Surprised at how high the Tories are tbh, thought we'd be down in the mid 30s and Labour surging.
There is hope for us yet if we can get rid of May.
She won't lead us into another election, for sure.
Keep her around till Brexit has happened, find a new leader, honeymoon period, intervene in housing market, witness 2020 Tory surge....
If May can survive 6 months, she can survive longer. Why should she be the sacrificial lamb ?
Exactly. Trump and Corbyn overcame much bigger problems. I don't see any compelling reason why she shouldn't last it out until the next election and then win it.
If this week goes fine she is going to be around a lot longer than the commentators expected. She won't be fighting the next election but she can stay on during the Brexit negotiations into 2019.
If they have the support of 44% then they aren't really far left are they. The political centre of gravity has been moving rightwards for 30 years or more, it is hardly surprising it is swinging back a bit.
If they have the support of 44% then they aren't really far left are they. The political centre of gravity has been moving rightwards for 30 years or more, it is hardly surprising it is swinging back a bit.
Think it's fair to say Corbyn is pretty far left by most people's standards
class="Quote" rel="volcanopete More nonsense.All the Tories have done is create slum landlords,closed all our local railways and squandered our North Sea oil money on high unemployment in a class war against organised labour.
Not clear how one would spend oil money "on unemployment" even in theory.
But "high" unemployment? Only last week we learned it was actually at record lows. But why let facts get in the way of your rant
Yep, I do agree Labour made a very bad call politically. Whether it was a bad one economically is much more open to question.
If - as is being reported - Grenfell (and many other blocks in London and elsewhere) were being illegally sublet to multiple occupancy, then maybe Labour takes some of the blame, for that obvious bad economic consequence on the housing market? But I don't expect anyone in Labour to be putting their hands up to that one...
Where's the bad economic consequence on the housing market? The problem with the housing market is not enough supply to meet demand (because of the mad anti-construction Mary-Whitehouse-Meets-Brezhnev British planning system), so more people squeezing themselves into smaller places is helpful, no?
Perhaps the UK should get a handle on immigration both legal and otherwise first? If people are sleeping 10 to a flat, it's highly likely they have no right to be here in the first place. Why on earth should we be concreting over the Green Belt to accommodate them.
It's not just non-UK immigrants living in shitty flat-share situations in London right now. People from all over the UK want to live there, and ambitious young people don't have any better options.
Letting the market build new housing when the population grows isn't a mysteriously difficult problem. If you're really bothered about the green belt then you can let people build upwards as well; This is one of the big differences with Tokyo, which has also got a growing population, but it isn't resulting in silly rents.
Britain simply has too much government involvement in deciding who is allowed to build what where, and it's having all the same obvious, predictable consequences that excessive government control has on the Venezuelan toilet paper market.
The government needs to invest in development away from London. Whether the government builds new towns or refurbishes existing stock or even brings back the northern powerhouse guy, it needs to do something to address regional economic imbalances.
No! Soviet Communism didn't work in the Soviet Union and it won't work in Britain. The government doesn't need to decide where people should live and invest in development there. It needs to let people build houses where they want to live. They want to live in London. There's plenty of room to build, London is almost entirely low-rise.
Ridiculous. Name one city where people live happily in high rises by their own volition.
Nonsense.The changes that Attlee made formed the basis of consensual politics, shared by both Tory and Labour,that continued up until Margaret Thatcher declared class war in 1979.Have you forgotten the generations of people not having any money to pay for a doctor?
You are partly right, in that the decline of the UK which was exacerbated by the post-war consensus wasn't reversed until Maggie came into power and transformed us from the 'sick man of Europe' to one of the most succcessful European economies. Even so, many of the changes introduced by the Attlee government were, thank goodness, reversed pretty pronto, including the looniest of all, which is the one I mentioned.
As for people not being able to pay for doctors, every single party standing in the 1945 election was committed to introducing free healthcare - building on work done by the wartime coalition under a Conservative PM. The problem was that the Attlee government implemented that aim (very controversially at the time) by means of a monolithic nationalised industry; no other country in the Western world made that mistake, and it is one that haunts us to this day.
And one of the worst features was the way it caved in to the doctors who essentially have remained private companies ever since milking the system for all it's worth.
More nonsense.All the Tories have done is create slum landlords,closed all our local railways and squandered our North Sea oil money on high unemployment in a class war against organised labour.
They eat babies; they make people sleep with goats; they murder the disabled. It's a lengthy charge sheet.
Simple question - will the Queen's Speech be voted on on 21st June? I seem to remember hearing there would be votes on 28th/29th June but no business is scheduled in the House of Commons for those days.
The State Opening of Parliament will take place on Wednesday 21 June following the general election on 8 June 2017.
The State Opening of Parliament marks the formal start of the parliamentary year and the Queen's Speech sets out the government’s agenda for the coming session, outlining proposed policies and legislation.
After the State Opening members of both Houses debate the content of the Queen’s Speech and agree an 'Address in Reply to Her Majesty’s Gracious Speech'. Each House continues the debate on the planned legislative programme for several days, looking at different subject areas.
The Queen's Speech is voted on by the Commons, but no vote is taken in the Lords.
Thanks. Seems a bit strange that the House of Commons doesn't list debates on the speech beyond 21st June on its website in the upcoming business section. Public sector IT at its finest
I think the government will have to make extensive use of programme motions to get its Brexit bills through.
Where's the bad economic consequence on the housing market? The problem with the housing market is not enough supply to meet demand (because of the mad anti-construction Mary-Whitehouse-Meets-Brezhnev British planning system), so more people squeezing themselves into smaller places is helpful, no?
Perhaps the UK should get a handle on immigration both legal and otherwise first? If people are sleeping 10 to a flat, it's highly likely they have no right to be here in the first place. Why on earth should we be concreting over the Green Belt to accommodate them.
It's not just non-UK immigrants living in shitty flat-share situations in London right now. People from all over the UK want to live there, and ambitious young people don't have any better options.
Letting the market build new housing when the population grows isn't a mysteriously difficult problem. If you're really bothered about the green belt then you can let people build upwards as well; This is one of the big differences with Tokyo, which has also got a growing population, but it isn't resulting in silly rents.
Britain simply has too much government involvement in deciding who is allowed to build what where, and it's having all the same obvious, predictable consequences that excessive government control has on the Venezuelan toilet paper market.
The government needs to invest in development away from London. Whether the government builds new towns or refurbishes existing stock or even brings back the northern powerhouse guy, it needs to do something to address regional economic imbalances.
No! Soviet Communism didn't work in the Soviet Union and it won't work in Britain. The government doesn't need to decide where people should live and invest in development there. It needs to let people build houses where they want to live. They want to live in London. There's plenty of room to build, London is almost entirely low-rise.
Good luck getting people to accept living in high rise accommodation after last week.
Fortunately, there is an easy way to test your hypothesis.
If rents for high rise fall, and rents for low rise increase, then you will have evidence that consumers prefer low rise.
But here's the thing: even if that happens, the market will still clear. The high rises will still be filled, because at a certain rent difference people will choose to live in the high rise. There is a price for risk, even if we don't admit it to ourselves.
There's a very good chance that the champions of Northern Ireland - Linfield (regarded as the Protestant Club) - will be hosting Glasgow Celtic.
On the 12th of July.
What a great mixture, religion and football. 1.01 in how to ensure that bigotry endures.
I was somewhat surprised, for more than one reason, to go into a café in Portstewart on Saturday to see goods for sale from a company called Foods Of Athenry.
Yep, I do agree Labour made a very bad call politically. Whether it was a bad one economically is much more open to question.
If - as is being reported - Grenfell (and many other blocks in London and elsewhere) were being illegally sublet to multiple occupancy, then maybe Labour takes some of the blame, for that obvious bad economic consequence on the housing market? But I don't expect anyone in Labour to be putting their hands up to that one...
Where's the bad economic consequence on the housing market? The problem with the housing market is not enough supply to meet demand (because of the mad anti-construction Mary-Whitehouse-Meets-Brezhnev British planning system), so more people squeezing themselves into smaller places is helpful, no?
Perhaps the UK should get a handle on immigration both legal and otherwise first? If people are sleeping 10 to a flat, it's highly likely they have no right to be here in the first place. Why on earth should we be concreting over the Green Belt to accommodate them.
Letting the market build new housing when the population grows isn't a mysteriously difficult problem. If you're really bothered about the green belt then you can let people build upwards as well; This is one of the big differences with Tokyo, which has also got a growing population, but it isn't resulting in silly rents.
Britain simply has too much government involvement in deciding who is allowed to build what where, and it's having all the same obvious, predictable consequences that excessive government control has on the Venezuelan toilet paper market.
The government needs to invest in development away from London. Whether the government builds new towns or refurbishes existing stock or even brings back the northern powerhouse guy, it needs to do something to address regional economic imbalances.
No! Soviet Communism didn't work in the Soviet Union and it won't work in Britain. The government doesn't need to decide where people should live and invest in development there. It needs to let people build houses where they want to live. They want to live in London. There's plenty of room to build, London is almost entirely low-rise.
Ridiculous. Name one city where people live happily in high rises by their own volition.
Yep, I do agree Labour made a very bad call politically. Whether it was a bad one economically is much more open to question.
If - as is being reported - Grenfell (and many other blocks in London and elsewhere) were being illegally sublet to multiple occupancy, then maybe Labour takes some of the blame, for that obvious bad economic consequence on the housing market? But I don't expect anyone in Labour to be putting their hands up to that one...
Where's the bad economic consequence on the housing market? The problem with the housing market is not enough supply to meet demand (because of the mad anti-construction Mary-Whitehouse-Meets-Brezhnev British planning system), so more people squeezing themselves into smaller places is helpful, no?
Perhaps the UK should get a handle on immigration both legal and otherwise first? If people are sleeping 10 to a flat, it's highly likely they have no right to be here in the first place. Why on earth should we be concreting over the Green Belt to accommodate them.
Letting the market build new housing when the population grows isn't a mysteriously difficult problem. If you're really bothered about the green belt then you can let people build upwards as well; This is one of the big differences with Tokyo, which has also got a growing population, but it isn't resulting in silly rents.
Britain simply has too much government involvement in deciding who is allowed to build what where, and it's having all the same obvious, predictable consequences that excessive government control has on the Venezuelan toilet paper market.
The government needs to invest in development away from London. Whether the government builds new towns or refurbishes existing stock or even brings back the northern powerhouse guy, it needs to do something to address regional economic imbalances.
No! Soviet Communism didn't work in the Soviet Union and it won't work in Britain. The government doesn't need to decide where people should live and invest in development there. It needs to let people build houses where they want to live. They want to live in London. There's plenty of room to build, London is almost entirely low-rise.
Ridiculous. Name one city where people live happily in high rises by their own volition.
Comments
But "high" unemployment? Only last week we learned it was actually at record lows. But why let facts get in the way of your rant
You are Dave Spart and I claim my £5!
https://twitter.com/BBCNews/status/876768672039055360
There's a very good chance that the champions of Northern Ireland - Linfield (regarded as the Protestant Club) - will be hosting Glasgow Celtic.
On the 12th of July.
Mr. Nunu, he should be careful. Someone might occupy his house whilst he's out.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/06/19/brewery-creates-f-millwall-beer-honour-man-took-london-bridge/
I think the government will have to make extensive use of programme motions to get its Brexit bills through.
If rents for high rise fall, and rents for low rise increase, then you will have evidence that consumers prefer low rise.
But here's the thing: even if that happens, the market will still clear. The high rises will still be filled, because at a certain rent difference people will choose to live in the high rise. There is a price for risk, even if we don't admit it to ourselves.
http://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/diane-abbott-reappointed-as-labours-shadow-home-secretary-a3567546.html
https://architizer.com/blog/low-rise-high-density/