So by my reckoning these are the seats won by the Conservatives in 2010 but not in 2019:
Battersea Brentford Croydon C Ealing C Enfield N Enfield Southgate Ilford N Putney Richmond Park
Bedford St Albans
Brighton Kemptown Canterbury Hove Reading E Oxford W
Bristol NW Plymouth Sutton
Warwick
Chester Lancaster Weaver Vale Wirral W
Cardiff N
Bristol NW, Brighton Kemptown and Hove now added.
The Tory’s southern underbelly is soft with the right leader.
Housing affordability is the big threat to the Conservatives in the South.
I think this has been noted by the leadership already. I think more anti-landlord policies are going to come, hopefully it will tip the balance further towards home ownership and away from existing property "investment".
What we need is aggressive granting of planning permission to build.
Nope, there is enough housing in the UK, it just isn't allocated efficiently because owner occupation is effectively discouraged compared to being a landlord.
It is slightly bizarre that I am a landlord, yet have a mortgage on the house I live in.
It becomes less bizarre when you realise I inherited a house with a sitting tenant.
Sure and if the government introduced a 3% annual value tax how quickly would you sell it?
About halfway down there's an interview with Phil Wilson.
I am absolutely convinced that if Keir Starmer had stood on the 2017 manifesto it would have been a minority Labour Government at the worst. But because so many of us were too stupid to see what was happening and too arrogant to listen, Labour is going to climb what should have been a few seats, now being 60+.
We've really cocked this up, I think it's difficult to understate how badly.
Really? Worst post-war performance? Worst than Michael Foot? You've lost Scotland. You've lost the Northern Mining towns. Your only redoubt is the South Wales Valleys and the University towns. How bad did it have to get before you realised this? And what, if anything, can you do that will realistically stop it happening the next time?
I meant post 2017, when Labour actually gained seats. We cocked up keeping Corbyn and I didn't realise until this election how badly we'd cocked it up.
There are narrow avenues for Labour to come back - but they need the right leader and a new approach.
If Boris wants to play for keeps, he could just give Classic Dom the task of gradually closing off all those avenues over the next 5 years...
I think this has been noted by the leadership already. I think more anti-landlord policies are going to come, hopefully it will tip the balance further towards home ownership and away from existing property "investment".
What we need is aggressive granting of planning permission to build.
The latter, if we value detached housing more than green space - but the alternative is denser housing, like most countries. We certainly don't need anti-landlord policies (as opposed to policies to encourage good landlords) in the south - for huge numbers of people in the Home Counties, renting is a crucial part of life and we need a decnt supply.
Now the election is over - what was your opinion of Labour housing policies in the manifesto?
The problem for Labour is that it very much looks like Boris is going to play to the centre. The guardian reporting on NHS funding guarantee laws and £80bn on infrastructure in the ex-Labour heartlands. That looks like a party that wants to prove they aren't just in favour of the rich shires. It's literally from the Maggie playbook, we're going to turn them into Tories as much as they are going to make us less libertarian.
Where is this money going to come from? If Labour was offering £80Bn in infrastructure spending they'd be utterly taken apart.
I've said this before, if there is another recession the UK has to be one of the absolute worst prepared economies in Europe. Consumer debt levels now at the same as they were in 2006/2007 before the last crash, worrying high levels of rough sleeping and homelessness, very poor growth (or none) and debt to GDP at something like 85%.
I can't see the Tories spending their way out of the next recession, can you?
Has anyone worked out the average age you started voting Conservative yet, has it gone up or down? Because I must tell you, if the Tories continue to fail to tackle the housing issue in the next five or ten years, that is another ticking time bomb.
They have a lot of power now to tackle these problems, I really hope they do - but I fear they won't.
The £80bn is within the current spending envelope if we decide to stop cutting the deficit now that it is below 2%. It's not what I would do, but tbh, I've already lost that argument within the party.
Cancel HS2 and simultaneously announce £100bn infrastructure investment in the Midlands, North and Wales.
HS2 IS infrastructure investment for the North, Midlands and to a lesser extent North Wales.
It is. I'd say for the north, Northern Powerhouse Rail is a higher priority. Followed by investment in suburban and commuter services, followed by HS2. But the three are complementary, and ideally we'd have all three.
It's not all (albeit many) of the economic policies and other policies that Labour needs to abandon, it's the post 2010-London centric attitude.
They need to return being the party of Attlee and the party of Blair. The current lot have misinterpreted the 1945 Government by just copying some of their economic policy but what they seem to have missed is that Attlee was fiercely patriotic, very interested in talking across party lines and wanted to cultivate a broad church Labour Party. Indeed he had Marxists and social democrats working together.
Labour needs to get back into the communities it once represented in Wales and and the North and actually figure out what they want.
And perhaps that means talking to people like me less - but I passionately believe that a balance can be found that brings both voters together. I think tuition fee action would keep most of the young vote and I'm sure something on housing would too.
It's not a revolution these people want, it's a slight modification and an acknowledgement that things are okay for certain people.
The problem for Labour is that it very much looks like Boris is going to play to the centre. The guardian reporting on NHS funding guarantee laws and £80bn on infrastructure in the ex-Labour heartlands. That looks like a party that wants to prove they aren't just in favour of the rich shires. It's literally from the Maggie playbook, we're going to turn them into Tories as much as they are going to make us less libertarian.
Where is this money going to come from? If Labour was offering £80Bn in infrastructure spending they'd be utterly taken apart.
I've said this before, if there is another recession the UK has to be one of the absolute worst prepared economies in Europe. Consumer debt levels now at the same as they were in 2006/2007 before the last crash, worrying high levels of rough sleeping and homelessness, very poor growth (or none) and debt to GDP at something like 85%.
I can't see the Tories spending their way out of the next recession, can you?
Has anyone worked out the average age you started voting Conservative yet, has it gone up or down? Because I must tell you, if the Tories continue to fail to tackle the housing issue in the next five or ten years, that is another ticking time bomb.
They have a lot of power now to tackle these problems, I really hope they do - but I fear they won't.
The £80bn is within the current spending envelope if we decide to stop cutting the deficit now that it is below 2%. It's not what I would do, but tbh, I've already lost that argument within the party.
Cancel HS2 and simultaneously announce £100bn infrastructure investment in the Midlands, North and Wales.
The midlands and the north are big supporters of HS2. They wouldn't be very happy if it was cancelled.
Not the midlanders and northerners I know.
Its a big area and people prefer investment which benefits them rather than which might benefit other people in other parts in future decades.
Perhaps Boris Johnson and his pals can get to work on improving existing railway services too, because South Western Failway is a disgrace even when it isn't on strike.
Not sure this has been mentioned yet but one of the first things I expect the Tories to do is to repeal the FTPA. Could we return to four year elections again?
I think it has a 2020 sunset clause, so there's no need to repeal it.
The problem for Labour is that it very much looks like Boris is going to play to the centre. The guardian reporting on NHS funding guarantee laws and £80bn on infrastructure in the ex-Labour heartlands. That looks like a party that wants to prove they aren't just in favour of the rich shires. It's literally from the Maggie playbook, we're going to turn them into Tories as much as they are going to make us less libertarian.
Where is this money going to come from? If Labour was offering £80Bn in infrastructure spending they'd be utterly taken apart.
I've said this before, if there is another recession the UK has to be one of the absolute worst prepared economies in Europe. Consumer debt levels now at the same as they were in 2006/2007 before the last crash, worrying high levels of rough sleeping and homelessness, very poor growth (or none) and debt to GDP at something like 85%.
I can't see the Tories spending their way out of the next recession, can you?
Has anyone worked out the average age you started voting Conservative yet, has it gone up or down? Because I must tell you, if the Tories continue to fail to tackle the housing issue in the next five or ten years, that is another ticking time bomb.
They have a lot of power now to tackle these problems, I really hope they do - but I fear they won't.
The £80bn is within the current spending envelope if we decide to stop cutting the deficit now that it is below 2%. It's not what I would do, but tbh, I've already lost that argument within the party.
Cancel HS2 and simultaneously announce £100bn infrastructure investment in the Midlands, North and Wales.
The midlands and the north are big supporters of HS2. They wouldn't be very happy if it was cancelled.
Not the midlanders and northerners I know.
Its a big area and people prefer investment which benefits them rather than which might benefit other people in other parts in future decades.
Every single council and Chamber of Commerce in the north supports HS2.
Northern Powerhouse rail cannot happen without HS2.
There is nothing more sure to happen than HS2.
Also, HS2 is shovel ready, nothing else will start in this parliament given how long the legal stuff takes.
Cancelling HS2 would be cancelling the ONLY scheme in the north in this parliament.
Wycombe has a university that is ranked just above Cambridge on one very widely used measure.
So does Oxford, of course.
Oxford also has a second university called, imaginatively, the University of Oxford, which is infamously not nearly as good...
Not for architecture, no.
Speaking of Oxford, the last three Labour leaders to win general elections were all there. Who on the list of possible new leaders was?
Let’s hope we have the last ever old Etonian Oxbridge none STEM graduate ever. Let’s have scientists, entrepreneurs and good business managers who have actually done more than been spads, journalists or lawyers
Like Thatcher you mean? I don’t think any other PM studied a STEM subject.
I know but she then went and did a law degree
I think having mps knowing something about the law is a good thing; after all they are the ones responsible for creating them.
Wycombe has a university that is ranked just above Cambridge on one very widely used measure.
So does Oxford, of course.
Oxford also has a second university called, imaginatively, the University of Oxford, which is infamously not nearly as good...
Not for architecture, no.
Speaking of Oxford, the last three Labour leaders to win general elections were all there. Who on the list of possible new leaders was?
Let’s hope we have the last ever old Etonian Oxbridge none STEM graduate ever. Let’s have scientists, entrepreneurs and good business managers who have actually done more than been spads, journalists or lawyers
Like Thatcher you mean? I don’t think any other PM studied a STEM subject.
I know but she then went and did a law degree
Polymath
It would be a start the talent pool in the UK isn’t restricted to the most narrow educational experience that is Oxbridge. I learned more about city center life from my years at Bradford in the 70’s than my growing up years in suburban Liverpool. Also you don’t need to go to university to be successful
The problem for Labour is that it very much looks like Boris is going to play to the centre. The guardian reporting on NHS funding guarantee laws and £80bn on infrastructure in the ex-Labour heartlands. That looks like a party that wants to prove they aren't just in favour of the rich shires. It's literally from the Maggie playbook, we're going to turn them into Tories as much as they are going to make us less libertarian.
If they're going to get building to prove they mean it, they need to crack on with it. From planning to completion, major infrastructure projects are realistically going to be ready only for the election-after-next, I'd have thought.
There might be much more value in doing a huge number of minor infrastructure projects.
They can also be completed a lot quicker as well.
Agree with this but even e.g. an A-road upgrade that's been in the early stages of planning for decades isn't going to be "shovel-ready".
For comparison the A14 upgrade underway at the moment was in the 2013 spending review (with plans dating back in some form to 2005 and new proposals put out in 2011), greenlit in 2016, but won't be ready til 2020.
I think this has been noted by the leadership already. I think more anti-landlord policies are going to come, hopefully it will tip the balance further towards home ownership and away from existing property "investment".
What we need is aggressive granting of planning permission to build.
The latter, if we value detached housing more than green space - but the alternative is denser housing, like most countries. We certainly don't need anti-landlord policies (as opposed to policies to encourage good landlords) in the south - for huge numbers of people in the Home Counties, renting is a crucial part of life and we need a decnt supply.
You're wrong. Private renting is a completely inefficient allocation of capital. It literally takes cash out of the hands of the working person and hand it to the non-working person. I'm should be surprised by your view on this but I'm not because fixing home ownership rates puts Labour out of power for a very long time.
I just don't see how the Tories intend to resolve the housing problem without pissing off much of their old/existing voting base.
The fundamental problem is that housing is too expensive - but if the Tories work to make it cheaper they'll piss of their voters who like having their houses go up in value.
Where is this money going to come from? If Labour was offering £80Bn in infrastructure spending they'd be utterly taken apart.
I've said this before, if there is another recession the UK has to be one of the absolute worst prepared economies in Europe. Consumer debt levels now at the same as they were in 2006/2007 before the last crash, worrying high levels of rough sleeping and homelessness, very poor growth (or none) and debt to GDP at something like 85%.
I can't see the Tories spending their way out of the next recession, can you?
Has anyone worked out the average age you started voting Conservative yet, has it gone up or down? Because I must tell you, if the Tories continue to fail to tackle the housing issue in the next five or ten years, that is another ticking time bomb.
They have a lot of power now to tackle these problems, I really hope they do - but I fear they won't.
The £80bn is within the current spending envelope if we decide to stop cutting the deficit now that it is below 2%. It's not what I would do, but tbh, I've already lost that argument within the party.
Cancel HS2 and simultaneously announce £100bn infrastructure investment in the Midlands, North and Wales.
I wonder what mileage there is (hah) in HS3: Liverpool to Hull. There's folk in Hull arguing it should be prioritised to happen before HS2 but I can't see that happening.
Perhaps one of the rail-engineering types on here can explain more but I imagine there are limits on our rail-building capacity (besides which it would presumably be silly to build up such capacity to embark on a huge simultaneous expansion of lines, then have to largely run that capacity down once they've all been built). There's also people in The North who want HS2 to be constructed "north to south" either first or in parallel to the "south to north" bit - isn't that also considered impractical/uneconomic?
People want to benefit from infrastructure investment.
If they don't but 'that lot over there' do they'll not likely be happy.
And that's HS2's problem - it isn't a 'one nation' investment.
Lots of people don't think that they will benefit but 'that lot over there' will and simultaneously they see the price go ever higher.
I just don't see how the Tories intend to resolve the housing problem without pissing off much of their old/existing voting base.
The fundamental problem is that housing is too expensive - but if the Tories work to make it cheaper they'll piss of their voters who like having their houses go up in value.
What am I missing here?
They have nowhere else to go and honestly, fuck them. Landlords are all parasites, no matter how "good" they claim to be.
Where is this money going to come from? If Labour was offering £80Bn in infrastructure spending they'd be utterly taken apart.
I've said this before, if there is another recession the UK has to be one of the absolute worst prepared economies in Europe. Consumer debt levels now at the same as they were in 2006/2007 before the last crash, worrying high levels of rough sleeping and homelessness, very poor growth (or none) and debt to GDP at something like 85%.
I can't see the Tories spending their way out of the next recession, can you?
Has anyone worked out the average age you started voting Conservative yet, has it gone up or down? Because I must tell you, if the Tories continue to fail to tackle the housing issue in the next five or ten years, that is another ticking time bomb.
They have a lot of power now to tackle these problems, I really hope they do - but I fear they won't.
The £80bn is within the current spending envelope if we decide to stop cutting the deficit now that it is below 2%. It's not what I would do, but tbh, I've already lost that argument within the party.
Cancel HS2 and simultaneously announce £100bn infrastructure investment in the Midlands, North and Wales.
I wonder what mileage there is (hah) in HS3: Liverpool to Hull. There's folk in Hull arguing it should be prioritised to happen before HS2 but I can't see that happening.
Perhaps one of the rail-engineering types on here can explain more but I imagine there are limits on our rail-building capacity (besides which it would presumably be silly to build up such capacity to embark on a huge simultaneous expansion of lines, then have to largely run that capacity down once they've all been built). There's also people in The North who want HS2 to be constructed "north to south" either first or in parallel to the "south to north" bit - isn't that also considered impractical/uneconomic?
People want to benefit from infrastructure investment.
If they don't but 'that lot over there' do they'll not likely be happy.
And that's HS2's problem - it isn't a 'one nation' investment.
Lots of people don't think that they will benefit but 'that lot over there' will and simultaneously they see the price go ever higher.
But it really is a one nation investment. It helps connectivity to many of the poorer places that went blue. Just because the vast majority of the population do not understand what HS2 will deliver does not stop it being true. The review will say HS2 will benefit the north more than the south, it aint being cancelled.
The problem for Labour is that it very much looks like Boris is going to play to the centre. The guardian reporting on NHS funding guarantee laws and £80bn on infrastructure in the ex-Labour heartlands. That looks like a party that wants to prove they aren't just in favour of the rich shires. It's literally from the Maggie playbook, we're going to turn them into Tories as much as they are going to make us less libertarian.
Where is this money going to come from? If Labour was offering £80Bn in infrastructure spending they'd be utterly taken apart.
I've said this before, if there is another recession the UK has to be one of the absolute worst prepared economies in Europe. Consumer debt levels now at the same as they were in 2006/2007 before the last crash, worrying high levels of rough sleeping and homelessness, very poor growth (or none) and debt to GDP at something like 85%.
I can't see the Tories spending their way out of the next recession, can you?
Has anyone worked out the average age you started voting Conservative yet, has it gone up or down? Because I must tell you, if the Tories continue to fail to tackle the housing issue in the next five or ten years, that is another ticking time bomb.
They have a lot of power now to tackle these problems, I really hope they do - but I fear they won't.
The £80bn is within the current spending envelope if we decide to stop cutting the deficit now that it is below 2%. It's not what I would do, but tbh, I've already lost that argument within the party.
Cancel HS2 and simultaneously announce £100bn infrastructure investment in the Midlands, North and Wales.
HS2 IS infrastructure investment for the North, Midlands and to a lesser extent North Wales.
Re the infrastructure problem and so on, I think a lot of voters want changes now, not in twenty or thirty years.
I'm not really sure Johnson saying "you'll get a new rail link in twenty years" is going to do much for these people. I think within five years they want to see meaningful changes in their communities -a and if they don't, they're going to be very angry.
Now that probably isn't possible with infrastructure, so what else have you got to offer?
This of course is my big problem with the whole nonsense of "get Brexit done", because things aren't going to magically get better or change when it does.
Take the 20,000 "more" police officers, these people take years to train, they aren't just going to come out of thin air. And they take us back (they don't actually) to where we were in 2010. What meaningful change is that?
This is why I think within five years much of Johnson's agenda will result in very little actual change at all. And I think that's his strategy.
In reality, if HS3 was prioritised above HS2 then we effectively write off any rail investment north of London for yet another decade, a decade when HS2 could have been built, a scheme that EVERY northern Chamber of Commerce supprts.
I just don't see how the Tories intend to resolve the housing problem without pissing off much of their old/existing voting base.
The fundamental problem is that housing is too expensive - but if the Tories work to make it cheaper they'll piss of their voters who like having their houses go up in value.
What am I missing here?
They have nowhere else to go and honestly, fuck them. Landlords are all parasites, no matter how "good" they claim to be.
I just don't see how the Tories intend to resolve the housing problem without pissing off much of their old/existing voting base.
The fundamental problem is that housing is too expensive - but if the Tories work to make it cheaper they'll piss of their voters who like having their houses go up in value.
What am I missing here?
They have nowhere else to go and honestly, fuck them. Landlords are all parasites, no matter how "good" they claim to be.
Isn't that the attitude Labour had to its heartlands?
They have plenty of places to go, the Lib Dems I'm sure would be glad to have them.
We saw significant progress by the Lib Dems in many seats this time around, especially in and around London and in seats like Guildford and Winchester.
If the Lib Dems become competitive again, I can foresee people in the South switching to them.
Take the 20,000 "more" police officers, these people take years to train, they aren't just going to come out of thin air. And they take us back (they don't actually) to where we were in 2010. What meaningful change is that?
.
Aren't you confusing police officers with doctors? It doesn't take years to train police officers, surely?
So by my reckoning these are the seats won by the Conservatives in 2010 but not in 2019:
Battersea Brentford Croydon C Ealing C Enfield N Enfield Southgate Ilford N Putney Richmond Park
Bedford St Albans
Brighton Kemptown Canterbury Hove Reading E Oxford W
Bristol NW Plymouth Sutton
Warwick
Chester Lancaster Weaver Vale Wirral W
Cardiff N
Bristol NW, Brighton Kemptown and Hove now added.
The Tory’s southern underbelly is soft with the right leader.
Housing affordability is the big threat to the Conservatives in the South.
I think this has been noted by the leadership already. I think more anti-landlord policies are going to come, hopefully it will tip the balance further towards home ownership and away from existing property "investment".
What we need is aggressive granting of planning permission to build.
Nope, there is enough housing in the UK, it just isn't allocated efficiently because owner occupation is effectively discouraged compared to being a landlord.
It is slightly bizarre that I am a landlord, yet have a mortgage on the house I live in.
It becomes less bizarre when you realise I inherited a house with a sitting tenant.
Sure and if the government introduced a 3% annual value tax how quickly would you sell it?
Almost instantly. Or double the rent.
Either way my tenant would become homeless as a result.
Looking at this thread it amazes me 11 years on how little people understand about what it would deliver to the parts of the country not directly served by the new lines.
Poor media coverage or lack of interest in understanding what is planned?
The £80bn is within the current spending envelope if we decide to stop cutting the deficit now that it is below 2%. It's not what I would do, but tbh, I've already lost that argument within the party.
Cancel HS2 and simultaneously announce £100bn infrastructure investment in the Midlands, North and Wales.
I wonder what mileage there is (hah) in HS3: Liverpool to Hull. There's folk in Hull arguing it should be prioritised to happen before HS2 but I can't see that happening.
Perhaps one of the rail-engineering types on here can explain more but I imagine there are limits on our rail-building capacity (besides which it would presumably be silly to build up such capacity to embark on a huge simultaneous expansion of lines, then have to largely run that capacity down once they've all been built). There's also people in The North who want HS2 to be constructed "north to south" either first or in parallel to the "south to north" bit - isn't that also considered impractical/uneconomic?
People want to benefit from infrastructure investment.
If they don't but 'that lot over there' do they'll not likely be happy.
And that's HS2's problem - it isn't a 'one nation' investment.
Lots of people don't think that they will benefit but 'that lot over there' will and simultaneously they see the price go ever higher.
But it really is a one nation investment. It helps connectivity to many of the poorer places that went blue. Just because the vast majority of the population do not understand what HS2 will deliver does not stop it being true. The review will say HS2 will benefit the north more than the south, it aint being cancelled.
Its an investment in which the benefits will be concentrated among the metropolitan affluent of future decades.
It really isn't one nation at all.
For £100bn you can spread the benefits in a much wider and fairer and quicker manner.
The problem for Labour is that it very much looks like Boris is going to play to the centre. The guardian reporting on NHS funding guarantee laws and £80bn on infrastructure in the ex-Labour heartlands. That looks like a party that wants to prove they aren't just in favour of the rich shires. It's literally from the Maggie playbook, we're going to turn them into Tories as much as they are going to make us less libertarian.
If they're going to get building to prove they mean it, they need to crack on with it. From planning to completion, major infrastructure projects are realistically going to be ready only for the election-after-next, I'd have thought.
If I were to enter the mind of BoJo, I think I'd be tempted to go for a really big symbolic show-project - given the NI tensions and Union wobbles more generally, a Massive Great Bridge between GB and Ulster might be in order. Hopefully more successful than the Garden Bridge...
Still think there might be something in this. He likes a bit of symbolism. And to be fair A Big Boris Bridge would be marginally less barmy than Boris Island.
I've already heard rumbles of opposition to streamlined planning - apparently Cummings is quoting the example of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gigafactory_3 and the civil service is not happy.
Boris Island made plenty of sense - strangely no-one opposed to it thought of the value of the Heathrow real estate... Hong Kong airport was more than paid for by the re-use of the old airport land.
Peking whinged about it back in 1997 but eventually realised it was a bargain. And then eclipsed it with a massive road bridge to Macao that no-one uses. There's plenty of overseas "investment" available for HS2, HS3 and even Boris Island but on a PFI basis that means our great great grandchildren will eventually foot the bill. The trick is to avoid the serial bankruptcies that paid for the 19th century rail network and consigned naive investors to oblivion. Where's Josias Jessop these days?
I am not sure housing is that big an issue for the type of northern voter who turned tory this election . They will mostly be retired or close to it with established housing .Whilst they dont live in mansions they probably own their house hence as keen as anyone not to see value drop.
More important to them is things like state pension and dont pander to the 'woke' too much in virtue signalling .They will appreciate infrastructure spending though and understand and agree with higher minimum wages and higher income tax thresholds of starting to pay tax.
Also northerners are more personable hence as long as a leader is that they will get votes - Major , Johnson etc
I just don't see how the Tories intend to resolve the housing problem without pissing off much of their old/existing voting base.
The fundamental problem is that housing is too expensive - but if the Tories work to make it cheaper they'll piss of their voters who like having their houses go up in value.
What am I missing here?
They have nowhere else to go and honestly, fuck them. Landlords are all parasites, no matter how "good" they claim to be.
Isn't that the attitude Labour had to its heartlands?
They have plenty of places to go, the Lib Dems I'm sure would be glad to have them.
We saw significant progress by the Lib Dems in many seats this time around, especially in and around London and in seats like Guildford and Winchester.
If the Lib Dems become competitive again, I can foresee people in the South switching to them.
It would require the opposition parties to actively support pro-landloes policies which will lose them more votes elsewhere.
Take the 20,000 "more" police officers, these people take years to train, they aren't just going to come out of thin air. And they take us back (they don't actually) to where we were in 2010. What meaningful change is that?
.
Aren't you confusing police officers with doctors? It doesn't take years to train police officers, surely?
>The plan is to recruit 6,000 new officers in the first year, then 14,000 over the following two years.
>So you could say that the new officers will simply cancel out previous cuts and get us back to 2010 levels.
>The population of England and Wales is estimated to have gone up too – by around 3.5 million people since 2010.
>So if officer numbers returned to the exact levels they reached in 2010, there would still be fewer per head of population.
So the numbers will go up - but I don't think in practice you're going to see much difference. And of course, if crime continues to go up, they'll be little evidence of progress anyway.
He may well run on a Cameronite agenda - but I simply don't see him making sufficient progress to show signs of real change. If he does, I'll be here to shake his hand.
Looking at this thread it amazes me 11 years on how little people understand about what it would deliver to the parts of the country not directly served by the new lines.
Poor media coverage or lack of interest in understanding what is planned?
Both. Plus a number of emotive stories about the disruption it will cause in building.
The problem for Labour is that it very much looks like Boris is going to play to the centre. The guardian reporting on NHS funding guarantee laws and £80bn on infrastructure in the ex-Labour heartlands. That looks like a party that wants to prove they aren't just in favour of the rich shires. It's literally from the Maggie playbook, we're going to turn them into Tories as much as they are going to make us less libertarian.
Where is this money going to come from? If Labour was offering £80Bn in infrastructure spending they'd be utterly taken apart.
I've said this before, if there is another recession the UK has to be one of the absolute worst prepared economies in Europe. Consumer debt levels now at the same as they were in 2006/2007 before the last crash, worrying high levels of rough sleeping and homelessness, very poor growth (or none) and debt to GDP at something like 85%.
I can't see the Tories spending their way out of the next recession, can you?
Has anyone worked out the average age you started voting Conservative yet, has it gone up or down? Because I must tell you, if the Tories continue to fail to tackle the housing issue in the next five or ten years, that is another ticking time bomb.
They have a lot of power now to tackle these problems, I really hope they do - but I fear they won't.
If it's true that Mr Johnson is motivated by self-interest rather than ideology, there is at least a chance that he will start to tackle such problems, because it may generate good-will towards him.
If you're motivated by ideology, you are usually convinced you know what the answer is. If "all" you want is people's votes, you'll do what might make them vote for you.
If you want more decent rail connections between Stoke to Birmingham and Manchester do you a) build a shed load more rail capacity to carry more better trains or b) do nothing?
Leaving you with one question what do you want, expect from the new, majority enabled prime minister in the next six months ? How will you measure his progress? Any body who answers getting brexit done is disqualified because it means nothing so come on tell me how he is to be judged.
Looking at this thread it amazes me 11 years on how little people understand about what it would deliver to the parts of the country not directly served by the new lines.
Poor media coverage or lack of interest in understanding what is planned?
Crossrail was first approved in 2007 - it still hasn't opened yet...
The problem for Labour is that it very much looks like Boris is going to play to the centre. The guardian reporting on NHS funding guarantee laws and £80bn on infrastructure in the ex-Labour heartlands. That looks like a party that wants to prove they aren't just in favour of the rich shires. It's literally from the Maggie playbook, we're going to turn them into Tories as much as they are going to make us less libertarian.
Where is this money going to come from? If Labour was offering £80Bn in infrastructure spending they'd be utterly taken apart.
I've said this before, if there is another recession the UK has to be one of the absolute worst prepared economies in Europe. Consumer debt levels now at the same as they were in 2006/2007 before the last crash, worrying high levels of rough sleeping and homelessness, very poor growth (or none) and debt to GDP at something like 85%.
I can't see the Tories spending their way out of the next recession, can you?
Has anyone worked out the average age you started voting Conservative yet, has it gone up or down? Because I must tell you, if the Tories continue to fail to tackle the housing issue in the next five or ten years, that is another ticking time bomb.
They have a lot of power now to tackle these problems, I really hope they do - but I fear they won't.
If it's true that Mr Johnson is motivated by self-interest rather than ideology, there is at least a chance that he will start to tackle such problems, because it may generate good-will towards him.
If you're motivated by ideology, you are usually convinced you know what the answer is. If "all" you want is people's votes, you'll do what might make them vote for you.
That is true - but if within five years things are pretty much looking the same as the previous nine (as I think they are), Johnson is going to have a tough time shaking off the idea he's somehow different.
I think this is the fundamental issue with his strategy, the people he has just voted for, believe he is going to offer really strong, meaningful change and I think he's going to fail to live up to those expectations.
Of course if Labour offers too much again and looks moronic he'll win a landslide next time around. A lot of his winning must not be understated really as Labour being so bloody awful he walked it with barely any promises at all. But - and it's a big but I'll give you that - it's possible he won't be so lucky next time around.
Looking at this thread it amazes me 11 years on how little people understand about what it would deliver to the parts of the country not directly served by the new lines.
Poor media coverage or lack of interest in understanding what is planned?
Both. Plus a number of emotive stories about the disruption it will cause in building.
There are two Swampy-camps near Leamington Spa "protecting" ancient woodland. Must be bloody cold there tonight - and wet with it.
Looking at this thread it amazes me 11 years on how little people understand about what it would deliver to the parts of the country not directly served by the new lines.
Poor media coverage or lack of interest in understanding what is planned?
Crossrail was first approved in 2007 - it still hasn't opened yet...
Yep
But most people seem to understand Crossrail
Ignorance about the benefits of HS2 to the north are amazing, probably due tot he southern media not being interested.
Looking at this thread it amazes me 11 years on how little people understand about what it would deliver to the parts of the country not directly served by the new lines.
Poor media coverage or lack of interest in understanding what is planned?
Crossrail was first approved in 2007 - it still hasn't opened yet...
Didn't Casino say he now doesn't expect it to open by Christman 2021.
Wycombe has a university that is ranked just above Cambridge on one very widely used measure.
So does Oxford, of course.
Oxford also has a second university called, imaginatively, the University of Oxford, which is infamously not nearly as good...
Not for architecture, no.
Speaking of Oxford, the last three Labour leaders to win general elections were all there. Who on the list of possible new leaders was?
Let’s hope we have the last ever old Etonian Oxbridge none STEM graduate ever. Let’s have scientists, entrepreneurs and good business managers who have actually done more than been spads, journalists or lawyers
Like Thatcher you mean? I don’t think any other PM studied a STEM subject.
I know but she then went and did a law degree
I think having mps knowing something about the law is a good thing; after all they are the ones responsible for creating them.
It's an interesting one, I think all new MPs should have to do (or at least get offered by the HoC staff) some basic legal training as part of their "orientation" process! Perhaps they do actually, does anybody know? You'll always need more experienced legal eagles for the drafting and scrutinising but it can't hurt for MPs to at least be able to "speak the language" of the legislation they vote for.
But governance is about far more than law. There are issues of history, philosophy, economics and management for example. Being able to do evidence-based policy-making isn't something only STEM graduates can understand - someone who had an academic background in policy might even have an edge on a computer science or physics grad in understanding how "evidence" is generated in the real-world and how to assess it critically, you can't just look at a p-value and think "oh that's me convinced then". There are clearly a range of skill-sets which are valuable. Someone with a some understanding of the underlying subject matter also helps. Since legislators legislate on, and governments govern on, all manner of aspects of civic and professional life, it would be good for Parliament to reflect a very wide range of backgrounds and sectors. All lawyers is bad, all chemists would also be bad, but I do think all MPs should have at least a modicum of literacy in law, economics and evidence-based policy.
Take the 20,000 "more" police officers, these people take years to train, they aren't just going to come out of thin air. And they take us back (they don't actually) to where we were in 2010. What meaningful change is that?
.
Aren't you confusing police officers with doctors? It doesn't take years to train police officers, surely?
>The plan is to recruit 6,000 new officers in the first year, then 14,000 over the following two years.
>So you could say that the new officers will simply cancel out previous cuts and get us back to 2010 levels.
>The population of England and Wales is estimated to have gone up too – by around 3.5 million people since 2010.
>So if officer numbers returned to the exact levels they reached in 2010, there would still be fewer per head of population.
So the numbers will go up - but I don't think in practice you're going to see much difference. And of course, if crime continues to go up, they'll be little evidence of progress anyway.
He may well run on a Cameronite agenda - but I simply don't see him making sufficient progress to show signs of real change. If he does, I'll be here to shake his hand.
Interestingly, you can increase the number of police officers quite quickly. When police numbers were restricted, applicants were told to join the Specials. In many areas, the Specials are now full - turning away new applicants. So you have a large number of people who want to be in the police - who are already have a warrant card!
Bunging Musk a whole bunch of tax relief and whatnot for a Tesla & Gigafactory next to Bolsover would be a good idea for an infrastructure project.
It would cut straight across EU state aid and taxation level playing field rules. It would be a problem if Tesla wanted to sell those cars and batteries to the EU. In fact a problem for the UK to sell anything at all to Europe on better than WTO terms. The EU will be extremely strict on this because its member states are bound by these level playing field rules and they won't allow UK goods and services to mingle freely with theirs if the UK isn't bound the same way. Nevertheless "Brussels says No" isn't going to down well in these parts. It will be a huge issue going forwards.
In any case Tesla has already decided to build its European Gigafactory in Germany explicitly because the UK is leaving the EU.
Looking at this thread it amazes me 11 years on how little people understand about what it would deliver to the parts of the country not directly served by the new lines.
Poor media coverage or lack of interest in understanding what is planned?
Both. Plus a number of emotive stories about the disruption it will cause in building.
There are two Swampy-camps near Leamington Spa "protecting" ancient woodland. Must be bloody cold there tonight - and wet with it.
Because HS2, which will destroy one hectare of ancient woodland, is obviously more important than trying to have carbon-neutral travel to tempt people out of their cars and freight away from lorries.
There used to be a reasonable (albeit)simplistic view of British politics that it went in cycles. Conservatives would run a decent economy, but underinvest. Labour would replace them and deliver the necessary investment, but spend too much and then the Conservatives would come back in to fix the economy again. But cut back on investment...
Because of Labour's adventure with Corbyn this cycle has been broken, so maybe we need the Conservatives to play the role of a Labour Government for a bit.
Looking at this thread it amazes me 11 years on how little people understand about what it would deliver to the parts of the country not directly served by the new lines.
Poor media coverage or lack of interest in understanding what is planned?
When they announced HS2 in 2008 what was the price and when was it due for completion ?
A decade on what is the price and when is it due for completion ?
The problem for Labour is that it very much looks like Boris is going to play to the centre. The guardian reporting on NHS funding guarantee laws and £80bn on infrastructure in the ex-Labour heartlands. That looks like a party that wants to prove they aren't just in favour of the rich shires. It's literally from the Maggie playbook, we're going to turn them into Tories as much as they are going to make us less libertarian.
If they're going to get building to prove they mean it, they need to crack on with it. From planning to completion, major infrastructure projects are realistically going to be ready only for the election-after-next, I'd have thought.
If I were to enter the mind of BoJo, I think I'd be tempted to go for a really big symbolic show-project - given the NI tensions and Union wobbles more generally, a Massive Great Bridge between GB and Ulster might be in order. Hopefully more successful than the Garden Bridge...
Still think there might be something in this. He likes a bit of symbolism. And to be fair A Big Boris Bridge would be marginally less barmy than Boris Island.
I've already heard rumbles of opposition to streamlined planning - apparently Cummings is quoting the example of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gigafactory_3 and the civil service is not happy.
Boris Island made plenty of sense - strangely no-one opposed to it thought of the value of the Heathrow real estate... Hong Kong airport was more than paid for by the re-use of the old airport land.
Peking whinged about it back in 1997 but eventually realised it was a bargain. And then eclipsed it with a massive road bridge to Macao that no-one uses. There's plenty of overseas "investment" available for HS2, HS3 and even Boris Island but on a PFI basis that means our great great grandchildren will eventually foot the bill. The trick is to avoid the serial bankruptcies that paid for the 19th century rail network and consigned naive investors to oblivion. Where's Josias Jessop these days?
Surely the serial bankruptcies are fine, if we are left with the infrastructure?
Boris Island could be done for free - build it and you get Heathrow.
The problem for Labour is that it very much looks like Boris is going to play to the centre. The guardian reporting on NHS funding guarantee laws and £80bn on infrastructure in the ex-Labour heartlands. That looks like a party that wants to prove they aren't just in favour of the rich shires. It's literally from the Maggie playbook, we're going to turn them into Tories as much as they are going to make us less libertarian.
Where is this money going to come from? If Labour was offering £80Bn in infrastructure spending they'd be utterly taken apart.
I can't see the Tories spending their way out of the next recession, can you?
Has anyone worked out the average age you started voting Conservative yet, has it gone up or down? Because I must tell you, if the Tories continue to fail to tackle the housing issue in the next five or ten years, that is another ticking time bomb.
They have a lot of power now to tackle these problems, I really hope they do - but I fear they won't.
If it's true that Mr Johnson is motivated by self-interest rather than ideology, there is at least a chance that he will start to tackle such problems, because it may generate good-will towards him.
If you're motivated by ideology, you are usually convinced you know what the answer is. If "all" you want is people's votes, you'll do what might make them vote for you.
That is true - but if within five years things are pretty much looking the same as the previous nine (as I think they are), Johnson is going to have a tough time shaking off the idea he's somehow different.
I think this is the fundamental issue with his strategy, the people he has just voted for, believe he is going to offer really strong, meaningful change and I think he's going to fail to live up to those expectations.
Of course if Labour offers too much again and looks moronic he'll win a landslide next time around. A lot of his winning must not be understated really as Labour being so bloody awful he walked it with barely any promises at all. But - and it's a big but I'll give you that - it's possible he won't be so lucky next time around.
Things we've been told over the years:
Boris won't win in London...
Boris won't win in London twice...
Boris won't be in the Cabinet...
Boris won't be Prime Minister...
Boris won't get a Brexit Deal...
Boris won't win an election...
Boris won't win a landslide...
Betting against Boris has worked out not necessarily to his critics' advantage.
The problem for Labour is that it very much looks like Boris is going to play to the centre. The guardian reporting on NHS funding guarantee laws and £80bn on infrastructure in the ex-Labour heartlands. That looks like a party that wants to prove they aren't just in favour of the rich shires. It's literally from the Maggie playbook, we're going to turn them into Tories as much as they are going to make us less libertarian.
If they're going to get building to prove they mean it, they need to crack on with it. From planning to completion, major infrastructure projects are realistically going to be ready only for the election-after-next, I'd have thought.
If I were to enter the mind of BoJo, I think I'd be tempted to go for a really big symbolic show-project - given the NI tensions and Union wobbles more generally, a Massive Great Bridge between GB and Ulster might be in order. Hopefully more successful than the Garden Bridge...
Still think there might be something in this. He likes a bit of symbolism. And to be fair A Big Boris Bridge would be marginally less barmy than Boris Island.
I've already heard rumbles of opposition to streamlined planning - apparently Cummings is quoting the example of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gigafactory_3 and the civil service is not happy.
Boris Island made plenty of sense - strangely no-one opposed to it thought of the value of the Heathrow real estate... Hong Kong airport was more than paid for by the re-use of the old airport land.
Peking whinged about it back in 1997 but eventually realised it was a bargain. And then eclipsed it with a massive road bridge to Macao that no-one uses. There's plenty of overseas "investment" available for HS2, HS3 and even Boris Island but on a PFI basis that means our great great grandchildren will eventually foot the bill. The trick is to avoid the serial bankruptcies that paid for the 19th century rail network and consigned naive investors to oblivion. Where's Josias Jessop these days?
Surely the serial bankruptcies are fine, if we are left with the infrastructure?
Boris Island could be done for free - build it and you get Heathrow.
In reality, if HS3 was prioritised above HS2 then we effectively write off any rail investment north of London for yet another decade, a decade when HS2 could have been built, a scheme that EVERY northern Chamber of Commerce supprts.
The idea of HS3 being prioritised above HS2 is as far as I can see just a Hull-based fantasy. But what I am wondering and have no expertise nor clue how to find out other than by asking in case someone else knows, is what its prospects are - if it won't start until post-HS2 then it is surely decades away. Is there any way it could be fast-tracked, done in parallel somehow, if the government was willing to chuck money at the problem?
We've just trashed Labour for pandering to relatively well-off rail commuters and then making out that a couple of new lines decades in the future will help people who will never use them...
Fwiw I think the Conservatives know they need people to see results before 2024.
The problem for Labour is that it very much looks like Boris is going to play to the centre. The guardian reporting on NHS funding guarantee laws and £80bn on infrastructure in the ex-Labour heartlands. That looks like a party that wants to prove they aren't just in favour of the rich shires. It's literally from the Maggie playbook, we're going to turn them into Tories as much as they are going to make us less libertarian.
Where is this money going to come from? If Labour was offering £80Bn in infrastructure spending they'd be utterly taken apart.
I can't see the Tories spending their way out of the next recession, can you?
Has anyone worked out the average age you started voting Conservative yet, has it gone up or down? Because I must tell you, if the Tories continue to fail to tackle the housing issue in the next five or ten years, that is another ticking time bomb.
They have a lot of power now to tackle these problems, I really hope they do - but I fear they won't.
If it's true that Mr Johnson is motivated by self-interest rather than ideology, there is at least a chance that he will start to tackle such problems, because it may generate good-will towards him.
If you're motivated by ideology, you are usually convinced you know what the answer is. If "all" you want is people's votes, you'll do what might make them vote for you.
That is true - but if within five years things are pretty much looking the same as the previous nine (as I think they are), Johnson is going to have a tough time shaking off the idea he's somehow different.
I think this is the fundamental issue with his strategy, the people he has just voted for, believe he is going to offer really strong, meaningful change and I think he's going to fail to live up to those expectations.
Of course if Labour offers too much again and looks moronic he'll win a landslide next time around. A lot of his winning must not be understated really as Labour being so bloody awful he walked it with barely any promises at all. But - and it's a big but I'll give you that - it's possible he won't be so lucky next time around.
Things we've been told over the years:
Boris won't win in London...
Boris won't win in London twice...
Boris won't be in the Cabinet...
Boris won't be Prime Minister...
Boris won't get a Brexit Deal...
Boris won't win an election...
Boris won't win a landslide...
Betting against Boris has worked out not necessarily to his critics' advantage.
He really is the electoral titan of our age.
Look at the people he has beaten - not just the other parties but also Conservatives from Major and Heseltine to Cameron and Osborne.
Looking at this thread it amazes me 11 years on how little people understand about what it would deliver to the parts of the country not directly served by the new lines.
Poor media coverage or lack of interest in understanding what is planned?
Fast expensive trains for business travellers going to London. Extra commuter capacity for the northern Home Counties. Feck all for people working in Leeds or Manchester.
We've just trashed Labour for pandering to relatively well-off rail commuters and then making out that a couple of new lines decades in the future will help people who will never use them...
Fwiw I think the Conservatives know they need results before 2024.
The main purpose of HS2 isn't for the benefit of those who will use it.
Looking at this thread it amazes me 11 years on how little people understand about what it would deliver to the parts of the country not directly served by the new lines.
Poor media coverage or lack of interest in understanding what is planned?
Crossrail was first approved in 2007 - it still hasn't opened yet...
Didn't Casino say he now doesn't expect it to open by Christman 2021.
I think so.
A tiny "improvement" tomorrow: TfL take over some of the slow stopping services on the GWR between Hayes & Harlington and Reading. But contactless ticketing won't be available till the New Year.
We've just trashed Labour for pandering to relatively well-off rail commuters and then making out that a couple of new lines decades in the future will help people who will never use them...
Fwiw I think the Conservatives know they need results before 2024.
The main purpose of HS2 isn't for the benefit of those who will use it.
Looking at this thread it amazes me 11 years on how little people understand about what it would deliver to the parts of the country not directly served by the new lines.
Poor media coverage or lack of interest in understanding what is planned?
Both. Plus a number of emotive stories about the disruption it will cause in building.
There are two Swampy-camps near Leamington Spa "protecting" ancient woodland. Must be bloody cold there tonight - and wet with it.
Because HS2, which will destroy one hectare of ancient woodland, is obviously more important than trying to have carbon-neutral travel to tempt people out of their cars and freight away from lorries.
Looking at this thread it amazes me 11 years on how little people understand about what it would deliver to the parts of the country not directly served by the new lines.
Poor media coverage or lack of interest in understanding what is planned?
Both. Plus a number of emotive stories about the disruption it will cause in building.
There are two Swampy-camps near Leamington Spa "protecting" ancient woodland. Must be bloody cold there tonight - and wet with it.
Because HS2, which will destroy one hectare of ancient woodland, is obviously more important than trying to have carbon-neutral travel to tempt people out of their cars and freight away from lorries.
It's a significant cultural difference. In most of Europe people would be proud to have a high-speed train at the bottom of the garden and they'd carry their new-born down the path to marvel at it. "It really is appalling" sums up the British attitude to progress, unless it's 10 miles away.
Looking at this thread it amazes me 11 years on how little people understand about what it would deliver to the parts of the country not directly served by the new lines.
Poor media coverage or lack of interest in understanding what is planned?
Both. Plus a number of emotive stories about the disruption it will cause in building.
There are two Swampy-camps near Leamington Spa "protecting" ancient woodland. Must be bloody cold there tonight - and wet with it.
Because HS2, which will destroy one hectare of ancient woodland, is obviously more important than trying to have carbon-neutral travel to tempt people out of their cars and freight away from lorries.
The other issue with housing is people continuing to live and work in the South East because that's where all the jobs are. Make North a more attractive place to work, rebuild those areas and that will help.
Looking at this thread it amazes me 11 years on how little people understand about what it would deliver to the parts of the country not directly served by the new lines.
Poor media coverage or lack of interest in understanding what is planned?
Both. Plus a number of emotive stories about the disruption it will cause in building.
There are two Swampy-camps near Leamington Spa "protecting" ancient woodland. Must be bloody cold there tonight - and wet with it.
Because HS2, which will destroy one hectare of ancient woodland, is obviously more important than trying to have carbon-neutral travel to tempt people out of their cars and freight away from lorries.
High Speed Rail is not green.
It's a good deal greener than road or air travel.
How many car journeys will it stop? None, because driving is always a damn sight cheaper.
Looking at this thread it amazes me 11 years on how little people understand about what it would deliver to the parts of the country not directly served by the new lines.
Poor media coverage or lack of interest in understanding what is planned?
Both. Plus a number of emotive stories about the disruption it will cause in building.
There are two Swampy-camps near Leamington Spa "protecting" ancient woodland. Must be bloody cold there tonight - and wet with it.
Good for them. All this wibble about tree planting - protecting vital habitats like ancient woodland should be a priority.
Looking at this thread it amazes me 11 years on how little people understand about what it would deliver to the parts of the country not directly served by the new lines.
Poor media coverage or lack of interest in understanding what is planned?
Both. Plus a number of emotive stories about the disruption it will cause in building.
There are two Swampy-camps near Leamington Spa "protecting" ancient woodland. Must be bloody cold there tonight - and wet with it.
Because HS2, which will destroy one hectare of ancient woodland, is obviously more important than trying to have carbon-neutral travel to tempt people out of their cars and freight away from lorries.
High Speed Rail is not green.
It's a good deal greener than road or air travel.
How many car journeys will it stop? None, because driving is always a damn sight cheaper.
Really? What will the price of oil, or parking, or tolls be 15 years from now?
Take the 20,000 "more" police officers, these people take years to train, they aren't just going to come out of thin air. And they take us back (they don't actually) to where we were in 2010. What meaningful change is that?
.
Aren't you confusing police officers with doctors? It doesn't take years to train police officers, surely?
Is there the training capacity, the courses , trainerws and facilities to train and then equip and accomodate them with office space etc, i reckon 2 years minimum and maybe 3..
The problem for Labour is that it very much looks like Boris is going to play to the centre. The guardian reporting on NHS funding guarantee laws and £80bn on infrastructure in the ex-Labour heartlands. That looks like a party that wants to prove they aren't just in favour of the rich shires. It's literally from the Maggie playbook, we're going to turn them into Tories as much as they are going to make us less libertarian.
Where is this money going to come from? If Labour was offering £80Bn in infrastructure spending they'd be utterly taken apart.
I can't see the Tories spending their way out of the next recession, can you?
Has anyone worked out the average age you started voting Conservative yet, has it gone up or down? Because I must tell you, if the Tories continue to fail to tackle the housing issue in the next five or ten years, that is another ticking time bomb.
They have a lot of power now to tackle these problems, I really hope they do - but I fear they won't.
If it's true that Mr Johnson is motivated by self-interest rather than ideology, there is at least a chance that he will start to tackle such problems, because it may generate good-will towards him.
If you're motivated by ideology, you are usually convinced you know what the answer is. If "all" you want is people's votes, you'll do what might make them vote for you.
Of course if Labour offers too much again and looks moronic he'll win a landslide next time around. A lot of his winning must not be understated really as Labour being so bloody awful he walked it with barely any promises at all. But - and it's a big but I'll give you that - it's possible he won't be so lucky next time around.
Things we've been told over the years:
Boris won't win in London...
Boris won't win in London twice...
Boris won't be in the Cabinet...
Boris won't be Prime Minister...
Boris won't get a Brexit Deal...
Boris won't win an election...
Boris won't win a landslide...
Betting against Boris has worked out not necessarily to his critics' advantage.
Put the partisan politics away for a while, help discuss where we go next it is no longer about boris it’s about the UK obviously if your only interest is now moving on to maximize the Tory vote in the next election you will not be capable of seeing the world as it really is. Not everything in the world is Tory good, labour bad etc not every new Tory mp will be good as will not any new mp or councillor, just because you stick your hand up the right way does not make you good at your job
Betting against Boris has worked out not necessarily to his critics' advantage.
This rather underlines my point though, Johnson is very good at winning things - but he's very poor at actually changing anything.
My view of him is that he's only interested in winning, he's not actually interested in changing the country. But we will see.
He did a great job as mayor of London for 8 years.
We talked about this earlier - he barely did anything.
He also made some terrible decisions, like water cannon and Garden Bridge and cutting Police officers...
Johnson is good at getting himself elected. If that was all he was doing, I would be sanguine.
I didn't doubt he was good at getting elected. But I also don't think it's understating it to say that in London he won twice by barely doing anything and not rocking the boat very much.
That's a perfectly sound strategy - but it isn't what his new voters say they want, not according to what I've heard from them so far.
Unlike Mr Meeks I am not totally against freerolls.
So, I've played Jeff's Super Six a couple of times now. I reckon it takes me no more than 15 mins absolute tops to fill in - and provides a form of enjoyment on a Saturday afternoon.
But I got thinking. I've always dislike correct score predictions. So to get even one right would be quite good going. Then I thought that the chances of getting the allotted six right might be astronomical.
So, using cost/benefit anaylsis, opportunity cost and all your gambling skill; can you answer the question:
Is it worth playing Jeff's Super Six.
Jeff's Super Six pays out 125 grand GBP and you can play it next week at-
Looking at this thread it amazes me 11 years on how little people understand about what it would deliver to the parts of the country not directly served by the new lines.
Poor media coverage or lack of interest in understanding what is planned?
Both. Plus a number of emotive stories about the disruption it will cause in building.
There are two Swampy-camps near Leamington Spa "protecting" ancient woodland. Must be bloody cold there tonight - and wet with it.
Because HS2, which will destroy one hectare of ancient woodland, is obviously more important than trying to have carbon-neutral travel to tempt people out of their cars and freight away from lorries.
High Speed Rail is not green.
It's a good deal greener than road or air travel.
How many car journeys will it stop? None, because driving is always a damn sight cheaper.
Really? What will the price of oil, or parking, or tolls be 15 years from now?
Betting against Boris has worked out not necessarily to his critics' advantage.
It`s easy enough to win, if you are a liar, a cheat and a fraud. The problem after that is carrying people with you.
"Boris" is not my prime minister. Listening to his hypocrisy on the steps of Number 10 was nauseating. "One nation Conservative" and all that. Words lose their meaning when he speaks them.
It's been little remarked upon, but Labour ultimately fared rather better than the exit poll had predicted, in fact 12 seats better, compared with the Tories, who did 3 seats worse. I believe this resulted, whisper it quietly, from a handful of disappointing results in the West Midlands, which failed to deliver much for the Blue Team. In addition there was the odd isolated stonking good result for Labour, an example being Jon Cruddas' Dagenham & Rainham, he really must be an oustandingly good MP to emerge unscathed yet again.
Labour just held onto two seats in Coventry with tiny majorities, and also unexpectedly held Warwick & Leamington.
Student votes as in Canterbury.
Other seats which were Conservative in 2015 and Labour in 2019:
Battersea Croydon C Enfield Southgate Putney
Bedford
Cardiff C Gower
Reading E Portsmouth S
Plymouth Sutton
Chester Weaver Vale
Posho Remainers, demographic change, students and Greater Scouseland.
Betting against Boris has worked out not necessarily to his critics' advantage.
It`s easy enough to win, if you are a liar, a cheat and a fraud. The problem after that is carrying people with you.
"Boris" is not my prime minister. Listening to his hypocrisy on the steps of Number 10 was nauseating. "One nation Conservative" and all that. Words lose their meaning when he speaks them.
Looking at this thread it amazes me 11 years on how little people understand about what it would deliver to the parts of the country not directly served by the new lines.
Poor media coverage or lack of interest in understanding what is planned?
Both. Plus a number of emotive stories about the disruption it will cause in building.
There are two Swampy-camps near Leamington Spa "protecting" ancient woodland. Must be bloody cold there tonight - and wet with it.
Because HS2, which will destroy one hectare of ancient woodland, is obviously more important than trying to have carbon-neutral travel to tempt people out of their cars and freight away from lorries.
High Speed Rail is not green.
It's a good deal greener than road or air travel.
How many car journeys will it stop? None, because driving is always a damn sight cheaper.
Betting against Boris has worked out not necessarily to his critics' advantage.
This rather underlines my point though, Johnson is very good at winning things - but he's very poor at actually changing anything.
My view of him is that he's only interested in winning, he's not actually interested in changing the country. But we will see.
He did a great job as mayor of London for 8 years.
We talked about this earlier - he barely did anything.
He also made some terrible decisions, like water cannon and Garden Bridge and cutting Police officers...
Johnson is good at getting himself elected. If that was all he was doing, I would be sanguine.
I didn't doubt he was good at getting elected. But I also don't think it's understating it to say that in London he won twice by barely doing anything and not rocking the boat very much.
That's a perfectly sound strategy - but it isn't what his new voters say they want, not according to what I've heard from them so far.
My issue with Johnson, apart from being a compulsive liar and a fraud, is that he isn't simply useless. I could go along with that . My issue is that he is actually malign and causes damage while pretending to not to do anything much.
Looking at this thread it amazes me 11 years on how little people understand about what it would deliver to the parts of the country not directly served by the new lines.
Poor media coverage or lack of interest in understanding what is planned?
Both. Plus a number of emotive stories about the disruption it will cause in building.
There are two Swampy-camps near Leamington Spa "protecting" ancient woodland. Must be bloody cold there tonight - and wet with it.
Because HS2, which will destroy one hectare of ancient woodland, is obviously more important than trying to have carbon-neutral travel to tempt people out of their cars and freight away from lorries.
High Speed Rail is not green.
It's a good deal greener than road or air travel.
How many car journeys will it stop? None, because driving is always a damn sight cheaper.
Really? What will the price of oil, or parking, or tolls be 15 years from now?
Betting against Boris has worked out not necessarily to his critics' advantage.
It`s easy enough to win, if you are a liar, a cheat and a fraud. The problem after that is carrying people with you.
"Boris" is not my prime minister. Listening to his hypocrisy on the steps of Number 10 was nauseating. "One nation Conservative" and all that. Words lose their meaning when he speaks them.
Betting against Boris has worked out not necessarily to his critics' advantage.
This rather underlines my point though, Johnson is very good at winning things - but he's very poor at actually changing anything.
My view of him is that he's only interested in winning, he's not actually interested in changing the country. But we will see.
He did a great job as mayor of London for 8 years.
We talked about this earlier - he barely did anything.
He also made some terrible decisions, like water cannon and Garden Bridge and cutting Police officers...
Johnson is good at getting himself elected. If that was all he was doing, I would be sanguine.
I didn't doubt he was good at getting elected. But I also don't think it's understating it to say that in London he won twice by barely doing anything and not rocking the boat very much.
That's a perfectly sound strategy - but it isn't what his new voters say they want, not according to what I've heard from them so far.
My issue with Johnson, apart from being a compulsive liar and a fraud, is that he isn't simply useless. I could go along with that . My issue is that he is actually malign and causes damage while pretending to not to do anything much.
The problem with Johnson as well is that much of the damage he causes doesn't come out until after he's left.
For example, Garden Bridge and knife crime, firefighters. Johnson cut those workers and started the Garden Bridge project. They weren't seen for the failures until they were until he'd left office.
His policies take time to have impacts - but there is a consistent strand of poor results from what he does.
Unlike Mr Meeks I am not totally against freerolls.
So, I've played Jeff's Super Six a couple of times now. I reckon it takes me no more than 15 mins absolute tops to fill in - and provides a form of enjoyment on a Saturday afternoon.
But I got thinking. I've always dislike correct score predictions. So to get even one right would be quite good going. Then I thought that the chances of getting the allotted six right might be astronomical.
So, using cost/benefit anaylsis, opportunity cost and all your gambling skill; can you answer the question:
Is it worth playing Jeff's Super Six.
Jeff's Super Six pays out 125 grand GBP and you can play it next week at-
Looking at this thread it amazes me 11 years on how little people understand about what it would deliver to the parts of the country not directly served by the new lines.
Poor media coverage or lack of interest in understanding what is planned?
Both. Plus a number of emotive stories about the disruption it will cause in building.
There are two Swampy-camps near Leamington Spa "protecting" ancient woodland. Must be bloody cold there tonight - and wet with it.
Because HS2, which will destroy one hectare of ancient woodland, is obviously more important than trying to have carbon-neutral travel to tempt people out of their cars and freight away from lorries.
High Speed Rail is not green.
It's a good deal greener than road or air travel.
How many car journeys will it stop? None, because driving is always a damn sight cheaper.
Really? What will the price of oil, or parking, or tolls be 15 years from now?
Comments
They need to return being the party of Attlee and the party of Blair. The current lot have misinterpreted the 1945 Government by just copying some of their economic policy but what they seem to have missed is that Attlee was fiercely patriotic, very interested in talking across party lines and wanted to cultivate a broad church Labour Party. Indeed he had Marxists and social democrats working together.
Labour needs to get back into the communities it once represented in Wales and and the North and actually figure out what they want.
And perhaps that means talking to people like me less - but I passionately believe that a balance can be found that brings both voters together. I think tuition fee action would keep most of the young vote and I'm sure something on housing would too.
It's not a revolution these people want, it's a slight modification and an acknowledgement that things are okay for certain people.
Its a big area and people prefer investment which benefits them rather than which might benefit other people in other parts in future decades.
Northern Powerhouse rail cannot happen without HS2.
There is nothing more sure to happen than HS2.
Also, HS2 is shovel ready, nothing else will start in this parliament given how long the legal stuff takes.
Cancelling HS2 would be cancelling the ONLY scheme in the north in this parliament.
For comparison the A14 upgrade underway at the moment was in the 2013 spending review (with plans dating back in some form to 2005 and new proposals put out in 2011), greenlit in 2016, but won't be ready til 2020.
written by Toby Young"
https://quillette.com/2019/12/13/britains-labour-party-got-woke-and-now-its-broke/
The fundamental problem is that housing is too expensive - but if the Tories work to make it cheaper they'll piss of their voters who like having their houses go up in value.
What am I missing here?
If they don't but 'that lot over there' do they'll not likely be happy.
And that's HS2's problem - it isn't a 'one nation' investment.
Lots of people don't think that they will benefit but 'that lot over there' will and simultaneously they see the price go ever higher.
It helps connectivity to many of the poorer places that went blue.
Just because the vast majority of the population do not understand what HS2 will deliver does not stop it being true.
The review will say HS2 will benefit the north more than the south, it aint being cancelled.
I'm not really sure Johnson saying "you'll get a new rail link in twenty years" is going to do much for these people. I think within five years they want to see meaningful changes in their communities -a and if they don't, they're going to be very angry.
Now that probably isn't possible with infrastructure, so what else have you got to offer?
This of course is my big problem with the whole nonsense of "get Brexit done", because things aren't going to magically get better or change when it does.
Take the 20,000 "more" police officers, these people take years to train, they aren't just going to come out of thin air. And they take us back (they don't actually) to where we were in 2010. What meaningful change is that?
This is why I think within five years much of Johnson's agenda will result in very little actual change at all. And I think that's his strategy.
They have plenty of places to go, the Lib Dems I'm sure would be glad to have them.
We saw significant progress by the Lib Dems in many seats this time around, especially in and around London and in seats like Guildford and Winchester.
If the Lib Dems become competitive again, I can foresee people in the South switching to them.
Either way my tenant would become homeless as a result.
Looking at this thread it amazes me 11 years on how little people understand about what it would deliver to the parts of the country not directly served by the new lines.
Poor media coverage or lack of interest in understanding what is planned?
It really isn't one nation at all.
For £100bn you can spread the benefits in a much wider and fairer and quicker manner.
More important to them is things like state pension and dont pander to the 'woke' too much in virtue signalling .They will appreciate infrastructure spending though and understand and agree with higher minimum wages and higher income tax thresholds of starting to pay tax.
Also northerners are more personable hence as long as a leader is that they will get votes - Major , Johnson etc
>The plan is to recruit 6,000 new officers in the first year, then 14,000 over the following two years.
>So you could say that the new officers will simply cancel out previous cuts and get us back to 2010 levels.
>The population of England and Wales is estimated to have gone up too – by around 3.5 million people since 2010.
>So if officer numbers returned to the exact levels they reached in 2010, there would still be fewer per head of population.
So the numbers will go up - but I don't think in practice you're going to see much difference. And of course, if crime continues to go up, they'll be little evidence of progress anyway.
He may well run on a Cameronite agenda - but I simply don't see him making sufficient progress to show signs of real change. If he does, I'll be here to shake his hand.
If you're motivated by ideology, you are usually convinced you know what the answer is. If "all" you want is people's votes, you'll do what might make them vote for you.
The answer is always a) and HS2
So naturally he's just joined the Labour Party ... to fight for Corbynism!
I think this is the fundamental issue with his strategy, the people he has just voted for, believe he is going to offer really strong, meaningful change and I think he's going to fail to live up to those expectations.
Of course if Labour offers too much again and looks moronic he'll win a landslide next time around. A lot of his winning must not be understated really as Labour being so bloody awful he walked it with barely any promises at all. But - and it's a big but I'll give you that - it's possible he won't be so lucky next time around.
But most people seem to understand Crossrail
Ignorance about the benefits of HS2 to the north are amazing, probably due tot he southern media not being interested.
But governance is about far more than law. There are issues of history, philosophy, economics and management for example. Being able to do evidence-based policy-making isn't something only STEM graduates can understand - someone who had an academic background in policy might even have an edge on a computer science or physics grad in understanding how "evidence" is generated in the real-world and how to assess it critically, you can't just look at a p-value and think "oh that's me convinced then". There are clearly a range of skill-sets which are valuable. Someone with a some understanding of the underlying subject matter also helps. Since legislators legislate on, and governments govern on, all manner of aspects of civic and professional life, it would be good for Parliament to reflect a very wide range of backgrounds and sectors. All lawyers is bad, all chemists would also be bad, but I do think all MPs should have at least a modicum of literacy in law, economics and evidence-based policy.
In any case Tesla has already decided to build its European Gigafactory in Germany explicitly because the UK is leaving the EU.
Because of Labour's adventure with Corbyn this cycle has been broken, so maybe we need the Conservatives to play the role of a Labour Government for a bit.
A decade on what is the price and when is it due for completion ?
Boris Island could be done for free - build it and you get Heathrow.
Boris won't win in London...
Boris won't win in London twice...
Boris won't be in the Cabinet...
Boris won't be Prime Minister...
Boris won't get a Brexit Deal...
Boris won't win an election...
Boris won't win a landslide...
Betting against Boris has worked out not necessarily to his critics' advantage.
Fwiw I think the Conservatives know they need people to see results before 2024.
Look at the people he has beaten - not just the other parties but also Conservatives from Major and Heseltine to Cameron and Osborne.
If that was the point you were trying to make?
My view of him is that he's only interested in winning, he's not actually interested in changing the country. But we will see.
A tiny "improvement" tomorrow: TfL take over some of the slow stopping services on the GWR between Hayes & Harlington and Reading. But contactless ticketing won't be available till the New Year.
Gardiner isn't the worst candidate, I'd like to see him in the cabinet again because he's not a bad communicator. My concern is his link to Corbynism
He did a great job as mayor of London for 8 years.
I think people underestimate just how transformative the Boris premiership _could_ end up being, though of course it's far too early to say.
He also made some terrible decisions, like water cannon and Garden Bridge and cutting Police officers...
That's a perfectly sound strategy - but it isn't what his new voters say they want, not according to what I've heard from them so far.
The manifesto he ran on bar Brexit, is pretty much bog standard Cameron
Jeff's Super Six
Unlike Mr Meeks I am not totally against freerolls.
So, I've played Jeff's Super Six a couple of times now. I reckon it takes me no more than 15 mins absolute tops to fill in - and provides a form of enjoyment on a Saturday afternoon.
But I got thinking. I've always dislike correct score predictions. So to get even one right would be quite good going. Then I thought that the chances of getting the allotted six right might be astronomical.
So, using cost/benefit anaylsis, opportunity cost and all your gambling skill; can you answer the question:
Is it worth playing Jeff's Super Six.
Jeff's Super Six pays out 125 grand GBP and you can play it next week at-
https://super6.skysports.com/
I just clicked on the link to make sure it was working and apparently it's 250 grand next week.
"Boris" is not my prime minister. Listening to his hypocrisy on the steps of Number 10 was nauseating. "One nation Conservative" and all that. Words lose their meaning when he speaks them.
I didn't realize you were so young!
Driving causes obesity
Driving causes stress
It's a view.
Lab 203
LD 11
For example, Garden Bridge and knife crime, firefighters. Johnson cut those workers and started the Garden Bridge project. They weren't seen for the failures until they were until he'd left office.
His policies take time to have impacts - but there is a consistent strand of poor results from what he does.
But Corbyn was much more dangerous than Johnson.
Nice try. But not convincing.