer’s low vote share. “This is the shittest landslide ever” one says “We can get back in five years”. If this view is widespread it may change who they pick for leader
The Tory belief in their divine right to rule as the natural party of power is both unshakable and remarkable, given they were inches from being pushed into third place. We'll be back in our rightful place in less than five years.
Thinking it will be easy to get back would be delirium, but spotting an opportunity from Labour's score not being as high as expected in not itself unreasonable.
It isn't unreasonable. I just note it's not accompanied by any thought that we have a bit of a problem.
That's why I said not 'itself' unreasonable.
Clutching at that straw is fine so long as they know the limits of what they can do with it, not if they then immediately try to build a house from it.
(Not that a Tory MP would ever support building a house).
Starmer and Reeves have to go for planning reform, to go for growth, and they have a mandate for it.
If they do, they'll get growth and they'll have done the right thing.
If they don't, the UK will continue to languish.
It is time.
Build those phone masts.
Its not just phone masts, its everything.
Houses, phone masts, factories, shops, roads, rails, cycle paths, reservoirs, sewage treatment, you name it we need to stop NIMBYs from blocking it.
You may be right but you expose the weakness of your attempt to base yourself on libertarianism because if you want to build roads, rails, cycle paths, reservoirs it's not just nimbies abusing the planning system you are up against, it's landowners who quite often would like there not to be roads, rails, cycle paths, reservoirs on their land. I thought everyone should be allowed to do exactly as they please with their own property?
There is relatively little problem buying land for development - getting the land for HS2 was comparatively straight forward.
That's a dreadful picture of Chas - from the official photographer too, so presumably selected to make him look his best. Might spark further rumours about the reason for the election being called early.
Just imagining a scifi novel where a Prime Minister receiving unknown advice mysteriously calls a sudden election and appears to bollocks it up on purpose, then the new Prime Minister immediately does the same thing.
Starmer and Reeves have to go for planning reform, to go for growth, and they have a mandate for it.
If they do, they'll get growth and they'll have done the right thing.
If they don't, the UK will continue to languish.
It is time.
Build those phone masts.
Its not just phone masts, its everything.
Houses, phone masts, factories, shops, roads, rails, cycle paths, reservoirs, sewage treatment, you name it we need to stop NIMBYs from blocking it.
You may be right but you expose the weakness of your attempt to base yourself on libertarianism because if you want to build roads, rails, cycle paths, reservoirs it's not just nimbies abusing the planning system you are up against, it's landowners who quite often would like there not to be roads, rails, cycle paths, reservoirs on their land. I thought everyone should be allowed to do exactly as they please with their own property?
Can't someone have libertarian leanings which influence their positions without being some kind of sovereign rights anarchist?
Mr. F, there's a difference, though, in that encouraging Reform to grow provides a rival to the Conservatives. Is that something they want in the long term?
Labour has learned to adapt to a left wing rival (the Lib Dems), that can win in seats they can't win in. The Conservatives can do the same.
Apart from isolated instances, such as our Mr Palmer insisting throughout that Didcot could be won by Labour despite all the evidence to the contrary, it does seem as if Labour and the LibDems have endeavoured to stay out of each other's way with their targetting, and it was also noticetable that the opposition parties didn't attack each other during the campaign, but all focused their fire on the principal enemy.
Sadly I think Labour did just enough in South Shropshire to stop the LibDems. But I also wonder whether the national party didn’t fully appreciate they were in the game. Still an excellent second.
I would guess that Labour will be throughly tied up defending what they have, next time, to worry much about the LibDem seats or the Tory held LD targets!
Then again, so are the LibDems, especially if Reform somehow disappears.
There’s a weird delirium seizing Tories this morning. Worst election result ever but they can sniff an opening with Starmer’s low vote share. “This is the shittest landslide ever” one says “We can get back in five years”. If this view is widespread it may change who they pick for leader
The Tory belief in their divine right to rule as the natural party of power is both unshakable and remarkable, given they were inches from being pushed into third place. We'll be back in our rightful place in less than five years.
Thinking it will be easy to get back would be delirium, but spotting an opportunity from Labour's score not being as high as expected in not itself unreasonable.
It isn't unreasonable. I just note it's not accompanied by any thought that we have a bit of a problem.
That's why I said not 'itself' unreasonable.
Clutching at that straw is fine so long as they know the limits of what they can do with it, not if they then immediately try to build a house from it.
(Not that a Tory MP would ever support building a house).
Yes. This is the moment they have to decide whether to unite quickly and have a go in five years, or not.
@kle4 The 4th Reform MP is ex Southampton football chairman, Rupert Lowe. I don't know much about him, but he is, I think, more of the posher Reform candidate like Tice.
Starmer and Reeves have to go for planning reform, to go for growth, and they have a mandate for it.
If they do, they'll get growth and they'll have done the right thing.
If they don't, the UK will continue to languish.
It is time.
Build those phone masts.
Its not just phone masts, its everything.
Houses, phone masts, factories, shops, roads, rails, cycle paths, reservoirs, sewage treatment, you name it we need to stop NIMBYs from blocking it.
You may be right but you expose the weakness of your attempt to base yourself on libertarianism because if you want to build roads, rails, cycle paths, reservoirs it's not just nimbies abusing the planning system you are up against, it's landowners who quite often would like there not to be roads, rails, cycle paths, reservoirs on their land. I thought everyone should be allowed to do exactly as they please with their own property?
If people want to pay their taxes on their own land but not develop it, that is their choice and should be respected.
But those who want to develop their own land should have their choice respected too.
Land should be taxed the same whether it is developed or undeveloped - the owner's choice shouldn't affect taxation.
Land is of a finite supply for this country and its owners should pay a portion of the country's running costs as a result. With lower taxes on wages instead.
Starmer and Reeves have to go for planning reform, to go for growth, and they have a mandate for it.
If they do, they'll get growth and they'll have done the right thing.
If they don't, the UK will continue to languish.
It is time.
Build those phone masts.
Its not just phone masts, its everything.
Houses, phone masts, factories, shops, roads, rails, cycle paths, reservoirs, sewage treatment, you name it we need to stop NIMBYs from blocking it.
You may be right but you expose the weakness of your attempt to base yourself on libertarianism because if you want to build roads, rails, cycle paths, reservoirs it's not just nimbies abusing the planning system you are up against, it's landowners who quite often would like there not to be roads, rails, cycle paths, reservoirs on their land. I thought everyone should be allowed to do exactly as they please with their own property?
There is relatively little problem buying land for development - getting the land for HS2 was comparatively straight forward.
Apparently the costs of HS2 wasn't so much NIMBYism or the land but the political uncertainty associated with the project.
I've just seen a message saying you had an update to your predictions, but I don't see a post detailing the update. If you posted an update, can you send me the link in a new post and tag me @Farooq please?
@Farooq No, don’t worry I didn’t. I let it run. But thanks for chasing.
Starmer and Reeves have to go for planning reform, to go for growth, and they have a mandate for it.
If they do, they'll get growth and they'll have done the right thing.
If they don't, the UK will continue to languish.
It is time.
Build those phone masts.
Its not just phone masts, its everything.
Houses, phone masts, factories, shops, roads, rails, cycle paths, reservoirs, sewage treatment, you name it we need to stop NIMBYs from blocking it.
You may be right but you expose the weakness of your attempt to base yourself on libertarianism because if you want to build roads, rails, cycle paths, reservoirs it's not just nimbies abusing the planning system you are up against, it's landowners who quite often would like there not to be roads, rails, cycle paths, reservoirs on their land. I thought everyone should be allowed to do exactly as they please with their own property?
Can't someone have libertarian leanings which influence their positions without being some kind of sovereign rights anarchist?
Starmer and Reeves have to go for planning reform, to go for growth, and they have a mandate for it.
If they do, they'll get growth and they'll have done the right thing.
If they don't, the UK will continue to languish.
It is time.
Build those phone masts.
Its not just phone masts, its everything.
Houses, phone masts, factories, shops, roads, rails, cycle paths, reservoirs, sewage treatment, you name it we need to stop NIMBYs from blocking it.
You may be right but you expose the weakness of your attempt to base yourself on libertarianism because if you want to build roads, rails, cycle paths, reservoirs it's not just nimbies abusing the planning system you are up against, it's landowners who quite often would like there not to be roads, rails, cycle paths, reservoirs on their land. I thought everyone should be allowed to do exactly as they please with their own property?
There is relatively little problem buying land for development - getting the land for HS2 was comparatively straight forward.
Apparently the costs of HS2 wasn't so much NIMBYism or the land but the political uncertainty associated with the project.
And the contractors were right to be sceptical.
The cost of HS2 is down to the fact it's in tunnels all the way from Birmingham to London which costs 3-4 times more than building the route on land...
You also have the fact we simply don't know how to run construction projects in this country - you really need a 20 year outline of potential projects so that companies can invest in people and machinery knowing what they will be doing 5 years hence with security well beyond that.
Starmer and Reeves have to go for planning reform, to go for growth, and they have a mandate for it.
If they do, they'll get growth and they'll have done the right thing.
If they don't, the UK will continue to languish.
It is time.
Build those phone masts.
Its not just phone masts, its everything.
Houses, phone masts, factories, shops, roads, rails, cycle paths, reservoirs, sewage treatment, you name it we need to stop NIMBYs from blocking it.
You may be right but you expose the weakness of your attempt to base yourself on libertarianism because if you want to build roads, rails, cycle paths, reservoirs it's not just nimbies abusing the planning system you are up against, it's landowners who quite often would like there not to be roads, rails, cycle paths, reservoirs on their land. I thought everyone should be allowed to do exactly as they please with their own property?
Can't someone have libertarian leanings which influence their positions without being some kind of sovereign rights anarchist?
Yes to leanings, no to a You can do whatever you like, no exceptions, when it comes to building on your own land, ticket which I think is Bart's position. If you can say the greater good demands a road across your land you can also say the greater good demands an absence of new houses on your land.
Trump congratulates Farage but makes no mention of Starmer 'Posting on his Truth Social platform, Trump said: "Congratulations to Nigel Farage on his big WIN of a Parliament Seat Amid Reform UK Election Success. Nigel is a man who truly loves his Country! DJT."
Trump congratulates Farage but makes no mention of Starmer 'Posting on his Truth Social platform, Trump said: "Congratulations to Nigel Farage on his big WIN of a Parliament Seat Amid Reform UK Election Success. Nigel is a man who truly loves his Country! DJT."
Comments
I use the same tactics for cycle lanes. Almost all political parties are broadly in favour of them, so when they get elected and the cycle lane starts to go in, you can just point to the manifesto and shout THIS IS DEMOCRACY MANIFEST.
https://x.com/EllieSwintonITV/status/1809073901483233490
Steve Barclay was re-elected.
I mean the Welsh??
Despite Nick Palmer's impressions, there was a strong ground war campaign as well as the air war campaign. It's just that the air war was so visible it could have appeared overwhelming.
Canvassing teams, despite being active, can be very easy to not see if you're on the other side (and so not likely to be canvassed). For example, I only noticed a Labour campaigining team on the Tuesday before the election (which I mentioned here), despite them apparently having two teams out canvassing every day (and probably more on weekends).
We also had at least two teams out canvassing every day, and more on weekends. I've got all the schedules in my inbox, but I didn't forward them to the other side
In fact, while I was telling (I had the 0900-1300 slot at Meadowhall in Didcot), I had a few of the voters come up to me and mention that "Oh, you [LDs] were round yesterday, weren't you? It worked"
[literally the words used]. I received very positive vibes from the canvassers throughout the campaign, which boosted my confidence in the result.
We also did have an active telling setup (after all, I was one of them!). I didn't see any tellers from either the Tories or Labour at either Drayton or Meadowhall. Two people came up to me unprompted and said they were Labour, but we could count on their tactical vote, which was also gratifying. Olly's name was well recognised - several people mentioned him by name when they saw my rosette, all of them positively.
[In fact, almost everyone at Meadowhall was so friendly and positive. It's in south Didcot - our formerly weakest area and Labour's strongest (well, their only ward at District level)]
[1/3]
As we got out of the blocks first, I think we won the tactical vote war there and then (plus all the activity over the previous few years, I suppose...). The stakeboards also helped reinforce the awareness that this was a Lib Dem possibility, and remind people of that. We had over 350 sites up, and we didn't still didn't quite manage to put up all the ones offered. I think we outnumbered Labour ones by somewhere close to 10:1, Greens by over 20:1, and Tory and Reform each had none that I was aware of. It does have an effect air-war-wise, and sort of make it acceptable to vote Lib Dem.
[2/3]
As it turned out, I should have had much more self-belief in my feel of it. Result was actually within a point or two of my best guess.
[3/3]
There is zero chance of Labour replacing FPTP with PR after this
I was on the Lib Dems for £65 at 16/1!
Tewkesbury or Witney for the LibDems
Rishi’s seat? Harrow East?
After many decades of having 2 or 3 parties on the left, we now have 2 parties on the right - and the left parties are getting used to tactical voting.
I expected the LibDems to win both Didcot and Henley, but was a bit nervous about Witney and Bicester & Woodstock. @NickPalmer's anecdote about HQ shutting off local access to data in non-target seats is very interesting.
This will quickly become a very rough Parliament for Labour. The Parliament will go the distance.
Sure a few Tories or SNP slipped through with split votes, but each of LD and Lab benefited, and they are distinct at the if the day, formal cooperation could also backfire.
The prior assumption was that the LibDem campaign against the Tories in the 'blue wall' would run them close and there'd likely be a lot of seats decided one way or the other on very narrow margins.
Whereas actually the LDs made many of their gains by very comfortable margins - look, for example, at the swing in Chichester, which was considered one of their longer shots and they were up against a high profile minister. Yet they stormed it!
But phew, politically, what a fascinating (!) GE. So many major narratives, some good some bad, some of them potentially game-changing, Don't know where to start so I won't until I've had some kip.
Amazing.
Rehman Chishti lost his seat, that's a bigger moment than Liz Truss losing.
He was nailed on to succeed Sunak.
Clutching at that straw is fine so long as they know the limits of what they can do with it, not if they then immediately try to build a house from it.
(Not that a Tory MP would ever support building a house).
Then again, so are the LibDems, especially if Reform somehow disappears.
And 5 in the last 5 years (Theresa May only left on July 24th 2019)..
But those who want to develop their own land should have their choice respected too.
Land should be taxed the same whether it is developed or undeveloped - the owner's choice shouldn't affect taxation.
Land is of a finite supply for this country and its owners should pay a portion of the country's running costs as a result. With lower taxes on wages instead.
https://vf.politicalbetting.com/discussion/12273/chronicle-of-a-bet-foretold-thin-gruel-politicalbetting-com
And the contractors were right to be sceptical.
Anyhow, back in time to see what Starmer has to say...
You also have the fact we simply don't know how to run construction projects in this country - you really need a 20 year outline of potential projects so that companies can invest in people and machinery knowing what they will be doing 5 years hence with security well beyond that.
https://news.sky.com/story/nigel-farage-on-track-to-become-mp-as-he-hails-huge-early-election-results-13161816