Howdy, Stranger!

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

The (lack of) incumbency bonus – politicalbetting.com

SystemSystem Posts: 12,183
edited November 20 in General
The (lack of) incumbency bonus – politicalbetting.com

Just to clarify: this isn’t just the first time since WW2 that all incumbent parties in developed countries lost vote share.It’s the first time since this data was first recorded in 1905. Essentially the first time in the history of democracy (universal suffrage began in 1894). pic.twitter.com/04hdpN8aq0

Read the full story here

«134567

Comments

  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 71,522
    edited November 8
    No price too high for deportations, says Trump
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/c62l50z4xq9t

    Assuming free and fair elections in 2028, don't expect an incumbency bonus for any GOP Congress members.
  • Pagan2Pagan2 Posts: 9,886
    FPT

    Nigelb said:

    Unless Badenoch can find another unifier of “fear Corbyn” and “get Brexit done” where are these voters going to come from?

    She’d be much better off in my view doing what Trump did and going after the economy. But she’d have to offer policies to the young.

    Affordable housing.

    Where's that going to come from ?

    The Tories have done the absolute opposite of that for the last four decades.
    Well instead of giving Ed Miliband billions to piss up the wall we could remove his budget and build a few hundred thousand houses. Then we could also save a billion or so on civil servants by simplifying the planning system and the private sector would build more houses too. I could suggest slashing the overseas aid budget but I'd take that saving and invest in hard power planes and ships instead of the soft power which sees us reduce our security.

    It's not that difficult if you want to do it.
    Given on the last thread someone said Police only investigate serious crime then next priority is crimes against important people I suggest we could save a bundle by abolishing all police except the serious crime squad as anything lower isn't benefitting the majority of the country.....just replace them with a website which states your crime is unimportant to us you prole but here is a crime number for your insurance company
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 25,441
    Nigelb said:

    No price too high for deportations, says Trump
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/c62l50z4xq9t

    Assuming free and fair elections in 2028, don't expect an incumbency bonus for any GOP Congress members.

    given the current consensus is that low skill immigration is a drain on the economy each return probably makes money in the long term. Can you face up to that ?
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 38,885
    Eabhal said:

    Fishing said:

    MaxPB said:

    Unless Badenoch can find another unifier of “fear Corbyn” and “get Brexit done” where are these voters going to come from?

    She’d be much better off in my view doing what Trump did and going after the economy. But she’d have to offer policies to the young.

    Housing, housing, housing. People are sick of being in their early 30s paying for someone else's mortgage unable to get on the ladder for themselves. Most of my friends have made it onto the ladder now but there's a lot of bitterness that remains around how much more difficult it was for us vs out parents generation because they've decided to leech off us with rental property.
    The trouble is, not everybody is in their early 30s and for every voter like the one you describe there are probably three or four home counties NIMBYs who will be driven to the LibDems for fear that more houses will spoil their beautiful views, or old people who like being paper millionaires (or their kids who will inherit it one day).

    And that, in short, is why our hosuing market is buggered.
    You don't need to build any more houses to change the proportions of housing tenure. What happened over the last 14 years was that the number of households owning outright and renting grew, while households with mortgages fell.

    More housing will certainly help with overall housing pressure, but that doesn't necessarily mean they won't be snapped up by landlords and used as private rentals. It's a function of massive wealth inequality more than anything, and very difficult to fix.
    Yes and no, it's a function of limited liquidity of suitable homes for first time buyers due to my parents generation buying multiple properties after Labour made their now ill fated changes to the rental sector. Fundamentally we shouldn't be in a place in this country where an individual or individuals own multiple existing properties. We should make it uneconomic to do so and push that investment from existing property into the high risk build to let sector and offer tax free income for landlord built property (not landlords buying new property from a developer) for 20 years or something.

    Fundamentally we've allowed my parents generation to make risk free yield of 4-7% and risk free capital gain of 5-10% by borrowing to invest in existing property. They don't want to give it up but any party that wants to get the next generation of voters on side will need to get these people out of the market and any that want to stay as landlords should be directed to building new property with generous allowances to get them on board.

    That generates new rental housing and frees up existing property for first time buyers.
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 25,441
    Pagan2 said:

    FPT

    Nigelb said:

    Unless Badenoch can find another unifier of “fear Corbyn” and “get Brexit done” where are these voters going to come from?

    She’d be much better off in my view doing what Trump did and going after the economy. But she’d have to offer policies to the young.

    Affordable housing.

    Where's that going to come from ?

    The Tories have done the absolute opposite of that for the last four decades.
    Well instead of giving Ed Miliband billions to piss up the wall we could remove his budget and build a few hundred thousand houses. Then we could also save a billion or so on civil servants by simplifying the planning system and the private sector would build more houses too. I could suggest slashing the overseas aid budget but I'd take that saving and invest in hard power planes and ships instead of the soft power which sees us reduce our security.

    It's not that difficult if you want to do it.
    Given on the last thread someone said Police only investigate serious crime then next priority is crimes against important people I suggest we could save a bundle by abolishing all police except the serious crime squad as anything lower isn't benefitting the majority of the country.....just replace them with a website which states your crime is unimportant to us you prole but here is a crime number for your insurance company
    Or we could tell the important people their crimes wont be investigated until the lesser ones are done first. I suspect it would speed things up.
  • StuartinromfordStuartinromford Posts: 17,307
    Nigelb said:

    No price too high for deportations, says Trump
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/c62l50z4xq9t

    Assuming free and fair elections in 2028, don't expect an incumbency bonus for any GOP Congress members.

    We didna ken!
    Well, ye ken the noo!


    See also: tarrifs. And most of the other stuff he has said he will do.

    The Trump genius was to persuade loads of people that he would do the thing they wanted, but the stuff they didn't want was just a blag. The Trump supergenius was to persuade different people about this for different things.

    To be clear- not because voters are stupid, but because Trump is a supergenius at this sort of thing.
  • FishingFishing Posts: 5,083
    On topic, we are in a turbulent decade, like the 1970s. The free world is underperforming in many ways, partly because it has forgotten how to generate economic growth, and partly because it has been hit by a succession of external shocks, like the China flu and Russia's invasion of Ukraine. And people are much more demanding, less loyal to estabished parties and less deferential than they used to be.

    I am, despite everything, an optimist, so I think we will recover our mojo eventually, but we are certainly taking a lengthy detour, particularly in this country.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 60,565
    Nigelb said:

    No price too high for deportations, says Trump
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/c62l50z4xq9t

    Assuming free and fair elections in 2028, don't expect an incumbency bonus for any GOP Congress members.

    Why would you assume that wouldn't be popular?
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 38,885

    Nigelb said:

    No price too high for deportations, says Trump
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/c62l50z4xq9t

    Assuming free and fair elections in 2028, don't expect an incumbency bonus for any GOP Congress members.

    Why would you assume that wouldn't be popular?
    Indeed, if Labour deported all of the failed asylum seekers and illegal immigrants they'd be in power for another 15 years.
  • bondegezoubondegezou Posts: 11,229

    Nigelb said:

    No price too high for deportations, says Trump
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/c62l50z4xq9t

    Assuming free and fair elections in 2028, don't expect an incumbency bonus for any GOP Congress members.

    given the current consensus is that low skill immigration is a drain on the economy each return probably makes money in the long term. Can you face up to that ?
    I'm not convinced the current consensus is as much of a consensus as you suggest.

    Cortes (2008): "I exploit the large variation across U.S. cities and through time in the relative size of the low‐skilled immigrant population to estimate the causal effect of immigration on prices of nontraded goods and services. Using an instrumental variables strategy, I find that, at current immigration levels, a 10 percent increase in the share of low‐skilled immigrants in the labor force decreases the price of immigrant‐intensive services, such as housekeeping and gardening, by 2 percent."

    Colas & Saches (2024): "Low-skilled immigrants indirectly affect public finances through their effect on resident wages and labor supply. We operationalize this indirect fiscal effect in a model of immigration and the labor market. We derive closed-form expressions for this effect in terms of estimable statistics. An empirical quantification for the United States reveals an indirect fiscal benefit for one average low-skilled immigrant of roughly $750 annually. The indirect fiscal benefit may outweigh the negative direct fiscal effect that has previously been documented. This challenges the perception of low-skilled immigration as a fiscal burden."

    Clemens & Lewis (2024): "U.S. firms face a binding quota on visas to employ foreign workers in low-skill occupations outside of agriculture. The government allocates this quota to firms in part through a randomized lottery. We evaluate the marginal impact of the quota on firms entering this lottery in 2021 and 2022, using a novel survey and pre-analysis plan. Firms exogenously authorized to employ more immigrants in low-skill jobs significantly increase production (elasticity 0.20–0.22), investment (1.5–2.1), and the rate of profit (0.15). Because the foreign-native elasticity of substitution in production is very low in the policy-relevant occupations (0.8–2.2), the effect on native employment is zero or positive overall, and positive in rural areas. Forensic analysis suggests similarly low substitutability of black-market labor."
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 82,291
    edited November 8
    I’m a farmer – and I’m glad to see tax loopholes closing for cynical investor landowners - Guy Singh-Watson

    Guy Singh-Watson is the founder of the organic veg box company Riverford and a member of Patriotic Millionaires UK. He grows organic vegetables on 60 hectares (150 acres) in Devon and 120 hectares (300 acres) in the French Vendée. He sold Riverford in 2018 to its 1,000 employees, and the company is now 100% employee-owned

    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2024/nov/08/farmer-glad-tax-loopholes-investor-landowners-inheritance

    That is very fortunate that he has sold his business to employees (super tax efficient way to dispose of your business) and now only has 150 acres in the UK, that is likely below where the IHT kicks in....
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 71,522
    edited November 8

    Nigelb said:

    No price too high for deportations, says Trump
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/c62l50z4xq9t

    Assuming free and fair elections in 2028, don't expect an incumbency bonus for any GOP Congress members.

    Why would you assume that wouldn't be popular?
    Let's see, shall we ?

    Much depends on what Trump actually does, as I must have repeated at least a dozen times now. But if he's really going to go ahead and try for 10m plus deportations, as his comments at least imply, then I predict now that the results won't be popular.

    Except with a small subset of GOP voters.
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 38,885
    Nigelb said:

    Nigelb said:

    No price too high for deportations, says Trump
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/c62l50z4xq9t

    Assuming free and fair elections in 2028, don't expect an incumbency bonus for any GOP Congress members.

    Why would you assume that wouldn't be popular?
    Let's see, shall we ?

    Much depends on what Trump actually does, as I must have repeated at least a dozen times now. But if he's really going to go ahead and try for 10m plus deportations, as his comments at least imply, then I predict now that the results won't be popular.
    A 97% Latino town in Texas voted 75% in favour of Trump. They (Latino people) are just as sick of illegal immigration as everyone else. If he does deport illegals and reduce the number of arrivals to any significant degree it's almost a certainty that he will be very popular for that at least.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 71,522

    Nigelb said:

    No price too high for deportations, says Trump
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/c62l50z4xq9t

    Assuming free and fair elections in 2028, don't expect an incumbency bonus for any GOP Congress members.

    We didna ken!
    Well, ye ken the noo!


    See also: tarrifs. And most of the other stuff he has said he will do.

    The Trump genius was to persuade loads of people that he would do the thing they wanted, but the stuff they didn't want was just a blag. The Trump supergenius was to persuade different people about this for different things.

    To be clear- not because voters are stupid, but because Trump is a supergenius at this sort of thing.
    It goes a little further than that - it was persuading a lot of them that what they wanted came with no downside for them, were it to happen.
  • MaxPB said:

    Nigelb said:

    No price too high for deportations, says Trump
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/c62l50z4xq9t

    Assuming free and fair elections in 2028, don't expect an incumbency bonus for any GOP Congress members.

    Why would you assume that wouldn't be popular?
    Indeed, if Labour deported all of the failed asylum seekers and illegal immigrants they'd be in power for another 15 years.
    And in your view why are they not? And why were the Tories unable to?
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 82,291
    edited November 8
    MaxPB said:

    Nigelb said:

    Nigelb said:

    No price too high for deportations, says Trump
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/c62l50z4xq9t

    Assuming free and fair elections in 2028, don't expect an incumbency bonus for any GOP Congress members.

    Why would you assume that wouldn't be popular?
    Let's see, shall we ?

    Much depends on what Trump actually does, as I must have repeated at least a dozen times now. But if he's really going to go ahead and try for 10m plus deportations, as his comments at least imply, then I predict now that the results won't be popular.
    A 97% Latino town in Texas voted 75% in favour of Trump. They (Latino people) are just as sick of illegal immigration as everyone else. If he does deport illegals and reduce the number of arrivals to any significant degree it's almost a certainty that he will be very popular for that at least.
    Which legal citizens are the most hit by a huge illegal workforce that can be exploited and paid under the minimum wages....
  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 22,949
    Nigelb said:

    Nigelb said:

    No price too high for deportations, says Trump
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/c62l50z4xq9t

    Assuming free and fair elections in 2028, don't expect an incumbency bonus for any GOP Congress members.

    Why would you assume that wouldn't be popular?
    Let's see, shall we ?

    Much depends on what Trump actually does, as I must have repeated at least a dozen times now. But if he's really going to go ahead and try for 10m plus deportations, as his comments at least imply, then I predict now that the results won't be popular.

    Except with a small subset of GOP voters.
    Tariffs and immigration are the big question marks. I suspect he will do a lot less on both than he has promised, but just enough to keep them regularly in the headlines.
  • Pagan2Pagan2 Posts: 9,886

    Pagan2 said:

    FPT

    Nigelb said:

    Unless Badenoch can find another unifier of “fear Corbyn” and “get Brexit done” where are these voters going to come from?

    She’d be much better off in my view doing what Trump did and going after the economy. But she’d have to offer policies to the young.

    Affordable housing.

    Where's that going to come from ?

    The Tories have done the absolute opposite of that for the last four decades.
    Well instead of giving Ed Miliband billions to piss up the wall we could remove his budget and build a few hundred thousand houses. Then we could also save a billion or so on civil servants by simplifying the planning system and the private sector would build more houses too. I could suggest slashing the overseas aid budget but I'd take that saving and invest in hard power planes and ships instead of the soft power which sees us reduce our security.

    It's not that difficult if you want to do it.
    Given on the last thread someone said Police only investigate serious crime then next priority is crimes against important people I suggest we could save a bundle by abolishing all police except the serious crime squad as anything lower isn't benefitting the majority of the country.....just replace them with a website which states your crime is unimportant to us you prole but here is a crime number for your insurance company
    Or we could tell the important people their crimes wont be investigated until the lesser ones are done first. I suspect it would speed things up.
    While that would work sadly its those that deem themselves important that would have to vote it in and I see a tiny flaw in that
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 71,522
    edited November 8
    MaxPB said:

    Nigelb said:

    Nigelb said:

    No price too high for deportations, says Trump
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/c62l50z4xq9t

    Assuming free and fair elections in 2028, don't expect an incumbency bonus for any GOP Congress members.

    Why would you assume that wouldn't be popular?
    Let's see, shall we ?

    Much depends on what Trump actually does, as I must have repeated at least a dozen times now. But if he's really going to go ahead and try for 10m plus deportations, as his comments at least imply, then I predict now that the results won't be popular.
    A 97% Latino town in Texas voted 75% in favour of Trump. They (Latino people) are just as sick of illegal immigration as everyone else. If he does deport illegals and reduce the number of arrivals to any significant degree it's almost a certainty that he will be very popular for that at least.
    We are not talking about the same things, though, are we ?

    Some deportations, and significantly reducing the number coming in, is a consensus policy. Deporting ten, maybe twenty million (Trump has at times said more than that, but possible hyperbole of course), is a completely different project.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 52,706

    I’m a farmer – and I’m glad to see tax loopholes closing for cynical investor landowners - Guy Singh-Watson

    Guy Singh-Watson is the founder of the organic veg box company Riverford and a member of Patriotic Millionaires UK. He grows organic vegetables on 60 hectares (150 acres) in Devon and 120 hectares (300 acres) in the French Vendée. He sold Riverford in 2018 to its 1,000 employees, and the company is now 100% employee-owned

    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2024/nov/08/farmer-glad-tax-loopholes-investor-landowners-inheritance

    That is very fortunate that he has sold his business to employees (super tax efficient way to dispose of your business) and now only has 150 acres in the UK, that is likely below where the IHT kicks in....

    Riverford made a bunch of employees redundant last year/early this.

    Did a lot of mothing at Riverford last year.
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 38,885

    MaxPB said:

    Nigelb said:

    No price too high for deportations, says Trump
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/c62l50z4xq9t

    Assuming free and fair elections in 2028, don't expect an incumbency bonus for any GOP Congress members.

    Why would you assume that wouldn't be popular?
    Indeed, if Labour deported all of the failed asylum seekers and illegal immigrants they'd be in power for another 15 years.
    And in your view why are they not? And why were the Tories unable to?
    No cojones to face down the wets, for the Tories at least. I'm not sure with Labour, let's see what they do before making any judgements.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 52,706
    MaxPB said:

    Nigelb said:

    No price too high for deportations, says Trump
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/c62l50z4xq9t

    Assuming free and fair elections in 2028, don't expect an incumbency bonus for any GOP Congress members.

    Why would you assume that wouldn't be popular?
    Indeed, if Labour deported all of the failed asylum seekers and illegal immigrants they'd be in power for another 15 years.
    Rather begs the question: deports them where?
  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 22,949

    MaxPB said:

    Nigelb said:

    No price too high for deportations, says Trump
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/c62l50z4xq9t

    Assuming free and fair elections in 2028, don't expect an incumbency bonus for any GOP Congress members.

    Why would you assume that wouldn't be popular?
    Indeed, if Labour deported all of the failed asylum seekers and illegal immigrants they'd be in power for another 15 years.
    And in your view why are they not? And why were the Tories unable to?
    Because they had stopped the funding the courts for a decade and thought it didnt matter for some weird reason.
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 38,885

    MaxPB said:

    Nigelb said:

    No price too high for deportations, says Trump
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/c62l50z4xq9t

    Assuming free and fair elections in 2028, don't expect an incumbency bonus for any GOP Congress members.

    Why would you assume that wouldn't be popular?
    Indeed, if Labour deported all of the failed asylum seekers and illegal immigrants they'd be in power for another 15 years.
    Rather begs the question: deports them where?
    Does it matter?
  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 18,632
    The year isn't over yet!
    Watch Ireland buck the trend.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 82,291
    edited November 8

    I’m a farmer – and I’m glad to see tax loopholes closing for cynical investor landowners - Guy Singh-Watson

    Guy Singh-Watson is the founder of the organic veg box company Riverford and a member of Patriotic Millionaires UK. He grows organic vegetables on 60 hectares (150 acres) in Devon and 120 hectares (300 acres) in the French Vendée. He sold Riverford in 2018 to its 1,000 employees, and the company is now 100% employee-owned

    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2024/nov/08/farmer-glad-tax-loopholes-investor-landowners-inheritance

    That is very fortunate that he has sold his business to employees (super tax efficient way to dispose of your business) and now only has 150 acres in the UK, that is likely below where the IHT kicks in....

    Riverford made a bunch of employees redundant last year/early this.

    Did a lot of mothing at Riverford last year.
    Is that what they call it in Devon ;-)
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 71,522
    Nigelb said:

    MaxPB said:

    Nigelb said:

    Nigelb said:

    No price too high for deportations, says Trump
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/c62l50z4xq9t

    Assuming free and fair elections in 2028, don't expect an incumbency bonus for any GOP Congress members.

    Why would you assume that wouldn't be popular?
    Let's see, shall we ?

    Much depends on what Trump actually does, as I must have repeated at least a dozen times now. But if he's really going to go ahead and try for 10m plus deportations, as his comments at least imply, then I predict now that the results won't be popular.
    A 97% Latino town in Texas voted 75% in favour of Trump. They (Latino people) are just as sick of illegal immigration as everyone else. If he does deport illegals and reduce the number of arrivals to any significant degree it's almost a certainty that he will be very popular for that at least.
    We are not talking about the same things, though, are we ?

    Some deportations, and significantly reducing the number coming in, is a consensus policy. Deporting ten, maybe twenty million (Trump has at times said more than that, but possible hyperbole of course), is a completely different project.
    Note that that has already started to happen.
    ..At the same press conference, Foreign Minister Juan Ramon de la Fuente says Mexico's migrant program is working and will stay in place.
    He referred to data that showed the number of migrants caught by US authorities at the border had fallen 76% since last December...
  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 18,632
    MaxPB said:

    Nigelb said:

    No price too high for deportations, says Trump
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/c62l50z4xq9t

    Assuming free and fair elections in 2028, don't expect an incumbency bonus for any GOP Congress members.

    Why would you assume that wouldn't be popular?
    Indeed, if Labour deported all of the failed asylum seekers and illegal immigrants they'd be in power for another 15 years.
    Deportations have already gone up under Labour and they are not notably benefitting from a surge in popularity as a result.

    Perhaps this is because they are unable to enjoy doing so in the way that Trump would.
  • EabhalEabhal Posts: 8,795

    MaxPB said:

    Eabhal said:

    Fishing said:

    MaxPB said:

    Unless Badenoch can find another unifier of “fear Corbyn” and “get Brexit done” where are these voters going to come from?

    She’d be much better off in my view doing what Trump did and going after the economy. But she’d have to offer policies to the young.

    Housing, housing, housing. People are sick of being in their early 30s paying for someone else's mortgage unable to get on the ladder for themselves. Most of my friends have made it onto the ladder now but there's a lot of bitterness that remains around how much more difficult it was for us vs out parents generation because they've decided to leech off us with rental property.
    The trouble is, not everybody is in their early 30s and for every voter like the one you describe there are probably three or four home counties NIMBYs who will be driven to the LibDems for fear that more houses will spoil their beautiful views, or old people who like being paper millionaires (or their kids who will inherit it one day).

    And that, in short, is why our hosuing market is buggered.
    You don't need to build any more houses to change the proportions of housing tenure. What happened over the last 14 years was that the number of households owning outright and renting grew, while households with mortgages fell.

    More housing will certainly help with overall housing pressure, but that doesn't necessarily mean they won't be snapped up by landlords and used as private rentals. It's a function of massive wealth inequality more than anything, and very difficult to fix.
    Yes and no, it's a function of limited liquidity of suitable homes for first time buyers due to my parents generation buying multiple properties after Labour made their now ill fated changes to the rental sector. Fundamentally we shouldn't be in a place in this country where an individual or individuals own multiple existing properties. We should make it uneconomic to do so and push that investment from existing property into the high risk build to let sector and offer tax free income for landlord built property (not landlords buying new property from a developer) for 20 years or something.

    Fundamentally we've allowed my parents generation to make risk free yield of 4-7% and risk free capital gain of 5-10% by borrowing to invest in existing property. They don't want to give it up but any party that wants to get the next generation of voters on side will need to get these people out of the market and any that want to stay as landlords should be directed to building new property with generous allowances to get them on board.

    That generates new rental housing and frees up existing property for first time buyers.
    8 million fewer properties and a similar population to France.

    It all comes back to the artificial limits on building properties.

    If I was a billionaire, I would be tempted to start building a town on some land, with getting any permission to do so.
    FPT. The French example actually undermines your argument, because their housing costs are roughly the same as ours (or a bit higher, depending on renting/mortgage as a proportion of income) and have more overcrowding than we do, despite those 8 million extra properties.

    This is complicated stuff. I'd guess that they lots more second homes than we do, and that the demand in their cities relative to their towns/rural areas is even worse than our imbalance?
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 71,522

    Why does it take 2 months for a no confidence vote in the German parliament?

    I like Friedrich Merz.

    President Zelenskyy and current German opposition leader - and highly likely next Chancellor - had a phone call this morning. He was asking the Ukrainian president:

    Merz: "What do you need? Money or equipment?"

    Zelenskyy: "We have enough money until 2026. We need weapons. We need long-range weapons with no restrictions."

    Merz has repeatedly demanded to deliver the TAURUS missile. It is not only a good solutions which is specifically required by Ukraine, but also possible without increasing debts in Germany.

    https://x.com/Tendar/status/1854653975691514082

    European Union leaders are discussing how to sustain Ukraine's war effort if Trump cuts US support. At the Budapest summit, they considered whether Europe can bear the financial burden. Zelensky urged maintaining weapon supplies, while Meloni emphasized Ukraine's courage and Western support. Some European officials said the real issues was not so much the money itself, which should still be there, but the available military resources that have come primarily from the US.
    https://x.com/NOELreports/status/1854852156521652344
  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 22,949
    Nigelb said:

    Why does it take 2 months for a no confidence vote in the German parliament?

    I like Friedrich Merz.

    President Zelenskyy and current German opposition leader - and highly likely next Chancellor - had a phone call this morning. He was asking the Ukrainian president:

    Merz: "What do you need? Money or equipment?"

    Zelenskyy: "We have enough money until 2026. We need weapons. We need long-range weapons with no restrictions."

    Merz has repeatedly demanded to deliver the TAURUS missile. It is not only a good solutions which is specifically required by Ukraine, but also possible without increasing debts in Germany.

    https://x.com/Tendar/status/1854653975691514082

    European Union leaders are discussing how to sustain Ukraine's war effort if Trump cuts US support. At the Budapest summit, they considered whether Europe can bear the financial burden. Zelensky urged maintaining weapon supplies, while Meloni emphasized Ukraine's courage and Western support. Some European officials said the real issues was not so much the money itself, which should still be there, but the available military resources that have come primarily from the US.
    https://x.com/NOELreports/status/1854852156521652344
    Get the South Koreans in.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 71,522
    I've been traveling the past few days (5 plane rides since the election, 2 universities) and maybe about 20% of people that I got to talk to really knew what tariffs were and what they meant*.

    They usually just thought it meant that a trade partner got punished by higher prices. They didn't realize it meant *they themselves* would get punished by higher prices.

    https://x.com/kylascan/status/1854885488542544289

    *This isn't their fault but i don't really know how to fix it. i have made a ton of videos on social explaining tariffs but i think people hear what they want to sometimes. Put econ classes in the high schools.
    https://x.com/kylascan/status/1854885490446811160

    *If Trump goes ahead with what he promised, there's a pretty good chance that will fix it.
  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 18,632
    Nigelb said:

    Why does it take 2 months for a no confidence vote in the German parliament?

    I like Friedrich Merz.

    President Zelenskyy and current German opposition leader - and highly likely next Chancellor - had a phone call this morning. He was asking the Ukrainian president:

    Merz: "What do you need? Money or equipment?"

    Zelenskyy: "We have enough money until 2026. We need weapons. We need long-range weapons with no restrictions."

    Merz has repeatedly demanded to deliver the TAURUS missile. It is not only a good solutions which is specifically required by Ukraine, but also possible without increasing debts in Germany.

    https://x.com/Tendar/status/1854653975691514082

    European Union leaders are discussing how to sustain Ukraine's war effort if Trump cuts US support. At the Budapest summit, they considered whether Europe can bear the financial burden. Zelensky urged maintaining weapon supplies, while Meloni emphasized Ukraine's courage and Western support. Some European officials said the real issues was not so much the money itself, which should still be there, but the available military resources that have come primarily from the US.
    https://x.com/NOELreports/status/1854852156521652344
    If the money is there I am sure that Trump would gladly sell weapons for Ukraine to the Europeans. He would be delighted.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 50,576
    Eabhal said:

    MaxPB said:

    Eabhal said:

    Fishing said:

    MaxPB said:

    Unless Badenoch can find another unifier of “fear Corbyn” and “get Brexit done” where are these voters going to come from?

    She’d be much better off in my view doing what Trump did and going after the economy. But she’d have to offer policies to the young.

    Housing, housing, housing. People are sick of being in their early 30s paying for someone else's mortgage unable to get on the ladder for themselves. Most of my friends have made it onto the ladder now but there's a lot of bitterness that remains around how much more difficult it was for us vs out parents generation because they've decided to leech off us with rental property.
    The trouble is, not everybody is in their early 30s and for every voter like the one you describe there are probably three or four home counties NIMBYs who will be driven to the LibDems for fear that more houses will spoil their beautiful views, or old people who like being paper millionaires (or their kids who will inherit it one day).

    And that, in short, is why our hosuing market is buggered.
    You don't need to build any more houses to change the proportions of housing tenure. What happened over the last 14 years was that the number of households owning outright and renting grew, while households with mortgages fell.

    More housing will certainly help with overall housing pressure, but that doesn't necessarily mean they won't be snapped up by landlords and used as private rentals. It's a function of massive wealth inequality more than anything, and very difficult to fix.
    Yes and no, it's a function of limited liquidity of suitable homes for first time buyers due to my parents generation buying multiple properties after Labour made their now ill fated changes to the rental sector. Fundamentally we shouldn't be in a place in this country where an individual or individuals own multiple existing properties. We should make it uneconomic to do so and push that investment from existing property into the high risk build to let sector and offer tax free income for landlord built property (not landlords buying new property from a developer) for 20 years or something.

    Fundamentally we've allowed my parents generation to make risk free yield of 4-7% and risk free capital gain of 5-10% by borrowing to invest in existing property. They don't want to give it up but any party that wants to get the next generation of voters on side will need to get these people out of the market and any that want to stay as landlords should be directed to building new property with generous allowances to get them on board.

    That generates new rental housing and frees up existing property for first time buyers.
    8 million fewer properties and a similar population to France.

    It all comes back to the artificial limits on building properties.

    If I was a billionaire, I would be tempted to start building a town on some land, with getting any permission to do so.
    FPT. The French example actually undermines your argument, because their housing costs are roughly the same as ours (or a bit higher, depending on renting/mortgage as a proportion of income) and have more overcrowding than we do, despite those 8 million extra properties.

    This is complicated stuff. I'd guess that they lots more second homes than we do, and that the demand in their cities relative to their towns/rural areas is even worse than our imbalance?
    You keep claiming equal housing costs in France. And overcrowding. Yet everywhere outside Paris, property goes for a fraction of U.K. prices. Hence the comic phenomenon of U.K. people buying large French properties, thinking they *must* be worth more.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 82,291
    Nigelb said:

    I've been traveling the past few days (5 plane rides since the election, 2 universities) and maybe about 20% of people that I got to talk to really knew what tariffs were and what they meant*.

    They usually just thought it meant that a trade partner got punished by higher prices. They didn't realize it meant *they themselves* would get punished by higher prices.

    https://x.com/kylascan/status/1854885488542544289

    *This isn't their fault but i don't really know how to fix it. i have made a ton of videos on social explaining tariffs but i think people hear what they want to sometimes. Put econ classes in the high schools.
    https://x.com/kylascan/status/1854885490446811160

    *If Trump goes ahead with what he promised, there's a pretty good chance that will fix it.

    People couldn't grasp debt vs deficit, and exponential growth...good luck with tariffs.....
  • Nigelb said:

    I've been traveling the past few days (5 plane rides since the election, 2 universities) and maybe about 20% of people that I got to talk to really knew what tariffs were and what they meant*.

    They usually just thought it meant that a trade partner got punished by higher prices. They didn't realize it meant *they themselves* would get punished by higher prices.

    https://x.com/kylascan/status/1854885488542544289

    *This isn't their fault but i don't really know how to fix it. i have made a ton of videos on social explaining tariffs but i think people hear what they want to sometimes. Put econ classes in the high schools.
    https://x.com/kylascan/status/1854885490446811160

    *If Trump goes ahead with what he promised, there's a pretty good chance that will fix it.

    Presumably that's why Trump likes them so much. They're a tax, but people don't realise that they're a tax.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 57,304

    Nigelb said:

    Why does it take 2 months for a no confidence vote in the German parliament?

    I like Friedrich Merz.

    President Zelenskyy and current German opposition leader - and highly likely next Chancellor - had a phone call this morning. He was asking the Ukrainian president:

    Merz: "What do you need? Money or equipment?"

    Zelenskyy: "We have enough money until 2026. We need weapons. We need long-range weapons with no restrictions."

    Merz has repeatedly demanded to deliver the TAURUS missile. It is not only a good solutions which is specifically required by Ukraine, but also possible without increasing debts in Germany.

    https://x.com/Tendar/status/1854653975691514082

    European Union leaders are discussing how to sustain Ukraine's war effort if Trump cuts US support. At the Budapest summit, they considered whether Europe can bear the financial burden. Zelensky urged maintaining weapon supplies, while Meloni emphasized Ukraine's courage and Western support. Some European officials said the real issues was not so much the money itself, which should still be there, but the available military resources that have come primarily from the US.
    https://x.com/NOELreports/status/1854852156521652344
    If the money is there I am sure that Trump would gladly sell weapons for Ukraine to the Europeans. He would be delighted.
    Here's the question: if NATO ends - and it has to be a better than 50% chance that Trump withdraws the US from it - then do we want to be dependant on a non-treaty country for our defence procurement?

  • EabhalEabhal Posts: 8,795

    Eabhal said:

    MaxPB said:

    Eabhal said:

    Fishing said:

    MaxPB said:

    Unless Badenoch can find another unifier of “fear Corbyn” and “get Brexit done” where are these voters going to come from?

    She’d be much better off in my view doing what Trump did and going after the economy. But she’d have to offer policies to the young.

    Housing, housing, housing. People are sick of being in their early 30s paying for someone else's mortgage unable to get on the ladder for themselves. Most of my friends have made it onto the ladder now but there's a lot of bitterness that remains around how much more difficult it was for us vs out parents generation because they've decided to leech off us with rental property.
    The trouble is, not everybody is in their early 30s and for every voter like the one you describe there are probably three or four home counties NIMBYs who will be driven to the LibDems for fear that more houses will spoil their beautiful views, or old people who like being paper millionaires (or their kids who will inherit it one day).

    And that, in short, is why our hosuing market is buggered.
    You don't need to build any more houses to change the proportions of housing tenure. What happened over the last 14 years was that the number of households owning outright and renting grew, while households with mortgages fell.

    More housing will certainly help with overall housing pressure, but that doesn't necessarily mean they won't be snapped up by landlords and used as private rentals. It's a function of massive wealth inequality more than anything, and very difficult to fix.
    Yes and no, it's a function of limited liquidity of suitable homes for first time buyers due to my parents generation buying multiple properties after Labour made their now ill fated changes to the rental sector. Fundamentally we shouldn't be in a place in this country where an individual or individuals own multiple existing properties. We should make it uneconomic to do so and push that investment from existing property into the high risk build to let sector and offer tax free income for landlord built property (not landlords buying new property from a developer) for 20 years or something.

    Fundamentally we've allowed my parents generation to make risk free yield of 4-7% and risk free capital gain of 5-10% by borrowing to invest in existing property. They don't want to give it up but any party that wants to get the next generation of voters on side will need to get these people out of the market and any that want to stay as landlords should be directed to building new property with generous allowances to get them on board.

    That generates new rental housing and frees up existing property for first time buyers.
    8 million fewer properties and a similar population to France.

    It all comes back to the artificial limits on building properties.

    If I was a billionaire, I would be tempted to start building a town on some land, with getting any permission to do so.
    FPT. The French example actually undermines your argument, because their housing costs are roughly the same as ours (or a bit higher, depending on renting/mortgage as a proportion of income) and have more overcrowding than we do, despite those 8 million extra properties.

    This is complicated stuff. I'd guess that they lots more second homes than we do, and that the demand in their cities relative to their towns/rural areas is even worse than our imbalance?
    You keep claiming equal housing costs in France. And overcrowding. Yet everywhere outside Paris, property goes for a fraction of U.K. prices. Hence the comic phenomenon of U.K. people buying large French properties, thinking they *must* be worth more.
    Here you go: https://www.oecd.org/content/dam/oecd/en/data/datasets/affordable-housing-database/hc1-2-housing-costs-over-income.pdf
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 42,971
    Eabhal said:

    MaxPB said:

    Eabhal said:

    Fishing said:

    MaxPB said:

    Unless Badenoch can find another unifier of “fear Corbyn” and “get Brexit done” where are these voters going to come from?

    She’d be much better off in my view doing what Trump did and going after the economy. But she’d have to offer policies to the young.

    Housing, housing, housing. People are sick of being in their early 30s paying for someone else's mortgage unable to get on the ladder for themselves. Most of my friends have made it onto the ladder now but there's a lot of bitterness that remains around how much more difficult it was for us vs out parents generation because they've decided to leech off us with rental property.
    The trouble is, not everybody is in their early 30s and for every voter like the one you describe there are probably three or four home counties NIMBYs who will be driven to the LibDems for fear that more houses will spoil their beautiful views, or old people who like being paper millionaires (or their kids who will inherit it one day).

    And that, in short, is why our hosuing market is buggered.
    You don't need to build any more houses to change the proportions of housing tenure. What happened over the last 14 years was that the number of households owning outright and renting grew, while households with mortgages fell.

    More housing will certainly help with overall housing pressure, but that doesn't necessarily mean they won't be snapped up by landlords and used as private rentals. It's a function of massive wealth inequality more than anything, and very difficult to fix.
    Yes and no, it's a function of limited liquidity of suitable homes for first time buyers due to my parents generation buying multiple properties after Labour made their now ill fated changes to the rental sector. Fundamentally we shouldn't be in a place in this country where an individual or individuals own multiple existing properties. We should make it uneconomic to do so and push that investment from existing property into the high risk build to let sector and offer tax free income for landlord built property (not landlords buying new property from a developer) for 20 years or something.

    Fundamentally we've allowed my parents generation to make risk free yield of 4-7% and risk free capital gain of 5-10% by borrowing to invest in existing property. They don't want to give it up but any party that wants to get the next generation of voters on side will need to get these people out of the market and any that want to stay as landlords should be directed to building new property with generous allowances to get them on board.

    That generates new rental housing and frees up existing property for first time buyers.
    8 million fewer properties and a similar population to France.

    It all comes back to the artificial limits on building properties.

    If I was a billionaire, I would be tempted to start building a town on some land, with getting any permission to do so.
    FPT. The French example actually undermines your argument, because their housing costs are roughly the same as ours (or a bit higher, depending on renting/mortgage as a proportion of income) and have more overcrowding than we do, despite those 8 million extra properties.

    This is complicated stuff. I'd guess that they lots more second homes than we do, and that the demand in their cities relative to their towns/rural areas is even worse than our imbalance?
    That's a very interesting counterpoint, thanks.

    People used to say that the more roads you built, the more roads you needed to build. Might it be the same for houses, if you have policies that do not deter it? Your second homes example might be pertinent.
  • MJWMJW Posts: 1,731
    MaxPB said:

    Nigelb said:

    Nigelb said:

    No price too high for deportations, says Trump
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/c62l50z4xq9t

    Assuming free and fair elections in 2028, don't expect an incumbency bonus for any GOP Congress members.

    Why would you assume that wouldn't be popular?
    Let's see, shall we ?

    Much depends on what Trump actually does, as I must have repeated at least a dozen times now. But if he's really going to go ahead and try for 10m plus deportations, as his comments at least imply, then I predict now that the results won't be popular.
    A 97% Latino town in Texas voted 75% in favour of Trump. They (Latino people) are just as sick of illegal immigration as everyone else. If he does deport illegals and reduce the number of arrivals to any significant degree it's almost a certainty that he will be very popular for that at least.
    As OP said, it'll depend on the policies. There's a tendency for people to assume he means "this unspecified bad immigrant" and not me, my friends or their parents. Deportation on the scale Trump's promising will mean not just those who're seen as recent interlopers but those who are longstanding members of their communities but never got naturalised, as well as those with a right to live in the US.

    The results are also liable to be ugly, as is the economic dislocation of removing that many people.

    That's accepting that in the abstract, such policies are popular - just people see the positives and ignore negatives and complications until they become impossible to ignore.

    Oddly his popularity might survive/increase the most if he botches things and in effect gets half the policy. An historically large number of deportations giving him a credible story to tell on delivering and to the right of the Dems, without the horrors and problems that getting the full policy might inflict.

    Similar to tariffs one supposes, though more difficult due to the human and more emotive nature of the issue.
  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 18,632
    edited November 8
    rcs1000 said:

    Nigelb said:

    Why does it take 2 months for a no confidence vote in the German parliament?

    I like Friedrich Merz.

    President Zelenskyy and current German opposition leader - and highly likely next Chancellor - had a phone call this morning. He was asking the Ukrainian president:

    Merz: "What do you need? Money or equipment?"

    Zelenskyy: "We have enough money until 2026. We need weapons. We need long-range weapons with no restrictions."

    Merz has repeatedly demanded to deliver the TAURUS missile. It is not only a good solutions which is specifically required by Ukraine, but also possible without increasing debts in Germany.

    https://x.com/Tendar/status/1854653975691514082

    European Union leaders are discussing how to sustain Ukraine's war effort if Trump cuts US support. At the Budapest summit, they considered whether Europe can bear the financial burden. Zelensky urged maintaining weapon supplies, while Meloni emphasized Ukraine's courage and Western support. Some European officials said the real issues was not so much the money itself, which should still be there, but the available military resources that have come primarily from the US.
    https://x.com/NOELreports/status/1854852156521652344
    If the money is there I am sure that Trump would gladly sell weapons for Ukraine to the Europeans. He would be delighted.
    Here's the question: if NATO ends - and it has to be a better than 50% chance that Trump withdraws the US from it - then do we want to be dependant on a non-treaty country for our defence procurement?
    Not in the long-term, no. But there's a war on right now. You buy equipment and ammunition from whoever will sell it to you, while you also build up your own defence industry.
  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 22,949
    edited November 8

    rcs1000 said:

    Nigelb said:

    Why does it take 2 months for a no confidence vote in the German parliament?

    I like Friedrich Merz.

    President Zelenskyy and current German opposition leader - and highly likely next Chancellor - had a phone call this morning. He was asking the Ukrainian president:

    Merz: "What do you need? Money or equipment?"

    Zelenskyy: "We have enough money until 2026. We need weapons. We need long-range weapons with no restrictions."

    Merz has repeatedly demanded to deliver the TAURUS missile. It is not only a good solutions which is specifically required by Ukraine, but also possible without increasing debts in Germany.

    https://x.com/Tendar/status/1854653975691514082

    European Union leaders are discussing how to sustain Ukraine's war effort if Trump cuts US support. At the Budapest summit, they considered whether Europe can bear the financial burden. Zelensky urged maintaining weapon supplies, while Meloni emphasized Ukraine's courage and Western support. Some European officials said the real issues was not so much the money itself, which should still be there, but the available military resources that have come primarily from the US.
    https://x.com/NOELreports/status/1854852156521652344
    If the money is there I am sure that Trump would gladly sell weapons for Ukraine to the Europeans. He would be delighted.
    Here's the question: if NATO ends - and it has to be a better than 50% chance that Trump withdraws the US from it - then do we want to be dependant on a non-treaty country for our defence procurement?
    Not in the long-term, no. But there's a war on right now. You buy equipment and ammunition from whoever will sell it to you, while you also build up your own defence industry.
    Michelle Mone is probably springing into action as we speak.
  • Northern_AlNorthern_Al Posts: 8,411
    edited November 8
    MaxPB said:

    Nigelb said:

    No price too high for deportations, says Trump
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/c62l50z4xq9t

    Assuming free and fair elections in 2028, don't expect an incumbency bonus for any GOP Congress members.

    Why would you assume that wouldn't be popular?
    Indeed, if Labour deported all of the failed asylum seekers and illegal immigrants they'd be in power for another 15 years.
    I would expect Labour to deport a lot more failed asylum seekers and illegal immigrants than the Tories have done, though 'all' would be unrealistic. Starmer and Cooper have made it clear that their ambition is to 'return' (they prefer that to 'deport') those who are here, or arrive, illegally.

    The problem is that a substantial proportion of the British public would like to see successful asylum seekers, and some sections of legal migrants, also returned. That isn't going to happen.
  • FrankBoothFrankBooth Posts: 9,879
    Russian stock market up nearly 5% since Trump's win.
  • EabhalEabhal Posts: 8,795

    Eabhal said:

    MaxPB said:

    Eabhal said:

    Fishing said:

    MaxPB said:

    Unless Badenoch can find another unifier of “fear Corbyn” and “get Brexit done” where are these voters going to come from?

    She’d be much better off in my view doing what Trump did and going after the economy. But she’d have to offer policies to the young.

    Housing, housing, housing. People are sick of being in their early 30s paying for someone else's mortgage unable to get on the ladder for themselves. Most of my friends have made it onto the ladder now but there's a lot of bitterness that remains around how much more difficult it was for us vs out parents generation because they've decided to leech off us with rental property.
    The trouble is, not everybody is in their early 30s and for every voter like the one you describe there are probably three or four home counties NIMBYs who will be driven to the LibDems for fear that more houses will spoil their beautiful views, or old people who like being paper millionaires (or their kids who will inherit it one day).

    And that, in short, is why our hosuing market is buggered.
    You don't need to build any more houses to change the proportions of housing tenure. What happened over the last 14 years was that the number of households owning outright and renting grew, while households with mortgages fell.

    More housing will certainly help with overall housing pressure, but that doesn't necessarily mean they won't be snapped up by landlords and used as private rentals. It's a function of massive wealth inequality more than anything, and very difficult to fix.
    Yes and no, it's a function of limited liquidity of suitable homes for first time buyers due to my parents generation buying multiple properties after Labour made their now ill fated changes to the rental sector. Fundamentally we shouldn't be in a place in this country where an individual or individuals own multiple existing properties. We should make it uneconomic to do so and push that investment from existing property into the high risk build to let sector and offer tax free income for landlord built property (not landlords buying new property from a developer) for 20 years or something.

    Fundamentally we've allowed my parents generation to make risk free yield of 4-7% and risk free capital gain of 5-10% by borrowing to invest in existing property. They don't want to give it up but any party that wants to get the next generation of voters on side will need to get these people out of the market and any that want to stay as landlords should be directed to building new property with generous allowances to get them on board.

    That generates new rental housing and frees up existing property for first time buyers.
    8 million fewer properties and a similar population to France.

    It all comes back to the artificial limits on building properties.

    If I was a billionaire, I would be tempted to start building a town on some land, with getting any permission to do so.
    FPT. The French example actually undermines your argument, because their housing costs are roughly the same as ours (or a bit higher, depending on renting/mortgage as a proportion of income) and have more overcrowding than we do, despite those 8 million extra properties.

    This is complicated stuff. I'd guess that they lots more second homes than we do, and that the demand in their cities relative to their towns/rural areas is even worse than our imbalance?
    That's a very interesting counterpoint, thanks.

    People used to say that the more roads you built, the more roads you needed to build. Might it be the same for houses, if you have policies that do not deter it? Your second homes example might be pertinent.
    I also think there is a snowball argument, where building lots of new homes in a city increases economic demand from young workers moving in, which spurs economic growth, which increases housing demand... A virtuous/vicious cycle.

    There are thousands of new flats around my place in Edinburgh but I've made 20% on the value in the same period. 40% of Scottish new builds are in Edinburgh and it's TTWA, yet...
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,243
    Eabhal said:

    Eabhal said:

    MaxPB said:

    Eabhal said:

    Fishing said:

    MaxPB said:

    Unless Badenoch can find another unifier of “fear Corbyn” and “get Brexit done” where are these voters going to come from?

    She’d be much better off in my view doing what Trump did and going after the economy. But she’d have to offer policies to the young.

    Housing, housing, housing. People are sick of being in their early 30s paying for someone else's mortgage unable to get on the ladder for themselves. Most of my friends have made it onto the ladder now but there's a lot of bitterness that remains around how much more difficult it was for us vs out parents generation because they've decided to leech off us with rental property.
    The trouble is, not everybody is in their early 30s and for every voter like the one you describe there are probably three or four home counties NIMBYs who will be driven to the LibDems for fear that more houses will spoil their beautiful views, or old people who like being paper millionaires (or their kids who will inherit it one day).

    And that, in short, is why our hosuing market is buggered.
    You don't need to build any more houses to change the proportions of housing tenure. What happened over the last 14 years was that the number of households owning outright and renting grew, while households with mortgages fell.

    More housing will certainly help with overall housing pressure, but that doesn't necessarily mean they won't be snapped up by landlords and used as private rentals. It's a function of massive wealth inequality more than anything, and very difficult to fix.
    Yes and no, it's a function of limited liquidity of suitable homes for first time buyers due to my parents generation buying multiple properties after Labour made their now ill fated changes to the rental sector. Fundamentally we shouldn't be in a place in this country where an individual or individuals own multiple existing properties. We should make it uneconomic to do so and push that investment from existing property into the high risk build to let sector and offer tax free income for landlord built property (not landlords buying new property from a developer) for 20 years or something.

    Fundamentally we've allowed my parents generation to make risk free yield of 4-7% and risk free capital gain of 5-10% by borrowing to invest in existing property. They don't want to give it up but any party that wants to get the next generation of voters on side will need to get these people out of the market and any that want to stay as landlords should be directed to building new property with generous allowances to get them on board.

    That generates new rental housing and frees up existing property for first time buyers.
    8 million fewer properties and a similar population to France.

    It all comes back to the artificial limits on building properties.

    If I was a billionaire, I would be tempted to start building a town on some land, with getting any permission to do so.
    FPT. The French example actually undermines your argument, because their housing costs are roughly the same as ours (or a bit higher, depending on renting/mortgage as a proportion of income) and have more overcrowding than we do, despite those 8 million extra properties.

    This is complicated stuff. I'd guess that they lots more second homes than we do, and that the demand in their cities relative to their towns/rural areas is even worse than our imbalance?
    You keep claiming equal housing costs in France. And overcrowding. Yet everywhere outside Paris, property goes for a fraction of U.K. prices. Hence the comic phenomenon of U.K. people buying large French properties, thinking they *must* be worth more.
    Here you go: https://www.oecd.org/content/dam/oecd/en/data/datasets/affordable-housing-database/hc1-2-housing-costs-over-income.pdf
    That chart does not show that
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 42,381
    Nigelb said:

    Nigelb said:

    MaxPB said:

    Nigelb said:

    Nigelb said:

    No price too high for deportations, says Trump
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/c62l50z4xq9t

    Assuming free and fair elections in 2028, don't expect an incumbency bonus for any GOP Congress members.

    Why would you assume that wouldn't be popular?
    Let's see, shall we ?

    Much depends on what Trump actually does, as I must have repeated at least a dozen times now. But if he's really going to go ahead and try for 10m plus deportations, as his comments at least imply, then I predict now that the results won't be popular.
    A 97% Latino town in Texas voted 75% in favour of Trump. They (Latino people) are just as sick of illegal immigration as everyone else. If he does deport illegals and reduce the number of arrivals to any significant degree it's almost a certainty that he will be very popular for that at least.
    We are not talking about the same things, though, are we ?

    Some deportations, and significantly reducing the number coming in, is a consensus policy. Deporting ten, maybe twenty million (Trump has at times said more than that, but possible hyperbole of course), is a completely different project.
    Note that that has already started to happen.
    ..At the same press conference, Foreign Minister Juan Ramon de la Fuente says Mexico's migrant program is working and will stay in place.
    He referred to data that showed the number of migrants caught by US authorities at the border had fallen 76% since last December...
    And inflation is ok now. So as regards those top 2 election issues perhaps he can just go and play golf.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 71,522

    rcs1000 said:

    Nigelb said:

    Why does it take 2 months for a no confidence vote in the German parliament?

    I like Friedrich Merz.

    President Zelenskyy and current German opposition leader - and highly likely next Chancellor - had a phone call this morning. He was asking the Ukrainian president:

    Merz: "What do you need? Money or equipment?"

    Zelenskyy: "We have enough money until 2026. We need weapons. We need long-range weapons with no restrictions."

    Merz has repeatedly demanded to deliver the TAURUS missile. It is not only a good solutions which is specifically required by Ukraine, but also possible without increasing debts in Germany.

    https://x.com/Tendar/status/1854653975691514082

    European Union leaders are discussing how to sustain Ukraine's war effort if Trump cuts US support. At the Budapest summit, they considered whether Europe can bear the financial burden. Zelensky urged maintaining weapon supplies, while Meloni emphasized Ukraine's courage and Western support. Some European officials said the real issues was not so much the money itself, which should still be there, but the available military resources that have come primarily from the US.
    https://x.com/NOELreports/status/1854852156521652344
    If the money is there I am sure that Trump would gladly sell weapons for Ukraine to the Europeans. He would be delighted.
    Here's the question: if NATO ends - and it has to be a better than 50% chance that Trump withdraws the US from it - then do we want to be dependant on a non-treaty country for our defence procurement?
    Not in the long-term, no. But there's a war on right now. You buy equipment and ammunition from whoever will sell it to you, while you also build up your own defence industry.
    S Korea is something of an alternate supplier for some things - tanks; MLRS; light fighters; air defence etc (the US is even looking to outsource some naval production there) - but their order books are pretty full too.
    The US is the one western country still with substantial arms stocks which they can fairly easily still dip into (for some things at least) without significantly depleting their own reserves.

    Looking ahead, everyone needs to up their manufacturing capacity.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,243
    Pulpstar said:

    Eabhal said:

    Eabhal said:

    MaxPB said:

    Eabhal said:

    Fishing said:

    MaxPB said:

    Unless Badenoch can find another unifier of “fear Corbyn” and “get Brexit done” where are these voters going to come from?

    She’d be much better off in my view doing what Trump did and going after the economy. But she’d have to offer policies to the young.

    Housing, housing, housing. People are sick of being in their early 30s paying for someone else's mortgage unable to get on the ladder for themselves. Most of my friends have made it onto the ladder now but there's a lot of bitterness that remains around how much more difficult it was for us vs out parents generation because they've decided to leech off us with rental property.
    The trouble is, not everybody is in their early 30s and for every voter like the one you describe there are probably three or four home counties NIMBYs who will be driven to the LibDems for fear that more houses will spoil their beautiful views, or old people who like being paper millionaires (or their kids who will inherit it one day).

    And that, in short, is why our hosuing market is buggered.
    You don't need to build any more houses to change the proportions of housing tenure. What happened over the last 14 years was that the number of households owning outright and renting grew, while households with mortgages fell.

    More housing will certainly help with overall housing pressure, but that doesn't necessarily mean they won't be snapped up by landlords and used as private rentals. It's a function of massive wealth inequality more than anything, and very difficult to fix.
    Yes and no, it's a function of limited liquidity of suitable homes for first time buyers due to my parents generation buying multiple properties after Labour made their now ill fated changes to the rental sector. Fundamentally we shouldn't be in a place in this country where an individual or individuals own multiple existing properties. We should make it uneconomic to do so and push that investment from existing property into the high risk build to let sector and offer tax free income for landlord built property (not landlords buying new property from a developer) for 20 years or something.

    Fundamentally we've allowed my parents generation to make risk free yield of 4-7% and risk free capital gain of 5-10% by borrowing to invest in existing property. They don't want to give it up but any party that wants to get the next generation of voters on side will need to get these people out of the market and any that want to stay as landlords should be directed to building new property with generous allowances to get them on board.

    That generates new rental housing and frees up existing property for first time buyers.
    8 million fewer properties and a similar population to France.

    It all comes back to the artificial limits on building properties.

    If I was a billionaire, I would be tempted to start building a town on some land, with getting any permission to do so.
    FPT. The French example actually undermines your argument, because their housing costs are roughly the same as ours (or a bit higher, depending on renting/mortgage as a proportion of income) and have more overcrowding than we do, despite those 8 million extra properties.

    This is complicated stuff. I'd guess that they lots more second homes than we do, and that the demand in their cities relative to their towns/rural areas is even worse than our imbalance?
    You keep claiming equal housing costs in France. And overcrowding. Yet everywhere outside Paris, property goes for a fraction of U.K. prices. Hence the comic phenomenon of U.K. people buying large French properties, thinking they *must* be worth more.
    Here you go: https://www.oecd.org/content/dam/oecd/en/data/datasets/affordable-housing-database/hc1-2-housing-costs-over-income.pdf
    That chart does not show that
    Actually it shows that OO is OK in the UK whilst renters are absolutely clobbered

  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 34,760
    Eabhal said:

    Eabhal said:

    MaxPB said:

    Eabhal said:

    Fishing said:

    MaxPB said:

    Unless Badenoch can find another unifier of “fear Corbyn” and “get Brexit done” where are these voters going to come from?

    She’d be much better off in my view doing what Trump did and going after the economy. But she’d have to offer policies to the young.

    Housing, housing, housing. People are sick of being in their early 30s paying for someone else's mortgage unable to get on the ladder for themselves. Most of my friends have made it onto the ladder now but there's a lot of bitterness that remains around how much more difficult it was for us vs out parents generation because they've decided to leech off us with rental property.
    The trouble is, not everybody is in their early 30s and for every voter like the one you describe there are probably three or four home counties NIMBYs who will be driven to the LibDems for fear that more houses will spoil their beautiful views, or old people who like being paper millionaires (or their kids who will inherit it one day).

    And that, in short, is why our hosuing market is buggered.
    You don't need to build any more houses to change the proportions of housing tenure. What happened over the last 14 years was that the number of households owning outright and renting grew, while households with mortgages fell.

    More housing will certainly help with overall housing pressure, but that doesn't necessarily mean they won't be snapped up by landlords and used as private rentals. It's a function of massive wealth inequality more than anything, and very difficult to fix.
    Yes and no, it's a function of limited liquidity of suitable homes for first time buyers due to my parents generation buying multiple properties after Labour made their now ill fated changes to the rental sector. Fundamentally we shouldn't be in a place in this country where an individual or individuals own multiple existing properties. We should make it uneconomic to do so and push that investment from existing property into the high risk build to let sector and offer tax free income for landlord built property (not landlords buying new property from a developer) for 20 years or something.

    Fundamentally we've allowed my parents generation to make risk free yield of 4-7% and risk free capital gain of 5-10% by borrowing to invest in existing property. They don't want to give it up but any party that wants to get the next generation of voters on side will need to get these people out of the market and any that want to stay as landlords should be directed to building new property with generous allowances to get them on board.

    That generates new rental housing and frees up existing property for first time buyers.
    8 million fewer properties and a similar population to France.

    It all comes back to the artificial limits on building properties.

    If I was a billionaire, I would be tempted to start building a town on some land, with getting any permission to do so.
    FPT. The French example actually undermines your argument, because their housing costs are roughly the same as ours (or a bit higher, depending on renting/mortgage as a proportion of income) and have more overcrowding than we do, despite those 8 million extra properties.

    This is complicated stuff. I'd guess that they lots more second homes than we do, and that the demand in their cities relative to their towns/rural areas is even worse than our imbalance?
    You keep claiming equal housing costs in France. And overcrowding. Yet everywhere outside Paris, property goes for a fraction of U.K. prices. Hence the comic phenomenon of U.K. people buying large French properties, thinking they *must* be worth more.
    Here you go: https://www.oecd.org/content/dam/oecd/en/data/datasets/affordable-housing-database/hc1-2-housing-costs-over-income.pdf
    Question for @BartholomewRoberts: if planning restrictions are the source of the UK housing crisis why does the US have a similar one?
  • moonshinemoonshine Posts: 5,755
    Nigelb said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Nigelb said:

    Why does it take 2 months for a no confidence vote in the German parliament?

    I like Friedrich Merz.

    President Zelenskyy and current German opposition leader - and highly likely next Chancellor - had a phone call this morning. He was asking the Ukrainian president:

    Merz: "What do you need? Money or equipment?"

    Zelenskyy: "We have enough money until 2026. We need weapons. We need long-range weapons with no restrictions."

    Merz has repeatedly demanded to deliver the TAURUS missile. It is not only a good solutions which is specifically required by Ukraine, but also possible without increasing debts in Germany.

    https://x.com/Tendar/status/1854653975691514082

    European Union leaders are discussing how to sustain Ukraine's war effort if Trump cuts US support. At the Budapest summit, they considered whether Europe can bear the financial burden. Zelensky urged maintaining weapon supplies, while Meloni emphasized Ukraine's courage and Western support. Some European officials said the real issues was not so much the money itself, which should still be there, but the available military resources that have come primarily from the US.
    https://x.com/NOELreports/status/1854852156521652344
    If the money is there I am sure that Trump would gladly sell weapons for Ukraine to the Europeans. He would be delighted.
    Here's the question: if NATO ends - and it has to be a better than 50% chance that Trump withdraws the US from it - then do we want to be dependant on a non-treaty country for our defence procurement?
    Not in the long-term, no. But there's a war on right now. You buy equipment and ammunition from whoever will sell it to you, while you also build up your own defence industry.
    S Korea is something of an alternate supplier for some things - tanks; MLRS; light fighters; air defence etc (the US is even looking to outsource some naval production there) - but their order books are pretty full too.
    The US is the one western country still with substantial arms stocks which they can fairly easily still dip into (for some things at least) without significantly depleting their own reserves.

    Looking ahead, everyone needs to up their manufacturing capacity.
    Trump is after all is said and done a Republican president. He is not going to say no to tens of billions of dollars of arms sales to allied nations.
  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 18,632

    Eabhal said:

    MaxPB said:

    Eabhal said:

    Fishing said:

    MaxPB said:

    Unless Badenoch can find another unifier of “fear Corbyn” and “get Brexit done” where are these voters going to come from?

    She’d be much better off in my view doing what Trump did and going after the economy. But she’d have to offer policies to the young.

    Housing, housing, housing. People are sick of being in their early 30s paying for someone else's mortgage unable to get on the ladder for themselves. Most of my friends have made it onto the ladder now but there's a lot of bitterness that remains around how much more difficult it was for us vs out parents generation because they've decided to leech off us with rental property.
    The trouble is, not everybody is in their early 30s and for every voter like the one you describe there are probably three or four home counties NIMBYs who will be driven to the LibDems for fear that more houses will spoil their beautiful views, or old people who like being paper millionaires (or their kids who will inherit it one day).

    And that, in short, is why our hosuing market is buggered.
    You don't need to build any more houses to change the proportions of housing tenure. What happened over the last 14 years was that the number of households owning outright and renting grew, while households with mortgages fell.

    More housing will certainly help with overall housing pressure, but that doesn't necessarily mean they won't be snapped up by landlords and used as private rentals. It's a function of massive wealth inequality more than anything, and very difficult to fix.
    Yes and no, it's a function of limited liquidity of suitable homes for first time buyers due to my parents generation buying multiple properties after Labour made their now ill fated changes to the rental sector. Fundamentally we shouldn't be in a place in this country where an individual or individuals own multiple existing properties. We should make it uneconomic to do so and push that investment from existing property into the high risk build to let sector and offer tax free income for landlord built property (not landlords buying new property from a developer) for 20 years or something.

    Fundamentally we've allowed my parents generation to make risk free yield of 4-7% and risk free capital gain of 5-10% by borrowing to invest in existing property. They don't want to give it up but any party that wants to get the next generation of voters on side will need to get these people out of the market and any that want to stay as landlords should be directed to building new property with generous allowances to get them on board.

    That generates new rental housing and frees up existing property for first time buyers.
    8 million fewer properties and a similar population to France.

    It all comes back to the artificial limits on building properties.

    If I was a billionaire, I would be tempted to start building a town on some land, with getting any permission to do so.
    FPT. The French example actually undermines your argument, because their housing costs are roughly the same as ours (or a bit higher, depending on renting/mortgage as a proportion of income) and have more overcrowding than we do, despite those 8 million extra properties.

    This is complicated stuff. I'd guess that they lots more second homes than we do, and that the demand in their cities relative to their towns/rural areas is even worse than our imbalance?
    That's a very interesting counterpoint, thanks.

    People used to say that the more roads you built, the more roads you needed to build. Might it be the same for houses, if you have policies that do not deter it? Your second homes example might be pertinent.
    Part of the reason house prices are high in Britain is because there is a culture of borrowing as much money as possible to buy the best house in the best location, as being the best choice for your future happiness and financial security.

    I do think there is an absolute shortage of housing supply in Britain, but distribution, and financing are also big factors. You need to make sure that the right people buy the new houses, and that they don't spend all their money doing so.

    As well as the policies to dissuade landlords that Max mentions, I think you also want to reduce the income multiples that the banks lend on. As well as building lots of housing.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,243
    edited November 8
    One thing the UK does have in its favour are very very competitive borrowing costs right now certainly compared to the US because we tend to go for 2/5 yr mortgages which are at a lower rate on the curve compared to US 30 yr at the moment
    And there's good competition in the market so the market rates are close to the true rate (Gilts) sometimes below !
    Not sure how europe does their mortgages
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 71,522
    Nigelb said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Nigelb said:

    Why does it take 2 months for a no confidence vote in the German parliament?

    I like Friedrich Merz.

    President Zelenskyy and current German opposition leader - and highly likely next Chancellor - had a phone call this morning. He was asking the Ukrainian president:

    Merz: "What do you need? Money or equipment?"

    Zelenskyy: "We have enough money until 2026. We need weapons. We need long-range weapons with no restrictions."

    Merz has repeatedly demanded to deliver the TAURUS missile. It is not only a good solutions which is specifically required by Ukraine, but also possible without increasing debts in Germany.

    https://x.com/Tendar/status/1854653975691514082

    European Union leaders are discussing how to sustain Ukraine's war effort if Trump cuts US support. At the Budapest summit, they considered whether Europe can bear the financial burden. Zelensky urged maintaining weapon supplies, while Meloni emphasized Ukraine's courage and Western support. Some European officials said the real issues was not so much the money itself, which should still be there, but the available military resources that have come primarily from the US.
    https://x.com/NOELreports/status/1854852156521652344
    If the money is there I am sure that Trump would gladly sell weapons for Ukraine to the Europeans. He would be delighted.
    Here's the question: if NATO ends - and it has to be a better than 50% chance that Trump withdraws the US from it - then do we want to be dependant on a non-treaty country for our defence procurement?
    Not in the long-term, no. But there's a war on right now. You buy equipment and ammunition from whoever will sell it to you, while you also build up your own defence industry.
    S Korea is something of an alternate supplier for some things - tanks; MLRS; light fighters; air defence etc (the US is even looking to outsource some naval production there) - but their order books are pretty full too.
    The US is the one western country still with substantial arms stocks which they can fairly easily still dip into (for some things at least) without significantly depleting their own reserves.

    Looking ahead, everyone needs to up their manufacturing capacity.
    Talking of which..

    Today, the Korean government released Hyunmoo-IIB missile footage. 'IIB' variant has considerably heavier warhead than other SRBMs.
    The range is 550km, and the warhead weighs about 1 ton.
    Notably, it has evasive maneuvering ability, having an active seeker, and strong anti-jamming function.
    Mysterious two canister version Hyunmoo-II TEL was not revealed at the parade.

    https://x.com/mason_8718/status/1854839119148728684
  • EabhalEabhal Posts: 8,795
    Pulpstar said:

    Eabhal said:

    Eabhal said:

    MaxPB said:

    Eabhal said:

    Fishing said:

    MaxPB said:

    Unless Badenoch can find another unifier of “fear Corbyn” and “get Brexit done” where are these voters going to come from?

    She’d be much better off in my view doing what Trump did and going after the economy. But she’d have to offer policies to the young.

    Housing, housing, housing. People are sick of being in their early 30s paying for someone else's mortgage unable to get on the ladder for themselves. Most of my friends have made it onto the ladder now but there's a lot of bitterness that remains around how much more difficult it was for us vs out parents generation because they've decided to leech off us with rental property.
    The trouble is, not everybody is in their early 30s and for every voter like the one you describe there are probably three or four home counties NIMBYs who will be driven to the LibDems for fear that more houses will spoil their beautiful views, or old people who like being paper millionaires (or their kids who will inherit it one day).

    And that, in short, is why our hosuing market is buggered.
    You don't need to build any more houses to change the proportions of housing tenure. What happened over the last 14 years was that the number of households owning outright and renting grew, while households with mortgages fell.

    More housing will certainly help with overall housing pressure, but that doesn't necessarily mean they won't be snapped up by landlords and used as private rentals. It's a function of massive wealth inequality more than anything, and very difficult to fix.
    Yes and no, it's a function of limited liquidity of suitable homes for first time buyers due to my parents generation buying multiple properties after Labour made their now ill fated changes to the rental sector. Fundamentally we shouldn't be in a place in this country where an individual or individuals own multiple existing properties. We should make it uneconomic to do so and push that investment from existing property into the high risk build to let sector and offer tax free income for landlord built property (not landlords buying new property from a developer) for 20 years or something.

    Fundamentally we've allowed my parents generation to make risk free yield of 4-7% and risk free capital gain of 5-10% by borrowing to invest in existing property. They don't want to give it up but any party that wants to get the next generation of voters on side will need to get these people out of the market and any that want to stay as landlords should be directed to building new property with generous allowances to get them on board.

    That generates new rental housing and frees up existing property for first time buyers.
    8 million fewer properties and a similar population to France.

    It all comes back to the artificial limits on building properties.

    If I was a billionaire, I would be tempted to start building a town on some land, with getting any permission to do so.
    FPT. The French example actually undermines your argument, because their housing costs are roughly the same as ours (or a bit higher, depending on renting/mortgage as a proportion of income) and have more overcrowding than we do, despite those 8 million extra properties.

    This is complicated stuff. I'd guess that they lots more second homes than we do, and that the demand in their cities relative to their towns/rural areas is even worse than our imbalance?
    You keep claiming equal housing costs in France. And overcrowding. Yet everywhere outside Paris, property goes for a fraction of U.K. prices. Hence the comic phenomenon of U.K. people buying large French properties, thinking they *must* be worth more.
    Here you go: https://www.oecd.org/content/dam/oecd/en/data/datasets/affordable-housing-database/hc1-2-housing-costs-over-income.pdf
    That chart does not show that
    There are 6 charts. In the first, renting is shown to marginally more expensive in the UK, while owning with a mortgage a bit cheaper. There is more detail in the next two charts, but you don't get a sense the additional 8 million homes are having a big effect.

    The most interesting takeaway for me is just how expensive the US can be, particularly for people in lower incomes - see the overburden rate. This is where France and Germany do perform a lot better - but the UK is still distinctly average.
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 22,067
    So voters concerned about the cost of living have voted for the candidate who will put up prices through the imposition of tariffs.

    Muppets.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 71,522

    Eabhal said:

    Eabhal said:

    MaxPB said:

    Eabhal said:

    Fishing said:

    MaxPB said:

    Unless Badenoch can find another unifier of “fear Corbyn” and “get Brexit done” where are these voters going to come from?

    She’d be much better off in my view doing what Trump did and going after the economy. But she’d have to offer policies to the young.

    Housing, housing, housing. People are sick of being in their early 30s paying for someone else's mortgage unable to get on the ladder for themselves. Most of my friends have made it onto the ladder now but there's a lot of bitterness that remains around how much more difficult it was for us vs out parents generation because they've decided to leech off us with rental property.
    The trouble is, not everybody is in their early 30s and for every voter like the one you describe there are probably three or four home counties NIMBYs who will be driven to the LibDems for fear that more houses will spoil their beautiful views, or old people who like being paper millionaires (or their kids who will inherit it one day).

    And that, in short, is why our hosuing market is buggered.
    You don't need to build any more houses to change the proportions of housing tenure. What happened over the last 14 years was that the number of households owning outright and renting grew, while households with mortgages fell.

    More housing will certainly help with overall housing pressure, but that doesn't necessarily mean they won't be snapped up by landlords and used as private rentals. It's a function of massive wealth inequality more than anything, and very difficult to fix.
    Yes and no, it's a function of limited liquidity of suitable homes for first time buyers due to my parents generation buying multiple properties after Labour made their now ill fated changes to the rental sector. Fundamentally we shouldn't be in a place in this country where an individual or individuals own multiple existing properties. We should make it uneconomic to do so and push that investment from existing property into the high risk build to let sector and offer tax free income for landlord built property (not landlords buying new property from a developer) for 20 years or something.

    Fundamentally we've allowed my parents generation to make risk free yield of 4-7% and risk free capital gain of 5-10% by borrowing to invest in existing property. They don't want to give it up but any party that wants to get the next generation of voters on side will need to get these people out of the market and any that want to stay as landlords should be directed to building new property with generous allowances to get them on board.

    That generates new rental housing and frees up existing property for first time buyers.
    8 million fewer properties and a similar population to France.

    It all comes back to the artificial limits on building properties.

    If I was a billionaire, I would be tempted to start building a town on some land, with getting any permission to do so.
    FPT. The French example actually undermines your argument, because their housing costs are roughly the same as ours (or a bit higher, depending on renting/mortgage as a proportion of income) and have more overcrowding than we do, despite those 8 million extra properties.

    This is complicated stuff. I'd guess that they lots more second homes than we do, and that the demand in their cities relative to their towns/rural areas is even worse than our imbalance?
    You keep claiming equal housing costs in France. And overcrowding. Yet everywhere outside Paris, property goes for a fraction of U.K. prices. Hence the comic phenomenon of U.K. people buying large French properties, thinking they *must* be worth more.
    Here you go: https://www.oecd.org/content/dam/oecd/en/data/datasets/affordable-housing-database/hc1-2-housing-costs-over-income.pdf
    Question for @BartholomewRoberts: if planning restrictions are the source of the UK housing crisis why does the US have a similar one?
    The US has its own planning restrictions.
    Zoning, and rules on lot sizes, can be insane. In a lot of places,, you're simply not allowed to build smaller houses. or high density developments.
    It was one of the issues in the Presidential campaign, where Harris was promising reform, FWIW.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 50,576

    Eabhal said:

    Eabhal said:

    MaxPB said:

    Eabhal said:

    Fishing said:

    MaxPB said:

    Unless Badenoch can find another unifier of “fear Corbyn” and “get Brexit done” where are these voters going to come from?

    She’d be much better off in my view doing what Trump did and going after the economy. But she’d have to offer policies to the young.

    Housing, housing, housing. People are sick of being in their early 30s paying for someone else's mortgage unable to get on the ladder for themselves. Most of my friends have made it onto the ladder now but there's a lot of bitterness that remains around how much more difficult it was for us vs out parents generation because they've decided to leech off us with rental property.
    The trouble is, not everybody is in their early 30s and for every voter like the one you describe there are probably three or four home counties NIMBYs who will be driven to the LibDems for fear that more houses will spoil their beautiful views, or old people who like being paper millionaires (or their kids who will inherit it one day).

    And that, in short, is why our hosuing market is buggered.
    You don't need to build any more houses to change the proportions of housing tenure. What happened over the last 14 years was that the number of households owning outright and renting grew, while households with mortgages fell.

    More housing will certainly help with overall housing pressure, but that doesn't necessarily mean they won't be snapped up by landlords and used as private rentals. It's a function of massive wealth inequality more than anything, and very difficult to fix.
    Yes and no, it's a function of limited liquidity of suitable homes for first time buyers due to my parents generation buying multiple properties after Labour made their now ill fated changes to the rental sector. Fundamentally we shouldn't be in a place in this country where an individual or individuals own multiple existing properties. We should make it uneconomic to do so and push that investment from existing property into the high risk build to let sector and offer tax free income for landlord built property (not landlords buying new property from a developer) for 20 years or something.

    Fundamentally we've allowed my parents generation to make risk free yield of 4-7% and risk free capital gain of 5-10% by borrowing to invest in existing property. They don't want to give it up but any party that wants to get the next generation of voters on side will need to get these people out of the market and any that want to stay as landlords should be directed to building new property with generous allowances to get them on board.

    That generates new rental housing and frees up existing property for first time buyers.
    8 million fewer properties and a similar population to France.

    It all comes back to the artificial limits on building properties.

    If I was a billionaire, I would be tempted to start building a town on some land, with getting any permission to do so.
    FPT. The French example actually undermines your argument, because their housing costs are roughly the same as ours (or a bit higher, depending on renting/mortgage as a proportion of income) and have more overcrowding than we do, despite those 8 million extra properties.

    This is complicated stuff. I'd guess that they lots more second homes than we do, and that the demand in their cities relative to their towns/rural areas is even worse than our imbalance?
    You keep claiming equal housing costs in France. And overcrowding. Yet everywhere outside Paris, property goes for a fraction of U.K. prices. Hence the comic phenomenon of U.K. people buying large French properties, thinking they *must* be worth more.
    Here you go: https://www.oecd.org/content/dam/oecd/en/data/datasets/affordable-housing-database/hc1-2-housing-costs-over-income.pdf
    Question for @BartholomewRoberts: if planning restrictions are the source of the UK housing crisis why does the US have a similar one?
    In the places that the US has a housing crisis, they have even more demented restrictions on home construction.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 71,522

    So voters concerned about the cost of living have voted for the candidate who will put up prices through the imposition of tariffs.

    Muppets.

    TBF, it's a long time since anyone has experienced tariffs, and Trump was selling them as a pain free solution. It's not something many people are going to get intuitively, if they haven't seen them (like taxes or inflation etc) in operation.
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 22,067
    Iranian plot to assassinate Donald Trump.

    Gosh.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 50,576

    Eabhal said:

    MaxPB said:

    Eabhal said:

    Fishing said:

    MaxPB said:

    Unless Badenoch can find another unifier of “fear Corbyn” and “get Brexit done” where are these voters going to come from?

    She’d be much better off in my view doing what Trump did and going after the economy. But she’d have to offer policies to the young.

    Housing, housing, housing. People are sick of being in their early 30s paying for someone else's mortgage unable to get on the ladder for themselves. Most of my friends have made it onto the ladder now but there's a lot of bitterness that remains around how much more difficult it was for us vs out parents generation because they've decided to leech off us with rental property.
    The trouble is, not everybody is in their early 30s and for every voter like the one you describe there are probably three or four home counties NIMBYs who will be driven to the LibDems for fear that more houses will spoil their beautiful views, or old people who like being paper millionaires (or their kids who will inherit it one day).

    And that, in short, is why our hosuing market is buggered.
    You don't need to build any more houses to change the proportions of housing tenure. What happened over the last 14 years was that the number of households owning outright and renting grew, while households with mortgages fell.

    More housing will certainly help with overall housing pressure, but that doesn't necessarily mean they won't be snapped up by landlords and used as private rentals. It's a function of massive wealth inequality more than anything, and very difficult to fix.
    Yes and no, it's a function of limited liquidity of suitable homes for first time buyers due to my parents generation buying multiple properties after Labour made their now ill fated changes to the rental sector. Fundamentally we shouldn't be in a place in this country where an individual or individuals own multiple existing properties. We should make it uneconomic to do so and push that investment from existing property into the high risk build to let sector and offer tax free income for landlord built property (not landlords buying new property from a developer) for 20 years or something.

    Fundamentally we've allowed my parents generation to make risk free yield of 4-7% and risk free capital gain of 5-10% by borrowing to invest in existing property. They don't want to give it up but any party that wants to get the next generation of voters on side will need to get these people out of the market and any that want to stay as landlords should be directed to building new property with generous allowances to get them on board.

    That generates new rental housing and frees up existing property for first time buyers.
    8 million fewer properties and a similar population to France.

    It all comes back to the artificial limits on building properties.

    If I was a billionaire, I would be tempted to start building a town on some land, with getting any permission to do so.
    FPT. The French example actually undermines your argument, because their housing costs are roughly the same as ours (or a bit higher, depending on renting/mortgage as a proportion of income) and have more overcrowding than we do, despite those 8 million extra properties.

    This is complicated stuff. I'd guess that they lots more second homes than we do, and that the demand in their cities relative to their towns/rural areas is even worse than our imbalance?
    That's a very interesting counterpoint, thanks.

    People used to say that the more roads you built, the more roads you needed to build. Might it be the same for houses, if you have policies that do not deter it? Your second homes example might be pertinent.
    Part of the reason house prices are high in Britain is because there is a culture of borrowing as much money as possible to buy the best house in the best location, as being the best choice for your future happiness and financial security.

    I do think there is an absolute shortage of housing supply in Britain, but distribution, and financing are also big factors. You need to make sure that the right people buy the new houses, and that they don't spend all their money doing so.

    As well as the policies to dissuade landlords that Max mentions, I think you also want to reduce the income multiples that the banks lend on. As well as building lots of housing.
    If you build enough that the market clears, prices go down. The only reason that prices are "whatever people can afford plus a pound" is because there is a shortage.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 71,522

    Eabhal said:

    Eabhal said:

    MaxPB said:

    Eabhal said:

    Fishing said:

    MaxPB said:

    Unless Badenoch can find another unifier of “fear Corbyn” and “get Brexit done” where are these voters going to come from?

    She’d be much better off in my view doing what Trump did and going after the economy. But she’d have to offer policies to the young.

    Housing, housing, housing. People are sick of being in their early 30s paying for someone else's mortgage unable to get on the ladder for themselves. Most of my friends have made it onto the ladder now but there's a lot of bitterness that remains around how much more difficult it was for us vs out parents generation because they've decided to leech off us with rental property.
    The trouble is, not everybody is in their early 30s and for every voter like the one you describe there are probably three or four home counties NIMBYs who will be driven to the LibDems for fear that more houses will spoil their beautiful views, or old people who like being paper millionaires (or their kids who will inherit it one day).

    And that, in short, is why our hosuing market is buggered.
    You don't need to build any more houses to change the proportions of housing tenure. What happened over the last 14 years was that the number of households owning outright and renting grew, while households with mortgages fell.

    More housing will certainly help with overall housing pressure, but that doesn't necessarily mean they won't be snapped up by landlords and used as private rentals. It's a function of massive wealth inequality more than anything, and very difficult to fix.
    Yes and no, it's a function of limited liquidity of suitable homes for first time buyers due to my parents generation buying multiple properties after Labour made their now ill fated changes to the rental sector. Fundamentally we shouldn't be in a place in this country where an individual or individuals own multiple existing properties. We should make it uneconomic to do so and push that investment from existing property into the high risk build to let sector and offer tax free income for landlord built property (not landlords buying new property from a developer) for 20 years or something.

    Fundamentally we've allowed my parents generation to make risk free yield of 4-7% and risk free capital gain of 5-10% by borrowing to invest in existing property. They don't want to give it up but any party that wants to get the next generation of voters on side will need to get these people out of the market and any that want to stay as landlords should be directed to building new property with generous allowances to get them on board.

    That generates new rental housing and frees up existing property for first time buyers.
    8 million fewer properties and a similar population to France.

    It all comes back to the artificial limits on building properties.

    If I was a billionaire, I would be tempted to start building a town on some land, with getting any permission to do so.
    FPT. The French example actually undermines your argument, because their housing costs are roughly the same as ours (or a bit higher, depending on renting/mortgage as a proportion of income) and have more overcrowding than we do, despite those 8 million extra properties.

    This is complicated stuff. I'd guess that they lots more second homes than we do, and that the demand in their cities relative to their towns/rural areas is even worse than our imbalance?
    You keep claiming equal housing costs in France. And overcrowding. Yet everywhere outside Paris, property goes for a fraction of U.K. prices. Hence the comic phenomenon of U.K. people buying large French properties, thinking they *must* be worth more.
    Here you go: https://www.oecd.org/content/dam/oecd/en/data/datasets/affordable-housing-database/hc1-2-housing-costs-over-income.pdf
    Question for @BartholomewRoberts: if planning restrictions are the source of the UK housing crisis why does the US have a similar one?
    In the places that the US has a housing crisis, they have even more demented restrictions on home construction.
    If Newsom and the new mayor sort out SF's planning laws, then he's definitely a 2028 contender.
  • moonshinemoonshine Posts: 5,755

    Iranian plot to assassinate Donald Trump.

    Gosh.

    It’s the same one already reported in Sep, just that charges now filed. Intriguing that the Qataris today kicked out Hamas saying “they’re not welcome”.
  • EabhalEabhal Posts: 8,795
    Nigelb said:

    Eabhal said:

    Eabhal said:

    MaxPB said:

    Eabhal said:

    Fishing said:

    MaxPB said:

    Unless Badenoch can find another unifier of “fear Corbyn” and “get Brexit done” where are these voters going to come from?

    She’d be much better off in my view doing what Trump did and going after the economy. But she’d have to offer policies to the young.

    Housing, housing, housing. People are sick of being in their early 30s paying for someone else's mortgage unable to get on the ladder for themselves. Most of my friends have made it onto the ladder now but there's a lot of bitterness that remains around how much more difficult it was for us vs out parents generation because they've decided to leech off us with rental property.
    The trouble is, not everybody is in their early 30s and for every voter like the one you describe there are probably three or four home counties NIMBYs who will be driven to the LibDems for fear that more houses will spoil their beautiful views, or old people who like being paper millionaires (or their kids who will inherit it one day).

    And that, in short, is why our hosuing market is buggered.
    You don't need to build any more houses to change the proportions of housing tenure. What happened over the last 14 years was that the number of households owning outright and renting grew, while households with mortgages fell.

    More housing will certainly help with overall housing pressure, but that doesn't necessarily mean they won't be snapped up by landlords and used as private rentals. It's a function of massive wealth inequality more than anything, and very difficult to fix.
    Yes and no, it's a function of limited liquidity of suitable homes for first time buyers due to my parents generation buying multiple properties after Labour made their now ill fated changes to the rental sector. Fundamentally we shouldn't be in a place in this country where an individual or individuals own multiple existing properties. We should make it uneconomic to do so and push that investment from existing property into the high risk build to let sector and offer tax free income for landlord built property (not landlords buying new property from a developer) for 20 years or something.

    Fundamentally we've allowed my parents generation to make risk free yield of 4-7% and risk free capital gain of 5-10% by borrowing to invest in existing property. They don't want to give it up but any party that wants to get the next generation of voters on side will need to get these people out of the market and any that want to stay as landlords should be directed to building new property with generous allowances to get them on board.

    That generates new rental housing and frees up existing property for first time buyers.
    8 million fewer properties and a similar population to France.

    It all comes back to the artificial limits on building properties.

    If I was a billionaire, I would be tempted to start building a town on some land, with getting any permission to do so.
    FPT. The French example actually undermines your argument, because their housing costs are roughly the same as ours (or a bit higher, depending on renting/mortgage as a proportion of income) and have more overcrowding than we do, despite those 8 million extra properties.

    This is complicated stuff. I'd guess that they lots more second homes than we do, and that the demand in their cities relative to their towns/rural areas is even worse than our imbalance?
    You keep claiming equal housing costs in France. And overcrowding. Yet everywhere outside Paris, property goes for a fraction of U.K. prices. Hence the comic phenomenon of U.K. people buying large French properties, thinking they *must* be worth more.
    Here you go: https://www.oecd.org/content/dam/oecd/en/data/datasets/affordable-housing-database/hc1-2-housing-costs-over-income.pdf
    Question for @BartholomewRoberts: if planning restrictions are the source of the UK housing crisis why does the US have a similar one?
    The US has its own planning restrictions.
    Zoning, and rules on lot sizes, can be insane. In a lot of places,, you're simply not allowed to build smaller houses. or high density developments.
    It was one of the issues in the Presidential campaign, where Harris was promising reform, FWIW.
    Parking minimums are completely bonkers in the US. It's why some cities appear to be roughly 50% car park, and it takes hours to walk between shops. Look at aerial shots of their football stadiums. That can't be good for land values.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 51,888
    FAO @BartholomewRoberts

    https://x.com/paul_slg/status/1854893878542844298

    Angela Rayner has called in an application for 8,400 homes just *three hours* before it was due to go to planning committee with a recommendation for refusal.
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 32,710
    FPT
    Andy_JS said:

    Andy_JS said:

    "Rob Ford reposted
    Sam Bowman
    @s8mb

    I don't want to single anyone out here, but it's important to realise that a sizeable share of people involved in public policy think you need some kind of formal expertise to judge whether £100m is an appropriate price to pay to protect a colony of bats from a train line."

    https://x.com/s8mb/status/1854530418260787477

    £100 million for 1km is £100,000 a meter.

    The last government sure did waste a lot of money. What shall we name the bat tunnel when it's opened?

    The George Osborne Austerity Bat Tunnel?
    The Boris Johnson Levelling-Up Bat Tunnel?
    This kind of pricing is standard in public (and semi public) projects.

    A breakdown of the cost will reveal a pyramid of sub-contraction and process.

    It is quite possible the actual amount spent on fabrication and installation will be a single digit percentage of the £100 million.
    Yes, it'll probably mostly be consultants and advisors.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 50,576
    edited November 8

    FAO @BartholomewRoberts

    https://x.com/paul_slg/status/1854893878542844298

    Angela Rayner has called in an application for 8,400 homes just *three hours* before it was due to go to planning committee with a recommendation for refusal.

    I have been told my suggestion for dealing with NIMBYism is illegal - in an X mile radius, give every home owner £Y for each house completed.

    Is that really true? Surely, if you disguise it as Inconvenience Payments or something?
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 123,401
    edited November 8
    No incumbent government in a major western nation has been re elected with an overall majority since Covid and rising cost of living. The US election result was just part of that trend. Indeed, even in non western nations like Brazil both their last 2 elections have seen changes of President and government and in India while Modi was re elected this year he lost his majority.

    However Republicans shouldn't get too excited as opposition parties who have won recent elections, from Labour in the UK and Labor in Australia to the SDP in Germany have all seen their popularity fall in polls again once in government due to rising cost of living. Meloni's rightwing coalition in Italy which came to power in 2022 is one of the few bucking the trend but then while she is pushing through tax cuts and immigration controls like Trump she is not pushing through tariffs like he wants to introduce either
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 50,576
    Space news

    - Australia is about to get a native space launch provider - https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-11-04/gilmour-space-technologies-orbital-rocket-launch-permit-granted/104503690

    - ESA is think about maybe moving forward with Themis (Falcon 9 first stage copy, basically). https://europeanspaceflight.com/esa-shares-rare-update-on-themis-reusable-booster-demonstrator/ . But don't worry - this won't be part of an operational rocket.
  • Some thoughts on the 4 by-elections up here today.

    A grand slam by the Tories, taking all 4 off the SNP.
    LD vote share up in all 4 seats, including some +15% action
    SNP share down in 3 of the 4, only gaining any ground in Fraserburgh (seat vacated by Seamus Logan MP)
    Reform a clear and growing threat to the Tories, despite their grand slam of wins. Only 38% off the Reform vote transferred over to the Tories once ReFUK were defeated

    As a LibDem team we're pretty happy - picking up any of the seats would have been a bonus, and we can show continued progress.

    What does it mean for wider Scottish politics?
    • Reform won't get anywhere. Their candidate in Fraserburgh was a prominent local businessman and he still only came 3rd. Their only role is a spoiler for the Tories
    • The SNP slide continues. Notable was that they had a serious lack of a team for these ones, having to pull in councillors & MSPs to cover their lack of bodies to canvas, and materials written centrally and not by the local teams. Unless Swinney can arrest the slide they are in deep trouble come 2026.
    • The Tories are flying, benefitting from a clear "stop/punish the SNP" vote, and aided by having well organised and resourced campaigns. If their new leader can get past the inherited mess and put out a positive vision, they could be a serious threat again as they last were under Ruth Davidson. Won't help them in the central belt, but outside there are plenty of seats to pick up
    • Liberal Democrats? The NE isn't our strongest area, despite being in coalition power in both the shire and Aberdeen city. But we continue to strengthen and organise and build little power bases, and we all know how pervasive we can be once we get under the foundations
    • Hard to speak for Labour or the Greens. Neither really exist up here
    If Labour carry on being awful, if the SNP slide doesn't abate, and if Con & LD shares continue to rise, we could be in for a truly divided Holyrood after the election...
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 51,963

    Iranian plot to assassinate Donald Trump.

    Gosh.

    Are they still plotting to kill Salman Rushdie?
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 123,401
    HYUFD said:

    No incumbent government in a major western nation has been re elected with an overall majority since Covid and rising cost of living. The US election result was just part of that trend. Indeed, even in non western nations like Brazil both their last 2 elections have seen changes of President and government and in India while Modi was re elected this year he lost his majority.

    However Republicans shouldn't get too excited as opposition parties who have won recent elections, from Labour in the UK and Labor in Australia to the SDP in Germany have all seen their popularity fall in polls again once in government due to rising cost of living. Meloni's rightwing coalition in Italy which came to power in 2022 is one of the few bucking the trend but then while she is pushing through tax cuts and immigration controls like Trump she is not pushing through tariffs like he wants to introduce either

    In Japan the LDP also lost their majority in last month's election, almost unheard of before
  • LennonLennon Posts: 1,781

    FAO @BartholomewRoberts

    https://x.com/paul_slg/status/1854893878542844298

    Angela Rayner has called in an application for 8,400 homes just *three hours* before it was due to go to planning committee with a recommendation for refusal.

    I have been told my suggestion for dealing with NIMBYism is illegal - in an X mile radius, give every home owner £Y for each house completed.

    Is that really true? Surely, if you disguise it as Inconvenience Payments or something?
    Could you do it as a reduction in Council Tax for the next X years? So for each house completed within a 1 mile radius (or whatever), you get Y% off your Council Tax for the next X years... that way the 'inconvenience' sits with the house not the owners (ie if you sell up tomorrow - the benefit accrues to the new owner)
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 51,963

    So voters concerned about the cost of living have voted for the candidate who will put up prices through the imposition of tariffs.

    Muppets.

    [Trump voice] Socialist Sandy!
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 29,423
    HYUFD said:

    No incumbent government in a major western nation has been re elected with an overall majority since Covid and rising cost of living. The US election result was just part of that trend. Indeed, even in non western nations like Brazil both their last 2 elections have seen changes of President and government and in India while Modi was re elected this year he lost his majority.

    However Republicans shouldn't get too excited as opposition parties who have won recent elections, from Labour in the UK and Labor in Australia to the SDP in Germany have all seen their popularity fall in polls again once in government due to rising cost of living. Meloni's rightwing coalition in Italy which came to power in 2022 is one of the few bucking the trend but then while she is pushing through tax cuts and immigration controls like Trump she is not pushing through tariffs like he wants to introduce either

    The governments of British Columbia and Saskatchewan would beg to differ.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 123,401
    edited November 8

    Some thoughts on the 4 by-elections up here today.

    A grand slam by the Tories, taking all 4 off the SNP.
    LD vote share up in all 4 seats, including some +15% action
    SNP share down in 3 of the 4, only gaining any ground in Fraserburgh (seat vacated by Seamus Logan MP)
    Reform a clear and growing threat to the Tories, despite their grand slam of wins. Only 38% off the Reform vote transferred over to the Tories once ReFUK were defeated

    As a LibDem team we're pretty happy - picking up any of the seats would have been a bonus, and we can show continued progress.

    What does it mean for wider Scottish politics?

    • Reform won't get anywhere. Their candidate in Fraserburgh was a prominent local businessman and he still only came 3rd. Their only role is a spoiler for the Tories
    • The SNP slide continues. Notable was that they had a serious lack of a team for these ones, having to pull in councillors & MSPs to cover their lack of bodies to canvas, and materials written centrally and not by the local teams. Unless Swinney can arrest the slide they are in deep trouble come 2026.
    • The Tories are flying, benefitting from a clear "stop/punish the SNP" vote, and aided by having well organised and resourced campaigns. If their new leader can get past the inherited mess and put out a positive vision, they could be a serious threat again as they last were under Ruth Davidson. Won't help them in the central belt, but outside there are plenty of seats to pick up
    • Liberal Democrats? The NE isn't our strongest area, despite being in coalition power in both the shire and Aberdeen city. But we continue to strengthen and organise and build little power bases, and we all know how pervasive we can be once we get under the foundations
    • Hard to speak for Labour or the Greens. Neither really exist up here
    If Labour carry on being awful, if the SNP slide doesn't abate, and if Con & LD shares continue to rise, we could be in for a truly divided Holyrood after the election...
    Looks like an SNP minority government reliant on Tory confidence and supply on Scottish polls and local election results. The Tories first shot back at any form of national power could come at Holyrood therefore before Westminster and the Senedd
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 123,401
    edited November 8
    dixiedean said:

    HYUFD said:

    No incumbent government in a major western nation has been re elected with an overall majority since Covid and rising cost of living. The US election result was just part of that trend. Indeed, even in non western nations like Brazil both their last 2 elections have seen changes of President and government and in India while Modi was re elected this year he lost his majority.

    However Republicans shouldn't get too excited as opposition parties who have won recent elections, from Labour in the UK and Labor in Australia to the SDP in Germany have all seen their popularity fall in polls again once in government due to rising cost of living. Meloni's rightwing coalition in Italy which came to power in 2022 is one of the few bucking the trend but then while she is pushing through tax cuts and immigration controls like Trump she is not pushing through tariffs like he wants to introduce either

    The governments of British Columbia and Saskatchewan would beg to differ.
    Neither are national governments, it is national governments which have the most impact on the economy.

    Otherwise you may as well start talking about the re election of the Australian Capital Territory government or the Tories in Epping Forest District Council in May
  • HYUFD said:

    Some thoughts on the 4 by-elections up here today.

    A grand slam by the Tories, taking all 4 off the SNP.
    LD vote share up in all 4 seats, including some +15% action
    SNP share down in 3 of the 4, only gaining any ground in Fraserburgh (seat vacated by Seamus Logan MP)
    Reform a clear and growing threat to the Tories, despite their grand slam of wins. Only 38% off the Reform vote transferred over to the Tories once ReFUK were defeated

    As a LibDem team we're pretty happy - picking up any of the seats would have been a bonus, and we can show continued progress.

    What does it mean for wider Scottish politics?

    • Reform won't get anywhere. Their candidate in Fraserburgh was a prominent local businessman and he still only came 3rd. Their only role is a spoiler for the Tories
    • The SNP slide continues. Notable was that they had a serious lack of a team for these ones, having to pull in councillors & MSPs to cover their lack of bodies to canvas, and materials written centrally and not by the local teams. Unless Swinney can arrest the slide they are in deep trouble come 2026.
    • The Tories are flying, benefitting from a clear "stop/punish the SNP" vote, and aided by having well organised and resourced campaigns. If their new leader can get past the inherited mess and put out a positive vision, they could be a serious threat again as they last were under Ruth Davidson. Won't help them in the central belt, but outside there are plenty of seats to pick up
    • Liberal Democrats? The NE isn't our strongest area, despite being in coalition power in both the shire and Aberdeen city. But we continue to strengthen and organise and build little power bases, and we all know how pervasive we can be once we get under the foundations
    • Hard to speak for Labour or the Greens. Neither really exist up here
    If Labour carry on being awful, if the SNP slide doesn't abate, and if Con & LD shares continue to rise, we could be in for a truly divided Holyrood after the election...
    Looks like an SNP minority government reliant on Tory confidence and supply on Scottish polls and local election results. The Tories first shot back at any form of national power could come at Holyrood therefore before Westminster and the Senedd
    You are a long long way away. I know quite a few of the local Tories now. There is NO WAY they would do a deal with the SNP.

    I also know quite a few of the SNP. The loathing is mutual! Unless the SNP were right on the cusp of a majority I cannot see how any party would work with them. We would talk to them as we work with everyone, but I doubt the terms would be acceptable.
  • state_go_awaystate_go_away Posts: 5,817

    FAO @BartholomewRoberts

    https://x.com/paul_slg/status/1854893878542844298

    Angela Rayner has called in an application for 8,400 homes just *three hours* before it was due to go to planning committee with a recommendation for refusal.

    planning committees always reject , most applications therefore succeed on appeal
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 63,285
    edited November 8
    HYUFD said:

    Some thoughts on the 4 by-elections up here today.

    A grand slam by the Tories, taking all 4 off the SNP.
    LD vote share up in all 4 seats, including some +15% action
    SNP share down in 3 of the 4, only gaining any ground in Fraserburgh (seat vacated by Seamus Logan MP)
    Reform a clear and growing threat to the Tories, despite their grand slam of wins. Only 38% off the Reform vote transferred over to the Tories once ReFUK were defeated

    As a LibDem team we're pretty happy - picking up any of the seats would have been a bonus, and we can show continued progress.

    What does it mean for wider Scottish politics?

    • Reform won't get anywhere. Their candidate in Fraserburgh was a prominent local businessman and he still only came 3rd. Their only role is a spoiler for the Tories
    • The SNP slide continues. Notable was that they had a serious lack of a team for these ones, having to pull in councillors & MSPs to cover their lack of bodies to canvas, and materials written centrally and not by the local teams. Unless Swinney can arrest the slide they are in deep trouble come 2026.
    • The Tories are flying, benefitting from a clear "stop/punish the SNP" vote, and aided by having well organised and resourced campaigns. If their new leader can get past the inherited mess and put out a positive vision, they could be a serious threat again as they last were under Ruth Davidson. Won't help them in the central belt, but outside there are plenty of seats to pick up
    • Liberal Democrats? The NE isn't our strongest area, despite being in coalition power in both the shire and Aberdeen city. But we continue to strengthen and organise and build little power bases, and we all know how pervasive we can be once we get under the foundations
    • Hard to speak for Labour or the Greens. Neither really exist up here
    If Labour carry on being awful, if the SNP slide doesn't abate, and if Con & LD shares continue to rise, we could be in for a truly divided Holyrood after the election...
    Looks like an SNP minority government reliant on Tory confidence and supply on Scottish polls and local election results. The Tories first shot back at any form of national power could come at Holyrood therefore before Westminster and the Senedd
    You do know Holyrood and the Senedd elections are both in May 26 and conservatives have made some good local gains from Labour here in Wales

    And thank you to @RochdalePioneers for your analysis of the locals in NE Scotland where our Scottish family live
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 123,401
    edited November 8

    HYUFD said:

    Some thoughts on the 4 by-elections up here today.

    A grand slam by the Tories, taking all 4 off the SNP.
    LD vote share up in all 4 seats, including some +15% action
    SNP share down in 3 of the 4, only gaining any ground in Fraserburgh (seat vacated by Seamus Logan MP)
    Reform a clear and growing threat to the Tories, despite their grand slam of wins. Only 38% off the Reform vote transferred over to the Tories once ReFUK were defeated

    As a LibDem team we're pretty happy - picking up any of the seats would have been a bonus, and we can show continued progress.

    What does it mean for wider Scottish politics?

    • Reform won't get anywhere. Their candidate in Fraserburgh was a prominent local businessman and he still only came 3rd. Their only role is a spoiler for the Tories
    • The SNP slide continues. Notable was that they had a serious lack of a team for these ones, having to pull in councillors & MSPs to cover their lack of bodies to canvas, and materials written centrally and not by the local teams. Unless Swinney can arrest the slide they are in deep trouble come 2026.
    • The Tories are flying, benefitting from a clear "stop/punish the SNP" vote, and aided by having well organised and resourced campaigns. If their new leader can get past the inherited mess and put out a positive vision, they could be a serious threat again as they last were under Ruth Davidson. Won't help them in the central belt, but outside there are plenty of seats to pick up
    • Liberal Democrats? The NE isn't our strongest area, despite being in coalition power in both the shire and Aberdeen city. But we continue to strengthen and organise and build little power bases, and we all know how pervasive we can be once we get under the foundations
    • Hard to speak for Labour or the Greens. Neither really exist up here
    If Labour carry on being awful, if the SNP slide doesn't abate, and if Con & LD shares continue to rise, we could be in for a truly divided Holyrood after the election...
    Looks like an SNP minority government reliant on Tory confidence and supply on Scottish polls and local election results. The Tories first shot back at any form of national power could come at Holyrood therefore before Westminster and the Senedd
    You are a long long way away. I know quite a few of the local Tories now. There is NO WAY they would do a deal with the SNP.

    I also know quite a few of the SNP. The loathing is mutual! Unless the SNP were right on the cusp of a majority I cannot see how any party would work with them. We would talk to them as we work with everyone, but I doubt the terms would be acceptable.
    They did in 2007 and they may not prop up Labour either. Kate Forbes is closer economically and culturally to the Tories than most of Scottish Labour are.

    Otherwise it would have to be some form of SNP + Greens + LDs deal
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 57,304

    Nigelb said:

    No price too high for deportations, says Trump
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/c62l50z4xq9t

    Assuming free and fair elections in 2028, don't expect an incumbency bonus for any GOP Congress members.

    given the current consensus is that low skill immigration is a drain on the economy each return probably makes money in the long term. Can you face up to that ?
    Surely, like anything else, the answer is "it depends".

    I mean, would you really argue the low skilled immigration to Dubai and the UAE, or to Singapore, been a drain on their economies?

    So I suspect it depends on the part of the country and on the industry. It is also worth remembering that the parts of the US that have seen the most stagnant economies, are the ones with the least low skilled immigration. (Albeit, I suspect that the causation is the other way around.)
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 22,067

    So voters concerned about the cost of living have voted for the candidate who will put up prices through the imposition of tariffs.

    Muppets.

    [Trump voice] Socialist Sandy!
    You can say that in any voice you like, Comrade!
  • HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Some thoughts on the 4 by-elections up here today.

    A grand slam by the Tories, taking all 4 off the SNP.
    LD vote share up in all 4 seats, including some +15% action
    SNP share down in 3 of the 4, only gaining any ground in Fraserburgh (seat vacated by Seamus Logan MP)
    Reform a clear and growing threat to the Tories, despite their grand slam of wins. Only 38% off the Reform vote transferred over to the Tories once ReFUK were defeated

    As a LibDem team we're pretty happy - picking up any of the seats would have been a bonus, and we can show continued progress.

    What does it mean for wider Scottish politics?

    • Reform won't get anywhere. Their candidate in Fraserburgh was a prominent local businessman and he still only came 3rd. Their only role is a spoiler for the Tories
    • The SNP slide continues. Notable was that they had a serious lack of a team for these ones, having to pull in councillors & MSPs to cover their lack of bodies to canvas, and materials written centrally and not by the local teams. Unless Swinney can arrest the slide they are in deep trouble come 2026.
    • The Tories are flying, benefitting from a clear "stop/punish the SNP" vote, and aided by having well organised and resourced campaigns. If their new leader can get past the inherited mess and put out a positive vision, they could be a serious threat again as they last were under Ruth Davidson. Won't help them in the central belt, but outside there are plenty of seats to pick up
    • Liberal Democrats? The NE isn't our strongest area, despite being in coalition power in both the shire and Aberdeen city. But we continue to strengthen and organise and build little power bases, and we all know how pervasive we can be once we get under the foundations
    • Hard to speak for Labour or the Greens. Neither really exist up here
    If Labour carry on being awful, if the SNP slide doesn't abate, and if Con & LD shares continue to rise, we could be in for a truly divided Holyrood after the election...
    Looks like an SNP minority government reliant on Tory confidence and supply on Scottish polls and local election results. The Tories first shot back at any form of national power could come at Holyrood therefore before Westminster and the Senedd
    You are a long long way away. I know quite a few of the local Tories now. There is NO WAY they would do a deal with the SNP.

    I also know quite a few of the SNP. The loathing is mutual! Unless the SNP were right on the cusp of a majority I cannot see how any party would work with them. We would talk to them as we work with everyone, but I doubt the terms would be acceptable.
    They did in 2007 and they may not prop up Labour either. Kate Forbes is closer economically and culturally to the Tories than most of Scottish Labour are.

    Otherwise it would have to be some form of SNP + Greens + LDs deal
    Who cares about 2007

    We live in a very different political climate today
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 57,304

    Nigelb said:

    No price too high for deportations, says Trump
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/c62l50z4xq9t

    Assuming free and fair elections in 2028, don't expect an incumbency bonus for any GOP Congress members.

    Why would you assume that wouldn't be popular?
    Well, there's a too high price for everything. I mean if you could deport 10 million illegal immigrants for $1bn, but then next 1 million would cost $100bn, then there's a certain diminishing return kicking in.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 123,401
    edited November 8
    rcs1000 said:

    Nigelb said:

    No price too high for deportations, says Trump
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/c62l50z4xq9t

    Assuming free and fair elections in 2028, don't expect an incumbency bonus for any GOP Congress members.

    given the current consensus is that low skill immigration is a drain on the economy each return probably makes money in the long term. Can you face up to that ?
    Surely, like anything else, the answer is "it depends".

    I mean, would you really argue the low skilled immigration to Dubai and the UAE, or to Singapore, been a drain on their economies?

    So I suspect it depends on the part of the country and on the industry. It is also worth remembering that the parts of the US that have seen the most stagnant economies, are the ones with the least low skilled immigration. (Albeit, I suspect that the causation is the other way around.)
    Most of Dubai and the UAE is desert and they have largely immigrant populations with lots of oil wealth for the native population too.

    Singapore is an ultra low tax city state with the most educated population in the world
  • Sky

    US special council winding down Trump's criminal cases
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 22,067

    FAO @BartholomewRoberts

    https://x.com/paul_slg/status/1854893878542844298

    Angela Rayner has called in an application for 8,400 homes just *three hours* before it was due to go to planning committee with a recommendation for refusal.

    planning committees always reject , most applications therefore succeed on appeal
    In Bradford, an unusually high proportion of planning applications where the recommendation is to reject are then approved by the planning committee.

    Of course, it all depends on who has made the application.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 57,304

    Nigelb said:

    Nigelb said:

    No price too high for deportations, says Trump
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/c62l50z4xq9t

    Assuming free and fair elections in 2028, don't expect an incumbency bonus for any GOP Congress members.

    Why would you assume that wouldn't be popular?
    Let's see, shall we ?

    Much depends on what Trump actually does, as I must have repeated at least a dozen times now. But if he's really going to go ahead and try for 10m plus deportations, as his comments at least imply, then I predict now that the results won't be popular.

    Except with a small subset of GOP voters.
    Tariffs and immigration are the big question marks. I suspect he will do a lot less on both than he has promised, but just enough to keep them regularly in the headlines.
    What Trump wants, of course, is for the Democrats to stop him from implementing his policies. Then he has an enemy. Someone who is standing in the way of him carrying out his promises.

    The Democrats should welcome the repeal of the Affordable Care Act and the introduction of tariffs. I mean they'll be shitty for the American people and all, but at least it would mean people would be able to see the impact of those moves.

  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 33,545

    Sky

    US special council winding down Trump's criminal cases

    Until 2028! There may be more by then, too.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 57,304
    HYUFD said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Nigelb said:

    No price too high for deportations, says Trump
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/c62l50z4xq9t

    Assuming free and fair elections in 2028, don't expect an incumbency bonus for any GOP Congress members.

    given the current consensus is that low skill immigration is a drain on the economy each return probably makes money in the long term. Can you face up to that ?
    Surely, like anything else, the answer is "it depends".

    I mean, would you really argue the low skilled immigration to Dubai and the UAE, or to Singapore, been a drain on their economies?

    So I suspect it depends on the part of the country and on the industry. It is also worth remembering that the parts of the US that have seen the most stagnant economies, are the ones with the least low skilled immigration. (Albeit, I suspect that the causation is the other way around.)
    Most of Dubai and the UAE is desert and they have largely immigrant populations with lots of oil wealth for the native population too.

    Singapore is an ultra low tax city state with the most educated population in the world
    Dubai doesn't have any oil.

    And Singapore chooses to educate their citizens, and then import low skilled workers.

    Personally, I think the Singapore model is smarter than not educating your citizens well. I mean, I don't dream of my kids working as cleaners.
  • stodgestodge Posts: 13,927
    HYUFD said:

    No incumbent government in a major western nation has been re elected with an overall majority since Covid and rising cost of living. The US election result was just part of that trend. Indeed, even in non western nations like Brazil both their last 2 elections have seen changes of President and government and in India while Modi was re elected this year he lost his majority.

    However Republicans shouldn't get too excited as opposition parties who have won recent elections, from Labour in the UK and Labor in Australia to the SDP in Germany have all seen their popularity fall in polls again once in government due to rising cost of living. Meloni's rightwing coalition in Italy which came to power in 2022 is one of the few bucking the trend but then while she is pushing through tax cuts and immigration controls like Trump she is not pushing through tariffs like he wants to introduce either

    Indeed, it's not mattered what political stripe (or indeed none) the incumbent Government has had, they've all been hit. On that basis, I'm inclined to think it would have made little or no difference who the Democrats had as their candidate just as it made little or no difference who was Conservative Prime Minister here.

    As to your second paragraph, I'd offer the latest Roy Morgan poll in New Zealand which shows Luxon's National Party leading Labour by just two points (31-29) and a Labour-Green-Maori coalition gaining 61 seats in the 120 seat Parliament.

    Italy does seem to be the exception but the gap between FdL and PSD is remarkably consistent at about seven points as is the gap between the centre right and centre left blocs which is about six points. The next Italian election however is due late 2027.
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 32,710
    Apparently Jimmy Anderson didn't retire voluntarily. He wanted to carry on for a lot longer.
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 22,067
    "We spend $350 million each week on Chinese tat. Let's increase the cost to $450 million instead."

    As not featured on the side of a GOP bus.
  • "A quite stupefying ignorance that makes him unfit to be the President of the United States."

    David Lammy strikes again.

    Oh no, it was Boris Johnson.
  • "We spend $350 million each week on Chinese tat. Let's increase the cost to $450 million instead."

    As not featured on the side of a GOP bus.

    All those Alibaba goods on Amazon are suddenly going to be produced in the States. Really?
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 123,401
    edited November 8
    rcs1000 said:

    HYUFD said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Nigelb said:

    No price too high for deportations, says Trump
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/c62l50z4xq9t

    Assuming free and fair elections in 2028, don't expect an incumbency bonus for any GOP Congress members.

    given the current consensus is that low skill immigration is a drain on the economy each return probably makes money in the long term. Can you face up to that ?
    Surely, like anything else, the answer is "it depends".

    I mean, would you really argue the low skilled immigration to Dubai and the UAE, or to Singapore, been a drain on their economies?

    So I suspect it depends on the part of the country and on the industry. It is also worth remembering that the parts of the US that have seen the most stagnant economies, are the ones with the least low skilled immigration. (Albeit, I suspect that the causation is the other way around.)
    Most of Dubai and the UAE is desert and they have largely immigrant populations with lots of oil wealth for the native population too.

    Singapore is an ultra low tax city state with the most educated population in the world
    Dubai doesn't have any oil.

    And Singapore chooses to educate their citizens, and then import low skilled workers.

    Personally, I think the Singapore model is smarter than not educating your citizens well. I mean, I don't dream of my kids working as cleaners.
    Yes it does
    https://www.dubaipetroleum.ae/

    Oriental East Asians also have the highest average IQs in the world, it is partly inherited intelligence as much as a good education system that puts Singapore top
  • Scottish conservative msp saves a man's life

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cr5mr7292plo
This discussion has been closed.