politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » How Britain voted on May 7th – the Ipsos MORI guide

System

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » How Britain voted on May 7th – the Ipsos MORI guide

Under the chairmanship of Prof. Patrick Sturgis, Director of the National Centre for Research Methods at the University of Southampton, the Inquiry is charged with the task of establishing the degree of inaccuracy in the polls, the reasons for the inaccuracies it identifies, and whether the findings and conduct of the polls were adequately communicated to the general public.

Read the full story here

Danny565

Big jump for Labour in private renters one of the only bright spots for them.

rottenborough

astounded that turn-out only up by 1% - considering a tight race

Financier

Welsh Assembly members will receive a £10,000 pay rise after next year's assembly election.

Backbenchers' pay will increase from £54,000 to £64,000 in May 2016, under a proposal that is meant to take account of further devolution.

The 18.5% pay rise was confirmed on Friday by the body which sets AMs' pay and allowances.

The increase, first proposed six months ago, will cost taxpayers about £700,000 more next year.

The pay rise has been criticised by trade unions and all parties.

First Minister Carwyn Jones previously said he could not see how Labour could support the increase.

His salary will rise to £140,000, while his cabinet members will receive £100,000.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-politics-32829015

People who are responsible for such large failures in health, education and the economy should receive a pay cu - not a rise.

TheScreamingEagles

Huzzah for women. They can always spot a crap leader.

edmundintokyo

Wow, that's a monster Lab-Con swing among 65+ (the "still read newspapers" demographic).

Were they getting this much compared other demographics before the election or were these the people who swung at the last minute?

EPG

FPT PB doesn't want just any Labour columnist, it wants an auto-flagellating pro-employer Labour columnist who doesn't mention anything about politics other than the inherent superiority of the Tories and who pretends having more money makes no difference to a campaign. Remember Herdson's law from a few weeks ago! Partisans should think carefully before over-recommending that other parties would be more successful if they behaved exactly like their own party.

The_Mad_Hatter

Is EICIPM yet ?

Bond_James_Bond

FPT

Luckyguy1983 said:

I think you'd need demonstable improvement in the NHS to acheive that. That is nigh on impossible without reform, and reform is nigh on impossible whilst the public still cleaves to the idea that nothing must change or we will all DIE TOMORROW. So it's a bit of a vicious circle.

I'm not so sure. The Tories have overcome bigger challenges before.

Basically, they'd need to show that Labour demonstrably squandered billions to line the pockets of PFI companies and NHS staff, managers, and Labour placemen. None of this improved the NHS; it buggered it up, to the point where old ladies drank their flower water from their vases while starving to death in their own poo.

Labour basically brought back the Dickensian workhouse. In so doing it returned the NHS to workhouse levels of mortality and squalor not seen in modern times. And in the person of Butcher, Labour then tried to cover up the Mid Staffs Massacre - to protect the producer interest.

It will essentially require people to understand that Labour is Dickens' Mr. Bumble the Beadle, applauding himself for his good nature while making a lot of money; and that we are all Oliver Twist, being TTFO for daring to ask for anything.

All the facts are there to do this, it just needs the dots joining. Butcher would be a good place to join them from.

DecrepitJohnL

edmundintokyo said:

Wow, that's a monster Lab-Con swing among 65+ (the "still read newspapers" demographic).

Were they getting this much compared other demographics before the election or were these the people who swung at the last minute?

Luckily the press was strictly neutral and objective in reporting Ed Is Crap.

Sandpit

Do we have any idea how the Ipsos MORI guide is produced - is this one big post-election survey asking people how they actually voted?

Also good to hear of the academics' inquest into the polling. Will be fascinating to read when published and I'm sure a great project for a few lucky postgrad students next year.

Richard_Nabavi

How big was the Ipsos MORI sample? Some of the movements look rather suspect to me.

For example, the tables show women aged 25-34 swinging TO the Conservatives by one point, yet men of the same age group, as well as women 18-24 and women 35-54, were swinging in the opposite direction by substantial amounts (8, 11, and 2.5 points respectively). That doesn't seem plausible.

Bond_James_Bond

Interesting how women don't start to become politically sensible until they get past 35.

Another reason to prefer older women.

* edit: although if you avoid, as one should, the DEs, you're on pretty safe ground.

kle4

rottenborough said:

astounded that turn-out only up by 1% - considering a tight race

Yes, pretty disappointing, although while it's still too low for my comfort, I will take heart that it has gone up 3 times in a row now, despite the oft repeated claims from some sections of the commentariat about inevitable decline in turnout, seemingly ignoring the apparent recovery to this still low but stable position.

EPG said:

FPT PB doesn't want just any Labour columnist, it wants an auto-flagellating pro-employer Labour columnist who doesn't mention anything about politics other than the inherent superiority of the Tories and who pretends having more money makes no difference to a campaign. Remember Herdson's law from a few weeks ago! Partisans should think carefully before over-recommending that other parties would be more successful if they behaved exactly like their own party.

Now now, not all of PB wants that, only some.

JonCisBack

If in 5 years time housing market affordability is not better for the under 35s the tories are going to be in trouble.

Big swing against them in private renters. Need to create the conditions to allow more houses to be built, stop pumping up the housing market with anti-market initiatives like Help to Sell etc.

EPG

Bond_James_Bond said:

FPT

Luckyguy1983 said:

I think you'd need demonstable improvement in the NHS to acheive that. That is nigh on impossible without reform, and reform is nigh on impossible whilst the public still cleaves to the idea that nothing must change or we will all DIE TOMORROW. So it's a bit of a vicious circle.

I'm not so sure. The Tories have overcome bigger challenges before.

Basically, they'd need to show that Labour demonstrably squandered billions to line the pockets of PFI companies and NHS staff, managers, and Labour placemen. None of this improved the NHS; it buggered it up, to the point where old ladies drank their flower water from their vases while starving to death in their own poo.

Labour basically brought back the Dickensian workhouse. In so doing it returned the NHS to workhouse levels of mortality and squalor not seen in modern times. And in the person of Butcher, Labour then tried to cover up the Mid Staffs Massacre - to protect the producer interest.

It will essentially require people to understand that Labour is Dickens' Mr. Bumble the Beadle, applauding himself for his good nature while making a lot of money; and that we are all Oliver Twist, being TTFO for daring to ask for anything.

All the facts are there to do this, it just needs the dots joining. Butcher would be a good place to join them from.

The facts are pretty simple. Up to 2000 the NHS was doing as abysmally under Blair as under Major. Then they threw stacks of cash in and got better outcomes with worse value for money. Cameron protected spending relative to other departments, and thus this inefficient but high-output system continues to survive year by year at some cost to the rest of the economy, a bit like planned factories in the last decade of the Soviet Union. This story isn't convenient for any party, but it gets us closer to the truth than talking about vases or x hours to save the NHS.

kle4

It were the C2s being so even wot won it.

P.S I have no idea if that is even close to being true, I just picked a bit at random. That's how analysis works, I'm sure.

TudorRose

Hilarious juxtaposition of articles.

On the one hand we have an enquiry about why opinion polls don't get the 'right' results and on the other an opinion poll which will become 'authoritative' until the next election.

If people were too lazy/busy to say who they were going to vote for before the elction why are they suddenly less lazy/busy to tell pollsters afterwards? Anyone basing any decisions/conclusions on opinion polls at the moment need their judgment recalibrating in my opinion.

Luckyguy1983

Bond_James_Bond said:

FPT

Luckyguy1983 said:

I think you'd need demonstable improvement in the NHS to acheive that. That is nigh on impossible without reform, and reform is nigh on impossible whilst the public still cleaves to the idea that nothing must change or we will all DIE TOMORROW. So it's a bit of a vicious circle.

I'm not so sure. The Tories have overcome bigger challenges before.

Basically, they'd need to show that Labour demonstrably squandered billions to line the pockets of PFI companies and NHS staff, managers, and Labour placemen. None of this improved the NHS; it buggered it up, to the point where old ladies drank their flower water from their vases while starving to death in their own poo.

Labour basically brought back the Dickensian workhouse. In so doing it returned the NHS to workhouse levels of mortality and squalor not seen in modern times. And in the person of Butcher, Labour then tried to cover up the Mid Staffs Massacre - to protect the producer interest.

It will essentially require people to understand that Labour is Dickens' Mr. Bumble the Beadle, applauding himself for his good nature while making a lot of money; and that we are all Oliver Twist, being TTFO for daring to ask for anything.

All the facts are there to do this, it just needs the dots joining. Butcher would be a good place to join them from.

I think if they were going to do that they could have done it already. As a paid-up UKIP tinfoiler, I still believe that the present leadership is more interested in preserving the left-right metronome of politics than actually destroying socialism and ensuring its misery ceases to blight the country. Nothing would give me greater pleasure than to see Labour's apalling producer focused approach to public services exposed; I just don't have any confidence that it will happen. See also Rotherham.

Besides which, look at the Liverpool Care Pathway and similar - this stuff is still happening. There are some very uncomfortable questions on the role of Common Purpose in formulating and enforcing the present public service ethos, that cross party lines.

Bond_James_Bond

EPG said:

Bond_James_Bond said:

FPT

Luckyguy1983 said:

I think you'd need demonstable improvement in the NHS to acheive that. That is nigh on impossible without reform, and reform is nigh on impossible whilst the public still cleaves to the idea that nothing must change or we will all DIE TOMORROW. So it's a bit of a vicious circle.

I'm not so sure. The Tories have overcome bigger challenges before.

Basically, they'd need to show that Labour demonstrably squandered billions to line the pockets of PFI companies and NHS staff, managers, and Labour placemen. None of this improved the NHS; it buggered it up, to the point where old ladies drank their flower water from their vases while starving to death in their own poo.

Labour basically brought back the Dickensian workhouse. In so doing it returned the NHS to workhouse levels of mortality and squalor not seen in modern times. And in the person of Butcher, Labour then tried to cover up the Mid Staffs Massacre - to protect the producer interest.

It will essentially require people to understand that Labour is Dickens' Mr. Bumble the Beadle, applauding himself for his good nature while making a lot of money; and that we are all Oliver Twist, being TTFO for daring to ask for anything.

All the facts are there to do this, it just needs the dots joining. Butcher would be a good place to join them from.

The facts are pretty simple. Up to 2000 the NHS was doing as abysmally under Blair as under Major. Then they threw stacks of cash in and got better outcomes with worse value for money. Cameron protected spending relative to other departments, and thus this inefficient but high-output system continues to survive year by year at some cost to the rest of the economy, a bit like planned factories in the last decade of the Soviet Union. This story isn't convenient for any party, but it gets us closer to the truth than talking about vases or x hours to save the NHS.

That's just defeatism. The fact is that only under Labour's regime of complacent, well-paid neglect did the old, sick, weak and vulnerable die in their droves. This point needs to be made over and over and over and over again, until Butcher bursts into tears.

I'm not suggesting this is what will happen, merely that there are circumstances and a narrative in which the Tories could destroy Labour's advantage on the NHS.

Philip_Thompson

JonCisBack said:

If in 5 years time housing market affordability is not better for the under 35s the tories are going to be in trouble.

Big swing against them in private renters. Need to create the conditions to allow more houses to be built, stop pumping up the housing market with anti-market initiatives like Help to Sell etc.

Help to Buy helps get new houses built. So its doing what you want yet you oppose it in the same breath. Typical nonsense.

The biggest constraint of house builds is the green belt and NIMBYism.

AlastairMeeks

JonCisBack said:

If in 5 years time housing market affordability is not better for the under 35s the tories are going to be in trouble.

Big swing against them in private renters. Need to create the conditions to allow more houses to be built, stop pumping up the housing market with anti-market initiatives like Help to Sell etc.

Good spot. On that note:

http://business-reporter.co.uk/2015/05/22/number-of-new-housing-starts-up-31-per-cent/

It's still way too few.

Bond_James_Bond

Luckyguy1983 said:

Nothing would give me greater pleasure than to see Labour's apalling producer focused approach to public services exposed; I just don't have any confidence that it will happen. See also Rotherham.

Getting the voters to recognise that the common factor that connects the Rotherham and Mid Staffs scandals is the Labour Party might, indeed, be a way to get started on this.

AlastairMeeks

Richard_Nabavi said:

How big was the Ipsos MORI sample? Some of the movements look rather suspect to me.

For example, the tables show women aged 25-34 swinging TO the Conservatives by one point, yet men of the same age group, as well as women 18-24 and women 35-54, were swinging in the opposite direction by substantial amounts (8, 11, and 2.5 points respectively). That doesn't seem plausible.

Curiously, the only woman voter in the 25-34 group that I have spoken with about her voting intention did indeed switch from Labour in 2010 to the Conservatives in 2015. I wouldn't extrapolate from a sample of one though.

Richard_Nabavi

EPG said:

PB doesn't want just any Labour columnist [it wants one]... who pretends having more money makes no difference to a campaign.

Well it would be nice if we had one who'd actually looked at the figures:

Donations etc 2014: Con £29.1m, Lab £26.1m
Donations etc 2013: Con £16.3m, Lab £20.9m
Donations etc 2012: Con £14.1m, Lab £19.4m
Donations etc 2011: Con £15.1m, Lab £19.3m

In addition of course Labour gets indirect support from the unions.

http://www.ukpolitical.info/Donations.htm

Bond_James_Bond

antifrank said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

How big was the Ipsos MORI sample? Some of the movements look rather suspect to me.

For example, the tables show women aged 25-34 swinging TO the Conservatives by one point, yet men of the same age group, as well as women 18-24 and women 35-54, were swinging in the opposite direction by substantial amounts (8, 11, and 2.5 points respectively). That doesn't seem plausible.

Curiously, the only woman voter in the 25-34 group that I have spoken with about her voting intention did indeed switch from Labour in 2010 to the Conservatives in 2015. I wouldn't extrapolate from a sample of one though.

You'll never make a climate psientist.

Tissue_Price

18-24: 7.5% to Lab
65+: 5.5% to Con

Isn't this just [NB in both 2010 and 2015] the young wanting to change the world and the old generally being happier to keep things as they are? Appetite for risk, in other words...

taffys

If in 5 years time housing market affordability is not better for the under 35s the tories are going to be in trouble.

Indeed. So its a good thing that housing starts are soaring, as I posted earlier.

JosiasJessop

Off-topic, but probably worth mentioning:

Today is the 100th anniversary of the Quintishill railway disaster, the worst in British history. At least 220 people died, although as the main train involved was a troop train and the roll lists were destroyed, the full figure will never be known.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quintinshill_rail_disaster
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-south-scotland-32835334

RIP.

Tissue_Price

TudorRose said:

Hilarious juxtaposition of articles.

On the one hand we have an enquiry about why opinion polls don't get the 'right' results and on the other an opinion poll which will become 'authoritative' until the next election.

If people were too lazy/busy to say who they were going to vote for before the elction why are they suddenly less lazy/busy to tell pollsters afterwards? Anyone basing any decisions/conclusions on opinion polls at the moment need their judgment recalibrating in my opinion.

It's worse than that, the IPSOS Mori data is based on the pre-election polls (i.e. the wrong ones), just reweighted to match the result.

Alistair

Bond_James_Bond said:

EPG said:

Bond_James_Bond said:

FPT

Luckyguy1983 said:

I think you'd need demonstable improvement in the NHS to acheive that. That is nigh on impossible without reform, and reform is nigh on impossible whilst the public still cleaves to the idea that nothing must change or we will all DIE TOMORROW. So it's a bit of a vicious circle.

I'm not so sure. The Tories have overcome bigger challenges before.

Basically, they'd need to show that Labour demonstrably squandered billions to line the pockets of PFI companies and NHS staff, managers, and Labour placemen. None of this improved the NHS; it buggered it up, to the point where old ladies drank their flower water from their vases while starving to death in their own poo.

Labour basically brought back the Dickensian workhouse. In so doing it returned the NHS to workhouse levels of mortality and squalor not seen in modern times. And in the person of Butcher, Labour then tried to cover up the Mid Staffs Massacre - to protect the producer interest.

It will essentially require people to understand that Labour is Dickens' Mr. Bumble the Beadle, applauding himself for his good nature while making a lot of money; and that we are all Oliver Twist, being TTFO for daring to ask for anything.

All the facts are there to do this, it just needs the dots joining. Butcher would be a good place to join them from.

The facts are pretty simple. Up to 2000 the NHS was doing as abysmally under Blair as under Major. Then they threw stacks of cash in and got better outcomes with worse value for money. Cameron protected spending relative to other departments, and thus this inefficient but high-output system continues to survive year by year at some cost to the rest of the economy, a bit like planned factories in the last decade of the Soviet Union. This story isn't convenient for any party, but it gets us closer to the truth than talking about vases or x hours to save the NHS.

That's just defeatism. The fact is that only under Labour's regime of complacent, well-paid neglect did the old, sick, weak and vulnerable die in their droves. This point needs to be made over and over and over and over again, until Butcher bursts into tears.

Is there easy to access historical stats on NHS patient mortality?

Richard_Nabavi

Tissue_Price said:

It's worse than that, the IPSOS Mori data is based on the pre-election polls (i.e. the wrong ones), just reweighted to match the result.

Oh, is it?

One to file in the bin, then.

Tissue_Price

JonCisBack said:

If in 5 years time housing market affordability is not better for the under 35s the tories are going to be in trouble.

Big swing against them in private renters. Need to create the conditions to allow more houses to be built, stop pumping up the housing market with anti-market initiatives like Help to Sell etc.

Is that because they're private renters or simply because they're young? You can't tell from the data.

JonCisBack

Philip_Thompson said:

JonCisBack said:

If in 5 years time housing market affordability is not better for the under 35s the tories are going to be in trouble.

Big swing against them in private renters. Need to create the conditions to allow more houses to be built, stop pumping up the housing market with anti-market initiatives like Help to Sell etc.

Help to Buy helps get new houses built. So its doing what you want yet you oppose it in the same breath. Typical nonsense.

The biggest constraint of house builds is the green belt and NIMBYism.

Help to buy and the raft of other proposals like shared ownership, paying people's deposits, ISAs for deposits just keep prices up and benefit current homeowners.

I agree about NIMBYism and building enough houses in general - address this and the rest will be unnecessary. But the housing market is in a disastrous state - prices way too high, but highly negative consequences of getting them to where they should be relative to incomes and historical norms. Rock/hard place.

Building enough houses will result in prices falling, which is not in the interests of the housebuilders. I don't see how the free market can fix this one other than via a damaging crash. Obvious trigger is higher interest rates but there's no sign of that. So prices look destined to stay high based on supply and demand.

And back to the original point, if your parents don't own a house, you're screwed. Property apartheid. I have 3 youngish kids, the thought of them affording a house in 15-20 years is really scary.

Tissue_Price

Richard_Nabavi said:

Tissue_Price said:

It's worse than that, the IPSOS Mori data is based on the pre-election polls (i.e. the wrong ones), just reweighted to match the result.

Oh, is it?

One to file in the bin, then.

It still tells you something, but there's no way it should be treated as an authoritative account of the breakdown of the result. There's no reason to expect "shy Tories" (or "late switchers", if that's your preferred explanation) to be evenly spread amongst the population.

felix

Richard_Nabavi said:

How big was the Ipsos MORI sample? Some of the movements look rather suspect to me.

For example, the tables show women aged 25-34 swinging TO the Conservatives by one point, yet men of the same age group, as well as women 18-24 and women 35-54, were swinging in the opposite direction by substantial amounts (8, 11, and 2.5 points respectively). That doesn't seem plausible.

I see the pollsters are consistent with their pre-election performance - crap

Philip_Thompson

taffys said:

If in 5 years time housing market affordability is not better for the under 35s the tories are going to be in trouble.

Indeed. So its a good thing that housing starts are soaring, as I posted earlier.

Indeed. Its interesting to see steps the government has taken to help kickstart housing construction (like Help to Buy) are attacked by people who don't want the government to succeed - while they simultaneously call for more construction.

Not exactly sure what some people want the government to do, if they're to abolish all the incentives placed for building homes and get house builds up at the same time.

not_on_fire

kle4 said:

rottenborough said:

astounded that turn-out only up by 1% - considering a tight race

Yes, pretty disappointing, although while it's still too low for my comfort, I will take heart that it has gone up 3 times in a row now, despite the oft repeated claims from some sections of the commentariat about inevitable decline in turnout, seemingly ignoring the apparent recovery to this still low but stable position.

EPG said:

FPT PB doesn't want just any Labour columnist, it wants an auto-flagellating pro-employer Labour columnist who doesn't mention anything about politics other than the inherent superiority of the Tories and who pretends having more money makes no difference to a campaign. Remember Herdson's law from a few weeks ago! Partisans should think carefully before over-recommending that other parties would be more successful if they behaved exactly like their own party.

Now now, not all of PB wants that, only some.

Turnout would likely have been down if it hadn't been for the SNP surge in Scotland.

As long as we persist with FPTP it's likely to stay low.

Richard_Nabavi

JonCisBack said:

Building enough houses will result in prices falling, which is not in the interests of the housebuilders.

Why not? It's their gross margin times the volume which is the principal driver of their profitability (along with financing costs for the long periods they have to hold land in order to circumnavigate the planning morass). What's more, building-land prices are their most significant cost, and currently low supply is boosting that cost enormously. I rather think they'd be delighted if they could boost volumes at lower prices and lower land prices, turning over their capital more quickly.

FalseFlag

Labour only getting 28% of the white vote, flatlined on 2010. Terminal.

Labour still the party of the DE social group, more down market than UKIP and their C2s.

SimonStClare

The team is due 'to report by 1 March next year'.


Admittedly quicker than the Chilcot enquiry, but still seems rather a long way off.

Luckyguy1983

Philip_Thompson said:

JonCisBack said:

If in 5 years time housing market affordability is not better for the under 35s the tories are going to be in trouble.

Big swing against them in private renters. Need to create the conditions to allow more houses to be built, stop pumping up the housing market with anti-market initiatives like Help to Sell etc.

Help to Buy helps get new houses built. So its doing what you want yet you oppose it in the same breath. Typical nonsense.

The biggest constraint of house builds is the green belt and NIMBYism.

I think in a small Island we need green open spaces - we should be prepared to live high-rise instead of carpetting the countryside. It doesn't have to be grim and unimaginative: http://www.edinburghprimeproperty.com/Images.ashx?w=720&i=/propertyimages/G1774_00001_140730_131927.jpg

Philip_Thompson

JonCisBack said:

Philip_Thompson said:

JonCisBack said:

If in 5 years time housing market affordability is not better for the under 35s the tories are going to be in trouble.

Big swing against them in private renters. Need to create the conditions to allow more houses to be built, stop pumping up the housing market with anti-market initiatives like Help to Sell etc.

Help to Buy helps get new houses built. So its doing what you want yet you oppose it in the same breath. Typical nonsense.

The biggest constraint of house builds is the green belt and NIMBYism.

Help to buy and the raft of other proposals like shared ownership, paying people's deposits, ISAs for deposits just keep prices up and benefit current homeowners.

I agree about NIMBYism and building enough houses in general - address this and the rest will be unnecessary. But the housing market is in a disastrous state - prices way too high, but highly negative consequences of getting them to where they should be relative to incomes and historical norms. Rock/hard place.

Building enough houses will result in prices falling, which is not in the interests of the housebuilders. I don't see how the free market can fix this one other than via a damaging crash. Obvious trigger is higher interest rates but there's no sign of that. So prices look destined to stay high based on supply and demand.

And back to the original point, if your parents don't own a house, you're screwed. Property apartheid. I have 3 youngish kids, the thought of them affording a house in 15-20 years is really scary.

No, barring a complete house price crash (which isn't likely even if you pull away all these measures) the people who benefit most from ISAs for deposits are the ones who'll get deposits from ISAs., the people who benefit most from Help to Buy are those who are helped to buy.

A price crash simply won't happen because we have a housing shortage and if it did happen then developers wouldn't build new homes, so its not going to be a solution either way. Developers are building homes where they can get land to build on - the solution isn't to blame developers, its to look at why land isn't available.

With a few years saving with two incomes young people can and do get on the housing ladder. Its how my wife and I did (and into a new build, though we personally didn't use Help to Buy).

edmundintokyo

Luckyguy1983 said:

Philip_Thompson said:

JonCisBack said:

If in 5 years time housing market affordability is not better for the under 35s the tories are going to be in trouble.

Big swing against them in private renters. Need to create the conditions to allow more houses to be built, stop pumping up the housing market with anti-market initiatives like Help to Sell etc.

Help to Buy helps get new houses built. So its doing what you want yet you oppose it in the same breath. Typical nonsense.

The biggest constraint of house builds is the green belt and NIMBYism.

I think in a small Island we need green open spaces - we should be prepared to live high-rise instead of carpetting the countryside. It doesn't have to be grim and unimaginative: http://www.edinburghprimeproperty.com/Images.ashx?w=720&i=/propertyimages/G1774_00001_140730_131927.jpg

Not particularly against high rises but Britain is nearly all green open space, no way you need that much.

AllyPally_Rob

Bond_James_Bond said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

Nothing would give me greater pleasure than to see Labour's apalling producer focused approach to public services exposed; I just don't have any confidence that it will happen. See also Rotherham.

Getting the voters to recognise that the common factor that connects the Rotherham and Mid Staffs scandals is the Labour Party might, indeed, be a way to get started on this.

If Mid Staffs was the direct fault of Labour, I assume you would blame the Bristol Heart Scandal, The Alder Hey Scandal, Savile/Broadmoor scandal were the fault of the conservative party?

Institutional failings happen under governments of both stripes. I don't blame the conservative party for those scandals anymore than the labour party deserves the blame for Mid Staffs. You are totally blinded by partisanship. Thankfully most voters are not.

Philip_Thompson

Luckyguy1983 said:

Philip_Thompson said:

JonCisBack said:

If in 5 years time housing market affordability is not better for the under 35s the tories are going to be in trouble.

Big swing against them in private renters. Need to create the conditions to allow more houses to be built, stop pumping up the housing market with anti-market initiatives like Help to Sell etc.

Help to Buy helps get new houses built. So its doing what you want yet you oppose it in the same breath. Typical nonsense.

The biggest constraint of house builds is the green belt and NIMBYism.

I think in a small Island we need green open spaces - we should be prepared to live high-rise instead of carpetting the countryside. It doesn't have to be grim and unimaginative: http://www.edinburghprimeproperty.com/Images.ashx?w=720&i=/propertyimages/G1774_00001_140730_131927.jpg

We're a small and green island with a surprisingly low rate of being built upon.

2.27% of English land is built upon. The problem with high-rise is it pushes more and more people into the same shared space which is what creates the myth of us having a high population density.

Philip_Thompson

AllyPally_Rob said:

Bond_James_Bond said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

Nothing would give me greater pleasure than to see Labour's apalling producer focused approach to public services exposed; I just don't have any confidence that it will happen. See also Rotherham.

Getting the voters to recognise that the common factor that connects the Rotherham and Mid Staffs scandals is the Labour Party might, indeed, be a way to get started on this.

If Mid Staffs was the direct fault of Labour, I assume you would blame the Bristol Heart Scandal, The Alder Hey Scandal, Savile/Broadmoor scandal were the fault of the conservative party?

Institutional failings happen under governments of both stripes. I don't blame the conservative party for those scandals anymore than the labour party deserves the blame for Mid Staffs. You are totally blinded by partisanship. Thankfully most voters are not.

Its not that the Mid Staffs failure was the direct fault of Labour, so much as once known the failure to take action on Mid Staffs was the direct fault of Labour and its Health Secretary Andy Burnham. Name ring a bell?

FalseFlag

Philip_Thompson said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

Philip_Thompson said:

JonCisBack said:

If in 5 years time housing market affordability is not better for the under 35s the tories are going to be in trouble.

Big swing against them in private renters. Need to create the conditions to allow more houses to be built, stop pumping up the housing market with anti-market initiatives like Help to Sell etc.

Help to Buy helps get new houses built. So its doing what you want yet you oppose it in the same breath. Typical nonsense.

The biggest constraint of house builds is the green belt and NIMBYism.

I think in a small Island we need green open spaces - we should be prepared to live high-rise instead of carpetting the countryside. It doesn't have to be grim and unimaginative: http://www.edinburghprimeproperty.com/Images.ashx?w=720&i=/propertyimages/G1774_00001_140730_131927.jpg

We're a small and green island with a surprisingly low rate of being built upon.

2.27% of English land is built upon. The problem with high-rise is it pushes more and more people into the same shared space which is what creates the myth of us having a high population density.

England is the most densely populated (proper) country in Europe.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Area_and_population_of_European_countries

Anorak

edmundintokyo said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

Philip_Thompson said:

JonCisBack said:

If in 5 years time housing market affordability is not better for the under 35s the tories are going to be in trouble.

Big swing against them in private renters. Need to create the conditions to allow more houses to be built, stop pumping up the housing market with anti-market initiatives like Help to Sell etc.

Help to Buy helps get new houses built. So its doing what you want yet you oppose it in the same breath. Typical nonsense.

The biggest constraint of house builds is the green belt and NIMBYism.

I think in a small Island we need green open spaces - we should be prepared to live high-rise instead of carpetting the countryside. It doesn't have to be grim and unimaginative: http://www.edinburghprimeproperty.com/Images.ashx?w=720&i=/propertyimages/G1774_00001_140730_131927.jpg

Not particularly against high rises but Britain is nearly all green open space, no way you need that much.

Indeed. Social housing carpetting Snowdonia is not likely.

rcs1000

Luckyguy1983 said:

Philip_Thompson said:

JonCisBack said:

If in 5 years time housing market affordability is not better for the under 35s the tories are going to be in trouble.

Big swing against them in private renters. Need to create the conditions to allow more houses to be built, stop pumping up the housing market with anti-market initiatives like Help to Sell etc.

Help to Buy helps get new houses built. So its doing what you want yet you oppose it in the same breath. Typical nonsense.

The biggest constraint of house builds is the green belt and NIMBYism.

I think in a small Island we need green open spaces - we should be prepared to live high-rise instead of carpetting the countryside. It doesn't have to be grim and unimaginative: http://www.edinburghprimeproperty.com/Images.ashx?w=720&i=/propertyimages/G1774_00001_140730_131927.jpg

Surely we should let the market decide how much green space we need.

Lennon

FalseFlag said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

Philip_Thompson said:

JonCisBack said:

If in 5 years time housing market affordability is not better for the under 35s the tories are going to be in trouble.

Big swing against them in private renters. Need to create the conditions to allow more houses to be built, stop pumping up the housing market with anti-market initiatives like Help to Sell etc.

Help to Buy helps get new houses built. So its doing what you want yet you oppose it in the same breath. Typical nonsense.

The biggest constraint of house builds is the green belt and NIMBYism.

I think in a small Island we need green open spaces - we should be prepared to live high-rise instead of carpetting the countryside. It doesn't have to be grim and unimaginative: http://www.edinburghprimeproperty.com/Images.ashx?w=720&i=/propertyimages/G1774_00001_140730_131927.jpg

We're a small and green island with a surprisingly low rate of being built upon.

2.27% of English land is built upon. The problem with high-rise is it pushes more and more people into the same shared space which is what creates the myth of us having a high population density.

England is the most densely populated (proper) country in Europe.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Area_and_population_of_European_countries

How is the Netherlands not a proper country? (Or am I reading the table wrong?)

edmundintokyo

rcs1000 said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

Philip_Thompson said:

JonCisBack said:

If in 5 years time housing market affordability is not better for the under 35s the tories are going to be in trouble.

Big swing against them in private renters. Need to create the conditions to allow more houses to be built, stop pumping up the housing market with anti-market initiatives like Help to Sell etc.

Help to Buy helps get new houses built. So its doing what you want yet you oppose it in the same breath. Typical nonsense.

The biggest constraint of house builds is the green belt and NIMBYism.

I think in a small Island we need green open spaces - we should be prepared to live high-rise instead of carpetting the countryside. It doesn't have to be grim and unimaginative: http://www.edinburghprimeproperty.com/Images.ashx?w=720&i=/propertyimages/G1774_00001_140730_131927.jpg

Surely we should let the market decide how much green space we need.

Yup, if you like the Green Belt you can buy up the fields with an assurance contract on Lighthouse.

JosiasJessop

AllyPally_Rob said:

Bond_James_Bond said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

Nothing would give me greater pleasure than to see Labour's apalling producer focused approach to public services exposed; I just don't have any confidence that it will happen. See also Rotherham.

Getting the voters to recognise that the common factor that connects the Rotherham and Mid Staffs scandals is the Labour Party might, indeed, be a way to get started on this.

If Mid Staffs was the direct fault of Labour, I assume you would blame the Bristol Heart Scandal, The Alder Hey Scandal, Savile/Broadmoor scandal were the fault of the conservative party?

Yes.

With the exception of Saville and Broadmoor. Saville started his association with the hospital in the late 1960s, and it lasted for well over three decades. Therefore the responsibility was spread over many governments.

Besides, it is not just the fact that things go wrong that matters: things will sadly always go wrong. What matters most is the reaction that occurs when things go wrong, and that systems and procedures are put in place to ensure they do not happen again.

That's why Stafford should be tattooed over Labour. Not that it happened, sadly, but that it was allowed to continue to happen because of the NHS culture at the time. The sort of culture where whistleblowers are paid off rather than listened to.

A culture that Burnham would have continue.

FalseFlag

Housing crisis entirely immigration driven.

http://www.migrationwatchuk.org/briefing-paper/7.17

Population growth entirely immigration driven, should be steady/slightly declining.

http://www.migrationwatchuk.org/briefing-paper/7.18

edmundintokyo

Lennon said:

FalseFlag said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

Philip_Thompson said:

JonCisBack said:

If in 5 years time housing market affordability is not better for the under 35s the tories are going to be in trouble.

Big swing against them in private renters. Need to create the conditions to allow more houses to be built, stop pumping up the housing market with anti-market initiatives like Help to Sell etc.

Help to Buy helps get new houses built. So its doing what you want yet you oppose it in the same breath. Typical nonsense.

The biggest constraint of house builds is the green belt and NIMBYism.

I think in a small Island we need green open spaces - we should be prepared to live high-rise instead of carpetting the countryside. It doesn't have to be grim and unimaginative: http://www.edinburghprimeproperty.com/Images.ashx?w=720&i=/propertyimages/G1774_00001_140730_131927.jpg

We're a small and green island with a surprisingly low rate of being built upon.

2.27% of English land is built upon. The problem with high-rise is it pushes more and more people into the same shared space which is what creates the myth of us having a high population density.

England is the most densely populated (proper) country in Europe.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Area_and_population_of_European_countries

How is the Netherlands not a proper country? (Or am I reading the table wrong?)

Too densely populated to be a proper country.

Philip_Thompson

FalseFlag said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

Philip_Thompson said:

JonCisBack said:

If in 5 years time housing market affordability is not better for the under 35s the tories are going to be in trouble.

Big swing against them in private renters. Need to create the conditions to allow more houses to be built, stop pumping up the housing market with anti-market initiatives like Help to Sell etc.

Help to Buy helps get new houses built. So its doing what you want yet you oppose it in the same breath. Typical nonsense.

The biggest constraint of house builds is the green belt and NIMBYism.

I think in a small Island we need green open spaces - we should be prepared to live high-rise instead of carpetting the countryside. It doesn't have to be grim and unimaginative: http://www.edinburghprimeproperty.com/Images.ashx?w=720&i=/propertyimages/G1774_00001_140730_131927.jpg

We're a small and green island with a surprisingly low rate of being built upon.

2.27% of English land is built upon. The problem with high-rise is it pushes more and more people into the same shared space which is what creates the myth of us having a high population density.

England is the most densely populated (proper) country in Europe.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Area_and_population_of_European_countries

Only if you don't define the Netherlands or Belgium as proper nations, which they are. Plus you're excluding proper nations like Japan just because they're on another continent.

FalseFlag

Lennon said:

FalseFlag said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

Philip_Thompson said:

JonCisBack said:

If in 5 years time housing market affordability is not better for the under 35s the tories are going to be in trouble.

Big swing against them in private renters. Need to create the conditions to allow more houses to be built, stop pumping up the housing market with anti-market initiatives like Help to Sell etc.

Help to Buy helps get new houses built. So its doing what you want yet you oppose it in the same breath. Typical nonsense.

The biggest constraint of house builds is the green belt and NIMBYism.

I think in a small Island we need green open spaces - we should be prepared to live high-rise instead of carpetting the countryside. It doesn't have to be grim and unimaginative: http://www.edinburghprimeproperty.com/Images.ashx?w=720&i=/propertyimages/G1774_00001_140730_131927.jpg

We're a small and green island with a surprisingly low rate of being built upon.

2.27% of English land is built upon. The problem with high-rise is it pushes more and more people into the same shared space which is what creates the myth of us having a high population density.

England is the most densely populated (proper) country in Europe.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Area_and_population_of_European_countries

How is the Netherlands not a proper country? (Or am I reading the table wrong?)

I am not going to lump in the Highlands with England, to do so would be deliberately deceptive. I would prefer to focus on the South East.

I notice you didn't say Belgium.

MarqueeMark

SimonStClare said:

The team is due 'to report by 1 March next year'.


Admittedly quicker than the Chilcot enquiry, but still seems rather a long way off.

They should be OK unless we have a snap election....

Philip_Thompson

The UK also has lower population density than a few US states.

FalseFlag

Philip_Thompson said:

The UK also has lower population density than a few US states.

So? There are more states with lower.

Why would you think that a higher density is preferable?

rcs1000

If people didn't like living in crowded countries and areas, they'd leave.

Lennon

FalseFlag said:

Lennon said:

FalseFlag said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

Philip_Thompson said:

JonCisBack said:

If in 5 years time housing market affordability is not better for the under 35s the tories are going to be in trouble.

Big swing against them in private renters. Need to create the conditions to allow more houses to be built, stop pumping up the housing market with anti-market initiatives like Help to Sell etc.

Help to Buy helps get new houses built. So its doing what you want yet you oppose it in the same breath. Typical nonsense.

The biggest constraint of house builds is the green belt and NIMBYism.

I think in a small Island we need green open spaces - we should be prepared to live high-rise instead of carpetting the countryside. It doesn't have to be grim and unimaginative: http://www.edinburghprimeproperty.com/Images.ashx?w=720&i=/propertyimages/G1774_00001_140730_131927.jpg

We're a small and green island with a surprisingly low rate of being built upon.

2.27% of English land is built upon. The problem with high-rise is it pushes more and more people into the same shared space which is what creates the myth of us having a high population density.

England is the most densely populated (proper) country in Europe.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Area_and_population_of_European_countries

How is the Netherlands not a proper country? (Or am I reading the table wrong?)

I am not going to lump in the Highlands with England, to do so would be deliberately deceptive. I would prefer to focus on the South East.

I notice you didn't say Belgium.

In which case your comparison should be the Dutch Provinces of North Holland, South Holland and Utrecht. Combined they have a pop. density of 864/km^2 In contrast the South-East of England is 452. Even adding London to the South East the combined area is still only 825.

dugarbandier

FalseFlag said:

Housing crisis entirely immigration driven.

http://www.migrationwatchuk.org/briefing-paper/7.17

Population growth entirely immigration driven, should be steady/slightly declining.

http://www.migrationwatchuk.org/briefing-paper/7.18

economic growth entirely immigration driven (haven't checked the facts but then maybe immigration watch haven't either)

dugarbandier

rcs1000 said:

If people didn't like living in crowded countries and areas, they'd leave.

All these eejits, living in London

FalseFlag

Lennon said:

FalseFlag said:

Lennon said:

FalseFlag said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

Philip_Thompson said:

JonCisBack said:

If in 5 years time housing market affordability is not better for the under 35s the tories are going to be in trouble.

Big swing against them in private renters. Need to create the conditions to allow more houses to be built, stop pumping up the housing market with anti-market initiatives like Help to Sell etc.

Help to Buy helps get new houses built. So its doing what you want yet you oppose it in the same breath. Typical nonsense.

The biggest constraint of house builds is the green belt and NIMBYism.

I think in a small Island we need green open spaces - we should be prepared to live high-rise instead of carpetting the countryside. It doesn't have to be grim and unimaginative: http://www.edinburghprimeproperty.com/Images.ashx?w=720&i=/propertyimages/G1774_00001_140730_131927.jpg

We're a small and green island with a surprisingly low rate of being built upon.

2.27% of English land is built upon. The problem with high-rise is it pushes more and more people into the same shared space which is what creates the myth of us having a high population density.

England is the most densely populated (proper) country in Europe.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Area_and_population_of_European_countries

How is the Netherlands not a proper country? (Or am I reading the table wrong?)

I am not going to lump in the Highlands with England, to do so would be deliberately deceptive. I would prefer to focus on the South East.

I notice you didn't say Belgium.

In which case your comparison should be the Dutch Provinces of North Holland, South Holland and Utrecht. Combined they have a pop. density of 864/km^2 In contrast the South-East of England is 452. Even adding London to the South East the combined area is still only 825.

Why Holland? Why include Norfolk? Why not Estonia, Italy, Czech Republic, Serbia. Latvia is just 37.

Parts of Holland are horribly crowded, I agree, just like England. To argue it isn't is just nonsense.

rcs1000

FalseFlag said:

Philip_Thompson said:

The UK also has lower population density than a few US states.

So? There are more states with lower.

Why would you think that a higher density is preferable?

People will vote with their feet and their wallets.

tlg86

Philip_Thompson said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

Philip_Thompson said:

JonCisBack said:

If in 5 years time housing market affordability is not better for the under 35s the tories are going to be in trouble.

Big swing against them in private renters. Need to create the conditions to allow more houses to be built, stop pumping up the housing market with anti-market initiatives like Help to Sell etc.

Help to Buy helps get new houses built. So its doing what you want yet you oppose it in the same breath. Typical nonsense.

The biggest constraint of house builds is the green belt and NIMBYism.

I think in a small Island we need green open spaces - we should be prepared to live high-rise instead of carpetting the countryside. It doesn't have to be grim and unimaginative: http://www.edinburghprimeproperty.com/Images.ashx?w=720&i=/propertyimages/G1774_00001_140730_131927.jpg

We're a small and green island with a surprisingly low rate of being built upon.

2.27% of English land is built upon. The problem with high-rise is it pushes more and more people into the same shared space which is what creates the myth of us having a high population density.

I've picked you up on this before. ONS states that 9.6% of England and Wales is built up:

http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/census/2011-census/key-statistics-for-built-up-areas-in-england-and-wales/rpt-characteristics-of-built-up-areas.html#tab-conclusions

Where do you get the figure of 2.27% from?

FalseFlag

rcs1000 said:

FalseFlag said:

Philip_Thompson said:

The UK also has lower population density than a few US states.

So? There are more states with lower.

Why would you think that a higher density is preferable?

People will vote with their feet and their wallets.

As they have in California and London, by moving out.

http://www.manhattan-institute.org/html/cr_71.htm#.VV81-TlwbqC

Fishing

JonCisBack said:

If in 5 years time housing market affordability is not better for the under 35s the tories are going to be in trouble.

Big swing against them in private renters. Need to create the conditions to allow more houses to be built, stop pumping up the housing market with anti-market initiatives like Help to Sell etc.

I personally cannot believe that housing was hardly mentioned in the last campaign, given that it is 30-50% of people's incomes and outrageously expensive across swathes of central and southern England in particular. And given that the obvious solution, build more houses, is neither technologically difficult nor economically unaffordable. I am sure that Labour, in particular, is missing an open goal here.

We need about 4.5 million houses over the next decade and will probably build 1.5 million, 2 million absolute max. And they should be on average twice as big as the pitiful 800 sq feet average that we're building now. Building them will annoy NIMBYs in Hampshire NE or Huntingdon, but they wouldn't ever vote Labour anyway.

rcs1000

FalseFlag said:

rcs1000 said:

FalseFlag said:

Philip_Thompson said:

The UK also has lower population density than a few US states.

So? There are more states with lower.

Why would you think that a higher density is preferable?

People will vote with their feet and their wallets.

As they have in California and London, by moving out.

Problem solved.

megalomaniacs4u

tlg86 said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

Philip_Thompson said:

JonCisBack said:

If in 5 years time housing market affordability is not better for the under 35s the tories are going to be in trouble.

Big swing against them in private renters. Need to create the conditions to allow more houses to be built, stop pumping up the housing market with anti-market initiatives like Help to Sell etc.

Help to Buy helps get new houses built. So its doing what you want yet you oppose it in the same breath. Typical nonsense.

The biggest constraint of house builds is the green belt and NIMBYism.

I think in a small Island we need green open spaces - we should be prepared to live high-rise instead of carpetting the countryside. It doesn't have to be grim and unimaginative: http://www.edinburghprimeproperty.com/Images.ashx?w=720&i=/propertyimages/G1774_00001_140730_131927.jpg

We're a small and green island with a surprisingly low rate of being built upon.

2.27% of English land is built upon. The problem with high-rise is it pushes more and more people into the same shared space which is what creates the myth of us having a high population density.

I've picked you up on this before. ONS states that 9.6% of England and Wales is built up:

http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/census/2011-census/key-statistics-for-built-up-areas-in-england-and-wales/rpt-characteristics-of-built-up-areas.html#tab-conclusions

Where do you get the figure of 2.27% from?

I think he gets it from the very dodgy maths in this
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-18623096 based on a UK NEA report (so you can guess what way they are biased)

Anorak

tlg86 said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

Philip_Thompson said:

JonCisBack said:

If in 5 years time housing market affordability is not better for the under 35s the tories are going to be in trouble.

Big swing against them in private renters. Need to create the conditions to allow more houses to be built, stop pumping up the housing market with anti-market initiatives like Help to Sell etc.

Help to Buy helps get new houses built. So its doing what you want yet you oppose it in the same breath. Typical nonsense.

The biggest constraint of house builds is the green belt and NIMBYism.

I think in a small Island we need green open spaces - we should be prepared to live high-rise instead of carpetting the countryside. It doesn't have to be grim and unimaginative: http://www.edinburghprimeproperty.com/Images.ashx?w=720&i=/propertyimages/G1774_00001_140730_131927.jpg

We're a small and green island with a surprisingly low rate of being built upon.

2.27% of English land is built upon. The problem with high-rise is it pushes more and more people into the same shared space which is what creates the myth of us having a high population density.

I've picked you up on this before. ONS states that 9.6% of England and Wales is built up:

http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/census/2011-census/key-statistics-for-built-up-areas-in-england-and-wales/rpt-characteristics-of-built-up-areas.html#tab-conclusions

Where do you get the figure of 2.27% from?

A built up area is not all "built on". Hyde Park and Kew Gardens are classed as "built up area" as they are part of a city.

That said, it seems a stretch to get from 9.6% to 2.3% unless you have "built on" as "has a building on" so excluding roads, footpaths, car-parks, etc. Which would obviously be a bit of a swizz...

Edit: meglomaniacs4u found the source, which says pretty much what I said. I call bullshit on 54% of towns and cities being greenspace. Google Earth shows that to be a crock in no time.

Lennon

FalseFlag said:

Lennon said:

FalseFlag said:

Lennon said:

FalseFlag said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

Philip_Thompson said:

JonCisBack said:

If in 5 years time housing market affordability is not better for the under 35s the tories are going to be in trouble.

Big swing against them in private renters. Need to create the conditions to allow more houses to be built, stop pumping up the housing market with anti-market initiatives like Help to Sell etc.

Help to Buy helps get new houses built. So its doing what you want yet you oppose it in the same breath. Typical nonsense.

The biggest constraint of house builds is the green belt and NIMBYism.

I think in a small Island we need green open spaces - we should be prepared to live high-rise instead of carpetting the countryside. It doesn't have to be grim and unimaginative: http://www.edinburghprimeproperty.com/Images.ashx?w=720&i=/propertyimages/G1774_00001_140730_131927.jpg

We're a small and green island with a surprisingly low rate of being built upon.

2.27% of English land is built upon. The problem with high-rise is it pushes more and more people into the same shared space which is what creates the myth of us having a high population density.

England is the most densely populated (proper) country in Europe.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Area_and_population_of_European_countries

How is the Netherlands not a proper country? (Or am I reading the table wrong?)

I am not going to lump in the Highlands with England, to do so would be deliberately deceptive. I would prefer to focus on the South East.

I notice you didn't say Belgium.

In which case your comparison should be the Dutch Provinces of North Holland, South Holland and Utrecht. Combined they have a pop. density of 864/km^2 In contrast the South-East of England is 452. Even adding London to the South East the combined area is still only 825.

Why Holland? Why include Norfolk? Why not Estonia, Italy, Czech Republic, Serbia. Latvia is just 37.

Parts of Holland are horribly crowded, I agree, just like England. To argue it isn't is just nonsense.

All I am saying is that on any objective measure, England, or some subset that you appear to be trying to choose, is not "the most crowded in Europe". Personally I have no issue whatsoever with this (but then I choose to live in Vauxhall)

AllyPally_Rob

FalseFlag said:

rcs1000 said:

FalseFlag said:

Philip_Thompson said:

The UK also has lower population density than a few US states.

So? There are more states with lower.

Why would you think that a higher density is preferable?

People will vote with their feet and their wallets.

As they have in California and London, by moving out.

Higher density is far more preferable living IMHO. It creates lively urban environments and is a far better use of land than suburban sprawl. In developed economies the denser cities are generally far more attractive than the less dense ones. San Fransisco (High Density ) is far more attractive than Houston (Low Density).

Lennon

Anorak said:

tlg86 said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

Philip_Thompson said:

JonCisBack said:

If in 5 years time housing market affordability is not better for the under 35s the tories are going to be in trouble.

Big swing against them in private renters. Need to create the conditions to allow more houses to be built, stop pumping up the housing market with anti-market initiatives like Help to Sell etc.

Help to Buy helps get new houses built. So its doing what you want yet you oppose it in the same breath. Typical nonsense.

The biggest constraint of house builds is the green belt and NIMBYism.

I think in a small Island we need green open spaces - we should be prepared to live high-rise instead of carpetting the countryside. It doesn't have to be grim and unimaginative: http://www.edinburghprimeproperty.com/Images.ashx?w=720&i=/propertyimages/G1774_00001_140730_131927.jpg

We're a small and green island with a surprisingly low rate of being built upon.

2.27% of English land is built upon. The problem with high-rise is it pushes more and more people into the same shared space which is what creates the myth of us having a high population density.

I've picked you up on this before. ONS states that 9.6% of England and Wales is built up:

http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/census/2011-census/key-statistics-for-built-up-areas-in-england-and-wales/rpt-characteristics-of-built-up-areas.html#tab-conclusions

Where do you get the figure of 2.27% from?

A built up area is not all "built on". Hyde Park and Kew Gardens are classed as "built up area" as they are part of a city.

That said, it seems a stretch to get from 9.6% to 2.3% unless you have "built on" as "has a building on" so excluding roads, footpaths, car-parks, etc. Which would obviously be a bit of a swizz...

One of the statistics I read, but have no way of verifying, was that more of Surrey is given over to Golf Courses than housing. I'm not convinced that's a particularly good use of land myself (but then I don't play golf).

Anorak

AllyPally_Rob said:

FalseFlag said:

rcs1000 said:

FalseFlag said:

Philip_Thompson said:

The UK also has lower population density than a few US states.

So? There are more states with lower.

Why would you think that a higher density is preferable?

People will vote with their feet and their wallets.

As they have in California and London, by moving out.

Higher density is far more preferable living IMHO. It creates lively urban environments and is a far better use of land than suburban sprawl. In developed economies the denser cities are generally far more attractive than the less dense ones. San Fransisco (High Density ) is far more attractive than Houston (Low Density).

Yes, I've always thought Mexico City and Sao Paulo were nicer places to live than Bath or Cambridge

AllyPally_Rob

Anorak said:

AllyPally_Rob said:

FalseFlag said:

rcs1000 said:

FalseFlag said:

Philip_Thompson said:

The UK also has lower population density than a few US states.

So? There are more states with lower.

Why would you think that a higher density is preferable?

People will vote with their feet and their wallets.

As they have in California and London, by moving out.

Higher density is far more preferable living IMHO. It creates lively urban environments and is a far better use of land than suburban sprawl. In developed economies the denser cities are generally far more attractive than the less dense ones. San Fransisco (High Density ) is far more attractive than Houston (Low Density).

Yes, I've always thought Mexico City and Sao Paulo were nicer places to live than Bath or Cambridge

Notice how I said developed economies?

I made a like for like comparison, 2 major wealthy US cities.

You have tried to compare Mexico City with Cambridge.

Richard_Nabavi

Another potentially useful LabourList voodoo poll, on the Labour selection for London Mayor:

http://labourlist.org/2015/05/london-mayoral-survey-results-jowell-in-the-lead-but-khan-isnt-far-behind/

Tessa and Sadiq neck-and-neck.

FalseFlag

http://www.forbes.com/sites/joelkotkin/2013/04/16/megacities-and-the-density-delusion/

Absent immigration the British population is stable or declining so it would seem we are deciding we would like a little more space.

Tissue_Price

I see the Lib Dems are rebuilding trust whilst in opposition:

Sophy Ridge ‏@SophyRidgeSky

Alistair Carmichael admits leaking Nicola Sturgeon story:"I was aware of its content & agreed that my special adviser should make it public"

Sophy Ridge ‏@SophyRidgeSky

Alistair Carmichael: “Had I still been a Government Minister I would have considered this to be a matter that required my resignation."

Tim Shipman ‏@ShippersUnbound

This is the first leak inquiry in my 14 yrs in Westminster that has actually found the leaker...

Tissue_Price

Richard_Nabavi said:

Another potentially useful LabourList voodoo poll, on the Labour selection for London Mayor:

http://labourlist.org/2015/05/london-mayoral-survey-results-jowell-in-the-lead-but-khan-isnt-far-behind/

Tessa and Sadiq neck-and-neck.

Looking good for Zac...

Richard_Nabavi

Tissue_Price said:

Alistair Carmichael: “Had I still been a Government Minister I would have considered this to be a matter that required my resignation."

Have I read that correctly? He's saying getting found out, not actually doing it, would have required his resignation?

tlg86

Anorak said:

A built up area is not all "built on". Hyde Park and Kew Gardens are classed as "built up area" as they are part of a city.

That said, it seems a stretch to get from 9.6% to 2.3% unless you have "built on" as "has a building on" so excluding roads, footpaths, car-parks, etc. Which would obviously be a bit of a swizz...

Edit: meglomaniacs4u found the source, which says pretty much what I said. I call bullshit on 54% of towns and cities being greenspace. Google Earth shows that to be a crock in no time.

I only bring this up because I happen to be the author of the ONS piece. You're quite right to pick up on parks like Hyde Park as being built up. Ordnance Survey set a parameter to ensure that such areas are classified as being built-up. Where it fell down was West Yorkshire where the bit between Leeds and Bradford was classified as built-up as it was fully enclosed by genuinely built-up areas. But I still think it's right to classify parks as urban because they are very much not countryside.

My problem with this discussion is that we only talk about housing. Woking, where I live, is looking to build more and more residential properties, which is great as lots of people want to live here to be able to commute into London. But I don't see plans for schools and health service provision to go with the new flats/houses.

Tissue_Price

Richard_Nabavi said:

Tissue_Price said:

Alistair Carmichael: “Had I still been a Government Minister I would have considered this to be a matter that required my resignation."

Have I read that correctly? He's saying getting found out, not actually doing it, would have required his resignation?

qv Huhne

rcs1000

FalseFlag said:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/joelkotkin/2013/04/16/megacities-and-the-density-delusion/

Absent immigration the British population is stable or declining so it would seem we are deciding we would like a little more space.

No, we are deciding we don't want kids. It's our children who benefit from fewer people.

Tykejohnno

rcs1000 said:

If people didn't like living in crowded countries and areas, they'd leave.

Not true,not for the poor people of this country when overcrowding is been forced onto them.

Anorak

AllyPally_Rob said:

Anorak said:

AllyPally_Rob said:

FalseFlag said:

rcs1000 said:

FalseFlag said:

Philip_Thompson said:

The UK also has lower population density than a few US states.

So? There are more states with lower.

Why would you think that a higher density is preferable?

People will vote with their feet and their wallets.

As they have in California and London, by moving out.

Higher density is far more preferable living IMHO. It creates lively urban environments and is a far better use of land than suburban sprawl. In developed economies the denser cities are generally far more attractive than the less dense ones. San Fransisco (High Density ) is far more attractive than Houston (Low Density).

Yes, I've always thought Mexico City and Sao Paulo were nicer places to live than Bath or Cambridge

Notice how I said developed economies?

I made a like for like comparison, 2 major wealthy US cities.

You have tried to compare Mexico City with Cambridge.

Stuttgart? Birmingham? Baltimore? Philadelphia? Utrecht? All major wealthy shit holes. Anyway, I was just joshing, hence the smiley.

Tissue_Price

Richard_Nabavi said:

Tissue_Price said:

Alistair Carmichael: “Had I still been a Government Minister I would have considered this to be a matter that required my resignation."

Have I read that correctly? He's saying getting found out, not actually doing it, would have required his resignation?

NB it's probably saved his seat, too (both the leak and it not being exposed until now). It will be interesting to see the SNP response. They should of course be magnanimous and move on, but I have my doubts...

Richard_Nabavi

On that LabourList mayoral candidate survey: As far as I can see that's a survey of all LabourList readers, not just London ones. If I'm right, then I think that probably means Sadiq Khan could easily win it, given the ethnic skew of London Labour supporters.

tlg86

rcs1000 said:

FalseFlag said:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/joelkotkin/2013/04/16/megacities-and-the-density-delusion/

Absent immigration the British population is stable or declining so it would seem we are deciding we would like a little more space.

No, we are deciding we don't want kids. It's our children who benefit from fewer people.

Don't want or can't afford?

Luckyguy1983

rcs1000 said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

Philip_Thompson said:

JonCisBack said:

If in 5 years time housing market affordability is not better for the under 35s the tories are going to be in trouble.

Big swing against them in private renters. Need to create the conditions to allow more houses to be built, stop pumping up the housing market with anti-market initiatives like Help to Sell etc.

Help to Buy helps get new houses built. So its doing what you want yet you oppose it in the same breath. Typical nonsense.

The biggest constraint of house builds is the green belt and NIMBYism.

I think in a small Island we need green open spaces - we should be prepared to live high-rise instead of carpetting the countryside. It doesn't have to be grim and unimaginative: http://www.edinburghprimeproperty.com/Images.ashx?w=720&i=/propertyimages/G1774_00001_140730_131927.jpg

Surely we should let the market decide how much green space we need.

I disagree, and so would Adam Smith I feel. Posters are right to see we are not vastly overpopulated, but in the South East we are. It's all very well there being lots of lovely green space in the Welsh Valleys but there aren't the jobs. So rather than Sussex being fully carpeted by half timbered Barclay Homes, I would prefer new and desirable Mansion flats/tenements to be devised, interspersed with greeen spaces.

Sunil_Prasannan

Can we actually believe the data in the Ipsos MORI table?

AllyPally_Rob

Anorak said:

AllyPally_Rob said:

Anorak said:

AllyPally_Rob said:

FalseFlag said:

rcs1000 said:

FalseFlag said:

Philip_Thompson said:

The UK also has lower population density than a few US states.

So? There are more states with lower.

Why would you think that a higher density is preferable?

People will vote with their feet and their wallets.

As they have in California and London, by moving out.

Higher density is far more preferable living IMHO. It creates lively urban environments and is a far better use of land than suburban sprawl. In developed economies the denser cities are generally far more attractive than the less dense ones. San Fransisco (High Density ) is far more attractive than Houston (Low Density).

Yes, I've always thought Mexico City and Sao Paulo were nicer places to live than Bath or Cambridge

Notice how I said developed economies?

I made a like for like comparison, 2 major wealthy US cities.

You have tried to compare Mexico City with Cambridge.

Stuttgart? Birmingham? Baltimore? Philadelphia? Utrecht? All major wealthy shit holes. Anyway, I was just joshing, hence the smiley.

Yes apologies for the grumpy response, sense of humor bypass at my end!

I think there's actually a sweet spot when it comes to population density, you don't want constant skyscrapers but on the other hand boring urban sprawl is rubbish.

And FYI I lived in Birmingham at one time, its not so bad in parts!

FalseFlag

tlg86 said:

rcs1000 said:

FalseFlag said:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/joelkotkin/2013/04/16/megacities-and-the-density-delusion/

Absent immigration the British population is stable or declining so it would seem we are deciding we would like a little more space.

No, we are deciding we don't want kids. It's our children who benefit from fewer people.

Don't want or can't afford?

Ben Franklin and his theory of affordable family formation are even more relevant today than in his own day.

http://www.chroniclesmagazine.org/2015/January/39/1/magazine/article/10826668/

calum

Tissue_Price said:

I see the Lib Dems are rebuilding trust whilst in opposition:

Sophy Ridge ‏@SophyRidgeSky

Alistair Carmichael admits leaking Nicola Sturgeon story:"I was aware of its content & agreed that my special adviser should make it public"

Sophy Ridge ‏@SophyRidgeSky

Alistair Carmichael: “Had I still been a Government Minister I would have considered this to be a matter that required my resignation."

Tim Shipman ‏@ShippersUnbound

This is the first leak inquiry in my 14 yrs in Westminster that has actually found the leaker...

This was my prediction, given how quickly Rennie was on the story I wouldn't be surprised if he was also in the loop. I had hoped this would all come out before the 7th May, my O&S bet would have come off !!

Philip_Thompson

tlg86 said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

Philip_Thompson said:

JonCisBack said:

If in 5 years time housing market affordability is not better for the under 35s the tories are going to be in trouble.

Big swing against them in private renters. Need to create the conditions to allow more houses to be built, stop pumping up the housing market with anti-market initiatives like Help to Sell etc.

Help to Buy helps get new houses built. So its doing what you want yet you oppose it in the same breath. Typical nonsense.

The biggest constraint of house builds is the green belt and NIMBYism.

I think in a small Island we need green open spaces - we should be prepared to live high-rise instead of carpetting the countryside. It doesn't have to be grim and unimaginative: http://www.edinburghprimeproperty.com/Images.ashx?w=720&i=/propertyimages/G1774_00001_140730_131927.jpg

We're a small and green island with a surprisingly low rate of being built upon.

2.27% of English land is built upon. The problem with high-rise is it pushes more and more people into the same shared space which is what creates the myth of us having a high population density.

I've picked you up on this before. ONS states that 9.6% of England and Wales is built up:

http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/census/2011-census/key-statistics-for-built-up-areas-in-england-and-wales/rpt-characteristics-of-built-up-areas.html#tab-conclusions

Where do you get the figure of 2.27% from?

The great myth of urban Britain: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-18623096

Built up areas include parks, allotments etc as well as gardens. Even rivers, canals, lakes and reservoirs are counted in your 9.6% figure.

Anorak

tlg86 said:

rcs1000 said:

FalseFlag said:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/joelkotkin/2013/04/16/megacities-and-the-density-delusion/

Absent immigration the British population is stable or declining so it would seem we are deciding we would like a little more space.

No, we are deciding we don't want kids. It's our children who benefit from fewer people.

Don't want or can't afford?

Either way, as Japan is seeing, the demographic time bomb that having fewer kids produces does *not* benefit the children. Fewer taxpayers and lots more expensive old people is not a recipe for joy and sunshine.

The_Mad_Hatter

Richard_Nabavi said:

On that LabourList mayoral candidate survey: As far as I can see that's a survey of all LabourList readers, not just London ones. If I'm right, then I think that probably means Sadiq Khan could easily win it, given the ethnic skew of London Labour supporters.

Laying long odds on long term political bets must honestly be the route to a very very poor house.

Anorak

Philip_Thompson said:

tlg86 said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

Philip_Thompson said:

JonCisBack said:

If in 5 years time housing market affordability is not better for the under 35s the tories are going to be in trouble.

Big swing against them in private renters. Need to create the conditions to allow more houses to be built, stop pumping up the housing market with anti-market initiatives like Help to Sell etc.

Help to Buy helps get new houses built. So its doing what you want yet you oppose it in the same breath. Typical nonsense.

The biggest constraint of house builds is the green belt and NIMBYism.

I think in a small Island we need green open spaces - we should be prepared to live high-rise instead of carpetting the countryside. It doesn't have to be grim and unimaginative: http://www.edinburghprimeproperty.com/Images.ashx?w=720&i=/propertyimages/G1774_00001_140730_131927.jpg

We're a small and green island with a surprisingly low rate of being built upon.

2.27% of English land is built upon. The problem with high-rise is it pushes more and more people into the same shared space which is what creates the myth of us having a high population density.

I've picked you up on this before. ONS states that 9.6% of England and Wales is built up:

http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/census/2011-census/key-statistics-for-built-up-areas-in-england-and-wales/rpt-characteristics-of-built-up-areas.html#tab-conclusions

Where do you get the figure of 2.27% from?

The great myth of urban Britain: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-18623096

Built up areas include parks, allotments etc as well as gardens. Even rivers, canals, lakes and reservoirs are counted in your 9.6% figure.

Lakes and reserviors? Surely not, unless you mean village ponds and park lakes.

Richard_Nabavi

Philip_Thompson said:

Built up areas include parks, allotments etc as well as gardens. Even rivers, canals, lakes and reservoirs are counted in your 9.6% figure.

So they should be. The figure we are interested in is 'Is this countryside?', not 'Is this a tiny patch of grass in Fulham?'

Richard_Nabavi

The_Mad_Hatter said:

Laying long odds on long term political bets must honestly be the route to a very very poor house.

Not necessarily, a lot of them fall by the wayside.