I doubt I will convince you as to the virtue of a "Yes" vote but, be honest: are you genuinely surprised that BfB will advocate a "No"? It was obvious from the beginning that that would happen, just as it will be obvious that Daniel Hannan will advocate a "No" and Tony Blair will advocate a "Yes". There may be surprises to be had (Corbyn!) but this avocation by BfB ("We really tried, but what can you do, so we must advocate "No" sadly...") does ring rather false.
I don't think that's true. I know it's difficult to believe for those of you who are committed on one side or the other, but there are large numbers of us, especially those of a conservative persuasion, who really want a "one last go at major reform". If we can protect our interests, return to some sort of control over our borders, and expand our free trade access to other continents, then many of us would vote to stay in.
Right now the leaks suggest that nothing like that will happen, and Cameron will call a referendum at very short notice, so I can understand their position. I'm still hopeful that the pessimistic leaks are an expectations-setting exercise, and there will be major unexpected reform, but BfB have been somewhat forced into this position.
What do the killers of Lee Rigby, the pupil who stabbed the teacher in Bradford, the man who beheaded the lady in Edmonton, the Charlie Hebdo attackers, the Tunisian hotel terrorist and the gunman on the Paris bound train have in common?
Answer is not the first that springs to mind...
Cannabis use?
Um, hold on a minute there Tex. This is the kind of argument that Roy Meadow (the man responsible for the premature death of Sally Clark and a man no good statistician can name without pause) used to come out with. You're confusing two things:
* P(C|S): The probability that somebody who has committed a spree killing is a user of cannabis * P(S|C): The probability that somebody who is a user of cannabis will commit a spree killing
The two things are not the same. OK, quick poll of the audience: who immediately thought "Bayes's Law"? Yes, you the nerdy kid at the front. OK, Bayes' Law states that
P(S|C) = P(C|S).P(S)/P(C)
Hitchens may well be right that P(C|S) is large, but P(C) is quite large too and P(S) is quite small: many people use cannabis and very few people become spree killers. So P(S|C) is way smaller than you think, even though P(C|S) is quite large
Even worse, that's not really what you want either. What you want is something like the probability that a cannabis user will become a spree killer compared to the probability that a non-cannabis user will become a spree killer. So you actually need something like the odds ratio or the risk ratio (it's late and I'm not looking up which one is which)
(PS: any mistakes in the above I apologise for. Ultimately, you have to do your own math)
Why not build 20 homes on average in each of the 1,500 villages and towns of Cornwall? 30,000 over 5 years would have minimal impact on the visual setting of them but would address demand. But remove the affordable housing requirement and let small local builders thrive.
A good question. Leaving aside NIMBYism, there are several aspects of varying validity and dubiousness depending on your viewpoint:
*) Roads might not be able to cope with the extra traffic. As an aside, this is a long-standing favourite of planners who want to stop developments. In one case, they used this as an excuse to stop a family building a house on a lane two years after they granted planning for thirty or so luxury homes next door. Apparently traffic from that development was okay, but that from a single house was not ... Worse, the people in the new houses campaigned to stop the development next door, despite their houses only having been there for a couple of years. NIMBYism at its worst.
*) Other facilities. But if they were distributed as you say, that might work (I believe it is an approach some councils are using rather than big-bang approach). But things like drainage do need to be factored in, and rarely are.
*) How do you stop non-locals buying them and using them as holiday cottages to rent or summer homes, which does not help the problem at all? And how do you stop a local from buying them, and then selling out after a few years to non-locals? If either of these happen, then the problem gets worse.
Also most people will need a job too, so building in a village makes this a little trickier.
One man stands out for me. He's not mentioned in the article, but has been referred to in comments (I think danny565 was the first to do so). He's already attracted quite a lot of positive attention from JC supporters, and he has many of JC pluses without, as far as I can tell, any of his significant minuses. My recommendation: keep a very close eye on Clive Lewis, the MP for Norwich South.
That's the second tip of the day on Clive Lewis. Is there a spinning operation going on?
I note he also supports open doors immigration. That issue is going to destroy Labour.
Massive immigration in the last five years and a Tory majority.
Nobody really cares about it when they vote. Lots of people don't like to see Poles/Romanians/Muslims around town, but like rail privatisation they don't vote to actually prevent it continuing.
To stop it becoming (even more) of a dormitory for London, amongst other reasons. Although Cambridge is slightly odd as the university has its mucky mitts in the system.
But in Cambridge's environs, there are several developments - most notably Northstowe (Oakington) where no progress has been made for years.
Developers also demand more land, whilst having large land banks.
So the reason we need the Green Belt in Cambridge is to stop people commuting into London who have been priced out of there because of the Green Belt around London.
The government should sell land to self builders rather than developers like they do in Germany. Also land banking should be taxed.
Only idiots would think that the problem of housing in London would be fixed by building more houses, on the green belt or otherwise. There is too much demand, and too many people willing to pay over the odds.
Now if you could tackle buy-to-let you might get somewhere.
The problem needs to be looked as a whole, and building willy nilly will do f'all good.
Nick Palmer is absolutely right that the answer for London - and other big cities - is vertical housing, aka tower blocks. Unfortunately that is not the British model - we are wedded to the idea of a detached house, garage and garden. Even if the garden is postage stamp sized, the garage unusable because you cannot open the car doors once it is in, and the 'detached' is courtesy of two inches of path.
Once again, people are resorting to calling those that disagree with them "idiots". This really isn't helpful to open and friendly discussion. Stopping buy-to-let might reduce the cost of buying a home but it will put up the cost of renting, which is already astronomically high. How's that thinking holistically? Building more tower blocks is one option, but, as you say, most people want to live in homes with gardens. It's alright to say "well, now that I have a nice house in Cambridgeshire, everyone after me will have to raise their kids in a two bed on floor 27".
What we need to do is to make sure there is housing that people want and desire. We shouldn't build willy nilly on the Green Belt for that, but we can have sensible reclassification of the Green Belt borders in certain thought-out areas. As you say, there is substantial unmet demand, and that needs to be addressed. Reclassifying parts of the Green Belt is part of the answer.
Some self-awareness at last... http://www.jewishnews.co.uk/opinion-jeremy-corbyn-and-the-jewish-communitys-crisis-with-left-wing-politics/ "We have played the wrong game. We’ve relied on character assassination, but on this he seems impenetrable. He doesn’t personalise his politics. It’s not about his ego or fiery vitriolic speeches for him. It’s about principles, ideals, values, backing the underdog, wanting to encourage dialogue.
You can’t attack that.
He presents himself as a brand of wholesome beardy trustworthiness. Whether that is a true reflection remains to be seen. Already evident, however, is that accusing him of failing on anti-Semitism by association has not worked. If that was indeed the mud, it didn’t stick. It may hold some truth, but ultimately, it was seen as just another attempt to smear another politician our community doesn’t like.
It’s time we stopped shouting and started listening, sensing the public mood a bit better, so that we can make our point before being branded as biased."
No one is saying he is an anti-semite.
Quite. But they are saying, as you concede, that he is an anti-semite by association...
Not really. Guilt by association would be attacking Corbyn for being anti-austerity, because Hamas are anti-austerity. People are actually attacking Corbyn for associating with known anti-semites and sharing platforms with them, not to mention unpleasant terrorists and murderers. It seems in Corbyn's world, anti-semitism is regarded as a sort of junior racism, much more trivial than other types based on skin colour.
The most depressing programme on BBC1, following the people who have to waste their lives checking on whether people live where they say they live or whether they're pretending to do so in order to get their children into the best schools.
Let's take another thorny issue that is rarely discussed on here: affordable housing for rural families in picturesque areas. From Derbyshire to Cornwall, the Lakes to the South Downs, people are buying up properties for use as second holiday homes, or for rental. This means that young people find it hard to find properties, leading to a drain of people away from the countryside. Worse, because holiday home are rarely occupied throughout the year, it leads to some villages becoming ghost towns in winter. So what to do?
Why not build 20 homes on average in each of the 1,500 villages and towns of Cornwall? 30,000 over 5 years would have minimal impact on the visual setting of them but would address demand. But remove the affordable housing requirement and let small local builders thrive.
What about allowing the local authority to reverse the usual 10% council tax discount on second homes and impose a hefty surcharge? Then local authorities who had a problem could do so, and those that don't (and like having lots of visitors to holiday cottages - they do exist) could disdain the opportunity. Although on the face of it there's an evasion risk, it'd be hard to claim X was your only home if you only lived there for a few months each year.
I'd heard that Conservative-run Norway, being more dirigiste even than me in my Corbynite moments, actually makes it illegal to own a second home in the country unless you live there for X days a year or it's actually not liveable in during the winter (e.g. no heating). (Not sure this is still true.)
Your first solution is the one I favour: Allow councils to double council tax if the property is unoccupied for less than six months, and triple if less than three months. Although as ever, people will find ways around it, and we would need to ensure that collection did not cost more than income.
Needless to say, this will mostly hurt Conservative voters. Oh, and media types as well. As such it would require a very (cough) brave government to do it.
And if we can do something about buy-to-lets at the same time ...
Why not build 20 homes on average in each of the 1,500 villages and towns of Cornwall? 30,000 over 5 years would have minimal impact on the visual setting of them but would address demand. But remove the affordable housing requirement and let small local builders thrive.
A good question. Leaving aside NIMBYism, there are several aspects of varying validity and dubiousness depending on your viewpoint:
*) Roads might not be able to cope with the extra traffic. As an aside, this is a long-standing favourite of planners who want to stop developments. In one case, they used this as an excuse to stop a family building a house on a lane two years after they granted planning for thirty or so luxury homes next door. Apparently traffic from that development was okay, but that from a single house was not ... Worse, the people in the new houses campaigned to stop the development next door, despite their houses only having been there for a couple of years. NIMBYism at its worst.
*) Other facilities. But if they were distributed as you say, that might work (I believe it is an approach some councils are using rather than big-bang approach). But things like drainage do need to be factored in, and rarely are.
*) How do you stop non-locals buying them and using them as holiday cottages to rent or summer homes, which does not help the problem at all? And how do you stop a local from buying them, and then selling out after a few years to non-locals? If either of these happen, then the problem gets worse.
Houses are being built left right and centre all around me in South Oxfordshire. With more on the way. The local senior school wants to expand to take all forthcoming the new pupils. A region which majors on holidays leisure and scenery needs to deal with all aspects of that.
Interesting article, and antifrank should resist calls for brevity. How busy can you guys be that you can plough through hundreds of posts but not read a single longer piece?
On housing, I don't think there's a good solution except encouraging blocks of flats like most other countries with limited land area, but one alternative that looked interesting is the double ring - you keep the Green Belt, but build an outer ring of housing around it, with very good transport lines (e.g. trams) running in spokes from the outer ring through the green belt to the centre. Then people can live either side of the green belt and still have decent access to it.
IMO there's plenty of room to build even low density housing outside the south-east, but almost everyone with any power is absolutely against the idea. It would spoil their view and reduce their wealth.
Once again, people are resorting to calling those that disagree with them "idiots". This really isn't helpful to open and friendly discussion. Stopping buy-to-let might reduce the cost of buying a home but it will put up the cost of renting, which is already astronomically high. How's that thinking holistically? Building more tower blocks is one option, but, as you say, most people want to live in homes with gardens. It's alright to say "well, now that I have a nice house in Cambridgeshire, everyone after me will have to raise their kids in a two bed on floor 27".
What we need to do is to make sure there is housing that people want and desire. We shouldn't build willy nilly on the Green Belt for that, but we can have sensible reclassification of the Green Belt borders in certain thought-out areas. As you say, there is substantial unmet demand, and that needs to be addressed. Reclassifying parts of the Green Belt is part of the answer.
There is a very important point that JEO makes here. Buy-to-let is just another kind of property. If you stop buy-to-let, you don't actually create any more properties. At best, you just turn a tenant into a homeowner with no net change in housing costs for society; at worst, those terraced multi-family London-type BTLs get amalgamated into family-sized homes for owner-occupiers, and you actually lose housing capacity.
Oil down to $42. If it drops another $2 even Norway will start having problems:
"Meanwhile, several reports show that Norway is not dependent on an oil price higher than USD $40 per barrel in order to balance next year's national budget. This is the same conclusion and number that Fitch has presented, and it is the lowest level for all the oil producers that the rating company has looked at."
Oil down to $42. If it drops another $2 even Norway will start having problems:
"Meanwhile, several reports show that Norway is not dependent on an oil price higher than USD $40 per barrel in order to balance next year's national budget. This is the same conclusion and number that Fitch has presented, and it is the lowest level for all the oil producers that the rating company has looked at."
Wonderfully exciting day today that took me back 7 years. This is the false panic in stocks before the great turn date at the end of next month, just 37 days away now with the peak in the short end of the bond market. The long end topped out little noticed on the 21st April, barely noticed amid the GE campaign! Look at the as yet quiet increase in mortgage rates by a few lenders. And look at the bombshell of the budget taxing BTL on TURNOVER and not profit. Wow that's doubled some people's tax bill overnight on highly leveraged BTL! If any measure shows Osborne doesn't have a clue then this is it. Already with the non dom changes the fizz has come out of the prime central London market. As goes Knightsbridge and Belgravia so follows the rest of the market. Plus on the 78 year cycle 2015 is the secondary top after 2007 with no final bottom until 2033 globally. And if you need evidence of a 26 year bar market in property look at Japan from 1990 onwards. A truly incredible grand juncture of history to witness. Looking forward to the great buying opportunity on US equities that is about to be presented on a plate in the next 6 weeks or so.
Interesting article, and antifrank should resist calls for brevity. How busy can you guys be that you can plough through hundreds of posts but not read a single longer piece?
On housing, I don't think there's a good solution except encouraging blocks of flats like most other countries with limited land area, but one alternative that looked interesting is the double ring - you keep the Green Belt, but build an outer ring of housing around it, with very good transport lines (e.g. trams) running in spokes from the outer ring through the green belt to the centre. Then people can live either side of the green belt and still have decent access to it.
IMO there's plenty of room to build even low density housing outside the south-east, but almost everyone with any power is absolutely against the idea. It would spoil their view and reduce their wealth.
Not so in Horsham. They want to build on open fields as they have done and as they are ruining the outskirts of Horsham, it looks awful now. same on the outskirts of Crawley,.. just ghastly.. and the increase in traffic is just awful..
One man stands out for me. He's not mentioned in the article, but has been referred to in comments (I think danny565 was the first to do so). He's already attracted quite a lot of positive attention from JC supporters, and he has many of JC pluses without, as far as I can tell, any of his significant minuses. My recommendation: keep a very close eye on Clive Lewis, the MP for Norwich South.
That's the second tip of the day on Clive Lewis. Is there a spinning operation going on?
I note he also supports open doors immigration. That issue is going to destroy Labour.
Massive immigration in the last five years and a Tory majority.
Nobody really cares about it when they vote. Lots of people don't like to see Poles/Romanians/Muslims around town, but like rail privatisation they don't vote to actually prevent it continuing.
First of all, most critics of immigration object to it based on a range of reasons, not because of seeing Poles/Romanians/Muslims around town.
Secondly, they absolutely do vote on the issue. They report it as the most important political issue facing the UK. Large majorities support policies to reduce immigration. And parties that support clamping down on immigration are improving their position more than those that do not: of the four nationwide parties, those favouring controlling immigration saw their vote share go up by 10.5% and those opposing those controls saw their vote share fall by 13.2%.
One man stands out for me. He's not mentioned in the article, but has been referred to in comments (I think danny565 was the first to do so). He's already attracted quite a lot of positive attention from JC supporters, and he has many of JC pluses without, as far as I can tell, any of his significant minuses. My recommendation: keep a very close eye on Clive Lewis, the MP for Norwich South.
That's the second tip of the day on Clive Lewis. Is there a spinning operation going on?
I note he also supports open doors immigration. That issue is going to destroy Labour.
No spinning operation that I'm aware of, and I've no money on Lewis either. Chances are, others tipping him are in similar Labour-left social media circles to me and are seeing that he is very well regarded among JC supporters.
I don't think immigration is going to be the key issue come 2020, but I expect you'll disagree with me on that. If necessary, whereas I suspect JC would have great difficulty in moderating his position on immigration, I speculate that Lewis can probably do so if needs be.
Once again, people are resorting to calling those that disagree with them "idiots". This really isn't helpful to open and friendly discussion. Stopping buy-to-let might reduce the cost of buying a home but it will put up the cost of renting, which is already astronomically high. How's that thinking holistically? Building more tower blocks is one option, but, as you say, most people want to live in homes with gardens. It's alright to say "well, now that I have a nice house in Cambridgeshire, everyone after me will have to raise their kids in a two bed on floor 27".
What we need to do is to make sure there is housing that people want and desire. We shouldn't build willy nilly on the Green Belt for that, but we can have sensible reclassification of the Green Belt borders in certain thought-out areas. As you say, there is substantial unmet demand, and that needs to be addressed. Reclassifying parts of the Green Belt is part of the answer.
What's a better way of describing them other than idiots? Fools?
The buy-to-let problem is complex. A couple who have moved in together renting out one of their houses (about a quarter of BTL house landlords own single properties) is obviously a lesser problem than the large buy-to-let groups that manage scores of houses and can outbid anyone else who tries to buy properties.
Your point about rent prices increasing illustrates what I have repeatedly said on here: that fixing one part of the housing system breaks others. As an example, what's the point of building more houses on the Green Belt (which will be more desirable, which is why developers are pushing for it) if that new housing stock is immediately purchased for BTL?
I am not saying that about my own situation: if you read the thread (and things I've said on here passim) then I'm in favour of housing in my immediate area being extended, with caveats about services.
We already have sensible reclassification of the Green Belt. It is happening all the time, but there are extra hurdles. Your second paragraph is eminently sensible, as long as suitable controls remain.
I doubt I will convince you as to the virtue of a "Yes" vote but, be honest: are you genuinely surprised that BfB will advocate a "No"? It was obvious from the beginning that that would happen, just as it will be obvious that Daniel Hannan will advocate a "No" and Tony Blair will advocate a "Yes". There may be surprises to be had (Corbyn!) but this avocation by BfB ("We really tried, but what can you do, so we must advocate "No" sadly...") does ring rather false.
I don't think that's true. I know it's difficult to believe for those of you who are committed on one side or the other, but there are large numbers of us, especially those of a conservative persuasion, who really want a "one last go at major reform". If we can protect our interests, return to some sort of control over our borders, and expand our free trade access to other continents, then many of us would vote to stay in.
Right now the leaks suggest that nothing like that will happen, and Cameron will call a referendum at very short notice, so I can understand their position. I'm still hopeful that the pessimistic leaks are an expectations-setting exercise, and there will be major unexpected reform, but BfB have been somewhat forced into this position.
For the avoidance of doubt, I wasn't casting aspersions on those who genuinely want reform and would vote "yes" if such reform eventuated sufficiently. I was pointing out that BfB was never in that category and no reform would ever have been sufficient for it[1], which is not the same thing
[1] more accurately, the level of reform that would have satisfied it would not have been achievable without the EU becoming something else entirely.
One man stands out for me. He's not mentioned in the article, but has been referred to in comments (I think danny565 was the first to do so). He's already attracted quite a lot of positive attention from JC supporters, and he has many of JC pluses without, as far as I can tell, any of his significant minuses. My recommendation: keep a very close eye on Clive Lewis, the MP for Norwich South.
That's the second tip of the day on Clive Lewis. Is there a spinning operation going on?
I note he also supports open doors immigration. That issue is going to destroy Labour.
Massive immigration in the last five years and a Tory majority.
Nobody really cares about it when they vote. Lots of people don't like to see Poles/Romanians/Muslims around town, but like rail privatisation they don't vote to actually prevent it continuing.
First of all, most critics of immigration object to it based on a range of reasons, not because of seeing Poles/Romanians/Muslims around town.
Secondly, they absolutely do vote on the issue. They report it as the most important political issue facing the UK. Large majorities support policies to reduce immigration. And parties that support clamping down on immigration are improving their position more than those that do not: of the four nationwide parties, those favouring controlling immigration saw their vote share go up by 10.5% and those opposing those controls saw their vote share fall by 13.2%.
Piercing the veil of rhetoric, objectively speaking, the people re-elected the main party of a government that oversaw mass migration. That's all I mean. A government could oversee the same rate of migration and easily win re-election in the right circumstances. We're often told that the Conservatives can do anything and win if they face Corbyn - I'm just taking that claim seriously.
Still pinching myself that Corbyn will get elected in the 12th September. I freely admit that I thought it impossible that someone on the far left could be elected until we get past the end of September turning date. Look at the rise of trump and sanders in the POTUS race, the rise of Syriza in Greece and Corbyn here. The anti establishment mood is rife everywhere and I would suggest interconnected globally. Normally I would say Corbyn would be an unmitigated disaster for labour. With the climate of rising interest rates and the collapse of government owing to unsustainable debt post October I'm not so sure. Radical politics will truly be in once the blue touch paper of the sovereign debt global crisis is lit.
PB is obsessed with the idea of a Labour collapse and annihilation. Sometimes I think this site engages in ridiculous hyperbole. This is one of those times.
There is the idea Labour will split, with the Blairites moving away from Labour. While many MPs will oppose Corbyn-politics, most of them are going to attempt to shift him out than actually leave Labour. For a start, there is History - in the SDP - which says that these kind of ventures are not profitable and only serve to splinter the centre-left rather than unite it. The second, is that according to Dan Hodges, many of the Blairites - such as Umunna are already planning a combat Corbyn strategy anyway, the 'Free French' strategy. The third point, is that unlike the SDP figures, Umunna, Creasy etc still are on the rise as far as political careers are concerned. SDP ers such as Shirley Williams and Roy Jenkins had already been in power, and held cabinet positions - so had nothing to lose. Many 2010 onwards MPs have yet to achieve this, and know that joining a splinter party will make that even less likely than now.
In the previous thread, I saw comparisons with Labour now, with the demise of the Liberal party. But their demise came as a huge change - the expansion of the franchise to married over thirty women, and men over 18. Correlating with that, was the huge Labour and trade union movement. Today, there is no comparable social movement, or change/expansion in the franchise. Some will mention the SNP, but there is no equal to them in England as far as a challenger to Labour is concerned. The SNP, contesting elections which involved a part PR system held government positions, which meant that they could be seen as a viable alternative to Labour. Other parties, in England contest elections under a FPTP system which makes replicating SNP success a lot more harder.
Labour, generally has two sets of people that vote for it. The socially liberal, metropolitan centre-left and the more socially conservative types who fit into WWC stereotypes. The demise of the Liberal Democrats, to a 8 MPs with hardly any heartlands and a leader who is a tad more socially conservative than his predecessors makes it doubtful they will attract the socially liberal types. The Liberal Democrats are also struggling to stay politically relevant, and project an image of competence which will make it difficult for them to appeal to the socially conservative types, which was unlikely anyway. After all, if you're concerned about immigration and welfare you're hardly likely to vote LD. The Greens suffer from wasted vote syndrome, and so are unlikely to make massive dents in Labour's support either.
Then there is UKIP. UKIP are unlikely to attract the socially liberal, centre-left types who will mostly likely stay with Labour even in the event of a Corbyn win. But it's fairly obvious that UKIP will be aiming to attract the more socially conservative WWC.
UKIP faces several challenges in attempting to unsurp Labour as the second party in British politics. Firstly, is that in a large number of the seats they came second they were way behind the winning party. Secondly, the direction in which the party goes after this is still in debate. Are they essentially a right-wing Conservative party, who still predominately focuses on critiquing the EU, or do move in a direction of being a socially conservative party, which cares about inequality and standing up for those who are not getting a fair deal? This is the direction, that apparently Nuttal would like UKIP to go into. But with Farage in charge, I see UKIP continuing to focus their critique purely on the EU/immigration, especially given Farage's own conservative background. Particularly since that UKIP's second places are scattered across the country, which may make the way to go unclear. For example, the one region where UKIP recieved the most second places was actually not in Labour's heartlands, in the North. It was actually in the South East - with UKIP replacing the LDs as second-placed party in this region.
The second big challenge is being seen as a viable vote. Many smaller parties under FPTP have suffered from the idea that they are a 'wasted vote', and UKIP is one of them. Last night a PBer brought to my attention one poll that showed a third of voters would vote UKIP if they thought they had a chance of winning, but I found a YouGov which showed similar results for the Green party too. Neither party, I suspect will actually poll 20% - 30% at GE because ultimately it isn't news that in an ideal world many would not vote Tory and Labour. People vote for the big two as a compromise because how FPTP reinforces the strength of the big two. UKIP's biggest challenge therefore is attempting to shed the idea to those in Labour heartlands (if they target those areas specfically) that they are not a wasted vote. UKIP then face two struggles: firstly, establishing a local government base which adds credibility to them being an alternative to Labour, and secondly the targeting of resources, and the improvement of ground-game - both of which were dire at the last GE. Right now, UKIP only control one council - Thanet - and no councils in North.
There is also the strange curiosity, that while many may sympathise with UKIP's message they may not actually vote for them. Even after bigot-gate, many WWC still voted Labour. When concern about immigration is at its most acute, UKIP are invisible from the political-stage, not profiting in terms of poll VI, and losing council elections. And there is of course the pattern, that many Labour supporters simply disillusioned with the party, rather than looking for other alternatives simply don't vote, which leads to seats like Stoke-On-Trent, where Tristam Hunt's turnout was reportedly only 19%! It's not exactly clear if this damages Labour, either. I saw that @JEO was talking about the prospect of the Conservative party attracting the WWC vote, but I think this is remote. If anything, the reason why UKIP have collected second places in the North, is because many WWC consider a vote for the Tories unpalatable, and that their brand is permanently damaged among them. The Tories have hardly done much to dissuade them from the idea, that they are a party for the rich - and indeed, now that the Tories have won an election without large support from many demographics, including the working class, ethnic minorities and under 45 women - I wouldn't be surprised if the party wasn't all to bothered with attracting these demographics anymore. Cameron is hardly a man of the people, and Osborne is an even worst candidate in terms of pitching to the WWC.
This is why Labour will come out of a Corbyn leadership badly bruised, damaged, and beaten, but not dead and buried.
Interesting article, and antifrank should resist calls for brevity. How busy can you guys be that you can plough through hundreds of posts but not read a single longer piece?
On housing, I don't think there's a good solution except encouraging blocks of flats like most other countries with limited land area, but one alternative that looked interesting is the double ring - you keep the Green Belt, but build an outer ring of housing around it, with very good transport lines (e.g. trams) running in spokes from the outer ring through the green belt to the centre. Then people can live either side of the green belt and still have decent access to it.
IMO there's plenty of room to build even low density housing outside the south-east, but almost everyone with any power is absolutely against the idea. It would spoil their view and reduce their wealth.
Not so in Horsham. They want to build on open fields as they have done and as they are ruining the outskirts of Horsham, it looks awful now. same on the outskirts of Crawley,.. just ghastly.. and the increase in traffic is just awful..
That's a design problem not a "principle of doing it" problem.
Too many people are ridiculously attached to the Green Belt, which is actually very patchy. There are plenty of cities where it does not even exist - Milton Keynes, Leicester, Peterborough, and all of those in Wales and Scotland - without noticeable problems.
It has become an inverse cargo cult driven by selfishness of privileged people.
Everything except Green Belt is based on the intrinsic quality of the land; GBs are on location, which includes a good area of poor quality land suitable for use.
Time sensibly to loosen this corset, methinks. Start with London and Oxford.
If they do need it, then we can just add more further out. There are any number of purposes for which countryside is set aside as 'no build' these days - eg Special Protection Areas for a whole variety of birds. These can be part of the new "Green Belt".
Here's what to do about the housing problems in this country:
Set up a Royal Commission or similar to define the problems and come up with five plans to fix them. Not all problems will be fixed in every plan, and each will require a significant mindset shift amongst certain segments of the population.
These five plans are then put to the country via referendum (under AV, what else?), and the winning solution implemented in law and practice.
Whichever solution is chosen will be massively unpopular amongst certain segments of society, but it will at least be more democratic than the current mess of bodges.
Anyone wanting to implement this scheme can call it the Jessop Plan. I'm sure the original Josias Jessop and his father would thoroughly approve.
Talking of vast swathes of abhorrent wilderness, e.g. the Labour party's electoral prospects under Jez Corbyn, have any pb-ers been to Greenland?
I'm flying there next Monday for a few days. Fulfilling a lifetime ambition. I hear the locals allow gentleman visitors to share their Greenlandic wives, however as the wives are generally smeared with seal-fat, this is a dubious boon.
All advice welcome.
Yes I have. I had to work up there for a while. I was in Ilulissat which is about 120 miles inside the Arctic circle on the west coast. I stayed in the Hotel Icefijord I seem recollect . Sorry I travel a lot and that bits rather hazy. The hotel whichever it was looked out over the bay. I arrived late evening. Opening the curtains in the morning I saw probably one if not the most stunning beautiful scene I have ever seen . Flat calm waters and icebergs hundreds of them gently floating by almost within touching distance.
The food is interesting and the hotel bar was a centre for entertainment, live music quite good as it happens. as there was no where else you could really drink most of the locals got there. The air is so clean you wonder how you breathed before.
Flew direct from Reykjavick. Didn't do much sight seeing as I was working but an interesting couple of weeks for sure.
Locals are very friendly but. Not sure they still share their wives though. Be careful the fisherman are built like brick shithouses.
Still pinching myself that Corbyn will get elected in the 12th September. I freely admit that I thought it impossible that someone on the far left could be elected until we get past the end of September turning date. Look at the rise of trump and sanders in the POTUS race, the rise of Syriza in Greece and Corbyn here. The anti establishment mood is rife everywhere and I would suggest interconnected globally. Normally I would say Corbyn would be an unmitigated disaster for labour. With the climate of rising interest rates and the collapse of government owing to unsustainable debt post October I'm not so sure. Radical politics will truly be in once the blue touch paper of the sovereign debt global crisis is lit.
It would be more appropriate for a Corbyn win to be announced on 11th Sept. Corbyn is only being elected by his own self-created electorate. It does not represent any countywide movement. It does not represent a global interconnected movement. Our debt is not unsustainable and the country has been slowly and wisely cutting its spending for 5 years and has a sane programme for the next 5. All as unemployment falls and jobs rise. Do left wing policies of helicoptering money and nationalising banks and industries address the issue of debt? It is important that interest rates rise to normal levels, so interest rates rising will be a good sign of the economy rebalancing. http://www.economicsuk.com/blog/
Oil down to $42. If it drops another $2 even Norway will start having problems:
"Meanwhile, several reports show that Norway is not dependent on an oil price higher than USD $40 per barrel in order to balance next year's national budget. This is the same conclusion and number that Fitch has presented, and it is the lowest level for all the oil producers that the rating company has looked at."
Luckily for them, they built up an enormous slush fund with previous profits.
Which was obviously an idiotic thing to do, they should have followed Thatcher's example back when 1 pound in every 10 of tax take was oil revenue and spunked it on current account spending.
Interesting article, and antifrank should resist calls for brevity. How busy can you guys be that you can plough through hundreds of posts but not read a single longer piece?
On housing, I don't think there's a good solution except encouraging blocks of flats like most other countries with limited land area, but one alternative that looked interesting is the double ring - you keep the Green Belt, but build an outer ring of housing around it, with very good transport lines (e.g. trams) running in spokes from the outer ring through the green belt to the centre. Then people can live either side of the green belt and still have decent access to it.
IMO there's plenty of room to build even low density housing outside the south-east, but almost everyone with any power is absolutely against the idea. It would spoil their view and reduce their wealth.
Not so in Horsham. They want to build on open fields as they have done and as they are ruining the outskirts of Horsham, it looks awful now. same on the outskirts of Crawley,.. just ghastly.. and the increase in traffic is just awful..
That's a design problem not a "principle of doing it" problem.
Too many people are ridiculously attached to the Green Belt, which is actually very patchy. There are plenty of cities where it does not even exist - Milton Keynes, Leicester, Peterborough, and all of those in Wales and Scotland - without noticeable problems.
It has become an inverse cargo cult driven by selfishness of privileged people.
Everything except Green Belt is based on the intrinsic quality of the land; GBs are on location, which includes a good area of poor quality land suitable for use.
Time sensibly to loosen this corset, methinks. Start with London and Oxford.
If they do need it, then we can just add more further out. There are any number of purposes for which countryside is set aside as 'no build' these days - eg Special Protection Areas for a whole variety of birds. These can be part of the new "Green Belt".
Bollocks is it a design problem. It's a carpeting the land in between the towns with houses problem. They could all be designed by Christopher Wren; it would make no difference.
Oil down to $42. If it drops another $2 even Norway will start having problems:
"Meanwhile, several reports show that Norway is not dependent on an oil price higher than USD $40 per barrel in order to balance next year's national budget. This is the same conclusion and number that Fitch has presented, and it is the lowest level for all the oil producers that the rating company has looked at."
Luckily for them, they built up an enormous slush fund with previous profits.
Which was obviously an idiotic thing to do, they should have followed Thatcher's example back when 1 pound in every 10 of tax take was oil revenue and spunked it on current account spending.
It is impossible to give an account of the Thatcher era without mentioning the decades of state-socialism induced decay that had infected every area of the economy. Had this not been the case, there wouldn't have been any mass unemployment.
Oil down to $42. If it drops another $2 even Norway will start having problems:
"Meanwhile, several reports show that Norway is not dependent on an oil price higher than USD $40 per barrel in order to balance next year's national budget. This is the same conclusion and number that Fitch has presented, and it is the lowest level for all the oil producers that the rating company has looked at."
Luckily for them, they built up an enormous slush fund with previous profits.
Which was obviously an idiotic thing to do, they should have followed Thatcher's example back when 1 pound in every 10 of tax take was oil revenue and spunked it on current account spending.
They were a tiny nation with a population of less than 1/10th of the UK's and the ability to export the vast majority of their oil to earn them money rather than using it for domestic consumption.
They had also not suffered under the moronic mismanagement of their country by the British Labour Party throughout the 1970s and so did not have to effectively rebuild their economy from scratch, using their oil money as a buffer to allow the vital changes to take place.
They had also not suffered under the moronic mismanagement of their country by the British Labour Party throughout the 1970s and so did not have to effectively rebuild their economy from scratch, using their oil money as a buffer to allow the vital changes to take place.
I could have sworn the Conservatives were in power in the 70's as well - it's not as if they husbanded the finances of the UK particularly well.
Comments
Right now the leaks suggest that nothing like that will happen, and Cameron will call a referendum at very short notice, so I can understand their position. I'm still hopeful that the pessimistic leaks are an expectations-setting exercise, and there will be major unexpected reform, but BfB have been somewhat forced into this position.
Nobody really cares about it when they vote. Lots of people don't like to see Poles/Romanians/Muslims around town, but like rail privatisation they don't vote to actually prevent it continuing.
What we need to do is to make sure there is housing that people want and desire. We shouldn't build willy nilly on the Green Belt for that, but we can have sensible reclassification of the Green Belt borders in certain thought-out areas. As you say, there is substantial unmet demand, and that needs to be addressed. Reclassifying parts of the Green Belt is part of the answer.
Needless to say, this will mostly hurt Conservative voters. Oh, and media types as well. As such it would require a very (cough) brave government to do it.
And if we can do something about buy-to-lets at the same time ...
A region which majors on holidays leisure and scenery needs to deal with all aspects of that.
"Meanwhile, several reports show that Norway is not dependent on an oil price higher than USD $40 per barrel in order to balance next year's national budget. This is the same conclusion and number that Fitch has presented, and it is the lowest level for all the oil producers that the rating company has looked at."
http://www.norwaypost.com/index.php/business/general-business/30441
Secondly, they absolutely do vote on the issue. They report it as the most important political issue facing the UK. Large majorities support policies to reduce immigration. And parties that support clamping down on immigration are improving their position more than those that do not: of the four nationwide parties, those favouring controlling immigration saw their vote share go up by 10.5% and those opposing those controls saw their vote share fall by 13.2%.
I don't think immigration is going to be the key issue come 2020, but I expect you'll disagree with me on that. If necessary, whereas I suspect JC would have great difficulty in moderating his position on immigration, I speculate that Lewis can probably do so if needs be.
The buy-to-let problem is complex. A couple who have moved in together renting out one of their houses (about a quarter of BTL house landlords own single properties) is obviously a lesser problem than the large buy-to-let groups that manage scores of houses and can outbid anyone else who tries to buy properties.
Your point about rent prices increasing illustrates what I have repeatedly said on here: that fixing one part of the housing system breaks others. As an example, what's the point of building more houses on the Green Belt (which will be more desirable, which is why developers are pushing for it) if that new housing stock is immediately purchased for BTL?
I am not saying that about my own situation: if you read the thread (and things I've said on here passim) then I'm in favour of housing in my immediate area being extended, with caveats about services.
We already have sensible reclassification of the Green Belt. It is happening all the time, but there are extra hurdles. Your second paragraph is eminently sensible, as long as suitable controls remain.
[1] more accurately, the level of reform that would have satisfied it would not have been achievable without the EU becoming something else entirely.
http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/251805-white-house-wont-rule-out-obama-primary-endorsement
There is the idea Labour will split, with the Blairites moving away from Labour. While many MPs will oppose Corbyn-politics, most of them are going to attempt to shift him out than actually leave Labour. For a start, there is History - in the SDP - which says that these kind of ventures are not profitable and only serve to splinter the centre-left rather than unite it. The second, is that according to Dan Hodges, many of the Blairites - such as Umunna are already planning a combat Corbyn strategy anyway, the 'Free French' strategy. The third point, is that unlike the SDP figures, Umunna, Creasy etc still are on the rise as far as political careers are concerned. SDP ers such as Shirley Williams and Roy Jenkins had already been in power, and held cabinet positions - so had nothing to lose. Many 2010 onwards MPs have yet to achieve this, and know that joining a splinter party will make that even less likely than now.
In the previous thread, I saw comparisons with Labour now, with the demise of the Liberal party. But their demise came as a huge change - the expansion of the franchise to married over thirty women, and men over 18. Correlating with that, was the huge Labour and trade union movement. Today, there is no comparable social movement, or change/expansion in the franchise. Some will mention the SNP, but there is no equal to them in England as far as a challenger to Labour is concerned. The SNP, contesting elections which involved a part PR system held government positions, which meant that they could be seen as a viable alternative to Labour. Other parties, in England contest elections under a FPTP system which makes replicating SNP success a lot more harder.
Labour, generally has two sets of people that vote for it. The socially liberal, metropolitan centre-left and the more socially conservative types who fit into WWC stereotypes. The demise of the Liberal Democrats, to a 8 MPs with hardly any heartlands and a leader who is a tad more socially conservative than his predecessors makes it doubtful they will attract the socially liberal types. The Liberal Democrats are also struggling to stay politically relevant, and project an image of competence which will make it difficult for them to appeal to the socially conservative types, which was unlikely anyway. After all, if you're concerned about immigration and welfare you're hardly likely to vote LD. The Greens suffer from wasted vote syndrome, and so are unlikely to make massive dents in Labour's support either.
UKIP faces several challenges in attempting to unsurp Labour as the second party in British politics. Firstly, is that in a large number of the seats they came second they were way behind the winning party. Secondly, the direction in which the party goes after this is still in debate. Are they essentially a right-wing Conservative party, who still predominately focuses on critiquing the EU, or do move in a direction of being a socially conservative party, which cares about inequality and standing up for those who are not getting a fair deal? This is the direction, that apparently Nuttal would like UKIP to go into. But with Farage in charge, I see UKIP continuing to focus their critique purely on the EU/immigration, especially given Farage's own conservative background. Particularly since that UKIP's second places are scattered across the country, which may make the way to go unclear. For example, the one region where UKIP recieved the most second places was actually not in Labour's heartlands, in the North. It was actually in the South East - with UKIP replacing the LDs as second-placed party in this region.
There is also the strange curiosity, that while many may sympathise with UKIP's message they may not actually vote for them. Even after bigot-gate, many WWC still voted Labour. When concern about immigration is at its most acute, UKIP are invisible from the political-stage, not profiting in terms of poll VI, and losing council elections. And there is of course the pattern, that many Labour supporters simply disillusioned with the party, rather than looking for other alternatives simply don't vote, which leads to seats like Stoke-On-Trent, where Tristam Hunt's turnout was reportedly only 19%! It's not exactly clear if this damages Labour, either. I saw that @JEO was talking about the prospect of the Conservative party attracting the WWC vote, but I think this is remote. If anything, the reason why UKIP have collected second places in the North, is because many WWC consider a vote for the Tories unpalatable, and that their brand is permanently damaged among them. The Tories have hardly done much to dissuade them from the idea, that they are a party for the rich - and indeed, now that the Tories have won an election without large support from many demographics, including the working class, ethnic minorities and under 45 women - I wouldn't be surprised if the party wasn't all to bothered with attracting these demographics anymore. Cameron is hardly a man of the people, and Osborne is an even worst candidate in terms of pitching to the WWC.
This is why Labour will come out of a Corbyn leadership badly bruised, damaged, and beaten, but not dead and buried.
Too many people are ridiculously attached to the Green Belt, which is actually very patchy. There are plenty of cities where it does not even exist - Milton Keynes, Leicester, Peterborough, and all of those in Wales and Scotland - without noticeable problems.
It has become an inverse cargo cult driven by selfishness of privileged people.
If you add up all the 'protected' designations that prevent houses being built for people to live in, it is around 35% of England.
https://barneystringer.wordpress.com/2014/04/03/how-much-of-englands-countryside-is-protected/
Everything except Green Belt is based on the intrinsic quality of the land; GBs are on location, which includes a good area of poor quality land suitable for use.
Time sensibly to loosen this corset, methinks. Start with London and Oxford.
If they do need it, then we can just add more further out. There are any number of purposes for which countryside is set aside as 'no build' these days - eg Special Protection Areas for a whole variety of birds. These can be part of the new "Green Belt".
https://barneystringer.files.wordpress.com/2014/04/protected-land.png
Set up a Royal Commission or similar to define the problems and come up with five plans to fix them. Not all problems will be fixed in every plan, and each will require a significant mindset shift amongst certain segments of the population.
These five plans are then put to the country via referendum (under AV, what else?), and the winning solution implemented in law and practice.
Whichever solution is chosen will be massively unpopular amongst certain segments of society, but it will at least be more democratic than the current mess of bodges.
Anyone wanting to implement this scheme can call it the Jessop Plan. I'm sure the original Josias Jessop and his father would thoroughly approve.
The food is interesting and the hotel bar was a centre for entertainment, live music quite good as it happens. as there was no where else you could really drink most of the locals got there. The air is so clean you wonder how you breathed before.
Flew direct from Reykjavick. Didn't do much sight seeing as I was working but an interesting couple of weeks for sure.
Locals are very friendly but. Not sure they still share their wives though. Be careful the fisherman are built like brick shithouses.
Corbyn is only being elected by his own self-created electorate. It does not represent any countywide movement. It does not represent a global interconnected movement. Our debt is not unsustainable and the country has been slowly and wisely cutting its spending for 5 years and has a sane programme for the next 5. All as unemployment falls and jobs rise. Do left wing policies of helicoptering money and nationalising banks and industries address the issue of debt?
It is important that interest rates rise to normal levels, so interest rates rising will be a good sign of the economy rebalancing.
http://www.economicsuk.com/blog/
They had also not suffered under the moronic mismanagement of their country by the British Labour Party throughout the 1970s and so did not have to effectively rebuild their economy from scratch, using their oil money as a buffer to allow the vital changes to take place.