politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Today Corbyn’s Labour lead the ABC1s by 12%

System

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Today Corbyn’s Labour lead the ABC1s by 12%

if("undefined"==typeof window.datawrapper)window.datawrapper={};window.datawrapper["PRvXR"]={},window.datawrapper["PRvXR"].embedDeltas={"100":715,"200":588,"300":562,"400":537,"500":537,"600":537,"700":537,"800":511,"900":511,"1000":511},window.datawrapper["PRvXR"].iframe=document.getElementById("datawrapper-chart-PRvXR"),window.datawrapper["PRvXR"].iframe.style.height=window.datawrapper["PRvXR"].embedDeltas[Math.min(1e3,Math.max(100*Math.floor(window.datawrapper["PRvXR"].iframe.offsetWidth/100),100))]+"px",window.addEventListener("message",function(a){if("undefined"!=typeof a.data["datawrapper-height"])for(var b in a.data["datawrapper-height"])if("PRvXR"==b)window.datawrapper["PRvXR"].iframe.style.height=a.data["datawrapper-height"][b]+"px"});

Read the full story here

Slackbladder

No one likes or even understands talking about the economy or taxes (as long as other people are paying). if people actually did, no one would be in debt problems.

They like and want to spend more money on hospitals and schools and to give a well deserved pay rise to the public sector.

Slackbladder

FPT

EIT: This is happening all over the world. People prefer to live where other people live. It's not at all nigh on impossible. Infrastructure scales well with more people, and existing British cities aren't very dense. Stop banning people from building things and the free market will take care of the houses, and the extra taxes from the people living in them will pay for the infrastructure.

Which will ultimately lead to London becomining more and more of a high-rise mega city, split between high luxury, and poor nigh-on slum living conditions for many other.

Which is suprise, suprise, where we are, and where we are increasingly heading.

Scott_P

https://twitter.com/shippersunbound/status/883300351901925376

Richard_Nabavi

On topic: a dose of McDonnellonomics would rapidly sort that problem out.

DecrepitJohnL

Slackbladder said:

FPT

EIT: This is happening all over the world. People prefer to live where other people live. It's not at all nigh on impossible. Infrastructure scales well with more people, and existing British cities aren't very dense. Stop banning people from building things and the free market will take care of the houses, and the extra taxes from the people living in them will pay for the infrastructure.

Which will ultimately lead to London becomining more and more of a high-rise mega city, split between high luxury, and poor nigh-on slum living conditions for many other.

Which is suprise, suprise, where we are, and where we are increasingly heading.

So the government needs to build more new towns or refurbish some of the old industrial towns in the north. They don't have to call it the northern powerhouse. The government is part of the market -- not of another realm.

rkrkrk

Pulpstar said:

Lets be honest here. Isn't 4.5 times salary *quite enough*.

FPT....
Doesn't it matter what the level of deposit is?
If I put down 50% deposit... How is there any risk of the bank not getting back their money?

David_Evershed

The ABC!s can't all be looking to have their tuition fees written off can they?

619

So your assumption is that the ABC's didn't know what Corbyn's economic policies were?

What if they did and agreed with it?

rkrkrk

ABC1 is a pretty broad church I think.
Presumably Tories did much better than previously with CDE?

HYUFD

Yes the Tories won ABC1s by 4% and nationally by 2%. Interestingly though the Tories did as well with C2s as ABs, fell back with C1s and Labour did best with DEs. It is now the LDs, not the Tories, who get the largest percentage of their vote from ABs
https://yougov.co.uk/news/2017/06/13/how-britain-voted-2017-general-election/

David_Evershed

rkrkrk said:

Pulpstar said:

Lets be honest here. Isn't 4.5 times salary *quite enough*.

FPT....
Doesn't it matter what the level of deposit is?
If I put down 50% deposit... How is there any risk of the bank not getting back their money?

If you overpaid by 100% then the bank secirity on the house would equal the market value..

kyf_100

rkrkrk said:

Pulpstar said:

Lets be honest here. Isn't 4.5 times salary *quite enough*.

FPT....
Doesn't it matter what the level of deposit is?
If I put down 50% deposit... How is there any risk of the bank not getting back their money?

50% house price crash?

I could believe it in London in the next year or two.

Ironically, this would leave me hovering a few grand above negative equity, but with adequate cash in the bank to buy a second house. Isn't that how Tyson got started as a rentier?

David_Evershed

Scott_P said:

https://twitter.com/shippersunbound/status/883300351901925376

Jet lag, warm weather and being aged don't mix well.

Toms

Scott_P said:

https://twitter.com/shippersunbound/status/883300351901925376

How would we look sitting next to a rattlesnake?

NorthofStoke

These figures are good news for the Tories if they keep their nerve and sharpen up campaigning. These voters could also be ripe for a new party if Labour split. Tackling the younger Corbyn supporting cohort will be a big challenge though.

rkrkrk

David_Evershed said:

rkrkrk said:

Pulpstar said:

Lets be honest here. Isn't 4.5 times salary *quite enough*.

FPT....
Doesn't it matter what the level of deposit is?
If I put down 50% deposit... How is there any risk of the bank not getting back their money?

If you overpaid by 100% then the bank secirity on the house would equal the market value..

Okay. Have house prices ever halved in the UK?

edmundintokyo

Slackbladder said:

Which will ultimately lead to London becomining more and more of a high-rise mega city, split between high luxury, and poor nigh-on slum living conditions for many other.

Which is suprise, suprise, where we are, and where we are increasingly heading.

No, the reason why you don't have much in the middle is because your government (national and local) is banning people from building stuff. Tokyo, which has a growing population and far less Soviet Communism in the planning system, doesn't have anything like the split you mention.

Tykejohnno

Let it sink in these people will be paying for the far far left socialist state pet projects.

rkrkrk

kyf_100 said:

rkrkrk said:

Pulpstar said:

Lets be honest here. Isn't 4.5 times salary *quite enough*.

FPT....
Doesn't it matter what the level of deposit is?
If I put down 50% deposit... How is there any risk of the bank not getting back their money?

50% house price crash?

I could believe it in London in the next year or two.

Ironically, this would leave me hovering a few grand above negative equity, but with adequate cash in the bank to buy a second house. Isn't that how Tyson got started as a rentier?

Presumably if that happened... Banks would be close to collapse?

Slackbladder

619 said:

So your assumption is that the ABC's didn't know what Corbyn's economic policies were?

What if they did and agreed with it?

No, they knew what they were, to a certain level, but it's much easier to understanding 'better schoolsnhospitals' than the finer details of macroeconomics.

Slackbladder

edmundintokyo said:

Slackbladder said:

Which will ultimately lead to London becomining more and more of a high-rise mega city, split between high luxury, and poor nigh-on slum living conditions for many other.

Which is suprise, suprise, where we are, and where we are increasingly heading.

No, the reason why you don't have much in the middle is because your government (national and local) is banning people from building stuff. Tokyo, which has a growing population and far less Soviet Communism in the planning system, doesn't have anything like the split you mention.

Thats becuase Tokyo, and the Japanese doesn't have anything like the immigration either.

TOPPING

As has been endlessly rehearsed on here, Jezza offered a vision. A mad, bonkers one to us sophisticates, but a vision nevertheless.

Tezza offered...well, nothing.

You can always amend a policy here, quietly jettison one there, but there's nothing you can do, or hope to do, with a policy vacuum (post u-turns).

Slackbladder

rkrkrk said:

kyf_100 said:

rkrkrk said:

Pulpstar said:

Lets be honest here. Isn't 4.5 times salary *quite enough*.

FPT....
Doesn't it matter what the level of deposit is?
If I put down 50% deposit... How is there any risk of the bank not getting back their money?

50% house price crash?

I could believe it in London in the next year or two.

Ironically, this would leave me hovering a few grand above negative equity, but with adequate cash in the bank to buy a second house. Isn't that how Tyson got started as a rentier?

Presumably if that happened... Banks would be close to collapse?

ironically no-one would be moving house at all, so no one could buy one either.

Richard_Nabavi

Ironically enough, the people who most seem to understand what the economic impact of Corbyn's policies would be are some of the über-Corbynistas like Michael Chessum: "How will the people who’ve gone doorstepping for us react if international markets sabotage the British economy for years? Have we prepared the people who chanted for Jeremy at Glastonbury for the fact that, at some stage, they may only be able to withdraw 50 quid a day if the credit runs dry?"

rkrkrk

Slackbladder said:

rkrkrk said:

kyf_100 said:

rkrkrk said:

Pulpstar said:

Lets be honest here. Isn't 4.5 times salary *quite enough*.

FPT....
Doesn't it matter what the level of deposit is?
If I put down 50% deposit... How is there any risk of the bank not getting back their money?

50% house price crash?

I could believe it in London in the next year or two.

Ironically, this would leave me hovering a few grand above negative equity, but with adequate cash in the bank to buy a second house. Isn't that how Tyson got started as a rentier?

Presumably if that happened... Banks would be close to collapse?

ironically no-one would be moving house at all, so no one could buy one either.

Well I'd be keen and able to get on the housing ladder if prices halved!

Pong

rkrkrk said:

Pulpstar said:

Lets be honest here. Isn't 4.5 times salary *quite enough*.

FPT....
Doesn't it matter what the level of deposit is?
If I put down 50% deposit... How is there any risk of the bank not getting back their money?

If prices drop by >50%?

Low risk, but not no risk.

Not so many years ago, ~50% of the population died in the black death.

London property became worthless.

MarkSenior

Given 4 more years of a Conservative government , a probable recession and a Brexit debacle ABC1s and everyone else will flee the Conservatives and the next GE will see a Conservative defeat of a greater magnitude than even 1997 .

Richard_Nabavi

Pong said:

rkrkrk said:

Pulpstar said:

Lets be honest here. Isn't 4.5 times salary *quite enough*.

FPT....
Doesn't it matter what the level of deposit is?
If I put down 50% deposit... How is there any risk of the bank not getting back their money?

If prices drop by >50%?

Low risk, but not no risk.

Not so many years ago, ~50% of the population died in the black death.

London property became worthless.

That was quite a few years ago, Pong!

justin124

A Labour party member I know told me about her early election day experience. Before the polls had opened she was out delivering 'Vote Labour Today' leaflets to identified supporters in her area. She was very taken aback to come across many properties to which she was not expected to deliver the said leaflet which nevertheless had Labour posters in their windows! This made her think that something was happening , and that Labour was picking up a fair bit of support of which it was itself unaware.

DecrepitJohnL

CCHQ ignoring the economy had nothing to do with rivalry with Hammond. The Conservatives intended to put taxes up. We can infer this from their dropping the tax guarantee and from the on/off NIC increase in the budget.

That's why the Chancellor was locked in a cupboard. That is also why Richard N (FPT) saw no "Corbyn tax bombshell" posters.

HYUFD

MarkSenior said:

Given 4 more years of a Conservative government , a probable recession and a Brexit debacle ABC1s and everyone else will flee the Conservatives and the next GE will see a Conservative defeat of a greater magnitude than even 1997 .

There is no way Corbyn will win a bigger landslide than Blair 1997. Even if he does win the next general election his socialist policies would swiftly see a Tory revival soon after.

Slackbladder

TOPPING said:

As has been endlessly rehearsed on here, Jezza offered a vision. A mad, bonkers one to us sophisticates, but a vision nevertheless.

Thats why he won the labout leadership too. It was an alternative and not 'more of the same'

If anything, Corbyn is the British Trump. People want to believe.

DecrepitJohnL

Deleted -- seems to be a browser thing.

edmundintokyo

Slackbladder said:

edmundintokyo said:

Slackbladder said:

Which will ultimately lead to London becomining more and more of a high-rise mega city, split between high luxury, and poor nigh-on slum living conditions for many other.

Which is suprise, suprise, where we are, and where we are increasingly heading.

No, the reason why you don't have much in the middle is because your government (national and local) is banning people from building stuff. Tokyo, which has a growing population and far less Soviet Communism in the planning system, doesn't have anything like the split you mention.

Thats becuase Tokyo, and the Japanese doesn't have anything like the immigration either.

It's nothing to do with whether the people migrating to the city are from the same country or a different country. You get the same effect anywhere: Growing cities that stop people building stuff end up with middle-income people moving out to the suburbs or further.

BTW, an interesting statistic about Tokyo is that even as the population in the same land area is increasing, the available floor space per person is also increasing, quite dramatically.



Roll back the centrally-planned restrictions, let people build more densely, and they'll have more space and lower rents. It's a very simple free-market mechanism, we know exactly how it works.

HYUFD

Slackbladder said:

TOPPING said:

As has been endlessly rehearsed on here, Jezza offered a vision. A mad, bonkers one to us sophisticates, but a vision nevertheless.

Thats why he won the labout leadership too. It was an alternative and not 'more of the same'

If anything, Corbyn is the British Trump. People want to believe.

No, Farage is the British Trump. Corbyn is the British Sanders

Pulpstar

Just checked a comparison, the Tokyo contiguous urban area is absolubtely huge compared to London, which looks like an absolute tiddler when you stick it next to Tokyo.

Sandpit

Surely an outlier, or are the middle class turkeys really saying they'd vote for Corbyn's Christmas?

edmundintokyo

Pulpstar said:

Just checked a comparison, the Tokyo contiguous urban area is absolubtely huge compared to London, which looks like an absolute tiddler when you stick it next to Tokyo.

Right - it spreads out all along the train lines. Basically anywhere there's transportation, there's housing. Close to pretty much any train station, there's reasonably high-rise housing. (We're mostly talking 10 or 11 floors, it's not amazing monster sky-scraping residential blocks like Hong Kong.)

Slackbladder

Pulpstar said:

Just checked a comparison, the Tokyo contiguous urban area is absolubtely huge compared to London, which looks like an absolute tiddler when you stick it next to Tokyo.

which then raises the issue if we should or could massive increase the size of London by removing the green belt (such as it is).

HYUFD

Sandpit said:

Surely an outlier, or are the middle class turkeys really saying they'd vote for Corbyn's Christmas?

Labour actually won C1s at the last election as well as DEs. The Tories won ABs and C2s. The division is now AB C2 v C1 DE not ABC1 v C2DE

edmundintokyo

Slackbladder said:

Pulpstar said:

Just checked a comparison, the Tokyo contiguous urban area is absolubtely huge compared to London, which looks like an absolute tiddler when you stick it next to Tokyo.

which then raises the issue if we should or could massive increase the size of London by removing the green belt (such as it is).

I'd favour that but you wouldn't need to - a moderate increase in density in places that are already mostly built on would get you a *lot* of extra capacity.

foxinsoxuk

Sandpit said:

Surely an outlier, or are the middle class turkeys really saying they'd vote for Corbyn's Christmas?

Voting is a mixed expression of social, economic and other values. This poll shows that ABC1's support, then it is likely that other issues are scoring higher than economics.

Slackbladder

edmundintokyo said:

Slackbladder said:

Pulpstar said:

Just checked a comparison, the Tokyo contiguous urban area is absolubtely huge compared to London, which looks like an absolute tiddler when you stick it next to Tokyo.

which then raises the issue if we should or could massive increase the size of London by removing the green belt (such as it is).

I'd favour that but you wouldn't need to - a moderate increase in density in places that are already mostly built on would get you a *lot* of extra capacity.

Would that be possible though, I don't see many people with 'actual' houses in london wanting to give them up anytime soon.

No one would design London the way it is, but you have got to work with what's there.

HYUFD

Slackbladder said:

Pulpstar said:

Just checked a comparison, the Tokyo contiguous urban area is absolubtely huge compared to London, which looks like an absolute tiddler when you stick it next to Tokyo.

which then raises the issue if we should or could massive increase the size of London by removing the green belt (such as it is).

The green belt is there for a reason, if you want to build more homes use brownfield sites first

edmundintokyo

HYUFD said:

The green belt is there for a reason, if you want to build more homes use brownfield sites first

What's the reason?

HYUFD

edmundintokyo said:

HYUFD said:

The green belt is there for a reason, if you want to build more homes use brownfield sites first

What's the reason?

Protection of the countryside, wildlife, reducing pollution etc. In any case the London urban area is really the suburbs and the Home Counties, if you want cheaper accommodation than central London move there

not_on_fire

HYUFD said:

edmundintokyo said:

HYUFD said:

The green belt is there for a reason, if you want to build more homes use brownfield sites first

What's the reason?

Protection of the countryside, wildlife, reducing pollution etc. In any case the London urban area is really the suburbs and the Home Counties, if you want cheaper accommodation than central London move there

The terms 'green belt' and 'brownfield' are extremely misleading. A lot of the greenbelt is fairly unpicturesque fields, whilst private gardens count as brownfield (hence the unfortunate trend of people being bribed by developers to sell off parts of their gardens)

FF43

Scott_P said:

https://twitter.com/shippersunbound/status/883300351901925376

Theresa May looks utterly exhausted.

edmundintokyo

HYUFD said:

edmundintokyo said:

HYUFD said:

The green belt is there for a reason, if you want to build more homes use brownfield sites first

What's the reason?

Protection of the countryside, wildlife, reducing pollution etc. In any case the London urban area is really the suburbs and the Home Counties, if you want cheaper accommodation than central London move there

Why do the wildlife need to live near London, do they commute?

SandyRentool

HYUFD said:

Slackbladder said:

Pulpstar said:

Just checked a comparison, the Tokyo contiguous urban area is absolubtely huge compared to London, which looks like an absolute tiddler when you stick it next to Tokyo.

which then raises the issue if we should or could massive increase the size of London by removing the green belt (such as it is).

The green belt is there for a reason, if you want to build more homes use brownfield sites first

Gardens are classed as brownfield. There is a big garden out the back of Buckingham Palace. You could fit a fair few apartment blocks there, and selling off the land would pay for the refurbishment costs of the house. Everyone's a winner!

Slackbladder

edmundintokyo said:

HYUFD said:

edmundintokyo said:

HYUFD said:

The green belt is there for a reason, if you want to build more homes use brownfield sites first

What's the reason?

Protection of the countryside, wildlife, reducing pollution etc. In any case the London urban area is really the suburbs and the Home Counties, if you want cheaper accommodation than central London move there

Why do the wildlife need to live near London, do they commute?

We don't need any wildlife in this country at all when you put it like that.

justin124

HYUFD said:

Sandpit said:

Surely an outlier, or are the middle class turkeys really saying they'd vote for Corbyn's Christmas?

Labour actually won C1s at the last election as well as DEs. The Tories won ABs and C2s. The division is now AB C2 v C1 DE not ABC1 v C2DE

The class basis of UK politics has changed so much over recent decades. Back in the 1970s the middle classes were far more solid in their support for the Tories than the working classes were for Labour. That is no longer true.

SquareRoot

On thread.. Only if you believe the polls. The is good reason to distrust them.

Scott_P

https://twitter.com/robdothutton/status/883248572124340224

foxinsoxuk

FF43 said:

Scott_P said:

https://twitter.com/shippersunbound/status/883300351901925376

Theresa May looks utterly exhausted.

One picture can be misleading, but I think she needs to step down before it gets worse.

FF43

Slackbladder said:

edmundintokyo said:

Slackbladder said:

Pulpstar said:

Just checked a comparison, the Tokyo contiguous urban area is absolubtely huge compared to London, which looks like an absolute tiddler when you stick it next to Tokyo.

which then raises the issue if we should or could massive increase the size of London by removing the green belt (such as it is).

I'd favour that but you wouldn't need to - a moderate increase in density in places that are already mostly built on would get you a *lot* of extra capacity.

Would that be possible though, I don't see many people with 'actual' houses in london wanting to give them up anytime soon.

No one would design London the way it is, but you have got to work with what's there.

You pull down the house and build flats in its place and sell those flats at a profit. If enough people do that it will bring the price of flats down per square metre.

edmundintokyo

Slackbladder said:

edmundintokyo said:

HYUFD said:

edmundintokyo said:

HYUFD said:

The green belt is there for a reason, if you want to build more homes use brownfield sites first

What's the reason?

Protection of the countryside, wildlife, reducing pollution etc. In any case the London urban area is really the suburbs and the Home Counties, if you want cheaper accommodation than central London move there

Why do the wildlife need to live near London, do they commute?

We don't need any wildlife in this country at all when you put it like that.

But seriously, do you have an explanation for why it's better to have wildlife living in a belt close to London, and people building on land further out in the Home Counties, instead of people who commute to London living close to London and the wildlife living further out in the Home Counties?

Slackbladder

FF43 said:

Slackbladder said:

edmundintokyo said:

Slackbladder said:

Pulpstar said:

Just checked a comparison, the Tokyo contiguous urban area is absolubtely huge compared to London, which looks like an absolute tiddler when you stick it next to Tokyo.

which then raises the issue if we should or could massive increase the size of London by removing the green belt (such as it is).

I'd favour that but you wouldn't need to - a moderate increase in density in places that are already mostly built on would get you a *lot* of extra capacity.

Would that be possible though, I don't see many people with 'actual' houses in london wanting to give them up anytime soon.

No one would design London the way it is, but you have got to work with what's there.

You pull down the house and build flats in its place and sell those flats at a profit. If enough people do that it will bring the price of flats down per square metre.

Ok, so we're having the state buy prviate houses in London just to pull them down? That's not going to be problematic at all...

CornishJohn

I do not understand this desire to solve the housing crisis with more huge tower blocks. Polling showed that 89% of Britons want to live in a house on a street, with just 2% in apartments and 0% in tower blocks. We need to build homes where people actually want to live.

Projecting Japan as an example to be followed would be a mistake. People who live in apartments in the sky know it's not a good place to raise a family. If they have any children at all, they have 1 or 2, well below the replacement ratio. As we have seen with Japan, they now have a big problem with an aging society.

https://policyexchange.org.uk/high-rise-living-means-crime-stress-delinquency-and-social-breakdown-instead-we-must-create-streets/

Slackbladder

SandyRentool said:

HYUFD said:

Slackbladder said:

Pulpstar said:

Just checked a comparison, the Tokyo contiguous urban area is absolubtely huge compared to London, which looks like an absolute tiddler when you stick it next to Tokyo.

which then raises the issue if we should or could massive increase the size of London by removing the green belt (such as it is).

The green belt is there for a reason, if you want to build more homes use brownfield sites first

Gardens are classed as brownfield. There is a big garden out the back of Buckingham Palace. You could fit a fair few apartment blocks there, and selling off the land would pay for the refurbishment costs of the house. Everyone's a winner!

Lets just concrete over Hyde Park as well whilst we're at it.

We could put up a parking lot.

edmundintokyo

FF43 said:

You pull down the house and build flats in its place and sell those flats at a profit. If enough people do that it will bring the price of flats down per square metre.

This is exactly how it's done in Tokyo. The people who previously lived in the house get a pile of money, and often they'll get a really nice flat in the building that goes up where the house was. Sometimes they name the apartment building after them, too.

SouthamObserver

FF43 said:

Scott_P said:

https://twitter.com/shippersunbound/status/883300351901925376

Theresa May looks utterly exhausted.

Isn't that photo from the NATO summit?

EDIT - yes, it is:

https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=Trump+May+together+NATO+summit&safe=active&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj7_qzyq_fUAhWjNpoKHfZCAN0Q_AUICCgD&biw=1536&bih=699#imgrc=CKKMvzVOUfLhoM:&spf=1499436410426

CornishJohn

Slackbladder said:

Pulpstar said:

Just checked a comparison, the Tokyo contiguous urban area is absolubtely huge compared to London, which looks like an absolute tiddler when you stick it next to Tokyo.

which then raises the issue if we should or could massive increase the size of London by removing the green belt (such as it is).

People still don't want to live in the middle of a big continuous urban sprawl. What we need is new towns.

edmundintokyo

CornishJohn said:

I do not understand this desire to solve the housing crisis with more huge tower blocks. Polling showed that 89% of Britons want to live in a house on a street, with just 2% in apartments and 0% in tower blocks.

That's the wrong question. The right question is, how much extra do you want to pay to live in a house on a street, rather than an apartment.

rpjs

justin124 said:

A Labour party member I know told me about her early election day experience. Before the polls had opened she was out delivering 'Vote Labour Today' leaflets to identified supporters in her area. She was very taken aback to come across many properties to which she was not expected to deliver the said leaflet which nevertheless had Labour posters in their windows! This made her think that something was happening , and that Labour was picking up a fair bit of support of which it was itself unaware.

Where were they getting the posters from I wonder? Back when I did electioneering, people who wanted posters were specially recorded for targeting for GOTV and future canvassing.

Pulpstar

edmundintokyo said:

FF43 said:

You pull down the house and build flats in its place and sell those flats at a profit. If enough people do that it will bring the price of flats down per square metre.

This is exactly how it's done in Tokyo. The people who previously lived in the house get a pile of money, and often they'll get a really nice flat in the building that goes up where the house was. Sometimes they name the apartment building after them, too.

Has Japan had to generally check its cladding for tower blocks at all ?

FF43

Slackbladder said:

FF43 said:

Slackbladder said:

edmundintokyo said:

Slackbladder said:

Pulpstar said:

Just checked a comparison, the Tokyo contiguous urban area is absolubtely huge compared to London, which looks like an absolute tiddler when you stick it next to Tokyo.

which then raises the issue if we should or could massive increase the size of London by removing the green belt (such as it is).

I'd favour that but you wouldn't need to - a moderate increase in density in places that are already mostly built on would get you a *lot* of extra capacity.

Would that be possible though, I don't see many people with 'actual' houses in london wanting to give them up anytime soon.

No one would design London the way it is, but you have got to work with what's there.

You pull down the house and build flats in its place and sell those flats at a profit. If enough people do that it will bring the price of flats down per square metre.

Ok, so we're having the state buy prviate houses in London just to pull them down? That's not going to be problematic at all...

It doesn't have to be the State. But why is it problematic? Most people in most cities in the world live in eight storey apartment blocks with lifts. It's OK and if it means the difference between affordable and unaffordable housing in London, actually good.

CornishJohn

edmundintokyo said:

CornishJohn said:

I do not understand this desire to solve the housing crisis with more huge tower blocks. Polling showed that 89% of Britons want to live in a house on a street, with just 2% in apartments and 0% in tower blocks.

That's the wrong question. The right question is, how much extra do you want to pay to live in a house on a street, rather than an apartment.

We can make that differential a lot smaller by building new houses, rather than new tower blocks.

Morris_Dancer

Good afternoon, everyone.

F1: odd practice results. McLaren looking good, at this stage. Possible the engine upgrade has actually worked.

logical_song

HYUFD said:

MarkSenior said:

Given 4 more years of a Conservative government , a probable recession and a Brexit debacle ABC1s and everyone else will flee the Conservatives and the next GE will see a Conservative defeat of a greater magnitude than even 1997 .

There is no way Corbyn will win a bigger landslide than Blair 1997. Even if he does win the next general election his socialist policies would swiftly see a Tory revival soon after.

What was your prediction for GE 2017?

CornishJohn

FF43 said:

Slackbladder said:

FF43 said:

Slackbladder said:

edmundintokyo said:

Slackbladder said:

Pulpstar said:

Just checked a comparison, the Tokyo contiguous urban area is absolubtely huge compared to London, which looks like an absolute tiddler when you stick it next to Tokyo.

which then raises the issue if we should or could massive increase the size of London by removing the green belt (such as it is).

I'd favour that but you wouldn't need to - a moderate increase in density in places that are already mostly built on would get you a *lot* of extra capacity.

Would that be possible though, I don't see many people with 'actual' houses in london wanting to give them up anytime soon.

No one would design London the way it is, but you have got to work with what's there.

You pull down the house and build flats in its place and sell those flats at a profit. If enough people do that it will bring the price of flats down per square metre.

Ok, so we're having the state buy prviate houses in London just to pull them down? That's not going to be problematic at all...

It doesn't have to be the State. But why is it problematic? Most people in most cities in the world live in eight storey apartment blocks with lifts. It's OK and if it means the difference between affordable and unaffordable housing in London, actually good.

It's problematic because people don't want to live there, you see higher crime, people suffer from more mental health problems, and children develop slower.

Richard_Nabavi

CornishJohn said:

We can make that differential a lot smaller by building new houses, rather than new tower blocks.

If we built more flats around London, that would free up houses which have been converted (often not very satisfactorily) to flats, to be converted back to houses. It would be a win-win, surely?

HYUFD

edmundintokyo said:

HYUFD said:

edmundintokyo said:

HYUFD said:

The green belt is there for a reason, if you want to build more homes use brownfield sites first

What's the reason?

Protection of the countryside, wildlife, reducing pollution etc. In any case the London urban area is really the suburbs and the Home Counties, if you want cheaper accommodation than central London move there

Why do the wildlife need to live near London, do they commute?

Living near Epping Forest ( mugh of it greenbelt) it makes a huge difference and provides a breathing space rather than endless sprawl

CornishJohn

"The literature suggests that high-rises are less satisfactory than other housing forms for most people, that they are not optimal for children, that social relations are more impersonal and helping behavior is less than in other housing forms, that crime and fear of crime are greater, and that they may independently account for some suicides."

https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/6bb1/a7af32de3cb880192db3734601710ca2fba0.pdf

FF43

CornishJohn said:

I do not understand this desire to solve the housing crisis with more huge tower blocks. Polling showed that 89% of Britons want to live in a house on a street, with just 2% in apartments and 0% in tower blocks. We need to build homes where people actually want to live.

Projecting Japan as an example to be followed would be a mistake. People who live in apartments in the sky know it's not a good place to raise a family. If they have any children at all, they have 1 or 2, well below the replacement ratio. As we have seen with Japan, they now have a big problem with an aging society.

https://policyexchange.org.uk/high-rise-living-means-crime-stress-delinquency-and-social-breakdown-instead-we-must-create-streets/

But better live in a flat (as do most city dwellers thoughout the world, who bring up families in them) than not being able to afford any place of your own of any kind at all, no? That's the issue in London. Different in Hartlepool.

Richard_Nabavi

CornishJohn said:

"The literature suggests that high-rises are less satisfactory than other housing forms for most people, that they are not optimal for children, that social relations are more impersonal and helping behavior is less than in other housing forms, that crime and fear of crime are greater, and that they may independently account for some suicides."

No-one is suggesting that the solution is high-rise flats. I don't know why you keep going on about them.

HYUFD

justin124 said:

HYUFD said:

Sandpit said:

Surely an outlier, or are the middle class turkeys really saying they'd vote for Corbyn's Christmas?

Labour actually won C1s at the last election as well as DEs. The Tories won ABs and C2s. The division is now AB C2 v C1 DE not ABC1 v C2DE

The class basis of UK politics has changed so much over recent decades. Back in the 1970s the middle classes were far more solid in their support for the Tories than the working classes were for Labour. That is no longer true.

Yes, it is now the LDs who are the real party of the posh, the upper middle class and snobs, no longer the Tories (perhaps why OGH supports them?)

CornishJohn

Richard_Nabavi said:

CornishJohn said:

We can make that differential a lot smaller by building new houses, rather than new tower blocks.

If we built more flats around London, that would free up houses which have been converted (often not very satisfactorily) to flats, to be converted back to houses. It would be a win-win, surely?

If we built more houses around London, then housing would be all round cheaper and those conversions could be converted back, for more houses in total. As I mentioned, 89% of people want to live in houses. Building more tower blocks that can not be converted into houses ever is a mistake. You end up with individuals suffering from worse mental health and physical safety, fewer people having families, and less integrated communities. The growing social alienation of our society would just get worse.

HYUFD

logical_song said:

HYUFD said:

MarkSenior said:

Given 4 more years of a Conservative government , a probable recession and a Brexit debacle ABC1s and everyone else will flee the Conservatives and the next GE will see a Conservative defeat of a greater magnitude than even 1997 .

There is no way Corbyn will win a bigger landslide than Blair 1997. Even if he does win the next general election his socialist policies would swiftly see a Tory revival soon after.

What was your prediction for GE 2017?

I think a May majority of about 50+, in the end she still won most seats if not a majority

edmundintokyo

HYUFD said:

Living near Epping Forest ( mugh of it greenbelt) it makes a huge difference and provides a breathing space rather than endless sprawl

When you say a breathing space, what are you actually talking about? You breathe all day, you don't do it by going into a particular space.

Are you saying it's somewhere to go for a walk? In Tokyo there are loads of parks, and if you want proper nature nature you jump on a train, it doesn't take long.

CornishJohn

Richard_Nabavi said:

CornishJohn said:

"The literature suggests that high-rises are less satisfactory than other housing forms for most people, that they are not optimal for children, that social relations are more impersonal and helping behavior is less than in other housing forms, that crime and fear of crime are greater, and that they may independently account for some suicides."

No-one is suggesting that the solution is high-rise flats. I don't know why you keep going on about them.

I think several people actually were making exactly that suggestion. Perhaps there is a role for low-rise flats under five stories. But these should only be a small share of the housing stock, aimed at first time buyers. We must make sure they have easy street access, usable garden space and genuine communal spaces that encourage neighbours to know each other.

david_herdson

HYUFD said:

david_herdson said:

HYUFD said:

Casino_Royale said:

HYUFD said:

Scott_P said:

https://twitter.com/george_osborne/status/883284813163180034

The 42% this 'lame duck' got is rather better than some of her fellow leaders got

Osborne is in full campaign mode, using the cloak of Evening Standard editor to do it. What else do you expect who devotes himself to "plotting the downfall of my enemies".

It's what he does.

Given it was Osborne's failure to sort the deficit by 2015 as he promised which partly explains the rise of Corbyn he should drop the vendetta and get on with the day job

That's a remarkable first 21 words there. Care to talk us through your thinking?

Corbyn ran against continued austerity, if Osborne had sorted the deficit by 2015 that would not have been an issue

If Osborne had sorted the deficit by 2015 (which wasn't possible given political constraints anyway), then the UK would have had deeper cuts and higher tax rises, lower growth and higher unemployment. You seriously think that would have stopped the Labour left from voting for Corbyn? (Actually, it probably would have done as Miliband would be PM but I doubt that was your line of reasoning).

Corbyn won because (1) Labour changed the rules to allow and even encourage entryism, and (2) he was up against two wooden opponents still in shock from the 2015 defeat, who had neither the vision for where Labour should go nor the charisma to be able to sidestep that.

Anorak

CornishJohn said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

CornishJohn said:

"The literature suggests that high-rises are less satisfactory than other housing forms for most people, that they are not optimal for children, that social relations are more impersonal and helping behavior is less than in other housing forms, that crime and fear of crime are greater, and that they may independently account for some suicides."

No-one is suggesting that the solution is high-rise flats. I don't know why you keep going on about them.

I think several people actually were making exactly that suggestion. Perhaps there is a role for low-rise flats under five stories. But these should only be a small share of the housing stock, aimed at first time buyers. We must make sure they have easy street access, usable garden space and genuine communal spaces that encourage neighbours to know each other.

I've lived in a London terrace for 10 years, and I hardly know the neighbours at all. That might say as much about me as about anything else, but this isn't the 1950's anymore you know, with street parties and women staying at home and only posh folk having a telly.

edmundintokyo

CornishJohn said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

CornishJohn said:

"The literature suggests that high-rises are less satisfactory than other housing forms for most people, that they are not optimal for children, that social relations are more impersonal and helping behavior is less than in other housing forms, that crime and fear of crime are greater, and that they may independently account for some suicides."

No-one is suggesting that the solution is high-rise flats. I don't know why you keep going on about them.

I think several people actually were making exactly that suggestion. Perhaps there is a role for low-rise flats under five stories. But these should only be a small share of the housing stock, aimed at first time buyers. We must make sure they have easy street access, usable garden space and genuine communal spaces that encourage neighbours to know each other.

Why do "we" need to make sure of these things? "We" don't make sure pasta sauce served in restaurants has an appropriate amount of onions for that authentic Italian taste. Why can't you let people live in whatever arrangements they want to live in?

CornishJohn

edmundintokyo said:

HYUFD said:

Living near Epping Forest ( mugh of it greenbelt) it makes a huge difference and provides a breathing space rather than endless sprawl

When you say a breathing space, what are you actually talking about? You breathe all day, you don't do it by going into a particular space.

Are you saying it's somewhere to go for a walk? In Tokyo there are loads of parks, and if you want proper nature nature you jump on a train, it doesn't take long.

He means a physical environment that destresses the mind when you leave your front door. There is clear evidence that high rise living is bad for depression, anxiety and suicide rates. Not surprisingly, Japan has some of the worst rates of mental health in the world.

SandyRentool

City apartment - short commute, bars and restaurants, noise and pollution
Suburban house - middling commute, zzzzz
Rural house - long commute, fresh air and open spaces, bored kids

The clear answer is to buy one of each.

Roger

SandyRentool said:

City apartment - short commute, bars and restaurants, noise and pollution
Suburban house - middling commute, zzzzz
Rural house - long commute, fresh air and open spaces, bored kids

The clear answer is to buy one of each.

Good thinking but I'd pass on the rural and suburban one. You might get Leavers moving into your area

Sandpit

Slackbladder said:

SandyRentool said:

HYUFD said:

Slackbladder said:

Pulpstar said:

Just checked a comparison, the Tokyo contiguous urban area is absolubtely huge compared to London, which looks like an absolute tiddler when you stick it next to Tokyo.

which then raises the issue if we should or could massive increase the size of London by removing the green belt (such as it is).

The green belt is there for a reason, if you want to build more homes use brownfield sites first

Gardens are classed as brownfield. There is a big garden out the back of Buckingham Palace. You could fit a fair few apartment blocks there, and selling off the land would pay for the refurbishment costs of the house. Everyone's a winner!

Lets just concrete over Hyde Park as well whilst we're at it.

We could put up a parking lot.

Isn't there already a bloody big car park underneath there already?

Slackbladder

edmundintokyo said:

CornishJohn said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

CornishJohn said:

"The literature suggests that high-rises are less satisfactory than other housing forms for most people, that they are not optimal for children, that social relations are more impersonal and helping behavior is less than in other housing forms, that crime and fear of crime are greater, and that they may independently account for some suicides."

No-one is suggesting that the solution is high-rise flats. I don't know why you keep going on about them.

I think several people actually were making exactly that suggestion. Perhaps there is a role for low-rise flats under five stories. But these should only be a small share of the housing stock, aimed at first time buyers. We must make sure they have easy street access, usable garden space and genuine communal spaces that encourage neighbours to know each other.

Why do "we" need to make sure of these things? "We" don't make sure pasta sauce served in restaurants has an appropriate amount of onions for that authentic Italian taste. Why can't you let people live in whatever arrangements they want to live in?

I'm pretty sure they are, and they don't want tower blocks in the way you're describing.

LadyBucket

Toms said:

Scott_P said:

https://twitter.com/shippersunbound/status/883300351901925376

How would we look sitting next to a rattlesnake?

This was at the Nato summit and was just after the Manchester Bombing. What a cheap shot by Tim Shipman, who should know better.

edmundintokyo

CornishJohn said:

He means a physical environment that destresses the mind when you leave your front door.

His front door opens out onto Epping Forest???

edmundintokyo

Slackbladder said:

edmundintokyo said:

CornishJohn said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

CornishJohn said:

"The literature suggests that high-rises are less satisfactory than other housing forms for most people, that they are not optimal for children, that social relations are more impersonal and helping behavior is less than in other housing forms, that crime and fear of crime are greater, and that they may independently account for some suicides."

No-one is suggesting that the solution is high-rise flats. I don't know why you keep going on about them.

I think several people actually were making exactly that suggestion. Perhaps there is a role for low-rise flats under five stories. But these should only be a small share of the housing stock, aimed at first time buyers. We must make sure they have easy street access, usable garden space and genuine communal spaces that encourage neighbours to know each other.

Why do "we" need to make sure of these things? "We" don't make sure pasta sauce served in restaurants has an appropriate amount of onions for that authentic Italian taste. Why can't you let people live in whatever arrangements they want to live in?

I'm pretty sure they are, and they don't want tower blocks in the way you're describing.

They're not, Britain has very strict and prescriptive centrally-managed planning policies.

FF43

CornishJohn said:

edmundintokyo said:

HYUFD said:

Living near Epping Forest ( mugh of it greenbelt) it makes a huge difference and provides a breathing space rather than endless sprawl

When you say a breathing space, what are you actually talking about? You breathe all day, you don't do it by going into a particular space.

Are you saying it's somewhere to go for a walk? In Tokyo there are loads of parks, and if you want proper nature nature you jump on a train, it doesn't take long.

He means a physical environment that destresses the mind when you leave your front door. There is clear evidence that high rise living is bad for depression, anxiety and suicide rates. Not surprisingly, Japan has some of the worst rates of mental health in the world.

Less depressing than not being able to afford any housing at all, surely? The Wikipedia article says Japan has the lowest incidence of depression amongst 200 countries in the list 3% versus 12% b the USA (where FWIW most people live in nice houses)

Dura_Ace

LadyBucket said:

Toms said:

Scott_P said:

https://twitter.com/shippersunbound/status/883300351901925376

How would we look sitting next to a rattlesnake?

This was at the Nato summit and was just after the Manchester Bombing. What a cheap shot by Tim Shipman, who should know better.

Well she probably does look as haggard as fuck at the G20 bollocks anyway.

Roger

"Corbyn’s Labour now have a 12% lead with the upper and middle classes, let that sink in"

Surely that just reflects the overwhelming majority of ABC's who support Remain?

Sandpit

Morris_Dancer said:

Good afternoon, everyone.

F1: odd practice results. McLaren looking good, at this stage. Possible the engine upgrade has actually worked.

McLaren for P3 is probably looking like a good bet. Mercedes cars well clear in the lead.

Slackbladder

Roger said:

"Corbyn’s Labour now have a 12% lead with the upper and middle classes, let that sink in"

Surely that just reflects the overwhelming majority of ABC's who support Remain?

They're not going to be happy when they actually work out labour's policy then.

Morris_Dancer

Mr. Sandpit, maybe (you mean Q3, right?). It'd still be a big shift if Force India were suddenly behind McLaren.

Odds for that market can be pretty rubbish, unfortunately.

Vinny

Trouble is, we all know that the opinion polls are a load of rubbish; consider how they misled the public at the last election.It is quite clear that they are only throw-away observations rather like the idiotic votes on Britain's Got Talent, complete with shrieking and striking attitudes.

Alistair

justin124 said:

A Labour party member I know told me about her early election day experience. Before the polls had opened she was out delivering 'Vote Labour Today' leaflets to identified supporters in her area. She was very taken aback to come across many properties to which she was not expected to deliver the said leaflet which nevertheless had Labour posters in their windows! This made her think that something was happening , and that Labour was picking up a fair bit of support of which it was itself unaware.

I have a theory about the failure of the Messina data effort. Anecdotally lots of Con campaigners have complained about being sent round to target addresses only to find the people there were solidly voting Conservative and they were wasting their time. The huge surge in both the Labour and Con vote 'confused the model' which was based around eeking out the most efficient vote possible when getting 37% rather than being around 43%. All the marginal voters identified by the model were not remotely marginal and and whole things should have been recaliberated.