Oh.. a whipping on HoL reform as well, is possible. Major wildcard.
May doesn't like to be thwarted and, if there is to be constitutional change to reflect Brexit, what better time than during the Brexit transition period?
It will be rejected twice, probably in the 2019 and 2020 parliamentary sessions, and then Parliament Acted.
Yes, probably. Vindictive too, since she wasn't thwarted at all and the Lords did their job, made suggested legislative changes, and then passed it unamended when the Commons sent it back.
May seems to be a score settler, but Lords reform should not be done as such a reaction, drafted on the back of a fag packet. But she made sure to mention unelected lords opposing her (emphasis on the unelected, which should mean she wants to abolish the lot)
If she wants quick and justifiable reform, I'd repeat from yesterday a good starting point would be to immediately retire from the House those who have not contributed X number of times in the last 2 years and ban someone from being made a member of the house if they have held elected office in the past 7 years. At a stroke removes those using it as a cushy retirement and parachuting the recently defenstrated into positions of power.
Commiserations to TSE about Osborne. He was not very likeable, but he seemed a capable sort who could have offered more to parliament. But making money and editing papers is probably more fulfilling and certainly more lucrative work when backbench work beckons.
Daily Mail reporting that the £13bn DfiD spend is not going to survive in the Tory manifesto. Yay!
Triple lock to go too, and pledges on NI and income tax according to the Times this AM.
May is going all Erdogan. She wants complete authority to sell her pig in a poke.
she would be mad to end the triple lock
Not so, Mr. Root. All of the pensioners that I know are more concerned about the future of their children and grandchildren than they are about themselves. The triple lock was introduced to avoid the Gordon Brown 75p increase type of headline at a time of low inflation. It is an unaffordable nonsense that most pensioners would be content to be consigned to the scrap-heap of silly political games.
Take free bus passes away and then there might be some resistance.
They certainly say they care about helping their grandchildren. When it comes down to it though i think they are just as self interested as any other group.
I'd be interested to see polling - suspect pensioners do support the triple lock. It would be strange for politicians to be so keen on an unpopular, expensive policy!
Round where you live the opposition to new housing is pretty fierce. Even though it would help young people get a place of their own.
I think that about right. Oldies care for their own grandchildren, rather than the young in general.
East Lothian looks interesting to me. The result in 2015 was SNP 42.5%, Lab 31.0%, Con 19.5%. If you apply the latest Scottish opinion polls you get something like SNP 39%, Con 32%, Lab 21%. Tories within striking distance.
Yes, the Nats were only 8/15 to gain that (from Lab) in the first place. There are plenty of 3rd place gains possible for the Tories - but can they unravel the vote?
In the current climate I think the STories are going to struggle to win tactical votes from Labour and the LibDems.
It'll be up to Ruth, won't it? The politics of Scotland is trending towards SNP vs Con - that's the logic of the existential question coupled with FPTP.
I could envisage SCON folks voting tactically against SNP - SLAB/SLID support each other but not SCON.
But SCON have been picking up overall support - not tactical. There must be some on the cusp of moving over. Obviously for some the Tories are beyond the pale.
Edinburgh South: 2015 result — Lab 39%, SNP 34%, Con 17.5%. Applying latest Scottish polls gives something like SNP 31%, Con 30%, Lab 29%. But the SNP are probably not doing as well in this constituency as the average across Scotland.
Tasty. Please please let there be an atypical LD surge there too, for a juicy four way.
But the SNP had a very deflated 2015 result because of their unsuitable candidate (I forget the details, but Ian Murray was a very lucky man).
I recall chatter to that effect. Oh well. Any ideas where the tightest contests are expected to be? Presumably somewhere that was traditionally a Lab/LD contest with a solid Tory finish.
The SNP candidate had disgraced himself on social media and was disowned by NS. I doubt SNP vetting will be so slack this time.
The Tories should stand against him - they're practically at war anyway, nothing left to lose, then get in a sensible and respect Labour MP as speaker.
Get in a what?
I thought half the problem was there aren't sensible respected Labour MPs
Lindsay Hoyle would be fine. Unfortunately (for this scenario), he could well lose his seat.
You can lay Hoyle at 2.74 on betfair... Not bad i reckon... His majority is 8.8%.
Fantastic! I'd heard he wasn't. Go for Speaker, Ken!
If he went to Speaker he'd not be able to spend the next five years whining about Brexit, bitching abut his Party and undermining Theresa at every turn. .
He could do the last one, though that is not a plus of course.
But he is immensely experienced in government and opposition, government party but not a party robot, and knowledgable about the procedures of the House.
It may be he would prefer to sit on the backbenches and cause May issues. But on the face of it seems like he would be a good fit for Speaker, though I feel like it's Labour's turn.
That's good news, precisely because he can speak more knowledgeably on the EU than most MPs, having started his career working for Ted Heath.
Make Mogg Speaker? His courtesy and wit goes to waste when he spends half his time in the HoC ranting on (ultra-politely of course) about the EU.
Labour MPs have been asked to confirm their intention to stand again by 6 Pm of tomorrow.
Vacancies will be advertised on Friday. Applications close on Thursday. A panel of NEC and regional board members will shortlist and select candidates.
I think the SNP should easily retain 50 seats - with only 10 seats realistically in play - I'd expect them to end up with around 54/55 seats as the spoils are split.
There's much discussion about the Unionist parties tactically voting against the SNP - realistically the only party who could benefit from this is SCON as SLAB/SLID are so weak. For every SLAB/SLID supporter prepared to vote holding their noses for SCON at least another will vote tactically for SNP to block SCON. Particularly as SCON are set to score a landslide nationally.
What SCON have to be very wary of, is getting caught up in their own surge polling - Mundell would be a target for decapitation - if the SNP were to achieve this, this would go along way to mitigating any other losses to SCON. Mundell is not a populist figure like Ruth !!
Building can happen in stupid places. Flood prone areas, or places where the infrastructure can't cope with an increased population.
I do agree more building is a good thing, and a necessary thing, but it must be done sensibly.
And, more to the point, sustainably. Not talking about Green nonsense - but new houses have got to have adequate transport links, new hospitals, amenities and the like. Given that we're primarily talking about the Thames Valley and London commuter belt, here (there's a glut of housing stock in the North, but that's not where the jobs are), that's a serious political commitment. But it needs to be met head on and dealt with.
Daily Mail reporting that the £13bn DfiD spend is not going to survive in the Tory manifesto. Yay!
Triple lock to go too, and pledges on NI and income tax according to the Times this AM.
May is going all Erdogan. She wants complete authority to sell her pig in a poke.
I think that's being fiscally sensible.
off topic and perhaps unsayable, but it irritates me greatly when we get these public funding appeals (eg. Red Nose Day, some of the DECC appeals). What on earth is the 0.7% for if not precisely that?!
I ignore Red Nose Day.
And Lenny Henry in general.
I avoid all those progs with lots of 'right on' celebs poncing around on. My local was showing Red Nose Day so I went to a different pub instead.
Mr. Calum, cheers. My own guess would be slightly lower, maybe 50-52, but obviously I'm not as up on Scotland.
Very high tide mark was hit by the SNP last time. Any chance annoyance at Sturgeon's desire for a Scottish generation to be 3 years will help the others?
Building can happen in stupid places. Flood prone areas, or places where the infrastructure can't cope with an increased population.
I do agree more building is a good thing, and a necessary thing, but it must be done sensibly.
'Places where the infrastructure can't cope with an increased population' is the stock nimby line use to prevent almost all building schemes. The point is that you build the bloody infrastructure.
Oh.. a whipping on HoL reform as well, is possible. Major wildcard.
May doesn't like to be thwarted and, if there is to be constitutional change to reflect Brexit, what better time than during the Brexit transition period?
It will be rejected twice, probably in the 2019 and 2020 parliamentary sessions, and then Parliament Acted.
Yes, probably. Vindictive too, since she wasn't thwarted at all and the Lords did their job, made suggested legislative changes, and then passed it unamended when the Commons sent it back.
May seems to be a score settler, but Lords reform should not be done as such a reaction, drafted on the back of a fag packet. But she made sure to mention unelected lords opposing her (emphasis on the unelected, which should mean she wants to abolish the lot)
If she wants quick and justifiable reform, I'd repeat from yesterday a good starting point would be to immediately retire from the House those who have not contributed X number of times in the last 2 years and ban someone from being made a member of the house if they have held elected office in the past 7 years. At a stroke removes those using it as a cushy retirement and parachuting the recently defenstrated into positions of power.
Commiserations to TSE about Osborne. He was not very likeable, but he seemed a capable sort who could have offered more to parliament. But making money and editing papers is probably more fulfilling and certainly more lucrative work when backbench work beckons.
Erdogan in drag...
Absurd hyperbole.
Perhaps May does intend to establish a right wing dictatorship after this election.
Mr. Animal, I agree entirely. Some new towns might be a better way to go than trying to always expand existing settlements. That way, future growth can be planned for in the initial layout of the towns.
Daily Mail reporting that the £13bn DfiD spend is not going to survive in the Tory manifesto. Yay!
Triple lock to go too, and pledges on NI and income tax according to the Times this AM.
May is going all Erdogan. She wants complete authority to sell her pig in a poke.
she would be mad to end the triple lock
Not so, Mr. Root. All of the pensioners that I know are more concerned about the future of their children and grandchildren than they are about themselves. The triple lock was introduced to avoid the Gordon Brown 75p increase type of headline at a time of low inflation. It is an unaffordable nonsense that most pensioners would be content to be consigned to the scrap-heap of silly political games.
Take free bus passes away and then there might be some resistance.
fair comment.. story of my life , every time I get to receive something from the Govt the rules change, isn't life a bitch !
Building can happen in stupid places. Flood prone areas, or places where the infrastructure can't cope with an increased population.
I do agree more building is a good thing, and a necessary thing, but it must be done sensibly.
'Places where the infrastructure can't cope with an increased population' is the stock nimby line use to prevent almost all building schemes. The point is that you build the bloody infrastructure.
The problem is that they don't. Look at the fights against new railways and bypasses for towns that are desperately needed.
Daily Mail reporting that the £13bn DfiD spend is not going to survive in the Tory manifesto. Yay!
Triple lock to go too, and pledges on NI and income tax according to the Times this AM.
May is going all Erdogan. She wants complete authority to sell her pig in a poke.
she would be mad to end the triple lock
Not so, Mr. Root. All of the pensioners that I know are more concerned about the future of their children and grandchildren than they are about themselves. The triple lock was introduced to avoid the Gordon Brown 75p increase type of headline at a time of low inflation. It is an unaffordable nonsense that most pensioners would be content to be consigned to the scrap-heap of silly political games.
Take free bus passes away and then there might be some resistance.
They certainly say they care about helping their grandchildren. When it comes down to it though i think they are just as self interested as any other group.
I'd be interested to see polling - suspect pensioners do support the triple lock. It would be strange for politicians to be so keen on an unpopular, expensive policy!
Round where you live the opposition to new housing is pretty fierce. Even though it would help young people get a place of their own.
Mr. Rkrkrk,
To take your points backwards.
Building 5 bedroomed, jerry-built homes that are going on the market for £1m help no local youngsters get a place of their own. In fact virtually none of the massive house building effort around here is aimed at local people. It is much more aimed, and priced at, people moving out of London, Crawley and Brighton. Would it were otherwise and then we might see some organic growth with homes that local people could afford.
As to the triple lock, I find your lack of certainty disturbing. The policy was introduced in response to the Daily Mail headlines. It is, perhaps, being sustained by politicians who assume to know what pensioners think rather than asking them.
Daily Mail reporting that the £13bn DfiD spend is not going to survive in the Tory manifesto. Yay!
Triple lock to go too, and pledges on NI and income tax according to the Times this AM.
May is going all Erdogan. She wants complete authority to sell her pig in a poke.
I think that's being fiscally sensible.
It's also politically sensible, looking a long way down the line.
I think she's looking a few weeks down the line to the financial negotiations with the EU. Cutting the DfID budget will give her political capital to agree to ongoing budgetary contributions.
Being cynical her best move regarding the DfiD budget is not to promise to stick to the UN target for the manifesto and then to actually stick to it afterwards.
Gobshite. We do not need to waste this money. I can think of a dozen better homes for £13bn. Starting with deficit reduction.
£350m a week for the NHS?
Why not pledge it by the end of the next parliament?
That would be an £18.2bn budget increase per annum for the NHS.
May likes to surprise. She also has a dark sense of humour, and likes to succeed where others failed. She would love to swipe this rug from under Labour, and make it credible by linking it to International Aid savings/Brexit refunds/triple lock savings/ deficit elimination and pledge it by GE2022.
I think she might (as was suggested downthread) cheat a bit by lumping in social care into the NHS budget, as well as obvs extra cash for mental health, but the NHS budget was about £120bn last year and is already on trend to get to around £125bn by 2020, and probably about £128-129bn by GE2022. So she only has to "find" an extra £9bn per year, or £173m per week to get there.
It would be a 15% nominal cash terms increase on where we are now, but much less in real terms, and it is achievable.
Plus, *everyone* would go apologetic about it, thus amplifying her message and gaining her votes.
So easy to fix that sort of line though. "I was raised to be decent, and I believe that Labour has the most decent and moral values". Fine - that may be right, it may be wrong, but its less offensive. In fairness, it's been a few years, and maybe the line isn't as bad as I remember.
I expect they are factored into the Brexit divorce bill, just like the UK's share of Europe-located assets.
The EU's annual admin budget is 140bn or thereabouts. In the inconceivably unlikely case that their London leases have no break clause nor right to assign or sublet the maximum liabilities involved would still be small change
Daily Mail reporting that the £13bn DfiD spend is not going to survive in the Tory manifesto. Yay!
Triple lock to go too, and pledges on NI and income tax according to the Times this AM.
May is going all Erdogan. She wants complete authority to sell her pig in a poke.
I think that's being fiscally sensible.
It's also politically sensible, looking a long way down the line.
I think she's looking a few weeks down the line to the financial negotiations with the EU. Cutting the DfID budget will give her political capital to agree to ongoing budgetary contributions.
Being cynical her best move regarding the DfiD budget is not to promise to stick to the UN target for the manifesto and then to actually stick to it afterwards.
Gobshite. We do not need to waste this money. I can think of a dozen better homes for £13bn. Starting with deficit reduction.
£350m a week for the NHS?
Why not pledge it by the end of the next parliament?
That would be an £18.2bn budget increase per annum for the NHS.
May likes to surprise. She also has a dark sense of humour, and likes to succeed where others failed. She would love to swipe this rug from under Labour, and make it credible by linking it to International Aid savings/Brexit refunds/triple lock savings/ deficit elimination and pledge it by GE2022.
I think she might (as was suggested downthread) cheat a bit by lumping in social care into the NHS budget, as well as obvs extra cash for mental health, but the NHS budget was about £120bn last year and is already on trend to get to around £125bn by 2020, and probably about £128-129bn by GE2022. So she only has to "find" an extra £9bn per year, or £173m per week to get there.
It would be a 15% nominal cash terms increase on where we are now, but much less in real terms, and it is achievable.
Plus, *everyone* would go apologetic about it, thus amplifying her message and gaining her votes.
The gnashing of teeth on here would be a sight to behold!
Building can happen in stupid places. Flood prone areas, or places where the infrastructure can't cope with an increased population.
I do agree more building is a good thing, and a necessary thing, but it must be done sensibly.
'Places where the infrastructure can't cope with an increased population' is the stock nimby line use to prevent almost all building schemes. The point is that you build the bloody infrastructure.
The problem is that they don't. Look at the fights against new railways and bypasses for towns that are desperately needed.
Well yes, that's true, but they should build them anyway.
Daily Mail reporting that the £13bn DfiD spend is not going to survive in the Tory manifesto. Yay!
Triple lock to go too, and pledges on NI and income tax according to the Times this AM.
May is going all Erdogan. She wants complete authority to sell her pig in a poke.
I think that's being fiscally sensible.
off topic and perhaps unsayable, but it irritates me greatly when we get these public funding appeals (eg. Red Nose Day, some of the DECC appeals). What on earth is the 0.7% for if not precisely that?!
I ignore Red Nose Day.
And Lenny Henry in general.
He's turned into quite a decent actor. But yes, I ignore all TV appeals for overseas stuff that treats the entire continent of Africa like a stupid child. The aid budget should be for disaster relief, whether natural or human-induced.
There must be something wrong with me, as a political nerd. I am trying to generate inside of me some excitement about this election. Trying, and failing.
We need a pre-election Labour coup/plot or some sort of Tory Remainer rebellion. Someone stir up something. Please. There are no good stories about. None.
Building can happen in stupid places. Flood prone areas, or places where the infrastructure can't cope with an increased population.
I do agree more building is a good thing, and a necessary thing, but it must be done sensibly.
The problem is building cheaply. Any fool (or Taylor Wimpey, or Bovis, or Persimmon, or Barratt) can throw up a house or five. Making a *good* house is harder and, more importantly, costs more. Making a hundred houses that have good infrastructure is much harder, and much, much more expensive.
They're just finishing off the village I live in (Cambourne), and during my walks and runs I get to see the houses go up. They're not particularly well built, and sell for a fortune. Worse, improvement to local infrastructure under S106 are only begrudgingly given.
There are many reasons why this happens, from council incompetence to the fact new-build houses rarely have a champion for snagging at all stages. But it happens all over the country.
Building can happen in stupid places. Flood prone areas, or places where the infrastructure can't cope with an increased population.
I do agree more building is a good thing, and a necessary thing, but it must be done sensibly.
'Places where the infrastructure can't cope with an increased population' is the stock nimby line use to prevent almost all building schemes. The point is that you build the bloody infrastructure.
Who builds the bloody infrastructure? That's the question. I'd favour a new towns approach, preferably away from London and the South East, in the hope of encouraging economic development in the regions, but someone will have to pay, and no-one wants to.
Daily Mail reporting that the £13bn DfiD spend is not going to survive in the Tory manifesto. Yay!
Triple lock to go too, and pledges on NI and income tax according to the Times this AM.
May is going all Erdogan. She wants complete authority to sell her pig in a poke.
I think that's being fiscally sensible.
It's also politically sensible, looking a long way down the line.
I think she's looking a few weeks down the line to the financial negotiations with the EU. Cutting the DfID budget will give her political capital to agree to ongoing budgetary contributions.
Being cynical her best move regarding the DfiD budget is not to promise to stick to the UN target for the manifesto and then to actually stick to it afterwards.
Gobshite. We do not need to waste this money. I can think of a dozen better homes for £13bn. Starting with deficit reduction.
£350m a week for the NHS?
I think she might (as was suggested downthread) cheat a bit by lumping in social care into the NHS budget, as well as obvs extra cash for mental health, but the NHS budget was about £120bn last year and is already on trend to get to around £125bn by 2020, and probably about £128-129bn by GE2022. So she only has to "find" an extra £9bn per year, or £173m per week to get there.
It would be a 15% nominal cash terms increase on where we are now, but much less in real terms, and it is achievable.
Plus, *everyone* would go apologetic about it, thus amplifying her message and gaining her votes.
The gnashing of teeth on here would be a sight to behold!
If I were her, I'd do it.
But I couldn't do it whilst keeping a straight face.
What makes people think new builds are badly built? They aren't. The thinner materials are engineered for strength and are just as strong as a massive old wooden joist.
Just because they look fragile doesn't mean they are.
Oh.. a whipping on HoL reform as well, is possible. Major wildcard.
May doesn't like to be thwarted and, if there is to be constitutional change to reflect Brexit, what better time than during the Brexit transition period?
It will be rejected twice, probably in the 2019 and 2020 parliamentary sessions, and then Parliament Acted.
Yes, probably. Vindictive too, since she wasn't thwarted at all and the Lords did their job, made suggested legislative changes, and then passed it unamended when the Commons sent it back.
May seems to be a score settler, but Lords reform should not be done as such a reaction, drafted on the back of a fag packet. But she made sure to mention unelected lords opposing her (emphasis on the unelected, which should mean she wants to abolish the lot)
If she wants quick and justifiable reform, I'd repeat from yesterday a good starting point would be to immediately retire from the House those who have not contributed X number of times in the last 2 years and ban someone from being made a member of the house if they have held elected office in the past 7 years. At a stroke removes those using it as a cushy retirement and parachuting the recently defenstrated into positions of power.
Commiserations to TSE about Osborne. He was not very likeable, but he seemed a capable sort who could have offered more to parliament. But making money and editing papers is probably more fulfilling and certainly more lucrative work when backbench work beckons.
Erdogan in drag...
If that were a right-winger making a similar criticism of a female Labour or Lib Dem leader, you'd be accusing them of misogyny.
Building can happen in stupid places. Flood prone areas, or places where the infrastructure can't cope with an increased population.
I do agree more building is a good thing, and a necessary thing, but it must be done sensibly.
'Places where the infrastructure can't cope with an increased population' is the stock nimby line use to prevent almost all building schemes. The point is that you build the bloody infrastructure.
I'm in favour of a new town approach, but it's certainly the case that NIMBYism runs rampant in far too many places. I've been turned into quite the development hawk by years of seeing people use the same arguments to reject development whether its 500 homes or a phone booth.
The Times reports very extensive Yougov polling (not yet on their website) of over 7,000 people.
Conservative Remain seats show a 2.5% swing to the Conservatives.
Labour Remain seats show a 6.5% swing to the Conservatives.
Labour Leave seats show a 9.5% swing to the Conservatives.
On that basis, seats like Stalybridge & Hyde, Rother Valley, Sedgefield, Swansea West, Bassetlaw, Huddersfield, will be very much in play.
At the other end, there may be one or two Conservative seats that could be lost to Labour, against the trend, (which happened even in 1983) such as Brighton Kemptown, or Croydon Central.
It seems to me that Lib Dem betting markets could be most interesting this election. The broad story of tory success and labour losses are easy to understand for everyone and I think that will be broadly reflected in the betting, but the LD situation is more tricky. I think they will be massively overestimated in terms of seats, and slightly overestimated in terms of votes.
Seats, i'm not expecting more than 15 or so. Votes, not more than 17%.
Is some sanity returning to BF next Lab leader? Yvette now 2nd favourite. I was able to get 28 a few months ago.
Well, Miliband is still 19 to lay. Would he get selected if he wanted e.g. Huddersfield? Would he win it?
Who knows about selection. Don't forget Blair rocked up at Sedgefield, of all places, and the agent there (John Buton iirc) knew at once he was a future leader and talked others around.
Building can happen in stupid places. Flood prone areas, or places where the infrastructure can't cope with an increased population.
I do agree more building is a good thing, and a necessary thing, but it must be done sensibly.
'Places where the infrastructure can't cope with an increased population' is the stock nimby line use to prevent almost all building schemes. The point is that you build the bloody infrastructure.
Who builds the bloody infrastructure? That's the question. I'd favour a new towns approach, preferably away from London and the South East, in the hope of encouraging economic development in the regions, but someone will have to pay, and no-one wants to.
The government. As government can borrow much more cheaply than the private sector, it should. Build it and they will come. Then reap the returns.
Daily Mail reporting that the £13bn DfiD spend is not going to survive in the Tory manifesto. Yay!
Triple lock to go too, and pledges on NI and income tax according to the Times this AM.
May is going all Erdogan. She wants complete authority to sell her pig in a poke.
I think that's being fiscally sensible.
It's also politically sensible, looking a long way down the line.
I think she's looking a few weeks down the line to the financial negotiations with the EU. Cutting the DfID budget will give her political capital to agree to ongoing budgetary contributions.
Being cynical her best move regarding the DfiD budget is not to promise to stick to the UN target for the manifesto and then to actually stick to it afterwards.
Gobshite. We do not need to waste this money. I can think of a dozen better homes for £13bn. Starting with deficit reduction.
£350m a week for the NHS?
I think she might (as was suggested downthread) cheat a bit by lumping in social care into the NHS budget, as well as obvs extra cash for mental health, but the NHS budget was about £120bn last year and is already on trend to get to around £125bn by 2020, and probably about £128-129bn by GE2022. So she only has to "find" an extra £9bn per year, or £173m per week to get there.
It would be a 15% nominal cash terms increase on where we are now, but much less in real terms, and it is achievable.
Plus, *everyone* would go apologetic about it, thus amplifying her message and gaining her votes.
The gnashing of teeth on here would be a sight to behold!
If I were her, I'd do it.
But I couldn't do it whilst keeping a straight face.
There must be something wrong with me, as a political nerd. I am trying to generate inside of me some excitement about this election. Trying, and failing.
We need a pre-election Labour coup/plot or some sort of Tory Remainer rebellion. Someone stir up something. Please. There are no good stories about. None.
Well, maybe Labour will do comparitively well, and LDs really well, in the locals, and everyone will overreact and think TMay may not even get a majority, and the polls will converge on a Tory most seats scenario, then boom, majority of 80 as expected in the first place.
Or Ageny Corbyn will finally be caught receiving his orders from CCHQ during the campaign.
There must be something wrong with me, as a political nerd. I am trying to generate inside of me some excitement about this election. Trying, and failing.
We need a pre-election Labour coup/plot or some sort of Tory Remainer rebellion. Someone stir up something. Please. There are no good stories about. None.
Prepare to be bored for 7 weeks.
The *only* interesting posts on PB will be the betting tips.
The Tories should stand against him - they're practically at war anyway, nothing left to lose, then get in a sensible and respect Labour MP as speaker.
Get in a what?
I thought half the problem was there aren't sensible respected Labour MPs
Lindsay Hoyle would be fine. Unfortunately (for this scenario), he could well lose his seat.
Hoyle is awful, loves the sound of his own voice and 'performs'
Indeed. I have no idea why there is so much derision on here. Seems to mainly based on her being a bit wooden during the first leadership election. As May is pretty wooden that doesn't matter now and her palpable sanity compared to today's clowns will be stunning.
It's funny how many of the same people who complained about the 'Little Englanders' jibe are proving it with their insular views on DfID.
Yes, some DfID programs are stupid, and should be reduced or cut. But that's almost a symptom of the task: it changes and the programs should constantly evolve - something bureaucracies are rarely good at. However there are many other programs that are vital internationally and, if you only want to take a fiscal perspective, may even save us money in the medium and long term.
As an example, does anyone really begrudge the money we spend on polio eradication (£300 million over six years) ?
Daily Mail reporting that the £13bn DfiD spend is not going to survive in the Tory manifesto. Yay!
Triple lock to go too, and pledges on NI and income tax according to the Times this AM.
May is going all Erdogan. She wants complete authority to sell her pig in a poke.
I think that's being fiscally sensible.
It's also politically sensible, looking a long way down the line.
I think she's looking a few weeks down the line to the financial negotiations with the EU. Cutting the DfID budget will give her political capital to agree to ongoing budgetary contributions.
Being cynical her best move regarding the DfiD budget is not to promise to stick to the UN target for the manifesto and then to actually stick to it afterwards.
Gobshite. We do not need to waste this money. I can think of a dozen better homes for £13bn. Starting with deficit reduction.
£350m a week for the NHS?
I think she might (as was suggested downthread) cheat a bit by lumping in social care into the NHS budget, as well as obvs extra cash for mental health, but the NHS budget was about £120bn last year and is already on trend to get to around £125bn by 2020, and probably about £128-129bn by GE2022. So she only has to "find" an extra £9bn per year, or £173m per week to get there.
It would be a 15% nominal cash terms increase on where we are now, but much less in real terms, and it is achievable.
Plus, *everyone* would go apologetic about it, thus amplifying her message and gaining her votes.
The gnashing of teeth on here would be a sight to behold!
If I were her, I'd do it.
But I couldn't do it whilst keeping a straight face.
She will keep a very, very straight face.
Removing triple lock is brave.
We know she will back down from her word if she thinks the advantage is high enough, so that pile of bull her more excitable supporters pushed has been lost, this would be an opportunity to prove she is as tough as claimed at least, even though there is probably no better time to risk taking a bit of a hit with the over 65s and soon to be 65s.
Oh.. a whipping on HoL reform as well, is possible. Major wildcard.
May doesn't like to be thwarted and, if there is to be constitutional change to reflect Brexit, what better time than during the Brexit transition period?
It will be rejected twice, probably in the 2019 and 2020 parliamentary sessions, and then Parliament Acted.
Yes, probably. Vindictive too, since she wasn't thwarted at all and the Lords did their job, made suggested legislative changes, and then passed it unamended when the Commons sent it back.
May seems to be a score settler, but Lords reform should not be done as such a reaction, drafted on the back of a fag packet. But she made sure to mention unelected lords opposing her (emphasis on the unelected, which should mean she wants to abolish the lot)
If she wants quick and justifiable reform, I'd repeat from yesterday a good starting point would be to immediately retire from the House those who have not contributed X number of times in the last 2 years and ban someone from being made a member of the house if they have held elected office in the past 7 years. At a stroke removes those using it as a cushy retirement and parachuting the recently defenstrated into positions of power.
Commiserations to TSE about Osborne. He was not very likeable, but he seemed a capable sort who could have offered more to parliament. But making money and editing papers is probably more fulfilling and certainly more lucrative work when backbench work beckons.
Erdogan in drag...
If that were a right-winger making a similar criticism of a female Labour or Lib Dem leader, you'd be accusing them of misogyny.
foxinsox is probably hoping May will propose restoring capital punishment such is his warped view of her...
Indeed. I have no idea why there is so much derision on here. Seems to mainly based on her being a bit wooden during the first leadership election. As May is pretty wooden that doesn't matter now and her palpable sanity compared to today's clowns will be stunning.
Agreed - I don't find Cooper particularly compelling, but she seems competent and credible.
Building can happen in stupid places. Flood prone areas, or places where the infrastructure can't cope with an increased population.
I do agree more building is a good thing, and a necessary thing, but it must be done sensibly.
The problem is building cheaply. Any fool (or Taylor Wimpey, or Bovis, or Persimmon, or Barratt) can throw up a house or five. Making a *good* house is harder and, more importantly, costs more. Making a hundred houses that have good infrastructure is much harder, and much, much more expensive.
They're just finishing off the village I live in (Cambourne), and during my walks and runs I get to see the houses go up. They're not particularly well built, and sell for a fortune. Worse, improvement to local infrastructure under S106 are only begrudgingly given.
There are many reasons why this happens, from council incompetence to the fact new-build houses rarely have a champion for snagging at all stages. But it happens all over the country.
Do you have any evidence that new builds are badly built? Most English people just prefer old houses, which is fair enough (I do, and live in one) but it's not true to say new builds are generally badly built.
It's funny how many of the same people who complained about the 'Little Englanders' jibe are proving it with their insular views on DfID.
Yes, some DfID programs are stupid, and should be reduced or cut. But that's almost a symptom of the task: it changes and the programs should constantly evolve - something bureaucracies are rarely good at. However there are many other programs that are vital internationally and, if you only want to take a fiscal perspective, may even save us money in the medium and long term.
As an example, does anyone really begrudge the money we spend on polio eradication (£300 million over six years) ?
Apparently polio eradication is a waste of money.
Some comments illuminate posters' inner world very concisely.
Indeed. I have no idea why there is so much derision on here. Seems to mainly based on her being a bit wooden during the first leadership election. As May is pretty wooden that doesn't matter now and her palpable sanity compared to today's clowns will be stunning.
I'm not sure the comparison against TM would be flattering; "girl sent to do a woman's job"?
Building can happen in stupid places. Flood prone areas, or places where the infrastructure can't cope with an increased population.
I do agree more building is a good thing, and a necessary thing, but it must be done sensibly.
'Places where the infrastructure can't cope with an increased population' is the stock nimby line use to prevent almost all building schemes. The point is that you build the bloody infrastructure.
I'm in favour of a new town approach, but it's certainly the case that NIMBYism runs rampant in far too many places. I've been turned into quite the development hawk by years of seeing people use the same arguments to reject development whether its 500 homes or a phone booth.
The Times reports very extensive Yougov polling (not yet on their website) of over 7,000 people.
Conservative Remain seats show a 2.5% swing to the Conservatives.
Labour Remain seats show a 6.5% swing to the Conservatives.
Labour Leave seats show a 9.5% swing to the Conservatives.
On that basis, seats like Stalybridge & Hyde, Rother Valley, Sedgefield, Swansea West, Bassetlaw, Huddersfield, will be very much in play.
At the other end, there may be one or two Conservative seats that could be lost to Labour, against the trend, (which happened even in 1983) such as Brighton Kemptown, or Croydon Central.
Interesting...I wondered if perhaps Tories were piling up votes in places they don't need them thus giving them a slightly "false" lead. On the basis of the above, doesn't look like it.
It's funny how many of the same people who complained about the 'Little Englanders' jibe are proving it with their insular views on DfID.
Yes, some DfID programs are stupid, and should be reduced or cut. But that's almost a symptom of the task: it changes and the programs should constantly evolve - something bureaucracies are rarely good at. However there are many other programs that are vital internationally and, if you only want to take a fiscal perspective, may even save us money in the medium and long term.
As an example, does anyone really begrudge the money we spend on polio eradication (£300 million over six years) ?
If the other 99.5% of the budget was being spent on things as worthwhile as polio eradication I don't think there would be as many complaints.
Daily Mail reporting that the £13bn DfiD spend is not going to survive in the Tory manifesto. Yay!
Triple lock to go too, and pledges on NI and income tax according to the Times this AM.
May is going all Erdogan. She wants complete authority to sell her pig in a poke.
I think that's being fiscally sensible.
off topic and perhaps unsayable, but it irritates me greatly when we get these public funding appeals (eg. Red Nose Day, some of the DECC appeals). What on earth is the 0.7% for if not precisely that?!
I ignore Red Nose Day.
And Lenny Henry in general.
He's turned into quite a decent actor. But yes, I ignore all TV appeals for overseas stuff that treats the entire continent of Africa like a stupid child. The aid budget should be for disaster relief, whether natural or human-induced.
Yes - but part of FCO and massively smaller. DfiD should just be closed down. It's an expensive and wasteful boondoggle. If May proposed this it would be seriously popular.
I think the SNP should easily retain 50 seats - with only 10 seats realistically in play - I'd expect them to end up with around 54/55 seats as the spoils are split.
There's much discussion about the Unionist parties tactically voting against the SNP - realistically the only party who could benefit from this is SCON as SLAB/SLID are so weak. For every SLAB/SLID supporter prepared to vote holding their noses for SCON at least another will vote tactically for SNP to block SCON. Particularly as SCON are set to score a landslide nationally.
What SCON have to be very wary of, is getting caught up in their own surge polling - Mundell would be a target for decapitation - if the SNP were to achieve this, this would go along way to mitigating any other losses to SCON. Mundell is not a populist figure like Ruth !!
Personally, as a recent Scottish emigrant who took part in the 2015 campaign, I think the SNP will end up in the high 40s. I think the Tories could take 3-4, the LDs 5-6 and Labour 0-1. Every unionist win will be fuelled by tactical voting.
The Tories will get easily the highest vote share out of the unionist parties, but a lot of it will be in places where it won't help much. Their new voters are mainly Lab/LD supporters expressing a howl of outrage at their new nationalist overlords in places where Lab/LD are not in contention
There must be something wrong with me, as a political nerd. I am trying to generate inside of me some excitement about this election. Trying, and failing.
We need a pre-election Labour coup/plot or some sort of Tory Remainer rebellion. Someone stir up something. Please. There are no good stories about. None.
Prepare to be bored for 7 weeks.
The *only* interesting posts on PB will be the betting tips.
Even the markets don't hold much appeal. Where is the value? I have no idea – as far as I can see Labour is going to get creamed in the midlands and northern marginals it holds, and lose a few medium-safe seats. What people expect will happen is very likely to happen. Dull. The Labour leadership market might be more fun. Back Corbyn to stay on?
The Times reports very extensive Yougov polling (not yet on their website) of over 7,000 people.
Conservative Remain seats show a 2.5% swing to the Conservatives.
Labour Remain seats show a 6.5% swing to the Conservatives.
Labour Leave seats show a 9.5% swing to the Conservatives.
On that basis, seats like Stalybridge & Hyde, Rother Valley, Sedgefield, Swansea West, Bassetlaw, Huddersfield, will be very much in play.
At the other end, there may be one or two Conservative seats that could be lost to Labour, against the trend, (which happened even in 1983) such as Brighton Kemptown, or Croydon Central.
Interesting...I wondered if perhaps Tories were piling up votes in places they don't need them thus giving them a slightly "false" lead. On the basis of the above, doesn't look like it.
If proven true, certainly. My own prediction sort of relies on it not being the case, so I shall best be careful with my money1
Oh.. a whipping on HoL reform as well, is possible. Major wildcard.
May doesn't like to be thwarted and, if there is to be constitutional change to reflect Brexit, what better time than during the Brexit transition period?
It will be rejected twice, probably in the 2019 and 2020 parliamentary sessions, and then Parliament Acted.
Yes, probably. Vindictive too, since she wasn't thwarted at all and the Lords did their job, made suggested legislative changes, and then passed it unamended when the Commons sent it back.
May seems to be a score settler, but Lords reform should not be done as such a reaction, drafted on the back of a fag packet. But she made sure to mention unelected lords opposing her (emphasis on the unelected, which should mean she wants to abolish the lot)
If she wants quick and justifiable reform, I'd repeat from yesterday a good starting point would be to immediately retire from the House those who have not contributed X number of times in the last 2 years and ban someone from being made a member of the house if they have held elected office in the past 7 years. At a stroke removes those using it as a cushy retirement and parachuting the recently defenstrated into positions of power.
Commiserations to TSE about Osborne. He was not very likeable, but he seemed a capable sort who could have offered more to parliament. But making money and editing papers is probably more fulfilling and certainly more lucrative work when backbench work beckons.
Erdogan in drag...
If that were a right-winger making a similar criticism of a female Labour or Lib Dem leader, you'd be accusing them of misogyny.
No, I don't think so. May is on a power trip. She gave the reason for the early election to be that she found the parliamentary opposition in the Commons and Lords inconvenient. The fact that they stopped nothing and indeed acquiesced to her demands doesn't seem to matter. She seems to find even the slightest criticism impudent.
It seems to me that Lib Dem betting markets could be most interesting this election. The broad story of tory success and labour losses are easy to understand for everyone and I think that will be broadly reflected in the betting, but the LD situation is more tricky. I think they will be massively overestimated in terms of seats, and slightly overestimated in terms of votes.
Seats, i'm not expecting more than 15 or so. Votes, not more than 17%.
That sounds like a very fair assessment. Let's not forget: 17% would be a more than doubling of their level of support on two years ago. Is it possible? Of course. Could Labour collapse? Sure. But is it likely? No, it's not.
The most likely outcome for the LibDems is:
1. They get between 50 and 75% more votes than two years ago. If turnout is down on 2015, this could equate to a bigger bump in share. Still, to get more than about 16% would be extremely challenging.
2. They do better in Remainia than in Leaverstan.
3. There will be some return of tactical voting in England and Wales, but it won't be anything like the level of 2005 or 2010.
4. There will be some anti-SNP tactical voting in Scotland, which should benefit them in a couple of (two, maybe three) seats.
I would guess that they will pickup 2-3 from Labour, 2-3 from the Tories, and 2 from the SNP. Which gets you to 15-17. An improvement, but still a far cry from the levels of 1997-2015.
It's funny how many of the same people who complained about the 'Little Englanders' jibe are proving it with their insular views on DfID.
Yes, some DfID programs are stupid, and should be reduced or cut. But that's almost a symptom of the task: it changes and the programs should constantly evolve - something bureaucracies are rarely good at. However there are many other programs that are vital internationally and, if you only want to take a fiscal perspective, may even save us money in the medium and long term.
As an example, does anyone really begrudge the money we spend on polio eradication (£300 million over six years) ?
One issue I have is the idea of setting is hard and fast target of x% of GDP. There was a good story in the Mail (yes I know, I know) about the corrupt debit card scheme in Pakistan which just keep expanding and expanding hoovering up more money just because the DfID need to spend more dosh to make sure they hit the artificial target and just pouring more into it is easier than setting up new DfID schemes.
Oh.. a whipping on HoL reform as well, is possible. Major wildcard.
May doesn't like to be thwarted and, if there is to be constitutional change to reflect Brexit, what better time than during the Brexit transition period?
It will be rejected twice, probably in the 2019 and 2020 parliamentary sessions, and then Parliament Acted.
Yes, probably. Vindictive too, since she wasn't thwarted at all and the Lords did their job, made suggested legislative changes, and then passed it unamended when the Commons sent it back.
May seems to be a score settler, but Lords reform should not be done as such a reaction, drafted on the back of a fag packet. But she made sure to mention unelected lords opposing her (emphasis on the unelected, which should mean she wants to abolish the lot)
If she wants quick and justifiable reform, I'd repeat from yesterday a good starting point would be to immediately retire from the House those who have not contributed X number of times in the last 2 years and ban someone from being made a member of the house if they have held elected office in the past 7 years. At a stroke removes those using it as a cushy retirement and parachuting the recently defenstrated into positions of power.
Commiserations to TSE about Osborne. He was not very likeable, but he seemed a capable sort who could have offered more to parliament. But making money and editing papers is probably more fulfilling and certainly more lucrative work when backbench work beckons.
Erdogan in drag...
If that were a right-winger making a similar criticism of a female Labour or Lib Dem leader, you'd be accusing them of misogyny.
No, I don't think so. May is on a power trip. She gave the reason for the early election to be that she found the parliamentary opposition in the Commons and Lords inconvenient. The fact that they stopped nothing and indeed acquiesced to her demands doesn't seem to matter. She seems to find even the slightest criticism impudent.
Erdogan took a decade to reach this point.
I wonder, would you have said the same about Wilson in '66?
There must be something wrong with me, as a political nerd. I am trying to generate inside of me some excitement about this election. Trying, and failing.
We need a pre-election Labour coup/plot or some sort of Tory Remainer rebellion. Someone stir up something. Please. There are no good stories about. None.
Prepare to be bored for 7 weeks.
The *only* interesting posts on PB will be the betting tips.
Even the markets don't hold much appeal. Where is the value? I have no idea – as far as I can see Labour is going to get creamed in the midlands and northern marginals it holds, and lose a few medium-safe seats. What people expect will happen is very likely to happen. Dull. The Labour leadership market might be more fun. Back Corbyn to stay on?
Seat markets out soon @Bobajob - Though I suspect the prices won't hang round for long.
Last time round Truro & Falmouth was at 1-4 for the Tories for yonks, maybe somewhere like Pudsey this time round will go 1-3.
Oh.. a whipping on HoL reform as well, is possible. Major wildcard.
May doesn't like to be thwarted and, if there is to be constitutional change to reflect Brexit, what better time than during the Brexit transition period?
It will be rejected twice, probably in the 2019 and 2020 parliamentary sessions, and then Parliament Acted.
Yes, probably. Vindictive too, since she wasn't thwarted at all and the Lords did their job, made suggested legislative changes, and then passed it unamended when the Commons sent it back.
May seems to be a score settler, but Lords reform should not be done as such a reaction, drafted on the back of a fag packet. But she made sure to mention unelected lords opposing her (emphasis on the unelected, which should mean she wants to abolish the lot)
If she wants quick and justifiable reform, I'd repeat from yesterday a good starting point would be to immediately retire from the House those who have not contributed X number of times in the last 2 years and ban someone from being made a member of the house if they have held elected office in the past 7 years. At a stroke removes those using it as a cushy retirement and parachuting the recently defenstrated into positions of power.
Commiserations to TSE about Osborne. He was not very likeable, but he seemed a capable sort who could have offered more to parliament. But making money and editing papers is probably more fulfilling and certainly more lucrative work when backbench work beckons.
Erdogan in drag...
If that were a right-winger making a similar criticism of a female Labour or Lib Dem leader, you'd be accusing them of misogyny.
foxinsox is probably hoping May will propose restoring capital punishment such is his warped view of her...
Restoration of capital punishment polls well with Brexiteers, even more popular than blue passports.
It's funny how many of the same people who complained about the 'Little Englanders' jibe are proving it with their insular views on DfID.
Yes, some DfID programs are stupid, and should be reduced or cut. But that's almost a symptom of the task: it changes and the programs should constantly evolve - something bureaucracies are rarely good at. However there are many other programs that are vital internationally and, if you only want to take a fiscal perspective, may even save us money in the medium and long term.
As an example, does anyone really begrudge the money we spend on polio eradication (£300 million over six years) ?
One issue I have is the idea of setting is hard and fast target of x% of GDP. There was a good story in the Mail (yes I know, I know) about the corrupt debit card scheme in Pakistan which just keep expanding and expanding hoovering up more money just because the DfID need to spend more dosh to make sure they hit the artificial target and just pouring more into it is easier than setting up new DfID schemes.
Do we have the same issue with defence spending ?
Judging our forces numbers vs the continentals, and I'm not sure how much bang for our buck we get.
Oh.. a whipping on HoL reform as well, is possible. Major wildcard.
May doesn't like to be thwarted and, if there is to be constitutional change to reflect Brexit, what better time than during the Brexit transition period?
It will be rejected twice, probably in the 2019 and 2020 parliamentary sessions, and then Parliament Acted.
Yes, probably. Vindictive too, since she wasn't thwarted at all and the Lords did their job, made suggested legislative changes, and then passed it unamended when the Commons sent it back.
May seems to be a score settler, but Lords reform should not be done as such a reaction, drafted on the back of a fag packet. But she made sure to mention unelected lords opposing her (emphasis on the unelected, which should mean she wants to abolish the lot)
If she wants quick and justifiable reform, I'd repeat from yesterday a good starting point would be to immediately retire from the House those who have not contributed X number of times in the last 2 years and ban someone from being made a member of the house if they have held elected office in the past 7 years. At a stroke removes those using it as a cushy retirement and parachuting the recently defenstrated into positions of power.
Commiserations to TSE about Osborne. He was not very likeable, but he seemed a capable sort who could have offered more to parliament. But making money and editing papers is probably more fulfilling and certainly more lucrative work when backbench work beckons.
Erdogan in drag...
If that were a right-winger making a similar criticism of a female Labour or Lib Dem leader, you'd be accusing them of misogyny.
foxinsox is probably hoping May will propose restoring capital punishment such is his warped view of her...
Restoration of capital punishment polls well with Brexiteers, even more popular than blue passports.
Edinburgh South: 2015 result — Lab 39%, SNP 34%, Con 17.5%. Applying latest Scottish polls gives something like SNP 31%, Con 30%, Lab 29%. But the SNP are probably not doing as well in this constituency as the average across Scotland.
Tasty. Please please let there be an atypical LD surge there too, for a juicy four way.
But the SNP had a very deflated 2015 result because of their unsuitable candidate (I forget the details, but Ian Murray was a very lucky man).
I recall chatter to that effect. Oh well. Any ideas where the tightest contests are expected to be? Presumably somewhere that was traditionally a Lab/LD contest with a solid Tory finish.
The SNP candidate had disgraced himself on social media and was disowned by NS. I doubt SNP vetting will be so slack this time.
Plus, the genteel retirees like Ruth D and are unlikely to vote for Mr. Corbyn's Red Labour, even tactically, leaving Ian Murray well exposed.
Scottish Labour will pile resources into Edinburgh South with leaflets and barcharts from 2015 and 2016 saying 'only Murray can beat the SNP here' (Labour in tiny writing down the bottom) while SNP resources will have to be shared more elsewhere, I expect it to still be the only Labour seat in Scotland with the LDs getting 2 MPs and the Tories 4 or 5
The Times reports very extensive Yougov polling (not yet on their website) of over 7,000 people.
Conservative Remain seats show a 2.5% swing to the Conservatives.
Labour Remain seats show a 6.5% swing to the Conservatives.
Labour Leave seats show a 9.5% swing to the Conservatives.
On that basis, seats like Stalybridge & Hyde, Rother Valley, Sedgefield, Swansea West, Bassetlaw, Huddersfield, will be very much in play.
At the other end, there may be one or two Conservative seats that could be lost to Labour, against the trend, (which happened even in 1983) such as Brighton Kemptown, or Croydon Central.
Interesting...I wondered if perhaps Tories were piling up votes in places they don't need them thus giving them a slightly "false" lead. On the basis of the above, doesn't look like it.
If proven true, certainly. My own prediction sort of relies on it not being the case, so I shall best be careful with my money1
I wasn't convinced, then Newsnight and Guardian did vox pops in Labour areas and they were really bad...plus the surprising polling news of how keen the public were at having a GE.
Oh.. a whipping on HoL reform as well, is possible. Major wildcard.
May doesn't like to be thwarted and, if there is to be constitutional change to reflect Brexit, what better time than during the Brexit transition period?
It will be rejected twice, probably in the 2019 and 2020 parliamentary sessions, and then Parliament Acted.
Yes, probably. Vindictive too, since she wasn't thwarted at all and the Lords did their job, made suggested legislative changes, and then passed it unamended when the Commons sent it back.
May seems to be a score settler, but Lords reform should not be done as such a reaction, drafted on the back of a fag packet. But she made sure to mention unelected lords opposing her (emphasis on the unelected, which should mean she wants to abolish the lot)
If she wants quick and justifiable reform, I'd repeat from yesterday a good starting point would be to immediately retire from the House those who have not contributed X number of times in the last 2 years and ban someone from being made a member of the house if they have held elected office in the past 7 years. At a stroke removes those using it as a cushy retirement and parachuting the recently defenstrated into positions of power.
Commiserations to TSE about Osborne. He was not very likeable, but he seemed a capable sort who could have offered more to parliament. But making money and editing papers is probably more fulfilling and certainly more lucrative work when backbench work beckons.
Erdogan in drag...
If that were a right-winger making a similar criticism of a female Labour or Lib Dem leader, you'd be accusing them of misogyny.
No, I don't think so. May is on a power trip. She gave the reason for the early election to be that she found the parliamentary opposition in the Commons and Lords inconvenient. The fact that they stopped nothing and indeed acquiesced to her demands doesn't seem to matter. She seems to find even the slightest criticism impudent.
Erdogan took a decade to reach this point.
Maybe she'll close Opposition media and replace judges after the election.
Building can happen in stupid places. Flood prone areas, or places where the infrastructure can't cope with an increased population.
I do agree more building is a good thing, and a necessary thing, but it must be done sensibly.
The problem is building cheaply. Any fool (or Taylor Wimpey, or Bovis, or Persimmon, or Barratt) can throw up a house or five. Making a *good* house is harder and, more importantly, costs more. Making a hundred houses that have good infrastructure is much harder, and much, much more expensive.
They're just finishing off the village I live in (Cambourne), and during my walks and runs I get to see the houses go up. They're not particularly well built, and sell for a fortune. Worse, improvement to local infrastructure under S106 are only begrudgingly given.
There are many reasons why this happens, from council incompetence to the fact new-build houses rarely have a champion for snagging at all stages. But it happens all over the country.
Do you have any evidence that new builds are badly built? Most English people just prefer old houses, which is fair enough (I do, and live in one) but it's not true to say new builds are generally badly built.
Loads, including some photographic. Although 'Bad' is perhaps the wrong term: missing insulation often occurs (despite the legal requirements for it), render covers up a multitude of sins, leaking pipes, etc, etc. We're not talking of falling-down bad, just lots of little issues.
Basically, a new-build house requires a champion, someone who will visit site weekly from the digging of the foundations to the fitting of the windows to ensure it's all done right. Otherwise workmen, like all of us, cut corners.
The Times reports very extensive Yougov polling (not yet on their website) of over 7,000 people.
Conservative Remain seats show a 2.5% swing to the Conservatives.
Labour Remain seats show a 6.5% swing to the Conservatives.
Labour Leave seats show a 9.5% swing to the Conservatives.
On that basis, seats like Stalybridge & Hyde, Rother Valley, Sedgefield, Swansea West, Bassetlaw, Huddersfield, will be very much in play.
At the other end, there may be one or two Conservative seats that could be lost to Labour, against the trend, (which happened even in 1983) such as Brighton Kemptown, or Croydon Central.
Interesting...I wondered if perhaps Tories were piling up votes in places they don't need them thus giving them a slightly "false" lead. On the basis of the above, doesn't look like it.
If proven true, certainly. My own prediction sort of relies on it not being the case, so I shall best be careful with my money1
I wasn't convinced, then Newsnight and Guardian did vox pops in Labour areas and they were really bad...plus the surprising polling news of how keen the public were at having a GE.
More straws in the wind.
I'm tempted to do face to face polling in HartHill.
After the locals maybe, when I'm no longer a potential politician
TV Debates: Mrs May is giving the appearance of being "frit". She has looked uncomfortable when under close scrutiny in the Commons, perhaps she has not got the self confidence in an open debate. Whatever it is very concerning that she is responsible for this country in the negotiations she keeps going on about, if she cannot debate on TV with Corbyn, Farron and Nuttall, how the hell is she going to manage against the experienced and alert E, E C negotiatoors. It is all very worrying. If she is not up to the job, then resign.
I've said it before but the fact is there's an undeniable correlation between home ownership and voting Conservative.
If nobody under the age of 30 can afford to buy a house, those people will eventually become renters in their 40s and 50s and they will vote, in their droves, against the Tories. A demographic timebomb that could be solved with one simple policy: build, build, build.
You do realise that if someone is occupies a house, it makes no difference whether they are a renter or a purchaser. In both cases, they have occupied one unit of housing.
The problem of housing, specifically, is that there is a great deal of demand in London and the surrounding areas (which is caused by London hitherto being one of only three or four wold cities, and being the only one in Europe). And there has not been much supply (green belt, councils, etc.). But that is changing already. There is now more housing under construction in London that at any period since the immediate post WW2 boom.
Despite SeanT's bullish prognostications for London property, I believe that net migration from the UK will turn negative by 2020, and this will happen at the same time that a massive amount of new supply hits the market. I expect prime London (Chelsea, St John's Wood, Mayfair, Hampstead, Belgravia) to fall 60% in real terms*, while outside London I expect only modest price moves.
Anyway, back to your point. If everyone is sitting on big losses on their properties, do you think they'll still be voting Conservative?
* Three years ago, at the peak of the market, a 1,500 square foot flat on the unfashionable Childs Hill side of Hampstead sold for £2.8m.
TV Debates: Mrs May is giving the appearance of being "frit". She has looked uncomfortable when under close scrutiny in the Commons, perhaps she has not got the self confidence in an open debate. Whatever it is very concerning that she is responsible for this country in the negotiations she keeps going on about, if she cannot debate on TV with Corbyn, Farron and Nuttall, how the hell is she going to manage against the experienced and alert E, E C negotiatoors. It is all very worrying. If she is not up to the job, then resign.
It's not that she cannot debate them, it is that she simply doesn't need to.
Mr. Pulpstar, hasn't Defence procurement being bloody awful for decades?
Yes, but just because something has not been good in the past doesn't mean we ought to try and change it for the future. Oh MoD procurement, it's shit. Why not challenge everything ?
Comments
http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/13214140.Edinburgh_South__why_Labour_held_on_against_the_SNP_tide/
Plus, the genteel retirees like Ruth D and are unlikely to vote for Mr. Corbyn's Red Labour, even tactically, leaving Ian Murray well exposed.
Not bad i reckon... His majority is 8.8%.
Make Mogg Speaker? His courtesy and wit goes to waste when he spends half his time in the HoC ranting on (ultra-politely of course) about the EU.
Labour MPs have been asked to confirm their intention to stand again by 6 Pm of tomorrow.
Vacancies will be advertised on Friday. Applications close on Thursday. A panel of NEC and regional board members will shortlist and select candidates.
There's much discussion about the Unionist parties tactically voting against the SNP - realistically the only party who could benefit from this is SCON as SLAB/SLID are so weak. For every SLAB/SLID supporter prepared to vote holding their noses for SCON at least another will vote tactically for SNP to block SCON. Particularly as SCON are set to score a landslide nationally.
What SCON have to be very wary of, is getting caught up in their own surge polling - Mundell would be a target for decapitation - if the SNP were to achieve this, this would go along way to mitigating any other losses to SCON. Mundell is not a populist figure like Ruth !!
Eddie's been unusually quiet for a while...
My local was showing Red Nose Day so I went to a different pub instead.
https://www.betfair.com/exchange/plus/politics/market/1.129013026
I've laid the 1.9 (Le Pen) and backed at 2.8 (Macron)
Mr. Calum, cheers. My own guess would be slightly lower, maybe 50-52, but obviously I'm not as up on Scotland.
Very high tide mark was hit by the SNP last time. Any chance annoyance at Sturgeon's desire for a Scottish generation to be 3 years will help the others?
The problem is that they don't. Look at the fights against new railways and bypasses for towns that are desperately needed.
To take your points backwards.
Building 5 bedroomed, jerry-built homes that are going on the market for £1m help no local youngsters get a place of their own. In fact virtually none of the massive house building effort around here is aimed at local people. It is much more aimed, and priced at, people moving out of London, Crawley and Brighton. Would it were otherwise and then we might see some organic growth with homes that local people could afford.
As to the triple lock, I find your lack of certainty disturbing. The policy was introduced in response to the Daily Mail headlines. It is, perhaps, being sustained by politicians who assume to know what pensioners think rather than asking them.
That would be an £18.2bn budget increase per annum for the NHS.
May likes to surprise. She also has a dark sense of humour, and likes to succeed where others failed. She would love to swipe this rug from under Labour, and make it credible by linking it to International Aid savings/Brexit refunds/triple lock savings/ deficit elimination and pledge it by GE2022.
I think she might (as was suggested downthread) cheat a bit by lumping in social care into the NHS budget, as well as obvs extra cash for mental health, but the NHS budget was about £120bn last year and is already on trend to get to around £125bn by 2020, and probably about £128-129bn by GE2022. So she only has to "find" an extra £9bn per year, or £173m per week to get there.
It would be a 15% nominal cash terms increase on where we are now, but much less in real terms, and it is achievable.
Plus, *everyone* would go apologetic about it, thus amplifying her message and gaining her votes.
We need a pre-election Labour coup/plot or some sort of Tory Remainer rebellion. Someone stir up something. Please. There are no good stories about. None.
They're just finishing off the village I live in (Cambourne), and during my walks and runs I get to see the houses go up. They're not particularly well built, and sell for a fortune. Worse, improvement to local infrastructure under S106 are only begrudgingly given.
There are many reasons why this happens, from council incompetence to the fact new-build houses rarely have a champion for snagging at all stages. But it happens all over the country.
But I couldn't do it whilst keeping a straight face.
She will keep a very, very straight face.
Just because they look fragile doesn't mean they are.
Lay Yvette Cooper 13.00 £5.00 £65.00
+567.18
Conservative Remain seats show a 2.5% swing to the Conservatives.
Labour Remain seats show a 6.5% swing to the Conservatives.
Labour Leave seats show a 9.5% swing to the Conservatives.
On that basis, seats like Stalybridge & Hyde, Rother Valley, Sedgefield, Swansea West, Bassetlaw, Huddersfield, will be very much in play.
At the other end, there may be one or two Conservative seats that could be lost to Labour, against the trend, (which happened even in 1983) such as Brighton Kemptown, or Croydon Central.
Seats, i'm not expecting more than 15 or so. Votes, not more than 17%.
Or Ageny Corbyn will finally be caught receiving his orders from CCHQ during the campaign.
The *only* interesting posts on PB will be the betting tips.
I put on one pound.
Kicking myself.
I finally lumped on at vastly worse odds for a decent return.
As inflation and nominal earnings growth recover to healthier levels the triple lock will be less expensive to keep in place.
Yes, some DfID programs are stupid, and should be reduced or cut. But that's almost a symptom of the task: it changes and the programs should constantly evolve - something bureaucracies are rarely good at. However there are many other programs that are vital internationally and, if you only want to take a fiscal perspective, may even save us money in the medium and long term.
As an example, does anyone really begrudge the money we spend on polio eradication (£300 million over six years) ?
Some comments illuminate posters' inner world very concisely.
Mr. Voter, and the F1 discussions
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-gloucestershire-38867290
The Tories will get easily the highest vote share out of the unionist parties, but a lot of it will be in places where it won't help much. Their new voters are mainly Lab/LD supporters expressing a howl of outrage at their new nationalist overlords in places where Lab/LD are not in contention
http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/media/may-rules-out-tv-debate-because-her-voters-only-like-the-wireless-20170419126280
Erdogan took a decade to reach this point.
The most likely outcome for the LibDems is:
1. They get between 50 and 75% more votes than two years ago. If turnout is down on 2015, this could equate to a bigger bump in share. Still, to get more than about 16% would be extremely challenging.
2. They do better in Remainia than in Leaverstan.
3. There will be some return of tactical voting in England and Wales, but it won't be anything like the level of 2005 or 2010.
4. There will be some anti-SNP tactical voting in Scotland, which should benefit them in a couple of (two, maybe three) seats.
I would guess that they will pickup 2-3 from Labour, 2-3 from the Tories, and 2 from the SNP. Which gets you to 15-17. An improvement, but still a far cry from the levels of 1997-2015.
Last time round Truro & Falmouth was at 1-4 for the Tories for yonks, maybe somewhere like Pudsey this time round will go 1-3.
Here's hoping anyway.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-poll-leave-voters-death-penalty-yougov-results-light-bulbs-a7656791.html
Judging our forces numbers vs the continentals, and I'm not sure how much bang for our buck we get.
The political week for certain MPs. (So far):
Mon. Nothing much doing. Just a nice bank holiday.
Tue. What? TMay called a GE. Labour will never support it - she'll have to go no confidence.
Wed. It's on. Arrrggggghhhhh.
https://order-order.com/2017/04/19/cchq-impose-candidates-associations/
More straws in the wind.
Basically, a new-build house requires a champion, someone who will visit site weekly from the digging of the foundations to the fitting of the windows to ensure it's all done right. Otherwise workmen, like all of us, cut corners.
After the locals maybe, when I'm no longer a potential politician
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/tim-farron-lib-dem-election-brexit-gay-lgbt-sinners-liberal-democrats-fish-frogs-tweet-a7690771.html
The problem of housing, specifically, is that there is a great deal of demand in London and the surrounding areas (which is caused by London hitherto being one of only three or four wold cities, and being the only one in Europe). And there has not been much supply (green belt, councils, etc.). But that is changing already. There is now more housing under construction in London that at any period since the immediate post WW2 boom.
Despite SeanT's bullish prognostications for London property, I believe that net migration from the UK will turn negative by 2020, and this will happen at the same time that a massive amount of new supply hits the market. I expect prime London (Chelsea, St John's Wood, Mayfair, Hampstead, Belgravia) to fall 60% in real terms*, while outside London I expect only modest price moves.
Anyway, back to your point. If everyone is sitting on big losses on their properties, do you think they'll still be voting Conservative?
* Three years ago, at the peak of the market, a 1,500 square foot flat on the unfashionable Childs Hill side of Hampstead sold for £2.8m.