politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » David Davis moves up in sharply in the betting for TMay’s succ

System

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » David Davis moves up in sharply in the betting for TMay’s successor. Now a 27% chance

What a totally crazy political period. The Brexit negotiations have started and Mrs. May’s Tories go into Wednesday’s Queen’s speech without a formal deal being announced on whether the 10 DUP MPs will support the blue team and enable the Tories to get a majority at the end of the debate.

Read the full story here

Polruan

First? Like the importance of party relative to that of country in the conservative priority list.

rcs1000

fpt:

kurtjester said:

edmundintokyo said:

DecrepitJohnL said:

edmundintokyo said:

kurtjester said:

edmundintokyo said:

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.

williamglenn

Perhaps an accumulator on Michel Barnier to become the next President of the Commission?

RoyalBlue

FPT:

CarlottaVance said:

RoyalBlue said:

Afternoon all

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.

Thanks!

No, there is usually six days of debate:

http://www.parliament.uk/business/news/2016/may/mps-debate-the-2016-queens-speech/

This year, given the 'light' legislative program:

State Opening and the Queen's Speech

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.

http://www.parliament.uk/about/how/elections-and-voting/general/start-of-a-new-parliament/#jump-link-5

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.

Casino_Royale

rcs1000 said:

fpt:

kurtjester said:

edmundintokyo said:

DecrepitJohnL said:

edmundintokyo said:

kurtjester said:

edmundintokyo said:

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 always a price for risk, for everything.

Nemtynakht

williamglenn said:

Perhaps an accumulator on Michel Barnier to become the next President of the Commission?

I don't fancy the chances of that accumulation. If one is chosen surely it is likely the other isn't.

Chris

The lunatics have taken over the asylum. Probably.

Morris_Dancer

Mr. Polruan, you may appear to be first, but actually the moral victor is the second-placed Mr. 1000. You should resign.

logical_song

rcs1000 said:

fpt:

kurtjester said:

edmundintokyo said:

DecrepitJohnL said:

edmundintokyo said:

kurtjester said:

edmundintokyo said:

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.

I'm no expert. What do people think of 'low rise, high density'?
https://architizer.com/blog/low-rise-high-density/

nunu

This thread explains why Darce and Murdoch put out their bile. Edit:before some genius points out that Louisiana is not in Britain you are meant to extrapolate.

https://twitter.com/Noahpinion/status/876352524936237056

RoyalBlue

More wishful thinking from OGH:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/40303899

The DUP WILL support the Government in the Queen's Speech debate, whether a longer term deal is struck or not.

Polruan

RoyalBlue said:

FPT:

CarlottaVance said:

RoyalBlue said:

Afternoon all

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.

Thanks!

No, there is usually six days of debate:

http://www.parliament.uk/business/news/2016/may/mps-debate-the-2016-queens-speech/

This year, given the 'light' legislative program:

State Opening and the Queen's Speech

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.

http://www.parliament.uk/about/how/elections-and-voting/general/start-of-a-new-parliament/#jump-link-5

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.

Don't programme motions themselves have to be voted through by the house, though?

Yorkcity

Could the Conservatives for the countries sake do a joint leadership like the Greens.Boris and Rudd Other combinations could be considered .

CarlottaVance

.....those who see meaning in this great fire see only their own meaning – they see everything they already believed reflected back to them from Grenfell’s charred remains. ‘The horror of poor people burned alive within feet of the country’s grandest mansions… perfectly captures the politics of the past seven years’, says Guardian columnist Polly Toynbee. Perfectly: there’s a ghoulish relish here, a perverse glee at how allegedly perfect is this symbol in west London, this fiery judgement. And note that it only indicts the past seven years. It says nothing about the preceding 13 years? About the New Labour era, with its deregulation, its demeaning of social-housing residents as ‘anti-social’ pests, its failures in house-building? Of course not: this fire only says what Ms Toynbee wants it to say. It’s her fire.

http://www.spiked-online.com/newsite/article/after-the-fire-grenfell-tower/19974#.WUfMMsaQ2DV

Morris_Dancer

Mr. City, how would that work regarding the position of PM?

DavidL

The Tory party has history in the reverse ferret manoeuvre but it is starting to look as if the moment for the immediate removal of May has passed. All of those on the above list are backing her in fairly unequivocal terms. Any grey suited gentlemen troubling her door are likely to be told to be on their way in that scenario.

It is pretty much inconceivable that she will fight another election but it is increasingly conceivable that she will see the Brexit deal through. I can see at least some of the candidates to replace her being quite happy with that scenario as it is very likely to involve some unhappy compromises. Those less directly in the firing line than David Davis and Boris may well benefit too.

Strong and stable this isn't and there is much that can go wrong but I sense the view in the party is increasingly that we have to get on with governing and we will worry about the leadership later when things are less pressing.

If David Davis is seen to deliver a deal along the lines he has been promising (out but with a close working relationship with our EU friends including free trade) he may be in a pretty much unassailable position in 2 years time. Lots and lots of water to go under the bridge yet of course.

stevef

David Davis looked old and tired and uninspiring in Brussells today -hardlyprime ministerial. I cant remember a time when political leaders of ALL parties (for a Corbyn government would be a disaster, not least for the Labour brand) looked more jaded, uninspiring and dull.

Polruan

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Polruan, you may appear to be first, but actually the moral victor is the second-placed Mr. 1000. You should resign.

I think that's fair. The 2 minute head start I had was well short of the 10 minutes expected by my supporters, after all.

Chris

rcs1000 said:

fpt:

kurtjester said:

edmundintokyo said:

DecrepitJohnL said:

edmundintokyo said:

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.

It's an unpalatable view in the circumstances. But in any case it's a view that requires people - even the least well informed and the most vulnerable - to be able to evaluate the risk. Otherwise it's just a monster called capitalism seeking out victims.

Have the know-it-alls here even clarified whether the cladding on the Grenfell Tower was even legal or not? If they haven't, how the fuck do you expect ordinary people to be able to tell?

Morris_Dancer

Mr. L, aye, but if he screws it up he'll have scuppered his chances.

Bobajob_PB

So if Linfield FC (a Northern Irish loyalist sectarian club that considers itself one of the 'Blues Brothers' along with fellow rightwing bigots Rangers and Chelsea) beat some shower of an outfit from San Marino, they will play, erm, Celtic (a nationalist sectarian club) in the European Cup.

I can't imagine what could possibly go wrong. By a scheduling freak, the game could be staged on 12 July. In Belfast.

Presumably it is the £500m required for policing the match that is proving the sticking point in the tawdry deal with the DUP?

No surrender!!

Scrapheap_as_was

Where's Crouch?

RoyalBlue

Polruan said:

RoyalBlue said:

FPT:

CarlottaVance said:

RoyalBlue said:

Afternoon all

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.

Thanks!

No, there is usually six days of debate:

http://www.parliament.uk/business/news/2016/may/mps-debate-the-2016-queens-speech/

This year, given the 'light' legislative program:

State Opening and the Queen's Speech

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.

http://www.parliament.uk/about/how/elections-and-voting/general/start-of-a-new-parliament/#jump-link-5

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.

Don't programme motions themselves have to be voted through by the house, though?

Absolutely! Did any Tories rebel on them in the last Parliament though?

Beverley_C

Those are the leadership contenders? If that is all the once mighty conservative party can offer then we are in worse trouble than I thought.

We had better keep Mrs May, but get her a charismatic Deputy PM who can do the crowds.

DavidL

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. L, aye, but if he screws it up he'll have scuppered his chances.

It would be rather good if he didn't. This is actually quite important.

rcs1000

Chris said:

rcs1000 said:

fpt:

kurtjester said:

edmundintokyo said:

DecrepitJohnL said:

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.

It's an unpalatable view in the circumstances. But in any case it's a view that requires people - even the least well informed and the most vulnerable - to be able to evaluate the risk. Otherwise it's just a monster called capitalism seeking out victims.

Have the know-it-alls here even clarified whether the cladding on the Grenfell Tower was even legal or not? If they haven't, how the fuck do you expect ordinary people to be able to tell?

Presumably, then, you would ban people from living in Los Angeles and San Francisco. After all, how can ordinary people be expected to evaluate the likelihood of an earthquake. Better to play it safe and just say they can't live there.

Icarus

Every Conservative MP or Minister who is interviewed since the election parrots that there will be no election for leader. Mrs May is getting on with the job.

Surely the Conservative Party isn't totally stupid. If they are defeated, for example due to a storm in the Irish Sea, then they risk having to fight an election with May in charge, They know that would be fatal, so have to change her before the Autumn - though I don't envy them having to choose from a bunch of no hopers.

If the Conservatives were defeated Corbyn wouldn't try and form a government without having an election first.

AlastairMeeks

The Conservative party's trouble is that there's a consensus that Theresa May's time is past but there is no agreement who is the obvious successor. That lack of agreement is by itself enough to keep her in place.

If you were a Conservative, you would have to hope that the party grandees are bashing heads together as we speak.

TOPPING

stevef said:

David Davis looked old and tired and uninspiring in Brussells today -hardlyprime ministerial. I cant remember a time when political leaders of ALL parties (for a Corbyn government would be a disaster, not least for the Labour brand) looked more jaded, uninspiring and dull.

Yes good point I thought he looked weary at the podium.

As for Tezza's refenestration, I agree with @DavidL. The moment has passed for her to go. Listening to her talking about Finsbury Park, however, was grating in the extreme. That same monotone tin ear to the public's requirements (for a competent, listening PM). Not expecting or wanting her to break down in tears, but just a bit of modulation and empathy is very much urgently needed.

JonCisBack

Bobajob_PB said:

So if Linfield FC (a Northern Irish loyalist sectarian club that considers itself one of the 'Blues Brothers' along with fellow rightwing bigots Rangers and Chelsea) beat some shower of an outfit from San Marino, they will play, erm, Celtic (a nationalist sectarian club) in the European Cup.

I can't imagine what could possibly go wrong. By a scheduling freak, the game could be staged on 12 July. In Belfast.

Presumably it is the £500m required for policing the match that is proving the sticking point in the tawdry deal with the DUP?

No surrender!!

Chelsea are right wing bigots??

Calm down mate your posts are increasingly bonkers. Have an ice cream and a rest.

Polruan

RoyalBlue said:

Polruan said:

RoyalBlue said:

FPT:

CarlottaVance said:

RoyalBlue said:

Afternoon all

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.

Thanks!

No, there is usually six days of debate:

http://www.parliament.uk/business/news/2016/may/mps-debate-the-2016-queens-speech/

This year, given the 'light' legislative program:

State Opening and the Queen's Speech

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.

http://www.parliament.uk/about/how/elections-and-voting/general/start-of-a-new-parliament/#jump-link-5

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.

Don't programme motions themselves have to be voted through by the house, though?

Absolutely! Did any Tories rebel on them in the last Parliament though?

I assume not, though I don't know. But they function as proxies for the bill - if you're sufficiently minded to oppose your own party's bill, you won't support a programme motion that could make it harder to do so.

Slackbladder

logical_song said:

rcs1000 said:

fpt:

kurtjester said:

edmundintokyo said:

DecrepitJohnL said:

edmundintokyo said:

kurtjester said:

edmundintokyo said:

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?

Pem.

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.

I'm no expert. What do people think of 'low rise, high density'?
https://architizer.com/blog/low-rise-high-density/

Also known as rabbit hutches?

CarlottaVance

Icarus said:

If the Conservatives were defeated Corbyn wouldn't try and form a government without having an election first.

Surely Corbyn has to have a QS voted down before he can call a GE?

He doesn't get to call one just because he fancies it....

edmundintokyo

Chris said:

It's an unpalatable view in the circumstances. But in any case it's a view that requires people - even the least well informed and the most vulnerable - to be able to evaluate the risk. Otherwise it's just a monster called capitalism seeking out victims.

I think the conversation was about perceived risk rather than actual risk. Nobody's posted any numbers either way on which is more dangerous, although obviously one big building burning produces a lot more media coverage than a bunch of small ones.

CarlottaVance

Slackbladder said:

logical_song said:

rcs1000 said:

fpt:

kurtjester said:

edmundintokyo said:

DecrepitJohnL said:

edmundintokyo said:

kurtjester said:

edmundintokyo said:

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?

Pem.

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.

.

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.

I'm no expert. What do people think of 'low rise, high density'?
https://architizer.com/blog/low-rise-high-density/

Also known as rabbit hutches?

In a different era they were called 'Georgian Terraces'.....speculatively built, often shoddily, but behind pretty facades.....the Victorians loathed them.....

logical_song

CarlottaVance said:

Icarus said:

If the Conservatives were defeated Corbyn wouldn't try and form a government without having an election first.

Surely Corbyn has to have a QS voted down before he can call a GE?

He doesn't get to call one just because he fancies it....

Then there's the FTPA, so he needs Tory acquiescence.

Morris_Dancer

Mr. L, I agree entirely, just pointing out the counter-argument.

Also, reality and perception of a good deal may differ substantially.

Icarus

CarlottaVance said:

Icarus said:

If the Conservatives were defeated Corbyn wouldn't try and form a government without having an election first.

Surely Corbyn has to have a QS voted down before he can call a GE?

He doesn't get to call one just because he fancies it....

No, he just says to HM sorry no can do without a majority; so May will have to call an election.

stevef

Icarus said:

Every Conservative MP or Minister who is interviewed since the election parrots that there will be no election for leader. Mrs May is getting on with the job.

Surely the Conservative Party isn't totally stupid. If they are defeated, for example due to a storm in the Irish Sea, then they risk having to fight an election with May in charge, They know that would be fatal, so have to change her before the Autumn - though I don't envy them having to choose from a bunch of no hopers.

If the Conservatives were defeated Corbyn wouldn't try and form a government without having an election first.

The Queen of course would not invite Corbyn to form a government unless he could demonstrate under the rules of the FTPA that he had the numbers to form a government -which he has not.If the Tories fall there would have to be an election -and I do not believe that even under May's leadership, the Tories would necessarily lose. And I wonder what would happen if the result was the same -as in 1910. We cant keep having elections over and over again.

Bobajob_PB

JonCisBack said:

Bobajob_PB said:

So if Linfield FC (a Northern Irish loyalist sectarian club that considers itself one of the 'Blues Brothers' along with fellow rightwing bigots Rangers and Chelsea) beat some shower of an outfit from San Marino, they will play, erm, Celtic (a nationalist sectarian club) in the European Cup.

I can't imagine what could possibly go wrong. By a scheduling freak, the game could be staged on 12 July. In Belfast.

Presumably it is the £500m required for policing the match that is proving the sticking point in the tawdry deal with the DUP?

No surrender!!

Chelsea are right wing bigots??

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zBeeZVd6urI

Richard_Nabavi

AlastairMeeks said:

The Conservative party's trouble is that there's a consensus that Theresa May's time is past but there is no agreement who is the obvious successor. That lack of agreement is by itself enough to keep her in place.

If you were a Conservative, you would have to hope that the party grandees are bashing heads together as we speak.

Whilst that's all true, it is also the case that calculation of how best to ensure that the poison remains as far as possible attached to Mrs May personally rather than the party as a whole is not an obvious calculation. There is also a respectable argument for a full leadership contest, but that doesn't look possible whilst the Brexit talks are happening. So I can see why there is a debate going on as to the optimal date of her defenestration.

It's risky either way. On balance I'd advocate grasping the nettle now with a swift putsch putting Hammond in as leader but with DD remaining tasked with delivering Brexit.

CarlottaVance

Worth remembering:

Paul Danahar‏Verified account @pdanahar
For those confused my different tone of UK media on terror attack on Mosque. It’s legal. A man is in custody.

https://twitter.com/pdanahar/status/876791554505093120

stevef

AlastairMeeks said:

The Conservative party's trouble is that there's a consensus that Theresa May's time is past but there is no agreement who is the obvious successor. That lack of agreement is by itself enough to keep her in place.

If you were a Conservative, you would have to hope that the party grandees are bashing heads together as we speak.

Perhaps they should look around at the junior ranks -or even at the backbenches looking for a successor.

Pulpstar

AlastairMeeks said:

The Conservative party's trouble is that there's a consensus that Theresa May's time is past but there is no agreement who is the obvious successor. That lack of agreement is by itself enough to keep her in place.

If you were a Conservative, you would have to hope that the party grandees are bashing heads together as we speak.

The fact it is a PM not a LOTO replacement whittles down the field to about 4 potential candidates too (Davis, Johnson, Hammond, Rudd) rather than having say a potential Kwasi or Rory. Hammond most likely.

logical_song

rcs1000 said:

Chris said:

rcs1000 said:

fpt:

kurtjester said:

edmundintokyo said:

DecrepitJohnL said:

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.

It's an unpalatable view in the circumstances. But in any case it's a view that requires people - even the least well informed and the most vulnerable - to be able to evaluate the risk. Otherwise it's just a monster called capitalism seeking out victims.

Have the know-it-alls here even clarified whether the cladding on the Grenfell Tower was even legal or not? If they haven't, how the fuck do you expect ordinary people to be able to tell?

Presumably, then, you would ban people from living in Los Angeles and San Francisco. After all, how can ordinary people be expected to evaluate the likelihood of an earthquake. Better to play it safe and just say they can't live there.

After the 'Big One' that may be moot.

RobC

DavidL said:

The Tory party has history in the reverse ferret manoeuvre but it is starting to look as if the moment for the immediate removal of May has passed. All of those on the above list are backing her in fairly unequivocal terms. Any grey suited gentlemen troubling her door are likely to be told to be on their way in that scenario.

It is pretty much inconceivable that she will fight another election but it is increasingly conceivable that she will see the Brexit deal through. I can see at least some of the candidates to replace her being quite happy with that scenario as it is very likely to involve some unhappy compromises. Those less directly in the firing line than David Davis and Boris may well benefit too.

Strong and stable this isn't and there is much that can go wrong but I sense the view in the party is increasingly that we have to get on with governing and we will worry about the leadership later when things are less pressing.

If David Davis is seen to deliver a deal along the lines he has been promising (out but with a close working relationship with our EU friends including free trade) he may be in a pretty much unassailable position in 2 years time. Lots and lots of water to go under the bridge yet of course.

On Davis - anyone negotiating Brexit for two years and still wanting to be PM after all that must have extraordinary powers of energy especially as he will be 70 by the time they finish. His best chance will be a leadership election in the next few months. Current pricing must be on that basis.

CarlottaVance

Icarus said:

CarlottaVance said:

Icarus said:

If the Conservatives were defeated Corbyn wouldn't try and form a government without having an election first.

Surely Corbyn has to have a QS voted down before he can call a GE?

He doesn't get to call one just because he fancies it....

No, he just says to HM sorry no can do without a majority; so May will have to call an election.

Then May cobbles together something and does get a QS through......the prospect of another GE having concentrated minds....

rcs1000

logical_song said:

rcs1000 said:

Chris said:

rcs1000 said:

fpt:

kurtjester said:

edmundintokyo said:

DecrepitJohnL said:

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.

It's an unpalatable view in the circumstances. But in any case it's a view that requires people - even the least well informed and the most vulnerable - to be able to evaluate the risk. Otherwise it's just a monster called capitalism seeking out victims.

Have the know-it-alls here even clarified whether the cladding on the Grenfell Tower was even legal or not? If they haven't, how the fuck do you expect ordinary people to be able to tell?

Presumably, then, you would ban people from living in Los Angeles and San Francisco. After all, how can ordinary people be expected to evaluate the likelihood of an earthquake. Better to play it safe and just say they can't live there.

After the 'Big One' that may be moot.

It's really not California you should be worrying about! See: http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2015/07/20/the-really-big-one

Bobajob_PB

Bobajob_PB said:

JonCisBack said:

Bobajob_PB said:

So if Linfield FC (a Northern Irish loyalist sectarian club that considers itself one of the 'Blues Brothers' along with fellow rightwing bigots Rangers and Chelsea) beat some shower of an outfit from San Marino, they will play, erm, Celtic (a nationalist sectarian club) in the European Cup.

I can't imagine what could possibly go wrong. By a scheduling freak, the game could be staged on 12 July. In Belfast.

Presumably it is the £500m required for policing the match that is proving the sticking point in the tawdry deal with the DUP?

No surrender!!

Chelsea are right wing bigots??

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zBeeZVd6urI

http://www.theleftback.co.uk/images/Loyalist_am.jpg

SouthamObserver

AlastairMeeks said:

The Conservative party's trouble is that there's a consensus that Theresa May's time is past but there is no agreement who is the obvious successor. That lack of agreement is by itself enough to keep her in place.

If you were a Conservative, you would have to hope that the party grandees are bashing heads together as we speak.

It's a big problem for all of us: months, if not years, of key ministers with leadership ambitions performing for Tory MPs and members, hoping to push their buttons, rather than for the country as a whole.

RobC

Richard_Nabavi said:

AlastairMeeks said:

The Conservative party's trouble is that there's a consensus that Theresa May's time is past but there is no agreement who is the obvious successor. That lack of agreement is by itself enough to keep her in place.

If you were a Conservative, you would have to hope that the party grandees are bashing heads together as we speak.

Whilst that's all true, it is also the case that calculation of how best to ensure that the poison remains as far as possible attached to Mrs May personally rather than the party as a whole is not an obvious calculation. There is also a respectable argument for a full leadership contest, but that doesn't look possible whilst the Brexit talks are happening. So I can see why there is a debate going on as to the optimal date of her defenestration.

It's risky either way. On balance I'd advocate grasping the nettle now with a swift putsch putting Hammond in as leader but with DD remaining tasked with delivering Brexit.

I don't think the Tories can avoid a leadership election especially as the Lib Dems would be holding one simultaneously - what price Hammond then?

dyedwoolie

stevef said:

Icarus said:

Every Conservative MP or Minister who is interviewed since the election parrots that there will be no election for leader. Mrs May is getting on with the job.

Surely the Conservative Party isn't totally stupid. If they are defeated, for example due to a storm in the Irish Sea, then they risk having to fight an election with May in charge, They know that would be fatal, so have to change her before the Autumn - though I don't envy them having to choose from a bunch of no hopers.

If the Conservatives were defeated Corbyn wouldn't try and form a government without having an election first.

The Queen of course would not invite Corbyn to form a government unless he could demonstrate under the rules of the FTPA that he had the numbers to form a government -which he has not.If the Tories fall there would have to be an election -and I do not believe that even under May's leadership, the Tories would necessarily lose. And I wonder what would happen if the result was the same -as in 1910. We cant keep having elections over and over again.

If there were another election and another HP it would be incumbent on the Tories and Labour to form some sort of national government. Fun.

AlastairMeeks

SouthamObserver said:

AlastairMeeks said:

The Conservative party's trouble is that there's a consensus that Theresa May's time is past but there is no agreement who is the obvious successor. That lack of agreement is by itself enough to keep her in place.

If you were a Conservative, you would have to hope that the party grandees are bashing heads together as we speak.

It's a big problem for all of us: months, if not years, of key ministers with leadership ambitions performing for Tory MPs and members, hoping to push their buttons, rather than for the country as a whole.

No change there then.

stevef

Icarus said:

CarlottaVance said:

Icarus said:

If the Conservatives were defeated Corbyn wouldn't try and form a government without having an election first.

Surely Corbyn has to have a QS voted down before he can call a GE?

He doesn't get to call one just because he fancies it....

No, he just says to HM sorry no can do without a majority; so May will have to call an election.

Corbyn would only be invited to be prime minister if he could demonstate that he has the numbers to get a Queens Speech through the Commons -which he has not. The Opposition leader does not have the automatic right to become prime minister under the FTPA if the government is defeated. The Tories would have to declare that they will not necessarily vote down a Labour Queens Speech for Corbyn to become PM without an election. If they did not there would have to be an election. And what if the result is the same -which is very likely?

Morris_Dancer

Small and marginal opportunity. Cable is 4 to be next Lib Dem leader on Ladbrokes, but has a lay value of 3.65 on Betfair.

Chris

rcs1000 said:

Chris said:

rcs1000 said:

fpt:

kurtjester said:

edmundintokyo said:

DecrepitJohnL said:

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.

It's an unpalatable view in the circumstances. But in any case it's a view that requires people - even the least well informed and the most vulnerable - to be able to evaluate the risk. Otherwise it's just a monster called capitalism seeking out victims.

Have the know-it-alls here even clarified whether the cladding on the Grenfell Tower was even legal or not? If they haven't, how the fuck do you expect ordinary people to be able to tell?

Presumably, then, you would ban people from living in Los Angeles and San Francisco. After all, how can ordinary people be expected to evaluate the likelihood of an earthquake. Better to play it safe and just say they can't live there.

Don't talk such rubbish. Everyone knows about the prevalence of earthquakes in California. People don't have information about the safety of these high-rise blocks. If I understand correctly, still no one here has the information about the Grenfell Tower, despite the concentrated attention of the media over the last five days. How the hell is your utopian capitalist free market meant to warn them?

DavidL

TOPPING said:

stevef said:

David Davis looked old and tired and uninspiring in Brussells today -hardlyprime ministerial. I cant remember a time when political leaders of ALL parties (for a Corbyn government would be a disaster, not least for the Labour brand) looked more jaded, uninspiring and dull.

Yes good point I thought he looked weary at the podium.

As for Tezza's refenestration, I agree with @DavidL. The moment has passed for her to go. Listening to her talking about Finsbury Park, however, was grating in the extreme. That same monotone tin ear to the public's requirements (for a competent, listening PM). Not expecting or wanting her to break down in tears, but just a bit of modulation and empathy is very much urgently needed.

I don't depart from my position that she is terrible and should have gone. She seems incapable of dealing with ordinary people. She has repeatedly shown very poor judgment. Her policy of simply not answering questions or blaming others may have worked in the Home Office but is completely disastrous as PM. There is a total absence of leadership.

But we need to get on. Today is the start of a very important process for which we seem poorly prepared (not least because our PM was coming out with rubbish like "a red white and blue Brexit" when she should have been addressing the hard questions) and we need to get on with it.

I would hope that there will be a quick agreement about the preservation of existing rights of EU citizens and UK citizens within a few days so we can start to get a more positive spin on things. I think we should also be clear that Eire will remain in a free travel zone with the UK post Brexit in exactly the same way as the Isle of Man is despite not being in the EU. So a very soft border. The money...that will be a bit trickier.

stevef

So we have Theresa May who sounds like a Thatcher android, Phillip Hammond who makes John Major sound interesting, David Davis, an aging right winger, Boris Johnson, a posturing buffoon, and in the wings, Jeremy Corbyn, a near septuanarian Casto-ite in a Lenin cap. God help us all.

felix

RoyalBlue said:

More wishful thinking from OGH:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/40303899

The DUP WILL support the Government in the Queen's Speech debate, whether a longer term deal is struck or not.

Quite - nor is this recent news.

RobC

Morris_Dancer said:

Small and marginal opportunity. Cable is 4 to be next Lib Dem leader on Ladbrokes, but has a lay value of 3.65 on Betfair.

By the time I looked it was 3 - power of PB again!

GeoffM

nunu said:

This thread explains why Darce and Murdoch put out their bile. Edit:before some genius points out that Louisiana is not in Britain you are meant to extrapolate.

https://twitter.com/Noahpinion/status/876352524936237056

What is Noah's point?
Is he claiming the EITC *isn't* gamed?
He's obviously lobbed the "black" thing in there for extra Lefty Points.
But as FF43 thinks I'm a slave trader (see previous thread) who cares.

paulyork64

logical_song said:

rcs1000 said:

fpt:

kurtjester said:

edmundintokyo said:

DecrepitJohnL said:

edmundintokyo said:

kurtjester said:

edmundintokyo said:

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.

I'm no expert. What do people think of 'low rise, high density'?
https://architizer.com/blog/low-rise-high-density/

In concept this isnt much different to the streets of terraced houses built in northern England, and probably most other urban areas, in the 19th century. Some of these aren't even wide enough to park a car outside and probably wouldn't pass modern building regs. Very popular if the area is ok though.

Morris_Dancer

Mr. C, really? Shows up as 4 for me.

rcs1000

Chris said:

rcs1000 said:

Chris said:

rcs1000 said:

fpt:

kurtjester said:

edmundintokyo said:

DecrepitJohnL said:

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.

It's an unpalatable view in the circumstances. But in any case it's a view that requires people - even the least well informed and the most vulnerable - to be able to evaluate the risk. Otherwise it's just a monster called capitalism seeking out victims.

Have the know-it-alls here even clarified whether the cladding on the Grenfell Tower was even legal or not? If they haven't, how the fuck do you expect ordinary people to be able to tell?

Presumably, then, you would ban people from living in Los Angeles and San Francisco. After all, how can ordinary people be expected to evaluate the likelihood of an earthquake. Better to play it safe and just say they can't live there.

Don't talk such rubbish. Everyone knows about the prevalence of earthquakes in California. People don't have information about the safety of these high-rise blocks. If I understand correctly, still no one here has the information about the Grenfell Tower, despite the concentrated attention of the media over the last five days. How the hell is your utopian capitalist free market meant to warn them?

Wait.

So nobody saw the fire on TV?

nunu

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oso508t9-wg

Blue_rog

stevef said:

So we have Theresa May who sounds like a Thatcher android, Phillip Hammond who makes John Major sound interesting, David Davis, an aging right winger, Boris Johnson, a posturing buffoon, and in the wings, Jeremy Corbyn, a near septuanarian Casto-ite in a Lenin cap. God help us all.

But we tried young, fresh faced, go getters and look where that got us. Why can't we go back to boring politics where you have grey efficient people who don't want to be in the limelight all the time, or prance about on the world's stage.

GeoffM

AlastairMeeks said:

The Conservative party's trouble is that there's a consensus that Theresa May's time is past but there is no agreement who is the obvious successor. That lack of agreement is by itself enough to keep her in place.

If you were a Conservative, you would have to hope that the party grandees are bashing heads together as we speak.

You seem to think that, rather like the hypothesis of "global warming" if you chuck in the word "consensus" regularly enough a casual observer will be fooled into thinking one exists.

Charles

rcs1000 said:

Chris said:

rcs1000 said:

fpt:

kurtjester said:

edmundintokyo said:

DecrepitJohnL said:

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.

It's an unpalatable view in the circumstances. But in any case it's a view that requires people - even the least well informed and the most vulnerable - to be able to evaluate the risk. Otherwise it's just a monster called capitalism seeking out victims.

Have the know-it-alls here even clarified whether the cladding on the Grenfell Tower was even legal or not? If they haven't, how the fuck do you expect ordinary people to be able to tell?

Presumably, then, you would ban people from living in Los Angeles and San Francisco. After all, how can ordinary people be expected to evaluate the likelihood of an earthquake. Better to play it safe and just say they can't live there.

Having second thoughts?

AlastairMeeks

GeoffM said:

AlastairMeeks said:

The Conservative party's trouble is that there's a consensus that Theresa May's time is past but there is no agreement who is the obvious successor. That lack of agreement is by itself enough to keep her in place.

If you were a Conservative, you would have to hope that the party grandees are bashing heads together as we speak.

You seem to think that, rather like the hypothesis of "global warming" if you chuck in the word "consensus" regularly enough a casual observer will be fooled into thinking one exists.

I accept that you're outside any consensus going. Flat-earthers usually are.

felix

All this garbage about the Tory party putting itself ahead of the nation is starting to grate. Insofar as it's true all parties are the same and all we have is non-Tories venting their spleen that crap as the GE campaign was it was 50 odd seats better than the next crap.

Moving on, unless the DUP vote against the QS it would pass on Tory votes alone would in not?

MonikerDiCanio

AlastairMeeks said:

GeoffM said:

AlastairMeeks said:

The Conservative party's trouble is that there's a consensus that Theresa May's time is past but there is no agreement who is the obvious successor. That lack of agreement is by itself enough to keep her in place.

If you were a Conservative, you would have to hope that the party grandees are bashing heads together as we speak.

You seem to think that, rather like the hypothesis of "global warming" if you chuck in the word "consensus" regularly enough a casual observer will be fooled into thinking one exists.

I accept that you're outside any consensus going. Flat-earthers usually are.

Flat earthers were the consensus once.

Charles

DavidL said:

TOPPING said:

stevef said:

David Davis looked old and tired and uninspiring in Brussells today -hardlyprime ministerial. I cant remember a time when political leaders of ALL parties (for a Corbyn government would be a disaster, not least for the Labour brand) looked more jaded, uninspiring and dull.

Yes good point I thought he looked weary at the podium.

As for Tezza's refenestration, I agree with @DavidL. The moment has passed for her to go. Listening to her talking about Finsbury Park, however, was grating in the extreme. That same monotone tin ear to the public's requirements (for a competent, listening PM). Not expecting or wanting her to break down in tears, but just a bit of modulation and empathy is very much urgently needed.

I don't depart from my position that she is terrible and should have gone. She seems incapable of dealing with ordinary people. She has repeatedly shown very poor judgment. Her policy of simply not answering questions or blaming others may have worked in the Home Office but is completely disastrous as PM. There is a total absence of leadership.

But we need to get on. Today is the start of a very important process for which we seem poorly prepared (not least because our PM was coming out with rubbish like "a red white and blue Brexit" when she should have been addressing the hard questions) and we need to get on with it.

I would hope that there will be a quick agreement about the preservation of existing rights of EU citizens and UK citizens within a few days so we can start to get a more positive spin on things. I think we should also be clear that Eire will remain in a free travel zone with the UK post Brexit in exactly the same way as the Isle of Man is despite not being in the EU. So a very soft border. The money...that will be a bit trickier.

To be fair to May (much as that grates) the "red, white and blue Brexit" was the answer to a journalist asking whether she preferred a "black, white or gray Brexit".

Bobajob_PB

rcs1000 said:

Chris said:

rcs1000 said:

Chris said:

rcs1000 said:

fpt:

kurtjester said:

edmundintokyo said:

DecrepitJohnL said:

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.

It's an unpalatable view in the circumstances. But in any case it's a view that requires people - even the least well informed and the most vulnerable - to be able to evaluate the risk. Otherwise it's just a monster called capitalism seeking out victims.

Have the know-it-alls here even clarified whether the cladding on the Grenfell Tower was even legal or not? If they haven't, how the fuck do you expect ordinary people to be able to tell?

Presumably, then, you would ban people from living in Los Angeles and San Francisco. After all, how can ordinary people be expected to evaluate the likelihood of an earthquake. Better to play it safe and just say they can't live there.

Don't talk such rubbish. Everyone knows about the prevalence of earthquakes in California. People don't have information about the safety of these high-rise blocks. If I understand correctly, still no one here has the information about the Grenfell Tower, despite the concentrated attention of the media over the last five days. How the hell is your utopian capitalist free market meant to warn them?

Wait.

So nobody saw the fire on TV?

Yes, they saw the fire. No, they have no idea whether other buildings are safe. Even Philip Hammond doesn't know whether the cladding is illegal nor whether (if it is) Grenfell complied with the rules.

GeoffM

Yorkcity said:

Could the Conservatives for the countries sake do a joint leadership like the Greens.Boris and Rudd Other combinations could be considered .

Joint leadership would be a great cost saving measure too. Davidson and Greening would obviously live together.

All lesbians fancy each other automatically. See PornHub for details. And RedTube. And XTube. And Tube8.

felix

Blue_rog said:

stevef said:

So we have Theresa May who sounds like a Thatcher android, Phillip Hammond who makes John Major sound interesting, David Davis, an aging right winger, Boris Johnson, a posturing buffoon, and in the wings, Jeremy Corbyn, a near septuanarian Casto-ite in a Lenin cap. God help us all.

But we tried young, fresh faced, go getters and look where that got us. Why can't we go back to boring politics where you have grey efficient people who don't want to be in the limelight all the time, or prance about on the world's stage.

Because the media want to see pictures of people not shaking hands with Donald Trump, etc., etc.,. We truly get the politicians we deserve.

Chris

rcs1000 said:

Chris said:

rcs1000 said:

Chris said:

rcs1000 said:

fpt:

kurtjester said:

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.

It's an unpalatable view in the circumstances. But in any case it's a view that requires people - even the least well informed and the most vulnerable - to be able to evaluate the risk. Otherwise it's just a monster called capitalism seeking out victims.

Have the know-it-alls here even clarified whether the cladding on the Grenfell Tower was even legal or not? If they haven't, how the fuck do you expect ordinary people to be able to tell?

Presumably, then, you would ban people from living in Los Angeles and San Francisco. After all, how can ordinary people be expected to evaluate the likelihood of an earthquake. Better to play it safe and just say they can't live there.

Don't talk such rubbish. Everyone knows about the prevalence of earthquakes in California. People don't have information about the safety of these high-rise blocks. If I understand correctly, still no one here has the information about the Grenfell Tower, despite the concentrated attention of the media over the last five days. How the hell is your utopian capitalist free market meant to warn them?

Wait.

So nobody saw the fire on TV?

My God, I've read some mindless drivel on the Internet, but you're taking it to a new dimension.

Do you really think that because people saw some film of a fire in a tower block on TV, they've been miraculously endued with the information and expertise to evaluate how safe their accommodation is?

And the market will take care of everything, Poor people will be at risk of mass incineration, but it's OK, because in return they'll get cheap accommodation?

RobC

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. C, really? Shows up as 4 for me.

Could be looking at different things? Looking at LB to win market

Bobajob_PB

Is there any reason why no candidate from the Tories' liberal wing has emerged?

Someone suggested Justine Greening earlier. They could do a hell of a lot worse. Yet we seem to be considering a raft of bores, pen-pushers and has-beens of which Hammond is the least-worst.

Bobajob_PB

Blue_rog said:

stevef said:

So we have Theresa May who sounds like a Thatcher android, Phillip Hammond who makes John Major sound interesting, David Davis, an aging right winger, Boris Johnson, a posturing buffoon, and in the wings, Jeremy Corbyn, a near septuanarian Casto-ite in a Lenin cap. God help us all.

But we tried young, fresh faced, go getters and look where that got us.

It got you a majority – your only one in two generations.

Morris_Dancer

Mr. C, I'm looking at Ladbrokes' next Lib Dem leader market.

Nemtynakht

On topic I think the list above is about right apart from Michael Gove has no chance.

Davis will be getting a lot of media coverage, and at the end of Brexit process, if he can pull off something deemed to be successful then he will have a good shout. However he is pretty old comparatively. I think this role is significant enough to go beyond the normal great offices of state.

Hammond, Rudd and Johnson are in those offices of state now, and out of those three I would think the best performer is Rudd. Hammond is a bit boring and grey and I cannot imagine the party going for him after May who is boring and grey. Johnson is too much the other way.

I do think both Sajid Javid, and Ruth Davidson are good outside bets. Both perform well in the media, and have interesting back stories that could play well with the wider electorate.

Looking at other MPs I cannot see it coming from outside of Sam Gymiah, James Brokenshire, Jo Johnson, Justine Greening, Andrea Leadsom, Gavin Williamson and Priti Patel.

TOPPING

DavidL said:

TOPPING said:

stevef said:

David Davis looked old and tired and uninspiring in Brussells today -hardlyprime ministerial. I cant remember a time when political leaders of ALL parties (for a Corbyn government would be a disaster, not least for the Labour brand) looked more jaded, uninspiring and dull.

Yes good point I thought he looked weary at the podium.

As for Tezza's refenestry is very much urgently needed.

I don't depart from my position that she is terrible and should have gone. She seems incapable of dealing with ordinary people. She has repeatedly shown very poor judgment. Her policy of simply not answering questions or blaming others may have worked in the Home Office but is completely disastrous as PM. There is a total absence of leadership.

But we need to get on. Today is the start of a very important process for which we seem poorly prepared (not least because our PM was coming out with rubbish like "a red white and blue Brexit" when she should have been addressing the hard questions) and we need to get on with it.

I would hope that there will be a quick agreement about the preservation of existing rights of EU citizens and UK citizens within a few days so we can start to get a more positive spin on things. I think we should also be clear that Eire will remain in a free travel zone with the UK post Brexit in exactly the same way as the Isle of Man is despite not being in the EU. So a very soft border. The money...that will be a bit trickier.

Yes I agree also (what is PB coming to? Where's Tyndall?)

She absolutely is hopeless and we should never have started from here. But. She is there and to have an election would be extremely disruptive and counter to the national interest, IMO.

@numbertwelve made an extremely acute point yesterday which I think encapsulates how many of us see this issue:

"I am not sure the public will take kindly to a revolving door of leaders in Number 10, so soon after an election. It will look positively chaotic.

I am not saying that May should be there for the long haul. It's clear she has been found wanting. However, she has just secured 42% of the vote. The country deserves a period of stability whilst the Brexit talks get underway. If that period is led by May as a figurehead whilst the people under her get on with the job, I think that's immensely more preferable than the potential fallout a leadership election could cause.

May should not lead the Tories into the next election, on that I think everyone can agree. She should not stay beyond the end (or nearing end) of the Brexit process. However, I think on balance the best thing the Tories can do is get their heads down and get back to the coal face rather than launch into another 6 months of severe instability and naval gazing."

Scott_P

https://twitter.com/politicshome/status/876800488544587776

DavidL

Charles said:

DavidL said:

TOPPING said:

stevef said:

David Davis looked old and tired and uninspiring in Brussells today -hardlyprime ministerial. I cant remember a time when political leaders of ALL parties (for a Corbyn government would be a disaster, not least for the Labour brand) looked more jaded, uninspiring and dull.

Yes good point I thought he looked weary at the podium.

As for Tezza's refenestration, I agree with @DavidL. The moment has passed for her to go. Listening to her talking about Finsbury Park, however, was grating in the extreme. That same monotone tin ear to the public's requirements (for a competent, listening PM). Not expecting or wanting her to break down in tears, but just a bit of modulation and empathy is very much urgently needed.

I don't depart from my position that she is terrible and should have gone. She seems incapable of dealing with ordinary people. She has repeatedly shown very poor judgment. Her policy of simply not answering questions or blaming others may have worked in the Home Office but is completely disastrous as PM. There is a total absence of leadership.

But we need to get on. Today is the start of a very important process for which we seem poorly prepared (not least because our PM was coming out with rubbish like "a red white and blue Brexit" when she should have been addressing the hard questions) and we need to get on with it.

I would hope that there will be a quick agreement about the preservation of existing rights of EU citizens and UK citizens within a few days so we can start to get a more positive spin on things. I think we should also be clear that Eire will remain in a free travel zone with the UK post Brexit in exactly the same way as the Isle of Man is despite not being in the EU. So a very soft border. The money...that will be a bit trickier.

To be fair to May (much as that grates) the "red, white and blue Brexit" was the answer to a journalist asking whether she preferred a "black, white or gray Brexit".

Ok fair enough. But there was no attempt either before or during the election to have a proper discussion as to what our options are, what is preferable and why and what we can realistically expect to achieve in these negotiations. There was an opportunity over months to build a consensus, to educate our population, to have a meaningful debate about what Brexit actually means. Labour, of course, did nothing to help by largely ignoring the question but it is the duty of the government to set out, explain and defend policy. She didn't. And it puts us in a weaker place now as a result.

Blue_rog

Bobajob_PB said:

Blue_rog said:

stevef said:

So we have Theresa May who sounds like a Thatcher android, Phillip Hammond who makes John Major sound interesting, David Davis, an aging right winger, Boris Johnson, a posturing buffoon, and in the wings, Jeremy Corbyn, a near septuanarian Casto-ite in a Lenin cap. God help us all.

But we tried young, fresh faced, go getters and look where that got us.

It got you a majority – your only one in two generations.

It also gave you Tony Blair

RoyalBlue

felix said:

All this garbage about the Tory party putting itself ahead of the nation is starting to grate. Insofar as it's true all parties are the same and all we have is non-Tories venting their spleen that crap as the GE campaign was it was 50 odd seats better than the next crap.

Moving on, unless the DUP vote against the QS it would pass on Tory votes alone would in not?

Yes. The Tories have a majority of seats in Great Britain and the DUP have a majority of seats in Northern Ireland.

The DUP must actively oppose the Tories to block legislation.

Bobajob_PB

Scott_P said:

https://twitter.com/politicshome/status/876800488544587776

Would be a great asset and a sensible move.

No doubt the government will reject his offer.

RobC

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. C, I'm looking at Ladbrokes' next Lib Dem leader market.

It's showing 3/1. Mind you that's better than most. I'm only an occasional punter Morris so bear with me!

Icarus

"Boris Johnson, the foreign secretry, and Michael Gove, the environment secretary, have both backed Theresa May to stay on as prime minister and deliver Brexit."

She's a goner!

Morris_Dancer

Mr. C, ah, that's the same value

4 (as a decimal) = 3/1.

3.65 *is*, just, shorter than that.

Icarus

Bobajob_PB said:

Scott_P said:

https://twitter.com/politicshome/status/876800488544587776

Would be a great asset and a sensible move.

No doubt the government will reject his offer.

Would you trust Mandelson to boil you an egg?

DavidL

GeoffM said:

Yorkcity said:

Could the Conservatives for the countries sake do a joint leadership like the Greens.Boris and Rudd Other combinations could be considered .

Joint leadership would be a great cost saving measure too. Davidson and Greening would obviously live together.

All lesbians fancy each other automatically. See PornHub for details. And RedTube. And XTube. And Tube8.

I'm surprised you find time to post on PB.

Casino_Royale

Charles said:

DavidL said:

TOPPING said:

stevef said:

David Davis looked old and tired and uninspiring in Brussells today -hardlyprime ministerial. I cant remember a time when political leaders of ALL parties (for a Corbyn government would be a disaster, not least for the Labour brand) looked more jaded, uninspiring and dull.

Yes good point I thought he looked weary at the podium.

As for Tezza's refenestration, I agree with @DavidL. The moment has passed for her to go. Listening to her talking about Finsbury Park, however, was grating in the extreme. That same monotone tin ear to the public's requirements (for a competent, listening PM). Not expecting or wanting her to break down in tears, but just a bit of modulation and empathy is very much urgently needed.

I don't depart from my position that she is terrible and should have gone. She seems incapable of dealing with ordinary people. She has repeatedly shown very poor judgment. Her policy of simply not answering questions or blaming others may have worked in the Home Office but is completely disastrous as PM. There is a total absence of leadership.

But we need to get on. Today is the start of a very important process for which we seem poorly prepared (not least because our PM was coming out with rubbish like "a red white and blue Brexit" when she should have been addressing the hard questions) and we need to get on with it.

I would hope that there will be a quick agreement about the preservation of existing rights of EU citizens and UK citizens within a few days so we can start to get a more positive spin on things. I think we should also be clear that Eire will remain in a free travel zone with the UK post Brexit in exactly the same way as the Isle of Man is despite not being in the EU. So a very soft border. The money...that will be a bit trickier.

To be fair to May (much as that grates) the "red, white and blue Brexit" was the answer to a journalist asking whether she preferred a "black, white or gray Brexit".

That actually made sense: she meant a bespoke model for the UK, not an off-the-shelf one like EEA, or EFTA.

JonathanD

Charles said:

DavidL said:

TOPPING said:

stevef said:

David Davis looked old and tired and uninspiring in Brussells today -hardlyprime ministerial. I cant remember a time when political leaders of ALL parties (for a Corbyn government would be a disaster, not least for the Labour brand) looked more jaded, uninspiring and dull.

Yes good point I thought he looked weary at the podium.

As for Tezza's refenestration, I agree with @DavidL. The moment has passed for her to go. Listening to her talking about Finsbury Park, however, was grating in the extreme. That same monotone tin ear to the public's requirements (for a competent, listening PM). Not expecting or wanting her to break down in tears, but just a bit of modulation and empathy is very much urgently needed.

I don't depart from my position that she is terrible and should have gone. She seems incapable of dealing with ordinary people. She has repeatedly shown very poor judgment. Her policy of simply not answering questions or blaming others may have worked in the Home Office but is completely disastrous as PM. There is a total absence of leadership.

But we need to get on. Today is the start of a very important process for which we seem poorly prepared (not least because our PM was coming out with rubbish like "a red white and blue Brexit" when she should have been addressing the hard questions) and we need to get on with it.

I would hope that there will be a quick agreement about the preservation of existing rights of EU citizens and UK citizens within a few days so we can start to get a more positive spin on things. I think we should also be clear that Eire will remain in a free travel zone with the UK post Brexit in exactly the same way as the Isle of Man is despite not being in the EU. So a very soft border. The money...that will be a bit trickier.

To be fair to May (much as that grates) the "red, white and blue Brexit" was the answer to a journalist asking whether she preferred a "black, white or gray Brexit".

Just underlines how useless May is at getting at engaging with people and getting a message across. Corbyn's 'a workers Brexit, not a Bankers Brexit' was just as vague and incoherent but far better at reassuring voters.

RobC

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. C, ah, that's the same value

4 (as a decimal) = 3/1.

3.65 *is*, just, shorter than that.

Good to know (and I've only been on this site for 10 years lol)

PAW

Mandelson - didn't he call for immediate payment of any EU demands - to clear the air? And pay again the next year, and every year after.

LadyBucket

Bobajob_PB said:

Scott_P said:

https://twitter.com/politicshome/status/876800488544587776

Would be a great asset and a sensible move.

No doubt the government will reject his offer.

Absolutely. I wouldn't want this scheming hypocrite anywhere near Brexit.

Casino_Royale

SouthamObserver said:

AlastairMeeks said:

The Conservative party's trouble is that there's a consensus that Theresa May's time is past but there is no agreement who is the obvious successor. That lack of agreement is by itself enough to keep her in place.

If you were a Conservative, you would have to hope that the party grandees are bashing heads together as we speak.

It's a big problem for all of us: months, if not years, of key ministers with leadership ambitions performing for Tory MPs and members, hoping to push their buttons, rather than for the country as a whole.

Sometimes, I despair of the leadership and talent offered in all political parties. Then I worry about the quality of the debate, and the maturity of the electorate in response to that.

But, we get the politicians and the Government we deserve.

Morris_Dancer

Mr. C,

I've made a couple of silly errors in recent months, so you're not alone.

Mandelson receives an EU pension, which I believe has a condition of not doing anything contrary to EU interests. He's a smart fellow. But not a trustworthy one.

Bobajob_PB

LadyBucket said:

Bobajob_PB said:

Scott_P said:

https://twitter.com/politicshome/status/876800488544587776

Would be a great asset and a sensible move.

No doubt the government will reject his offer.

Absolutely. I wouldn't want this scheming hypocrite anywhere near Brexit.

QED