Front page headline 'What a boost for Britain ' on vaccine rollout and plummeting infections
And on the inside 'The Jokes on you , Sir Keir' referring to his woeful photo stunt
It was an avoidable error by Starmer and he needs better advisors
Quite right, Starmer's woeful photo stunt at John Lewis demeans his office.
I mean, could anybody imagine our Prime Minister engaging in cheap publicity stunts to try to pretend he's a man of the people? He has far more dignity than that. Perish the thought.
Boris has that priced in. Starmer is supposed to be serious and competent. He's already failed at the latter and now he's failing at the former with that cringey photo.
Starmer does no stunts - You cant be PM with less personality than your opponent! Starmer does stunts - You cant be PM doing stunts like that!
Have Starmer critics thought maybe they just dont like him because he is a lefty, not because of his personality?
No, he's just not very good and it's disappointing because we need a strong opposition to the government more than ever given how our liberties are being curtailed. A good opposition leader would be planning with Tory rebels right now to defeat the government on their likely renewal of the virus measures in September. Instead he'll bitch for about two seconds and then quietly vote in favour leaving 60-80 Tory rebels wondering what they need to do to get the opposition to actually bloody oppose.
Rightly or wrongly from a public health perspective our liberties have been curtailed for the past 13 months.
Not a peep from anyone until the week before last or somesuch.
With ongoing huge popularity as evidenced in the polls why on earth would they decide to change policy now? Keep us if not scared, then anxious and in need of nanny.
Alternatively - after a number of false starts, we have a defined policy program to deal with COVID19. That is working....
And in the meantime unparalleled restrictions on our liberty have been waved through with a smile.
As I said, perhaps this was necessary. But the enthusiasm with which the country, not least here on PB, has embraced the restrictions of freedoms has been imo extraodinary.
It's because most believed them to be necessary, having seen some of the horrors elsewhere.
We're already seeing crumbling of the concensus on here and I'm seeing it anecdotally in friends and family. As the threat recedes, acceptance of the restrictions will too. It would be crazy if that was not the case.
Is it surprising that restrictions have been accepted so far? Maybe. It would be astonishing to me if restrictions were accepted after June, unless there are unforeseen events (some new super-variant that renders vaccines largley ineffective and a third wave). I'm part of the shadowy cabal (scientists, epidemiologists in particular) that apparently wants to take away peoples freedoms forever, but extend the restrictions beyond 21 June without good reason and I'll be joining you on the barricades.
It reminds me of the famous "we've established what you are, we're just haggling over price" quote.
Once people have willingly accepted, welcomed even, those restrictions they are likely not going to be put back in the box and one person's "red line" is another's "that sounds perfectly fine".
To use the most obvious example on here, @contrarian had a red line way, way, way over there <== while, say, @SandyRentool and @FrancisUrquhart I believe (apols if not) have a red line over there ==>
Everyone has a red line but that line is on the continuum of a restriction of liberties. OK what about seatbelts you say. And it is a good question. But there has not been copious legislation about the freedom to drive or be in a car. There has been for freedom of assembly, etc.
Yes, of course there's a continuum of opinions. There are some things that I stopped doing while still legal (we stopped seeing my in-laws before the first lockdown as they were in a vulnerable group) and some things that vexed me a bit due to being illegal (cancelled holiday last summer, in a cottage miles from anywhere with my household only - really zero risk from us going, we'd have seen no one, but I accepted that the rules - if there are rules - have to be universal).
The question is, should things have been illegal or simply just guidance? Most people are fairly pragmatic and - as there was support for many of the restrictions, were not against that being in law (I know that's the 'they came for the Jews but as I was not a Jew I did nothing' argument). I can see the philosophical point about whether these things should be in law or not. However, there's a practical point too in that making things illegal does give people cover to not do them under peer pressure (as also for seatbelts, motorcycle helmets). While I like the Swedish approach in many ways, I suspect passing the law, breaking the law being undetectable in most cases, is still useful for compliance. However, I wouldn't want to see the law enforced in all but the most egregious cases (does that make me a hypocrite? maybe so). I was apalled by Derbyshire police harassing walkers who were going out miles away from anyone. Or indeed stops of cars on the roads.
I do however think the circumstances are/were exceptional and don't think a precendent has been set. If there's another major pandemic then we may see similar laws. But I don't see where this is going to creep into other areas of life, because it simply won't be accepted. Masks this winter for flu? I don't see the government getting away with it or wanting to risk unpopularity by trying. How do I know? Because it crossed my red line, which is much closer to Sandy and Francis's than Contrarian's. To remain popular, the government has to 'win' against Covid and that means things going back to normal. Continued restrictions is not victory, it's failure and the government will not be rewarded for failure.
In short: we can disagree on whether legal restrictions were right or wrong (and there is no right answer, I think). But I don't believe this set of legal restrictions changes the future other than in another pandemic of similar or greater severity.
Thank you. I paid you the compliment (I hope) of reading your post carefully. Line by line indeed - something that I have been doing while reading Jonathan Sumption's latest book which is necessary!
And yes - for me the nub is laws vs guidelines. The lockdowns were to save lives and protect the NHS. So the lives yes of course (cf seatbelts) and saving us from ourselves, which has precedent. But the laws dealt with the most fundamental of our rights as the seatbelt laws don't and once laws are on the books and that precedent is set then it is damned difficult and nor do governments seem to want to remove them.
As for the peer pressure for me it's not enough of a quid pro quo.
So I do think that the government will maintain this anxiety because logically, politically, it works and the role of a government is to keep itself in power. I don't think "THEY WANT TO CONTROL US BECAUSE EVIL". But I do think that having found that they are popular with such measures, that people approve of them, the imperative to remove them is diminished greatly.
Although as others have said, if the UK wants voluntarily to submit to such a life then who am I to complain.
I very much enjoyed Sumptions book Trials of the State and was much persuaded by it, so I hope his new book is more nuanced or detailed than some of his Covid media pieces, which at times were a bit lazy and Ill informed in a 'I enjoy being a lockdown rebel' kind of way.
Law in a Time of Crisis - I think there is inevitably a piece on Covid but it's all great. A series of essays and I am limiting myself to one at a time.
What these charts fairly consistently show is that the UK not only started vaccinating much earlier but continues to vaccinate quicker than the EU as a whole. We are roughly 13% of EU +UK and in this table we have 20% of new vaccines. The result is that our lead over the EU increases as we head to full vaccination and we will be there 2 -2.5 months ahead of the EU.
Which will be worth a few thousand lives in each of the major countries but in the overall scheme of things for the pandemic is not likely to be that material. Italy and Belgium are already well ahead of us in deaths per million and will move more so but it is unlikely that France and Germany will catch up.
Economically, our faster vaccination means that our recovery should be rough a quarter ahead of the EU but we were hit harder than most with more severe lockdowns so a faster recovery was pretty likely anyway.
What this might mean for the government is that the considerable credit that it is getting for fast and effective roll out is likely to fade fairly quickly and may well be gone by the end of this year when the focus will be on the overall performance where the UK is mid table at best, not even that on some measures. It seems probable to me that Tory leads will wane considerably at that point.
I'm going to stick my neck out here and make a clear and unambiguous prediction without caveat.
I think the vaccine rollout has been so good, and so popular, and so demonstrably more competent than elsewhere, that it will be the exception that proves the rule. The electorate will do gratitude, this one time, and the Tories will increase their majority at the next general election (I am reminded of a certain infamous article, yes).
Striking and plausible. Hats off. I'm not ruling that sort of scenario out but I will let a year pass before making the official 'newpunditry-newpolitics' long range call for the next GE.
I price it as follows atm -
Tory majority 50% Hung parliament 40% Labour majority 10%
Very much agree with this. Pricing Labour is tricky. It seems to me that a Labour majority required a black swan shift in sentiment, and that barring a game changer a Tory majority and hung parliament cover nearly 100% of the eventualities. In a sense therefore a 10% chance seems high, but the volatility of the political climate indicates caution. But the bookies current 7/2 Labour majority is fantasy stuff.
Yes, I'm pricing a Labour majority like a long dated, out-of-the-money option. It's well underwater in current conditions but there's quite a bit of "time value". Hence the 10%. I'd actually lump on if the odds were (say) 15/1.
THIS final paragraph in the latest Polly Tuscany Remoaner whine-fest might be relevant to the debate
"A necessary trigger will come to hand soon for Labour to lead the charge against the bad Brexit deal. In his wild rant at prime minister’s questions, Johnson accused Labour of voting against it, and many wish it had – though between a rock and a hard place, no deal wasn’t an option. Well before the next election, Labour will lead the cause of guiding Britain towards a return to the single market, and the safer haven of a Norway solution."
She's getting on a bit, I guess she's not as connected as she was, but she's still a significant writer in Labour circles. Either she knows Starmer is planning this, or she and the Guardian cabal are pushing him to do it.
It might be a game-changer if Brexit looks bad by 2024 (which it might). Single Market? Freedom of Movement? And end to red tape at the border, and go back to buying cottages in Greece or working in Frankfurt, without a worry?
I can imagine this offer tempting a lot of people away from the Tories, especially if - by 2024 - immigration is no longer an issue (who knows, long term, post Covid)
It's the obvious play for Starmer, and it could work
Front page headline 'What a boost for Britain ' on vaccine rollout and plummeting infections
And on the inside 'The Jokes on you , Sir Keir' referring to his woeful photo stunt
It was an avoidable error by Starmer and he needs better advisors
Quite right, Starmer's woeful photo stunt at John Lewis demeans his office.
I mean, could anybody imagine our Prime Minister engaging in cheap publicity stunts to try to pretend he's a man of the people? He has far more dignity than that. Perish the thought.
Boris has that priced in. Starmer is supposed to be serious and competent. He's already failed at the latter and now he's failing at the former with that cringey photo.
Starmer does no stunts - You cant be PM with less personality than your opponent! Starmer does stunts - You cant be PM doing stunts like that!
Have Starmer critics thought maybe they just dont like him because he is a lefty, not because of his personality?
No, he's just not very good and it's disappointing because we need a strong opposition to the government more than ever given how our liberties are being curtailed. A good opposition leader would be planning with Tory rebels right now to defeat the government on their likely renewal of the virus measures in September. Instead he'll bitch for about two seconds and then quietly vote in favour leaving 60-80 Tory rebels wondering what they need to do to get the opposition to actually bloody oppose.
Rightly or wrongly from a public health perspective our liberties have been curtailed for the past 13 months.
Not a peep from anyone until the week before last or somesuch.
With ongoing huge popularity as evidenced in the polls why on earth would they decide to change policy now? Keep us if not scared, then anxious and in need of nanny.
Alternatively - after a number of false starts, we have a defined policy program to deal with COVID19. That is working....
And in the meantime unparalleled restrictions on our liberty have been waved through with a smile.
As I said, perhaps this was necessary. But the enthusiasm with which the country, not least here on PB, has embraced the restrictions of freedoms has been imo extraodinary.
Britons will be slaves, it seems.
I’ve been amazed at the collective reflex to defer to authority figures over the last year. I was always under the impression that the British cultural norm was instinctive distrust of authority. I can only assume it’s because they’ve put up on stage a doctor and a “scientist”, for whom the normal rules go out the window.
Nonsense. People think lockdown is the right way to go, so they go with it. Like driving on the left. Am I deferring to authority figures, failing to show enough distrust for authority etc when I stop at red lights, put a seatbelt on and so on? This "look at the sheeple" stuff aims for sophistication and actually sounds like Rik Mayall in the Young Ones.
Of course it’s been deferring to authority. We STILL have not received anything resembling a cost benefit analysis of the measures taken, either individually or in totality.
Cyclefree has repeatedly pointed out some of the contradictions and absurdities in the measures. And we should not forget that as many as 40% of the country ended up catching this virus inside one year anyway. So it is very reasonable to ask whether it was necessary or effective to do x,y and z, without trite comparisons to wearing a seatbelt, for which there is excellent supporting evidence by the way.
We have 120 years of data for seatbelts.
My PB pedantry senses tingling. Seatbelts might have been invented in the 19th century but were only introduced to cars in the very late 1940's. Its an interesting thing though. Seatbelts demonstrably save lives (pace Princess Diana). We believe that mask and social distancing work, but the actual data is lacking and hard to generate anyway. It might be that mask use is very important on trains and planes, but much less so in shops for instance. or there might be a threshold of community rates of covid that means masks are useful, but below that there is little or no effect in most situations. FWIW I think we are at that point now.
The irony is that whilst seat belts save lives, mandatory wearing them doesn't appear to have done. You'd expect to have seen a big one off fall in the death rate around the time that wearing became mandatory, but actually the trend (slightly less deaths every year since the late 60s) barely wobbled.
What these charts fairly consistently show is that the UK not only started vaccinating much earlier but continues to vaccinate quicker than the EU as a whole. We are roughly 13% of EU +UK and in this table we have 20% of new vaccines. The result is that our lead over the EU increases as we head to full vaccination and we will be there 2 -2.5 months ahead of the EU.
Which will be worth a few thousand lives in each of the major countries but in the overall scheme of things for the pandemic is not likely to be that material. Italy and Belgium are already well ahead of us in deaths per million and will move more so but it is unlikely that France and Germany will catch up.
Economically, our faster vaccination means that our recovery should be rough a quarter ahead of the EU but we were hit harder than most with more severe lockdowns so a faster recovery was pretty likely anyway.
What this might mean for the government is that the considerable credit that it is getting for fast and effective roll out is likely to fade fairly quickly and may well be gone by the end of this year when the focus will be on the overall performance where the UK is mid table at best, not even that on some measures. It seems probable to me that Tory leads will wane considerably at that point.
I'm going to stick my neck out here and make a clear and unambiguous prediction without caveat.
I think the vaccine rollout has been so good, and so popular, and so demonstrably more competent than elsewhere, that it will be the exception that proves the rule. The electorate will do gratitude, this one time, and the Tories will increase their majority at the next general election (I am reminded of a certain infamous article, yes).
Striking and plausible. Hats off. I'm not ruling that sort of scenario out but I will let a year pass before making the official 'newpunditry-newpolitics' long range call for the next GE.
I price it as follows atm -
Tory majority 50% Hung parliament 40% Labour majority 10%
Very much agree with this. Pricing Labour is tricky. It seems to me that a Labour majority required a black swan shift in sentiment, and that barring a game changer a Tory majority and hung parliament cover nearly 100% of the eventualities. In a sense therefore a 10% chance seems high, but the volatility of the political climate indicates caution. But the bookies current 7/2 Labour majority is fantasy stuff.
Yes, I'm pricing a Labour majority like a long dated, out-of-the-money option. It's well underwater in current conditions but there's quite a bit of "time value". Hence the 10%. I'd actually lump on if the odds were (say) 15/1.
THIS final paragraph in the latest Polly Tuscany Remoaner whine-fest might be relevant to the debate
"A necessary trigger will come to hand soon for Labour to lead the charge against the bad Brexit deal. In his wild rant at prime minister’s questions, Johnson accused Labour of voting against it, and many wish it had – though between a rock and a hard place, no deal wasn’t an option. Well before the next election, Labour will lead the cause of guiding Britain towards a return to the single market, and the safer haven of a Norway solution."
She's getting on a bit, I guess she's not as connected as she was, but she's still a significant writer in Labour circles. Either she knows Starmer is planning this, or she and the Guardian cabal are pushing him to do it.
It might be a game-changer if Brexit looks bad by 2024 (which it might). Single Market? Freedom of Movement? And end to red tape at the border, and go back to buying cottages in Greece or working in Frankfurt, without a worry?
I can imagine this offer tempting a lot of people away from the Tories, especially if - by 2024 - immigration is no longer an issue (who knows, long term, post Covid)
It's the obvious play for Starmer, and it could work
She's wishful thinking. Starmer may be dull but he's not daft.
Front page headline 'What a boost for Britain ' on vaccine rollout and plummeting infections
And on the inside 'The Jokes on you , Sir Keir' referring to his woeful photo stunt
It was an avoidable error by Starmer and he needs better advisors
Quite right, Starmer's woeful photo stunt at John Lewis demeans his office.
I mean, could anybody imagine our Prime Minister engaging in cheap publicity stunts to try to pretend he's a man of the people? He has far more dignity than that. Perish the thought.
Boris has that priced in. Starmer is supposed to be serious and competent. He's already failed at the latter and now he's failing at the former with that cringey photo.
Starmer does no stunts - You cant be PM with less personality than your opponent! Starmer does stunts - You cant be PM doing stunts like that!
Have Starmer critics thought maybe they just dont like him because he is a lefty, not because of his personality?
No, he's just not very good and it's disappointing because we need a strong opposition to the government more than ever given how our liberties are being curtailed. A good opposition leader would be planning with Tory rebels right now to defeat the government on their likely renewal of the virus measures in September. Instead he'll bitch for about two seconds and then quietly vote in favour leaving 60-80 Tory rebels wondering what they need to do to get the opposition to actually bloody oppose.
Rightly or wrongly from a public health perspective our liberties have been curtailed for the past 13 months.
Not a peep from anyone until the week before last or somesuch.
With ongoing huge popularity as evidenced in the polls why on earth would they decide to change policy now? Keep us if not scared, then anxious and in need of nanny.
Alternatively - after a number of false starts, we have a defined policy program to deal with COVID19. That is working....
And in the meantime unparalleled restrictions on our liberty have been waved through with a smile.
As I said, perhaps this was necessary. But the enthusiasm with which the country, not least here on PB, has embraced the restrictions of freedoms has been imo extraodinary.
It's because most believed them to be necessary, having seen some of the horrors elsewhere.
We're already seeing crumbling of the concensus on here and I'm seeing it anecdotally in friends and family. As the threat recedes, acceptance of the restrictions will too. It would be crazy if that was not the case.
Is it surprising that restrictions have been accepted so far? Maybe. It would be astonishing to me if restrictions were accepted after June, unless there are unforeseen events (some new super-variant that renders vaccines largley ineffective and a third wave). I'm part of the shadowy cabal (scientists, epidemiologists in particular) that apparently wants to take away peoples freedoms forever, but extend the restrictions beyond 21 June without good reason and I'll be joining you on the barricades.
It reminds me of the famous "we've established what you are, we're just haggling over price" quote.
Once people have willingly accepted, welcomed even, those restrictions they are likely not going to be put back in the box and one person's "red line" is another's "that sounds perfectly fine".
To use the most obvious example on here, @contrarian had a red line way, way, way over there <== while, say, @SandyRentool and @FrancisUrquhart I believe (apols if not) have a red line over there ==>
Everyone has a red line but that line is on the continuum of a restriction of liberties. OK what about seatbelts you say. And it is a good question. But there has not been copious legislation about the freedom to drive or be in a car. There has been for freedom of assembly, etc.
Yes, of course there's a continuum of opinions. There are some things that I stopped doing while still legal (we stopped seeing my in-laws before the first lockdown as they were in a vulnerable group) and some things that vexed me a bit due to being illegal (cancelled holiday last summer, in a cottage miles from anywhere with my household only - really zero risk from us going, we'd have seen no one, but I accepted that the rules - if there are rules - have to be universal).
The question is, should things have been illegal or simply just guidance? Most people are fairly pragmatic and - as there was support for many of the restrictions, were not against that being in law (I know that's the 'they came for the Jews but as I was not a Jew I did nothing' argument). I can see the philosophical point about whether these things should be in law or not. However, there's a practical point too in that making things illegal does give people cover to not do them under peer pressure (as also for seatbelts, motorcycle helmets). While I like the Swedish approach in many ways, I suspect passing the law, breaking the law being undetectable in most cases, is still useful for compliance. However, I wouldn't want to see the law enforced in all but the most egregious cases (does that make me a hypocrite? maybe so). I was apalled by Derbyshire police harassing walkers who were going out miles away from anyone. Or indeed stops of cars on the roads.
I do however think the circumstances are/were exceptional and don't think a precendent has been set. If there's another major pandemic then we may see similar laws. But I don't see where this is going to creep into other areas of life, because it simply won't be accepted. Masks this winter for flu? I don't see the government getting away with it or wanting to risk unpopularity by trying. How do I know? Because it crossed my red line, which is much closer to Sandy and Francis's than Contrarian's. To remain popular, the government has to 'win' against Covid and that means things going back to normal. Continued restrictions is not victory, it's failure and the government will not be rewarded for failure.
In short: we can disagree on whether legal restrictions were right or wrong (and there is no right answer, I think). But I don't believe this set of legal restrictions changes the future other than in another pandemic of similar or greater severity.
Thank you. I paid you the compliment (I hope) of reading your post carefully. Line by line indeed - something that I have been doing while reading Jonathan Sumption's latest book which is necessary!
And yes - for me the nub is laws vs guidelines. The lockdowns were to save lives and protect the NHS. So the lives yes of course (cf seatbelts) and saving us from ourselves, which has precedent. But the laws dealt with the most fundamental of our rights as the seatbelt laws don't and once laws are on the books and that precedent is set then it is damned difficult and nor do governments seem to want to remove them.
As for the peer pressure for me it's not enough of a quid pro quo.
So I do think that the government will maintain this anxiety because logically, politically, it works and the role of a government is to keep itself in power. I don't think "THEY WANT TO CONTROL US BECAUSE EVIL". But I do think that having found that they are popular with such measures, that people approve of them, the imperative to remove them is diminished greatly.
Although as others have said, if the UK wants voluntarily to submit to such a life then who am I to complain.
There is always a danger in extrapolating.
Although people have been happy to be locked down now, while they're worried about the virus or while they know a vaccine rollout is happening, that doesn't mean that people will remain happy to be locked down in the future.
Such measures in normal circumstances would likely be deeply unpopular.
Anyway, its Friday morning so lets set a nice test of legal and moral right and wrong.
It is only right that an individual should be able to choose which laws apply to them. It is only right that when a complaint is made and an investigation carried out to determine if that individual has broken the strict professional code that directs their behaviour, that the accused is able to discard the findings against them and carry on in role.
Its only fair. Lawyers get to dismiss professional misconduct convictions. Doctors. Bent Coppers. People who steal from work. So it is an outrage for people to think there is something wrong with the Prime Minister being able to simply dismiss the professional misconduct findings that are presented to him about his behaviour.
The Prime Minister should be subject to the same courts as the rest of us. If he receives a criminal conviction at a court of law then of course he should resign.
Anonymous people claiming on social media that he has done something wrong is not a court of law.
I was thinking about this last night.
Does anyone know the financial year in which this work was done? I wonder if the reluctance to reveal who repaid the loan was that it was a bridging loan - ie Boris claimed 2 years worth of the refurbishment allowance (£60k) and used the loan to bridge the gap.
I’ve no idea if that would be in the rules (strikes me as a bit of a grey area) or if it happened but it’s a possibility he might not want to put out there as it is certainly a but cute
Yes that will probably be the next rationalisation tried: bringing forward next year's allowance. It seems to be within the rules to roll allowances forward and this is just the obverse. Give it another six months for Boris and CCHQ to make the required declarations and Bob's your uncle.
Except it does not answer Keir Starmer's question: who initially paid?
Lord brownlow
Lord Brownlow paid but he was not the first, according to the Mail:-
Crucially, the email, also sent to Conservative chief executive Darren Mott, shows a second donation of £58,000 was to pay for new decor for Mr Johnson and fiancee Carrie Symonds’s flat at 11 Downing Street.
This has not yet been declared to the Electoral Commission.
The £58,000 was to cover an identical amount secretly paid months earlier by Tory HQ for the refurbishment, including expensive wallpaper – in an attempt to disguise it.
It seems that Johnson's approval ratings have been impacted by the sleaze allegations, however this has not changed the headline voting figures.
Therefore, it seems to me that Labour is not doing enough on the other side for people to switch. They need to get some policies into place and also change up their top team.
A good post. The Government is riding high on a well-oiled vaccination programme, the pubs open, and free money (4th stage SSEI grants are being paid as we speak).
Not so much the wallpaper, but I did think the "bodies piled high" allegation would shift opinion. On that score Cummings' fox is shot...unless he has a recording.
"Pubs open" - a reality check is needed.
Some pubs are open: those with beer gardens. The vast majority will still be making a loss or, at best, breaking even. That is unsustainable.
What they and restaurants and other hospitality businesses need are the end of social distancing inside or the requirement for mandatory table service or the rule of 6 etc and the ability for people to stand at the bar, as normal. Then they can start earning and making profits.
Will these requirements be lifted? It is unclear. But until they are we are not back to normal and these businesses will not be back to normal and will - without support - be unviable.
There is an unfairness in how they are being treated. If it is ok to go to a shop it is absurd that one cannot go inside a cafe. If it is ok to be packed together in the tube then it is a nonsense to stop people standing together chatting in a pub.
I am suspicious - as is Daughter - of what the government's real intentions are and what will actually happen. She and her customers are desperate to get back to normal. Until she sees the actual rules she does not believe in this "we are getting back to normal" shtick. And she is right to be suspicious. The government is not to be trusted. It has too often said one thing and done another.
If mandatory social distancing regulations for pubs etc are abolished on 21/6, a return to normal not a "new normal" then will you and your daughter be happy with that?
I think it should be sooner, but I'm begrudgingly OK so long as it happens by then. No later, no ifs, no buts.
What needs to go is social distancing and mandatory table service. If that happens she will be happy and can do business again. She has already booked a very popular local band to come in September and December.
What she does not want is the sort of restrictions there were before the last lockdown which meant that she had all the costs without the customers. She opened last December but it was largely a waste of time, apart from a few days. If the government imposes similar restrictions again, then the business is pointless and she will just give it up.
I hope this won't happen. But when I hear people like Van Tam saying that it is perfectly safe for people who have been vaccinated to meet each other indoors but they shouldn't "because we say so" I wonder what sort of country we are becoming and whether the government really will give up the micro-managing control it seems to love.
I agree with all that.
I want the same thing as you, all the nannying, all the social distancing, all the regulations need to go. Hopefully they do all go and your daughter can have a bumper summer. 👍
I have no idea why Van Tam receives plaudits. He’s unable to give a single presser with some inane half baked metaphor about cricket or trains rather than talking clearly and articulately about the scientific detail. And his statement this week on “don’t meet up indoors even when vaccinated just because” was scary.
The reason we are not allowing fully vaccinated folk to get together inside etc is purely to satisfy the British sense of fair play. It is not based on science. I've not seen any polling on it, but I suspect it is being widely flouted anyway (including by me).
Van Tam is the fucking moron who told us "masks don't work and I have a friend in Hong Kong who agrees with me". He should have been sacked by June last year, and he should be in jail now. How many people did he kill with his stupidity? He's not even got the excuse of being a politician, and therefore expected to lie. He's a scientist
He got the science horribly wrong. He didn't understand asymptomatic transmission. He did not grasp the pro-social reasons for wearing masks. His idiotic, pig-headed myopia increased our death toll. Put him on trial
It's also amusing that people are still treating Hartlepool as a *possible* Con gain rather than an absolute dead certainty.
If the Tories can gain a seat in a by-election while in Government it will be a shock, not a certainty. It would also signal about 15 more Labour-held seats as probable Tory gains next time, which gives a baseline of a Tory majority of 110 going into the next election.
My money is where my mouth is, I've bet on a Labour hold.
Like I said — amusing.
We'll see. If I'm wrong I'll lose some money, but I'll be happy to take 110 majority as a baseline going into the next election before swing.
Is that seriously what you think?
Not exactly because uniform swing doesn't apply and Hartlepool is somewhat of a 'special case' because of the ridiculously high Brexit Party vote.
But generally for the next election I expect nothing other than a repeat of 2019, based on the current status quo.
That's the point though, I don't think its possible to say that the Brexit Party vote are Tories in exile. They're far more likely to be Labour in exile "neverTories" who were not prepared to vote Tory, even to "Get Brexit Done".
If constituencies with a very high Brexit Party vote is split about 2:1 then that switches Hartlepool from red to blue - but Hartlepool is not a "special case" it is one of 15 seats like this. It would also switch 14 other constituencies too. There are 15 constituencies across the country that would fall to the blue team like Hartlepool if high BXP splits that way.
Perhaps you're right, perhaps high BXP will split Tory and not as I think be "neverTories" but if so then that's setting a baseline of 110 majority that should be in the Tory column without any other swings just from squeezing BXP next time.
I'd expect Labour, under Starmer, to win some metropolitan liberal elite seats in the south to make up for the further loss in the North — leading us back to 2019.
I also expect Labour to make gains in the South too. Quite frankly there are some long-held Tory areas that the Tories deserve to lose due to pandering to NIMBYism and meaning that people can't afford their own homes. If that means the likes of IDS lose their seat then I can live with that.
If that balances out net to another 2019 style result but IDS and other southern MPs replaced with Northern ones then even better.
A clueless post.
If the Tories concrete all over the greenbelt and homecounties they will not just lose Remain voting areas of London like Chingford to Starmer Labour, they will lose dozens of soft Leave and Remain voting Home Counties seats which they have already lost to the LDs at council level now over anti development to the LDs at national level too from Chelmsford and Esher and Walton to Tunbridge Wells and Wantage and Witney and Henley and Lewes. That means no Tory majority in 2024.
It is fine for you in the North, you have very low population density and vast amounts of countryside still left and no commuter belt the size of London's so you do not need to worry about development, here in the South, particularly here in the South East, we are far more densely populated and want to preserve the countryside and fields we have to remain livable.
Yes our housing is more expensive but that is a product of living in the London commuter belt, we can build some more affordable housing in brownbelt areas but housing will always be cheaper in the North and Midlands so if you still cannot afford to buy in London and the South then move to the Midlands or North
What these charts fairly consistently show is that the UK not only started vaccinating much earlier but continues to vaccinate quicker than the EU as a whole. We are roughly 13% of EU +UK and in this table we have 20% of new vaccines. The result is that our lead over the EU increases as we head to full vaccination and we will be there 2 -2.5 months ahead of the EU.
Which will be worth a few thousand lives in each of the major countries but in the overall scheme of things for the pandemic is not likely to be that material. Italy and Belgium are already well ahead of us in deaths per million and will move more so but it is unlikely that France and Germany will catch up.
Economically, our faster vaccination means that our recovery should be rough a quarter ahead of the EU but we were hit harder than most with more severe lockdowns so a faster recovery was pretty likely anyway.
What this might mean for the government is that the considerable credit that it is getting for fast and effective roll out is likely to fade fairly quickly and may well be gone by the end of this year when the focus will be on the overall performance where the UK is mid table at best, not even that on some measures. It seems probable to me that Tory leads will wane considerably at that point.
I'm going to stick my neck out here and make a clear and unambiguous prediction without caveat.
I think the vaccine rollout has been so good, and so popular, and so demonstrably more competent than elsewhere, that it will be the exception that proves the rule. The electorate will do gratitude, this one time, and the Tories will increase their majority at the next general election (I am reminded of a certain infamous article, yes).
Striking and plausible. Hats off. I'm not ruling that sort of scenario out but I will let a year pass before making the official 'newpunditry-newpolitics' long range call for the next GE.
I price it as follows atm -
Tory majority 50% Hung parliament 40% Labour majority 10%
Very much agree with this. Pricing Labour is tricky. It seems to me that a Labour majority required a black swan shift in sentiment, and that barring a game changer a Tory majority and hung parliament cover nearly 100% of the eventualities. In a sense therefore a 10% chance seems high, but the volatility of the political climate indicates caution. But the bookies current 7/2 Labour majority is fantasy stuff.
Yes, I'm pricing a Labour majority like a long dated, out-of-the-money option. It's well underwater in current conditions but there's quite a bit of "time value". Hence the 10%. I'd actually lump on if the odds were (say) 15/1.
THIS final paragraph in the latest Polly Tuscany Remoaner whine-fest might be relevant to the debate
"A necessary trigger will come to hand soon for Labour to lead the charge against the bad Brexit deal. In his wild rant at prime minister’s questions, Johnson accused Labour of voting against it, and many wish it had – though between a rock and a hard place, no deal wasn’t an option. Well before the next election, Labour will lead the cause of guiding Britain towards a return to the single market, and the safer haven of a Norway solution."
She's getting on a bit, I guess she's not as connected as she was, but she's still a significant writer in Labour circles. Either she knows Starmer is planning this, or she and the Guardian cabal are pushing him to do it.
It might be a game-changer if Brexit looks bad by 2024 (which it might). Single Market? Freedom of Movement? And end to red tape at the border, and go back to buying cottages in Greece or working in Frankfurt, without a worry?
I can imagine this offer tempting a lot of people away from the Tories, especially if - by 2024 - immigration is no longer an issue (who knows, long term, post Covid)
It's the obvious play for Starmer, and it could work
She's wishful thinking. Starmer may be dull but he's not daft.
Who knows. Not you, not I. It all depends how Brexit is playing out by, say, early 2023. And Starmer is desperate for Clear Blue Water between him and the Tories. A game-changing policy, a brand new battlefield. This fits the bill, perfectly
Mandeep Sharma feels utterly deserted by his government.
He is one of the 9,000 Australian nationals stranded in India right now, left to fend for themselves after Canberra this week banned all flights from the pandemic-ravaged nation until mid-May.
-------
What the f##k are you doing there? You have had a year to get back to Australia and its clear the deal, if you leave there is a huge risk you won't be able to return.
It's also amusing that people are still treating Hartlepool as a *possible* Con gain rather than an absolute dead certainty.
If the Tories can gain a seat in a by-election while in Government it will be a shock, not a certainty. It would also signal about 15 more Labour-held seats as probable Tory gains next time, which gives a baseline of a Tory majority of 110 going into the next election.
My money is where my mouth is, I've bet on a Labour hold.
Same here. I cannot see how anyone can say it’s an absolute certainty. It isn’t. It’s a toss up. I’ve got fifty quid on a labour hold at an average of 11/8.
For one reason — Ben Houchen is going to be overwhelmingly reelected and I can't see people voting Con for mayor and then Labour for Westminster. They'll vote, as they say in the states, Blue down ticket.
I agree about Houchen. He’s done a decent job and the labour candidate is Really poor. However Hartlepool has gained less compared to other areas in the Tees mayoralty. Houchen can, and will, win without necessarily getting a majority in the hartlepool seat. I can’t see it being a Tory cert. do you think if the by election was Middlesbrough not Hartlepool it would go Tory ?
Boro is the most Labour friendly constituency on Teesside — it is a university seat after all.
In Boro, Con+UKIP is still less than Labour. In Hartlepool, Con+UKIP is over 55%, well above labour on 35%.
Of course but that depends on how that UKIP vote splits. UKIP drew support from across the political divide not just the Tories. Especially in left behind towns and cities.
My expectation is labour will probably win Hartlepool but it is a tossup and I see labour as the value bet.
The labour campaign has felt a little lacklustre but that may just be Covid.
Front page headline 'What a boost for Britain ' on vaccine rollout and plummeting infections
And on the inside 'The Jokes on you , Sir Keir' referring to his woeful photo stunt
It was an avoidable error by Starmer and he needs better advisors
Quite right, Starmer's woeful photo stunt at John Lewis demeans his office.
I mean, could anybody imagine our Prime Minister engaging in cheap publicity stunts to try to pretend he's a man of the people? He has far more dignity than that. Perish the thought.
Boris has that priced in. Starmer is supposed to be serious and competent. He's already failed at the latter and now he's failing at the former with that cringey photo.
Starmer does no stunts - You cant be PM with less personality than your opponent! Starmer does stunts - You cant be PM doing stunts like that!
Have Starmer critics thought maybe they just dont like him because he is a lefty, not because of his personality?
No, he's just not very good and it's disappointing because we need a strong opposition to the government more than ever given how our liberties are being curtailed. A good opposition leader would be planning with Tory rebels right now to defeat the government on their likely renewal of the virus measures in September. Instead he'll bitch for about two seconds and then quietly vote in favour leaving 60-80 Tory rebels wondering what they need to do to get the opposition to actually bloody oppose.
Rightly or wrongly from a public health perspective our liberties have been curtailed for the past 13 months.
Not a peep from anyone until the week before last or somesuch.
With ongoing huge popularity as evidenced in the polls why on earth would they decide to change policy now? Keep us if not scared, then anxious and in need of nanny.
Alternatively - after a number of false starts, we have a defined policy program to deal with COVID19. That is working....
And in the meantime unparalleled restrictions on our liberty have been waved through with a smile.
As I said, perhaps this was necessary. But the enthusiasm with which the country, not least here on PB, has embraced the restrictions of freedoms has been imo extraodinary.
Britons will be slaves, it seems.
I’ve been amazed at the collective reflex to defer to authority figures over the last year. I was always under the impression that the British cultural norm was instinctive distrust of authority. I can only assume it’s because they’ve put up on stage a doctor and a “scientist”, for whom the normal rules go out the window.
Nonsense. People think lockdown is the right way to go, so they go with it. Like driving on the left. Am I deferring to authority figures, failing to show enough distrust for authority etc when I stop at red lights, put a seatbelt on and so on? This "look at the sheeple" stuff aims for sophistication and actually sounds like Rik Mayall in the Young Ones.
Of course it’s been deferring to authority. We STILL have not received anything resembling a cost benefit analysis of the measures taken, either individually or in totality.
Cyclefree has repeatedly pointed out some of the contradictions and absurdities in the measures. And we should not forget that as many as 40% of the country ended up catching this virus inside one year anyway. So it is very reasonable to ask whether it was necessary or effective to do x,y and z, without trite comparisons to wearing a seatbelt, for which there is excellent supporting evidence by the way.
We have 120 years of data for seatbelts.
My PB pedantry senses tingling. Seatbelts might have been invented in the 19th century but were only introduced to cars in the very late 1940's. Its an interesting thing though. Seatbelts demonstrably save lives (pace Princess Diana). We believe that mask and social distancing work, but the actual data is lacking and hard to generate anyway. It might be that mask use is very important on trains and planes, but much less so in shops for instance. or there might be a threshold of community rates of covid that means masks are useful, but below that there is little or no effect in most situations. FWIW I think we are at that point now.
The irony is that whilst seat belts save lives, mandatory wearing them doesn't appear to have done. You'd expect to have seen a big one off fall in the death rate around the time that wearing became mandatory, but actually the trend (slightly less deaths every year since the late 60s) barely wobbled.
Perhaps we have Jimmy Savile to thank for that. Maybe his 'Clunk Click on Every Trip' campaign had changed public behaviour long before the law was introduced.
It's also amusing that people are still treating Hartlepool as a *possible* Con gain rather than an absolute dead certainty.
If the Tories can gain a seat in a by-election while in Government it will be a shock, not a certainty. It would also signal about 15 more Labour-held seats as probable Tory gains next time, which gives a baseline of a Tory majority of 110 going into the next election.
My money is where my mouth is, I've bet on a Labour hold.
Like I said — amusing.
We'll see. If I'm wrong I'll lose some money, but I'll be happy to take 110 majority as a baseline going into the next election before swing.
Is that seriously what you think?
Not exactly because uniform swing doesn't apply and Hartlepool is somewhat of a 'special case' because of the ridiculously high Brexit Party vote.
But generally for the next election I expect nothing other than a repeat of 2019, based on the current status quo.
That's the point though, I don't think its possible to say that the Brexit Party vote are Tories in exile. They're far more likely to be Labour in exile "neverTories" who were not prepared to vote Tory, even to "Get Brexit Done".
If constituencies with a very high Brexit Party vote is split about 2:1 then that switches Hartlepool from red to blue - but Hartlepool is not a "special case" it is one of 15 seats like this. It would also switch 14 other constituencies too. There are 15 constituencies across the country that would fall to the blue team like Hartlepool if high BXP splits that way.
Perhaps you're right, perhaps high BXP will split Tory and not as I think be "neverTories" but if so then that's setting a baseline of 110 majority that should be in the Tory column without any other swings just from squeezing BXP next time.
I'd expect Labour, under Starmer, to win some metropolitan liberal elite seats in the south to make up for the further loss in the North — leading us back to 2019.
I also expect Labour to make gains in the South too. Quite frankly there are some long-held Tory areas that the Tories deserve to lose due to pandering to NIMBYism and meaning that people can't afford their own homes. If that means the likes of IDS lose their seat then I can live with that.
If that balances out net to another 2019 style result but IDS and other southern MPs replaced with Northern ones then even better.
A clueless post.
If the Tories concrete all over the greenbelt and homecounties they will not just lose Remain voting areas of London like Chingford to Labour, they will lose dozens of Home Counties seats which they have lost to the LDs at council level now over anti development to the LDs too from Chelmsford and Esher and Walton to Tunbridge Wells and Wantage and Witney and Henley.
It is fine for you in the North, you have very low density and vast amounts of countryside still left and no commuter belt the size of London's so you do not need to worry, in the South, particularly here in the South East, we are far more densely populated and want to preserve the countryside and fields we have to remain livable.
Yes our housing is more expensive but that is a product of living in the London commuter belt, we can build some more affordable housing in brownbelt areas but housing will always be cheaper in the North and Midlands so if you still cannot afford to buy in London and the South then move to the Midlands or North
'If you can't afford to buy a house in the South because we won't let them get built then you should move.'
Once again I'm ashamed to be in the same party as you. I believe in the free market and the free market can solve the housing crisis if we deregulate planning, you do not.
Mandeep Sharma feels utterly deserted by his government.
He is one of the 9,000 Australian nationals stranded in India right now, left to fend for themselves after Canberra this week banned all flights from the pandemic-ravaged nation until mid-May.
-------
What the f##k are you doing there? You have had a year to get back to Australia and its clear the deal, if you leave there is a huge risk you won't be able to return.
A friend of my father's has caught Covid, despite being one-jabbed.
It's not a serious case, him and his wife are just poorly, not gasping. Besides my sympathy is limited, because they caught the bug on a very recent holiday..... in the Himalayas
Front page headline 'What a boost for Britain ' on vaccine rollout and plummeting infections
And on the inside 'The Jokes on you , Sir Keir' referring to his woeful photo stunt
It was an avoidable error by Starmer and he needs better advisors
Quite right, Starmer's woeful photo stunt at John Lewis demeans his office.
I mean, could anybody imagine our Prime Minister engaging in cheap publicity stunts to try to pretend he's a man of the people? He has far more dignity than that. Perish the thought.
Boris has that priced in. Starmer is supposed to be serious and competent. He's already failed at the latter and now he's failing at the former with that cringey photo.
Starmer does no stunts - You cant be PM with less personality than your opponent! Starmer does stunts - You cant be PM doing stunts like that!
Have Starmer critics thought maybe they just dont like him because he is a lefty, not because of his personality?
No, he's just not very good and it's disappointing because we need a strong opposition to the government more than ever given how our liberties are being curtailed. A good opposition leader would be planning with Tory rebels right now to defeat the government on their likely renewal of the virus measures in September. Instead he'll bitch for about two seconds and then quietly vote in favour leaving 60-80 Tory rebels wondering what they need to do to get the opposition to actually bloody oppose.
Rightly or wrongly from a public health perspective our liberties have been curtailed for the past 13 months.
Not a peep from anyone until the week before last or somesuch.
With ongoing huge popularity as evidenced in the polls why on earth would they decide to change policy now? Keep us if not scared, then anxious and in need of nanny.
Alternatively - after a number of false starts, we have a defined policy program to deal with COVID19. That is working....
And in the meantime unparalleled restrictions on our liberty have been waved through with a smile.
As I said, perhaps this was necessary. But the enthusiasm with which the country, not least here on PB, has embraced the restrictions of freedoms has been imo extraodinary.
It's because most believed them to be necessary, having seen some of the horrors elsewhere.
We're already seeing crumbling of the concensus on here and I'm seeing it anecdotally in friends and family. As the threat recedes, acceptance of the restrictions will too. It would be crazy if that was not the case.
Is it surprising that restrictions have been accepted so far? Maybe. It would be astonishing to me if restrictions were accepted after June, unless there are unforeseen events (some new super-variant that renders vaccines largley ineffective and a third wave). I'm part of the shadowy cabal (scientists, epidemiologists in particular) that apparently wants to take away peoples freedoms forever, but extend the restrictions beyond 21 June without good reason and I'll be joining you on the barricades.
It reminds me of the famous "we've established what you are, we're just haggling over price" quote.
Once people have willingly accepted, welcomed even, those restrictions they are likely not going to be put back in the box and one person's "red line" is another's "that sounds perfectly fine".
To use the most obvious example on here, @contrarian had a red line way, way, way over there <== while, say, @SandyRentool and @FrancisUrquhart I believe (apols if not) have a red line over there ==>
Everyone has a red line but that line is on the continuum of a restriction of liberties. OK what about seatbelts you say. And it is a good question. But there has not been copious legislation about the freedom to drive or be in a car. There has been for freedom of assembly, etc.
Yes, of course there's a continuum of opinions. There are some things that I stopped doing while still legal (we stopped seeing my in-laws before the first lockdown as they were in a vulnerable group) and some things that vexed me a bit due to being illegal (cancelled holiday last summer, in a cottage miles from anywhere with my household only - really zero risk from us going, we'd have seen no one, but I accepted that the rules - if there are rules - have to be universal).
The question is, should things have been illegal or simply just guidance? Most people are fairly pragmatic and - as there was support for many of the restrictions, were not against that being in law (I know that's the 'they came for the Jews but as I was not a Jew I did nothing' argument). I can see the philosophical point about whether these things should be in law or not. However, there's a practical point too in that making things illegal does give people cover to not do them under peer pressure (as also for seatbelts, motorcycle helmets). While I like the Swedish approach in many ways, I suspect passing the law, breaking the law being undetectable in most cases, is still useful for compliance. However, I wouldn't want to see the law enforced in all but the most egregious cases (does that make me a hypocrite? maybe so). I was apalled by Derbyshire police harassing walkers who were going out miles away from anyone. Or indeed stops of cars on the roads.
I do however think the circumstances are/were exceptional and don't think a precendent has been set. If there's another major pandemic then we may see similar laws. But I don't see where this is going to creep into other areas of life, because it simply won't be accepted. Masks this winter for flu? I don't see the government getting away with it or wanting to risk unpopularity by trying. How do I know? Because it crossed my red line, which is much closer to Sandy and Francis's than Contrarian's. To remain popular, the government has to 'win' against Covid and that means things going back to normal. Continued restrictions is not victory, it's failure and the government will not be rewarded for failure.
In short: we can disagree on whether legal restrictions were right or wrong (and there is no right answer, I think). But I don't believe this set of legal restrictions changes the future other than in another pandemic of similar or greater severity.
Thank you. I paid you the compliment (I hope) of reading your post carefully. Line by line indeed - something that I have been doing while reading Jonathan Sumption's latest book which is necessary!
And yes - for me the nub is laws vs guidelines. The lockdowns were to save lives and protect the NHS. So the lives yes of course (cf seatbelts) and saving us from ourselves, which has precedent. But the laws dealt with the most fundamental of our rights as the seatbelt laws don't and once laws are on the books and that precedent is set then it is damned difficult and nor do governments seem to want to remove them.
As for the peer pressure for me it's not enough of a quid pro quo.
So I do think that the government will maintain this anxiety because logically, politically, it works and the role of a government is to keep itself in power. I don't think "THEY WANT TO CONTROL US BECAUSE EVIL". But I do think that having found that they are popular with such measures, that people approve of them, the imperative to remove them is diminished greatly.
Although as others have said, if the UK wants voluntarily to submit to such a life then who am I to complain.
There is always a danger in extrapolating.
Although people have been happy to be locked down now, while they're worried about the virus or while they know a vaccine rollout is happening, that doesn't mean that people will remain happy to be locked down in the future.
Such measures in normal circumstances would likely be deeply unpopular.
Nice cartoon and yes of course. But we are accumulating a lot of muscle memory now. Not for pubs and clubs where there will be push back we can all agree.
But what about public transport? Government buildings? OK so what does it matter? Perhaps it doesn't. And it softens us up for restrictive measures whenever the govt pleases.
If I had a cartoon showing the Lab govt saying their new counter terrorism laws were justified and were not able to be abused and then moments later Walter Wolfgang being thrown out of the Lab conference under counter terrorism laws I would post it here now.
What these charts fairly consistently show is that the UK not only started vaccinating much earlier but continues to vaccinate quicker than the EU as a whole. We are roughly 13% of EU +UK and in this table we have 20% of new vaccines. The result is that our lead over the EU increases as we head to full vaccination and we will be there 2 -2.5 months ahead of the EU.
Which will be worth a few thousand lives in each of the major countries but in the overall scheme of things for the pandemic is not likely to be that material. Italy and Belgium are already well ahead of us in deaths per million and will move more so but it is unlikely that France and Germany will catch up.
Economically, our faster vaccination means that our recovery should be rough a quarter ahead of the EU but we were hit harder than most with more severe lockdowns so a faster recovery was pretty likely anyway.
What this might mean for the government is that the considerable credit that it is getting for fast and effective roll out is likely to fade fairly quickly and may well be gone by the end of this year when the focus will be on the overall performance where the UK is mid table at best, not even that on some measures. It seems probable to me that Tory leads will wane considerably at that point.
I'm going to stick my neck out here and make a clear and unambiguous prediction without caveat.
I think the vaccine rollout has been so good, and so popular, and so demonstrably more competent than elsewhere, that it will be the exception that proves the rule. The electorate will do gratitude, this one time, and the Tories will increase their majority at the next general election (I am reminded of a certain infamous article, yes).
Striking and plausible. Hats off. I'm not ruling that sort of scenario out but I will let a year pass before making the official 'newpunditry-newpolitics' long range call for the next GE.
I price it as follows atm -
Tory majority 50% Hung parliament 40% Labour majority 10%
Very much agree with this. Pricing Labour is tricky. It seems to me that a Labour majority required a black swan shift in sentiment, and that barring a game changer a Tory majority and hung parliament cover nearly 100% of the eventualities. In a sense therefore a 10% chance seems high, but the volatility of the political climate indicates caution. But the bookies current 7/2 Labour majority is fantasy stuff.
Yes, I'm pricing a Labour majority like a long dated, out-of-the-money option. It's well underwater in current conditions but there's quite a bit of "time value". Hence the 10%. I'd actually lump on if the odds were (say) 15/1.
THIS final paragraph in the latest Polly Tuscany Remoaner whine-fest might be relevant to the debate
"A necessary trigger will come to hand soon for Labour to lead the charge against the bad Brexit deal. In his wild rant at prime minister’s questions, Johnson accused Labour of voting against it, and many wish it had – though between a rock and a hard place, no deal wasn’t an option. Well before the next election, Labour will lead the cause of guiding Britain towards a return to the single market, and the safer haven of a Norway solution."
She's getting on a bit, I guess she's not as connected as she was, but she's still a significant writer in Labour circles. Either she knows Starmer is planning this, or she and the Guardian cabal are pushing him to do it.
It might be a game-changer if Brexit looks bad by 2024 (which it might). Single Market? Freedom of Movement? And end to red tape at the border, and go back to buying cottages in Greece or working in Frankfurt, without a worry?
I can imagine this offer tempting a lot of people away from the Tories, especially if - by 2024 - immigration is no longer an issue (who knows, long term, post Covid)
It's the obvious play for Starmer, and it could work
She's wishful thinking. Starmer may be dull but he's not daft.
Who knows. Not you, not I. It all depends how Brexit is playing out by, say, early 2023. And Starmer is desperate for Clear Blue Water between him and the Tories. A game-changing policy, a brand new battlefield. This fits the bill, perfectly
Brexit as an issue is diminishing in the minds of the public and certainly rejoining is for the birds. Yes there are a few noisy Lt Onoda types like Polly.
Next election will be fought on cutting the NHS waiting lists and the economy.
Front page headline 'What a boost for Britain ' on vaccine rollout and plummeting infections
And on the inside 'The Jokes on you , Sir Keir' referring to his woeful photo stunt
It was an avoidable error by Starmer and he needs better advisors
Quite right, Starmer's woeful photo stunt at John Lewis demeans his office.
I mean, could anybody imagine our Prime Minister engaging in cheap publicity stunts to try to pretend he's a man of the people? He has far more dignity than that. Perish the thought.
Boris has that priced in. Starmer is supposed to be serious and competent. He's already failed at the latter and now he's failing at the former with that cringey photo.
Starmer does no stunts - You cant be PM with less personality than your opponent! Starmer does stunts - You cant be PM doing stunts like that!
Have Starmer critics thought maybe they just dont like him because he is a lefty, not because of his personality?
No, he's just not very good and it's disappointing because we need a strong opposition to the government more than ever given how our liberties are being curtailed. A good opposition leader would be planning with Tory rebels right now to defeat the government on their likely renewal of the virus measures in September. Instead he'll bitch for about two seconds and then quietly vote in favour leaving 60-80 Tory rebels wondering what they need to do to get the opposition to actually bloody oppose.
Rightly or wrongly from a public health perspective our liberties have been curtailed for the past 13 months.
Not a peep from anyone until the week before last or somesuch.
With ongoing huge popularity as evidenced in the polls why on earth would they decide to change policy now? Keep us if not scared, then anxious and in need of nanny.
Alternatively - after a number of false starts, we have a defined policy program to deal with COVID19. That is working....
And in the meantime unparalleled restrictions on our liberty have been waved through with a smile.
As I said, perhaps this was necessary. But the enthusiasm with which the country, not least here on PB, has embraced the restrictions of freedoms has been imo extraodinary.
Britons will be slaves, it seems.
I’ve been amazed at the collective reflex to defer to authority figures over the last year. I was always under the impression that the British cultural norm was instinctive distrust of authority. I can only assume it’s because they’ve put up on stage a doctor and a “scientist”, for whom the normal rules go out the window.
Nonsense. People think lockdown is the right way to go, so they go with it. Like driving on the left. Am I deferring to authority figures, failing to show enough distrust for authority etc when I stop at red lights, put a seatbelt on and so on? This "look at the sheeple" stuff aims for sophistication and actually sounds like Rik Mayall in the Young Ones.
There's a lot of nonsense about. I diagnose the cause as a mix of virtue-signaling and paranoia. This latter perhaps fed by the trauma and claustrophobia of the past year.
"I'm a rugged, freedom luvin' bear, always chaffing against these petty-fogging rules that all you pussies accept without a murmur."
"I'm an astute and seasoned unit, sussing that the "authorities" have a nefarious plan to keep the rules in place even after the virus is gone cos they love the power. I don't just trust them like you naive kiddies."
It's also amusing that people are still treating Hartlepool as a *possible* Con gain rather than an absolute dead certainty.
If the Tories can gain a seat in a by-election while in Government it will be a shock, not a certainty. It would also signal about 15 more Labour-held seats as probable Tory gains next time, which gives a baseline of a Tory majority of 110 going into the next election.
My money is where my mouth is, I've bet on a Labour hold.
Same here. I cannot see how anyone can say it’s an absolute certainty. It isn’t. It’s a toss up. I’ve got fifty quid on a labour hold at an average of 11/8.
For one reason — Ben Houchen is going to be overwhelmingly reelected and I can't see people voting Con for mayor and then Labour for Westminster. They'll vote, as they say in the states, Blue down ticket.
I agree about Houchen. He’s done a decent job and the labour candidate is Really poor. However Hartlepool has gained less compared to other areas in the Tees mayoralty. Houchen can, and will, win without necessarily getting a majority in the hartlepool seat. I can’t see it being a Tory cert. do you think if the by election was Middlesbrough not Hartlepool it would go Tory ?
Boro is the most Labour friendly constituency on Teesside — it is a university seat after all.
In Boro, Con+UKIP is still less than Labour. In Hartlepool, Con+UKIP is over 55%, well above labour on 35%.
Of course but that depends on how that UKIP vote splits. UKIP drew support from across the political divide not just the Tories. Especially in left behind towns and cities.
My expectation is labour will probably win Hartlepool but it is a tossup and I see labour as the value bet.
The labour campaign has felt a little lacklustre but that may just be Covid.
Good analysis. You may very well be right, but my feeling tells me it will be a clear Con victory. We'll see!
It's also amusing that people are still treating Hartlepool as a *possible* Con gain rather than an absolute dead certainty.
If the Tories can gain a seat in a by-election while in Government it will be a shock, not a certainty. It would also signal about 15 more Labour-held seats as probable Tory gains next time, which gives a baseline of a Tory majority of 110 going into the next election.
My money is where my mouth is, I've bet on a Labour hold.
Like I said — amusing.
We'll see. If I'm wrong I'll lose some money, but I'll be happy to take 110 majority as a baseline going into the next election before swing.
Is that seriously what you think?
Not exactly because uniform swing doesn't apply and Hartlepool is somewhat of a 'special case' because of the ridiculously high Brexit Party vote.
But generally for the next election I expect nothing other than a repeat of 2019, based on the current status quo.
That's the point though, I don't think its possible to say that the Brexit Party vote are Tories in exile. They're far more likely to be Labour in exile "neverTories" who were not prepared to vote Tory, even to "Get Brexit Done".
If constituencies with a very high Brexit Party vote is split about 2:1 then that switches Hartlepool from red to blue - but Hartlepool is not a "special case" it is one of 15 seats like this. It would also switch 14 other constituencies too. There are 15 constituencies across the country that would fall to the blue team like Hartlepool if high BXP splits that way.
Perhaps you're right, perhaps high BXP will split Tory and not as I think be "neverTories" but if so then that's setting a baseline of 110 majority that should be in the Tory column without any other swings just from squeezing BXP next time.
I'd expect Labour, under Starmer, to win some metropolitan liberal elite seats in the south to make up for the further loss in the North — leading us back to 2019.
I also expect Labour to make gains in the South too. Quite frankly there are some long-held Tory areas that the Tories deserve to lose due to pandering to NIMBYism and meaning that people can't afford their own homes. If that means the likes of IDS lose their seat then I can live with that.
If that balances out net to another 2019 style result but IDS and other southern MPs replaced with Northern ones then even better.
A clueless post.
If the Tories concrete all over the greenbelt and homecounties they will not just lose Remain voting areas of London like Chingford to Labour, they will lose dozens of Home Counties seats which they have lost to the LDs at council level now over anti development to the LDs too from Chelmsford and Esher and Walton to Tunbridge Wells and Wantage and Witney and Henley.
It is fine for you in the North, you have very low density and vast amounts of countryside still left and no commuter belt the size of London's so you do not need to worry, in the South, particularly here in the South East, we are far more densely populated and want to preserve the countryside and fields we have to remain livable.
Yes our housing is more expensive but that is a product of living in the London commuter belt, we can build some more affordable housing in brownbelt areas but housing will always be cheaper in the North and Midlands so if you still cannot afford to buy in London and the South then move to the Midlands or North
'If you can't afford to buy a house in the South because we won't let them get built then you should move.'
Once again I'm ashamed to be in the same party as you. I believe in the free market and the free market can solve the housing crisis if we deregulate planning, you do not.
HYUFD is right and you are wrong. No one wants a free for all that turns the SE into a rainy, grey English version of Los Angeles' sprawl. It would be wildly unpopular, and in the end self-defeating, as people would flee this dystopia. By that time it would be too late as we would have tarmacked the entire southern half of the country
Front page headline 'What a boost for Britain ' on vaccine rollout and plummeting infections
And on the inside 'The Jokes on you , Sir Keir' referring to his woeful photo stunt
It was an avoidable error by Starmer and he needs better advisors
Quite right, Starmer's woeful photo stunt at John Lewis demeans his office.
I mean, could anybody imagine our Prime Minister engaging in cheap publicity stunts to try to pretend he's a man of the people? He has far more dignity than that. Perish the thought.
Boris has that priced in. Starmer is supposed to be serious and competent. He's already failed at the latter and now he's failing at the former with that cringey photo.
Starmer does no stunts - You cant be PM with less personality than your opponent! Starmer does stunts - You cant be PM doing stunts like that!
Have Starmer critics thought maybe they just dont like him because he is a lefty, not because of his personality?
No, he's just not very good and it's disappointing because we need a strong opposition to the government more than ever given how our liberties are being curtailed. A good opposition leader would be planning with Tory rebels right now to defeat the government on their likely renewal of the virus measures in September. Instead he'll bitch for about two seconds and then quietly vote in favour leaving 60-80 Tory rebels wondering what they need to do to get the opposition to actually bloody oppose.
Rightly or wrongly from a public health perspective our liberties have been curtailed for the past 13 months.
Not a peep from anyone until the week before last or somesuch.
With ongoing huge popularity as evidenced in the polls why on earth would they decide to change policy now? Keep us if not scared, then anxious and in need of nanny.
Alternatively - after a number of false starts, we have a defined policy program to deal with COVID19. That is working....
And in the meantime unparalleled restrictions on our liberty have been waved through with a smile.
As I said, perhaps this was necessary. But the enthusiasm with which the country, not least here on PB, has embraced the restrictions of freedoms has been imo extraodinary.
Britons will be slaves, it seems.
I’ve been amazed at the collective reflex to defer to authority figures over the last year. I was always under the impression that the British cultural norm was instinctive distrust of authority. I can only assume it’s because they’ve put up on stage a doctor and a “scientist”, for whom the normal rules go out the window.
Nonsense. People think lockdown is the right way to go, so they go with it. Like driving on the left. Am I deferring to authority figures, failing to show enough distrust for authority etc when I stop at red lights, put a seatbelt on and so on? This "look at the sheeple" stuff aims for sophistication and actually sounds like Rik Mayall in the Young Ones.
Of course it’s been deferring to authority. We STILL have not received anything resembling a cost benefit analysis of the measures taken, either individually or in totality.
Cyclefree has repeatedly pointed out some of the contradictions and absurdities in the measures. And we should not forget that as many as 40% of the country ended up catching this virus inside one year anyway. So it is very reasonable to ask whether it was necessary or effective to do x,y and z, without trite comparisons to wearing a seatbelt, for which there is excellent supporting evidence by the way.
We have 120 years of data for seatbelts.
My PB pedantry senses tingling. Seatbelts might have been invented in the 19th century but were only introduced to cars in the very late 1940's. Its an interesting thing though. Seatbelts demonstrably save lives (pace Princess Diana). We believe that mask and social distancing work, but the actual data is lacking and hard to generate anyway. It might be that mask use is very important on trains and planes, but much less so in shops for instance. or there might be a threshold of community rates of covid that means masks are useful, but below that there is little or no effect in most situations. FWIW I think we are at that point now.
The other thing to think about is marginal cost. The marginal cost of wearing a mask is very low - both to the individual and the social/economic system around them.
I'm not sure of this. On holiday in Wales I was seriously fed up having to wear a mask in shops etc. I hate it. It puts me off from browsing and shopping in general. I think there is a danger that it reduces the extent to which people do things, and that will affect the economy. The same could be true of needing to take lateral flow tests days before attending say a football match. It will deter the casual fan. There is also the danger of keeping a population more scared than they need to be.
Indeed. Malmesbury is wrong about this. Most people loathe masks, but have considered them a necessary evil. Sure, some people may be fine with them, but they are in the minority I think.
Front page headline 'What a boost for Britain ' on vaccine rollout and plummeting infections
And on the inside 'The Jokes on you , Sir Keir' referring to his woeful photo stunt
It was an avoidable error by Starmer and he needs better advisors
Quite right, Starmer's woeful photo stunt at John Lewis demeans his office.
I mean, could anybody imagine our Prime Minister engaging in cheap publicity stunts to try to pretend he's a man of the people? He has far more dignity than that. Perish the thought.
Boris has that priced in. Starmer is supposed to be serious and competent. He's already failed at the latter and now he's failing at the former with that cringey photo.
Starmer does no stunts - You cant be PM with less personality than your opponent! Starmer does stunts - You cant be PM doing stunts like that!
Have Starmer critics thought maybe they just dont like him because he is a lefty, not because of his personality?
No, he's just not very good and it's disappointing because we need a strong opposition to the government more than ever given how our liberties are being curtailed. A good opposition leader would be planning with Tory rebels right now to defeat the government on their likely renewal of the virus measures in September. Instead he'll bitch for about two seconds and then quietly vote in favour leaving 60-80 Tory rebels wondering what they need to do to get the opposition to actually bloody oppose.
Rightly or wrongly from a public health perspective our liberties have been curtailed for the past 13 months.
Not a peep from anyone until the week before last or somesuch.
With ongoing huge popularity as evidenced in the polls why on earth would they decide to change policy now? Keep us if not scared, then anxious and in need of nanny.
Alternatively - after a number of false starts, we have a defined policy program to deal with COVID19. That is working....
And in the meantime unparalleled restrictions on our liberty have been waved through with a smile.
As I said, perhaps this was necessary. But the enthusiasm with which the country, not least here on PB, has embraced the restrictions of freedoms has been imo extraodinary.
Britons will be slaves, it seems.
I’ve been amazed at the collective reflex to defer to authority figures over the last year. I was always under the impression that the British cultural norm was instinctive distrust of authority. I can only assume it’s because they’ve put up on stage a doctor and a “scientist”, for whom the normal rules go out the window.
Nonsense. People think lockdown is the right way to go, so they go with it. Like driving on the left. Am I deferring to authority figures, failing to show enough distrust for authority etc when I stop at red lights, put a seatbelt on and so on? This "look at the sheeple" stuff aims for sophistication and actually sounds like Rik Mayall in the Young Ones.
Of course it’s been deferring to authority. We STILL have not received anything resembling a cost benefit analysis of the measures taken, either individually or in totality.
Cyclefree has repeatedly pointed out some of the contradictions and absurdities in the measures. And we should not forget that as many as 40% of the country ended up catching this virus inside one year anyway. So it is very reasonable to ask whether it was necessary or effective to do x,y and z, without trite comparisons to wearing a seatbelt, for which there is excellent supporting evidence by the way.
We have 120 years of data for seatbelts.
My PB pedantry senses tingling. Seatbelts might have been invented in the 19th century but were only introduced to cars in the very late 1940's. Its an interesting thing though. Seatbelts demonstrably save lives (pace Princess Diana). We believe that mask and social distancing work, but the actual data is lacking and hard to generate anyway. It might be that mask use is very important on trains and planes, but much less so in shops for instance. or there might be a threshold of community rates of covid that means masks are useful, but below that there is little or no effect in most situations. FWIW I think we are at that point now.
The irony is that whilst seat belts save lives, mandatory wearing them doesn't appear to have done. You'd expect to have seen a big one off fall in the death rate around the time that wearing became mandatory, but actually the trend (slightly less deaths every year since the late 60s) barely wobbled.
Perhaps we have Jimmy Savile to thank for that. Maybe his 'Clunk Click on Every Trip' campaign had changed public behaviour long before the law was introduced.
It is a commonplace observation that Number 10 lawyers, like Mrs Thatcher and Tony Blair, think first of new laws. The seatbelt campaign started under Heath, who, like Cameron with his nudge unit, was not a lawyer.
What these charts fairly consistently show is that the UK not only started vaccinating much earlier but continues to vaccinate quicker than the EU as a whole. We are roughly 13% of EU +UK and in this table we have 20% of new vaccines. The result is that our lead over the EU increases as we head to full vaccination and we will be there 2 -2.5 months ahead of the EU.
Which will be worth a few thousand lives in each of the major countries but in the overall scheme of things for the pandemic is not likely to be that material. Italy and Belgium are already well ahead of us in deaths per million and will move more so but it is unlikely that France and Germany will catch up.
Economically, our faster vaccination means that our recovery should be rough a quarter ahead of the EU but we were hit harder than most with more severe lockdowns so a faster recovery was pretty likely anyway.
What this might mean for the government is that the considerable credit that it is getting for fast and effective roll out is likely to fade fairly quickly and may well be gone by the end of this year when the focus will be on the overall performance where the UK is mid table at best, not even that on some measures. It seems probable to me that Tory leads will wane considerably at that point.
I'm going to stick my neck out here and make a clear and unambiguous prediction without caveat.
I think the vaccine rollout has been so good, and so popular, and so demonstrably more competent than elsewhere, that it will be the exception that proves the rule. The electorate will do gratitude, this one time, and the Tories will increase their majority at the next general election (I am reminded of a certain infamous article, yes).
Striking and plausible. Hats off. I'm not ruling that sort of scenario out but I will let a year pass before making the official 'newpunditry-newpolitics' long range call for the next GE.
I price it as follows atm -
Tory majority 50% Hung parliament 40% Labour majority 10%
Very much agree with this. Pricing Labour is tricky. It seems to me that a Labour majority required a black swan shift in sentiment, and that barring a game changer a Tory majority and hung parliament cover nearly 100% of the eventualities. In a sense therefore a 10% chance seems high, but the volatility of the political climate indicates caution. But the bookies current 7/2 Labour majority is fantasy stuff.
Yes, I'm pricing a Labour majority like a long dated, out-of-the-money option. It's well underwater in current conditions but there's quite a bit of "time value". Hence the 10%. I'd actually lump on if the odds were (say) 15/1.
THIS final paragraph in the latest Polly Tuscany Remoaner whine-fest might be relevant to the debate
"A necessary trigger will come to hand soon for Labour to lead the charge against the bad Brexit deal. In his wild rant at prime minister’s questions, Johnson accused Labour of voting against it, and many wish it had – though between a rock and a hard place, no deal wasn’t an option. Well before the next election, Labour will lead the cause of guiding Britain towards a return to the single market, and the safer haven of a Norway solution."
She's getting on a bit, I guess she's not as connected as she was, but she's still a significant writer in Labour circles. Either she knows Starmer is planning this, or she and the Guardian cabal are pushing him to do it.
It might be a game-changer if Brexit looks bad by 2024 (which it might). Single Market? Freedom of Movement? And end to red tape at the border, and go back to buying cottages in Greece or working in Frankfurt, without a worry?
I can imagine this offer tempting a lot of people away from the Tories, especially if - by 2024 - immigration is no longer an issue (who knows, long term, post Covid)
It's the obvious play for Starmer, and it could work
She's wishful thinking. Starmer may be dull but he's not daft.
Who knows. Not you, not I. It all depends how Brexit is playing out by, say, early 2023. And Starmer is desperate for Clear Blue Water between him and the Tories. A game-changing policy, a brand new battlefield. This fits the bill, perfectly
Brexit as an issue is diminishing in the minds of the public and certainly rejoining is for the birds. Yes there are a few noisy Lt Onoda types like Polly.
Next election will be fought on cutting the NHS waiting lists and the economy.
Straw Man. Rejoining was never mentioned, neither by me nor Polly. I can't see that ever happening
Single Market? Definitely. Business will want it, young people will want it (Freedom of Movement), Remainers (and they will still exist) will want it. It's not going away as an issue because Brexity Single Market problems are now a feature not a bug
It's also amusing that people are still treating Hartlepool as a *possible* Con gain rather than an absolute dead certainty.
If the Tories can gain a seat in a by-election while in Government it will be a shock, not a certainty. It would also signal about 15 more Labour-held seats as probable Tory gains next time, which gives a baseline of a Tory majority of 110 going into the next election.
My money is where my mouth is, I've bet on a Labour hold.
Same here. I cannot see how anyone can say it’s an absolute certainty. It isn’t. It’s a toss up. I’ve got fifty quid on a labour hold at an average of 11/8.
For one reason — Ben Houchen is going to be overwhelmingly reelected and I can't see people voting Con for mayor and then Labour for Westminster. They'll vote, as they say in the states, Blue down ticket.
I agree about Houchen. He’s done a decent job and the labour candidate is Really poor. However Hartlepool has gained less compared to other areas in the Tees mayoralty. Houchen can, and will, win without necessarily getting a majority in the hartlepool seat. I can’t see it being a Tory cert. do you think if the by election was Middlesbrough not Hartlepool it would go Tory ?
Hartlepool's choice is to vote Tory in the hope that they get something from this Tory Government or vote Labour and watch things continue to go elsewhere.
The issue for Hartlepool is that Geographically it's not that great a place to invest in, it's transport links are dire when you compare it to almost anywhere else in the Tees Valley..
I don’t disagree with your conclusion. Places like Hartlepool have been left to wither on the vine by successive govts. Labour because they never needed to do anything to get people there to vote for them and the Tories as they never had a chance there. Now things have changed. Firstly with the surge of the SNP and now the collapse of the red wall. Once safe seats cannot be taken for granted and the Tory lead in the working class is massive. I’m a labour voter naturally but if I was in Hartlepool I’d probably vote Tory. Blue down the ticket as gallowgate said.
Front page headline 'What a boost for Britain ' on vaccine rollout and plummeting infections
And on the inside 'The Jokes on you , Sir Keir' referring to his woeful photo stunt
It was an avoidable error by Starmer and he needs better advisors
Quite right, Starmer's woeful photo stunt at John Lewis demeans his office.
I mean, could anybody imagine our Prime Minister engaging in cheap publicity stunts to try to pretend he's a man of the people? He has far more dignity than that. Perish the thought.
Boris has that priced in. Starmer is supposed to be serious and competent. He's already failed at the latter and now he's failing at the former with that cringey photo.
Starmer does no stunts - You cant be PM with less personality than your opponent! Starmer does stunts - You cant be PM doing stunts like that!
Have Starmer critics thought maybe they just dont like him because he is a lefty, not because of his personality?
No, he's just not very good and it's disappointing because we need a strong opposition to the government more than ever given how our liberties are being curtailed. A good opposition leader would be planning with Tory rebels right now to defeat the government on their likely renewal of the virus measures in September. Instead he'll bitch for about two seconds and then quietly vote in favour leaving 60-80 Tory rebels wondering what they need to do to get the opposition to actually bloody oppose.
Rightly or wrongly from a public health perspective our liberties have been curtailed for the past 13 months.
Not a peep from anyone until the week before last or somesuch.
With ongoing huge popularity as evidenced in the polls why on earth would they decide to change policy now? Keep us if not scared, then anxious and in need of nanny.
Alternatively - after a number of false starts, we have a defined policy program to deal with COVID19. That is working....
And in the meantime unparalleled restrictions on our liberty have been waved through with a smile.
As I said, perhaps this was necessary. But the enthusiasm with which the country, not least here on PB, has embraced the restrictions of freedoms has been imo extraodinary.
Britons will be slaves, it seems.
I’ve been amazed at the collective reflex to defer to authority figures over the last year. I was always under the impression that the British cultural norm was instinctive distrust of authority. I can only assume it’s because they’ve put up on stage a doctor and a “scientist”, for whom the normal rules go out the window.
Nonsense. People think lockdown is the right way to go, so they go with it. Like driving on the left. Am I deferring to authority figures, failing to show enough distrust for authority etc when I stop at red lights, put a seatbelt on and so on? This "look at the sheeple" stuff aims for sophistication and actually sounds like Rik Mayall in the Young Ones.
Of course it’s been deferring to authority. We STILL have not received anything resembling a cost benefit analysis of the measures taken, either individually or in totality.
Cyclefree has repeatedly pointed out some of the contradictions and absurdities in the measures. And we should not forget that as many as 40% of the country ended up catching this virus inside one year anyway. So it is very reasonable to ask whether it was necessary or effective to do x,y and z, without trite comparisons to wearing a seatbelt, for which there is excellent supporting evidence by the way.
We have 120 years of data for seatbelts.
My PB pedantry senses tingling. Seatbelts might have been invented in the 19th century but were only introduced to cars in the very late 1940's. Its an interesting thing though. Seatbelts demonstrably save lives (pace Princess Diana). We believe that mask and social distancing work, but the actual data is lacking and hard to generate anyway. It might be that mask use is very important on trains and planes, but much less so in shops for instance. or there might be a threshold of community rates of covid that means masks are useful, but below that there is little or no effect in most situations. FWIW I think we are at that point now.
The irony is that whilst seat belts save lives, mandatory wearing them doesn't appear to have done. You'd expect to have seen a big one off fall in the death rate around the time that wearing became mandatory, but actually the trend (slightly less deaths every year since the late 60s) barely wobbled.
Anything on how many were wearing seat belts once the legislation was introduced? Or how many cars had seatbelts (was not mandatory to have them fitted?).
Sometimes you get big effects, sometimes not, depending on behaviours and how important the intervention is. One of my favourites, as an epidemiologist, is cot deaths and the back to sleep campaign (the evidence started to become known, some midwives were advising back sleeping, prior to the campaigns, so the decline starts earlier than the campaigns, but the national campaign year and year after are striking): Of course, also a cautionary tale as the advice before then was, due to bad science, to put infants to sleep in a pose similar to adult recovery position - extrapolating from adults to infants on limited evidence.
Front page headline 'What a boost for Britain ' on vaccine rollout and plummeting infections
And on the inside 'The Jokes on you , Sir Keir' referring to his woeful photo stunt
It was an avoidable error by Starmer and he needs better advisors
Quite right, Starmer's woeful photo stunt at John Lewis demeans his office.
I mean, could anybody imagine our Prime Minister engaging in cheap publicity stunts to try to pretend he's a man of the people? He has far more dignity than that. Perish the thought.
Boris has that priced in. Starmer is supposed to be serious and competent. He's already failed at the latter and now he's failing at the former with that cringey photo.
Starmer does no stunts - You cant be PM with less personality than your opponent! Starmer does stunts - You cant be PM doing stunts like that!
Have Starmer critics thought maybe they just dont like him because he is a lefty, not because of his personality?
No, he's just not very good and it's disappointing because we need a strong opposition to the government more than ever given how our liberties are being curtailed. A good opposition leader would be planning with Tory rebels right now to defeat the government on their likely renewal of the virus measures in September. Instead he'll bitch for about two seconds and then quietly vote in favour leaving 60-80 Tory rebels wondering what they need to do to get the opposition to actually bloody oppose.
Rightly or wrongly from a public health perspective our liberties have been curtailed for the past 13 months.
Not a peep from anyone until the week before last or somesuch.
With ongoing huge popularity as evidenced in the polls why on earth would they decide to change policy now? Keep us if not scared, then anxious and in need of nanny.
Alternatively - after a number of false starts, we have a defined policy program to deal with COVID19. That is working....
And in the meantime unparalleled restrictions on our liberty have been waved through with a smile.
As I said, perhaps this was necessary. But the enthusiasm with which the country, not least here on PB, has embraced the restrictions of freedoms has been imo extraodinary.
Britons will be slaves, it seems.
I’ve been amazed at the collective reflex to defer to authority figures over the last year. I was always under the impression that the British cultural norm was instinctive distrust of authority. I can only assume it’s because they’ve put up on stage a doctor and a “scientist”, for whom the normal rules go out the window.
Nonsense. People think lockdown is the right way to go, so they go with it. Like driving on the left. Am I deferring to authority figures, failing to show enough distrust for authority etc when I stop at red lights, put a seatbelt on and so on? This "look at the sheeple" stuff aims for sophistication and actually sounds like Rik Mayall in the Young Ones.
Of course it’s been deferring to authority. We STILL have not received anything resembling a cost benefit analysis of the measures taken, either individually or in totality.
Cyclefree has repeatedly pointed out some of the contradictions and absurdities in the measures. And we should not forget that as many as 40% of the country ended up catching this virus inside one year anyway. So it is very reasonable to ask whether it was necessary or effective to do x,y and z, without trite comparisons to wearing a seatbelt, for which there is excellent supporting evidence by the way.
We have 120 years of data for seatbelts.
My PB pedantry senses tingling. Seatbelts might have been invented in the 19th century but were only introduced to cars in the very late 1940's. Its an interesting thing though. Seatbelts demonstrably save lives (pace Princess Diana). We believe that mask and social distancing work, but the actual data is lacking and hard to generate anyway. It might be that mask use is very important on trains and planes, but much less so in shops for instance. or there might be a threshold of community rates of covid that means masks are useful, but below that there is little or no effect in most situations. FWIW I think we are at that point now.
The irony is that whilst seat belts save lives, mandatory wearing them doesn't appear to have done. You'd expect to have seen a big one off fall in the death rate around the time that wearing became mandatory, but actually the trend (slightly less deaths every year since the late 60s) barely wobbled.
Perhaps we have Jimmy Savile to thank for that. Maybe his 'Clunk Click on Every Trip' campaign had changed public behaviour long before the law was introduced.
Which leaves one wondering why it was necessary to impose a law. If the desired effect of a law can be achieved without legislation, why legislate?
Similar thing with lockdowns. A lot of what was (and in some cases still is) law should only have been guidance.
What these charts fairly consistently show is that the UK not only started vaccinating much earlier but continues to vaccinate quicker than the EU as a whole. We are roughly 13% of EU +UK and in this table we have 20% of new vaccines. The result is that our lead over the EU increases as we head to full vaccination and we will be there 2 -2.5 months ahead of the EU.
Which will be worth a few thousand lives in each of the major countries but in the overall scheme of things for the pandemic is not likely to be that material. Italy and Belgium are already well ahead of us in deaths per million and will move more so but it is unlikely that France and Germany will catch up.
Economically, our faster vaccination means that our recovery should be rough a quarter ahead of the EU but we were hit harder than most with more severe lockdowns so a faster recovery was pretty likely anyway.
What this might mean for the government is that the considerable credit that it is getting for fast and effective roll out is likely to fade fairly quickly and may well be gone by the end of this year when the focus will be on the overall performance where the UK is mid table at best, not even that on some measures. It seems probable to me that Tory leads will wane considerably at that point.
I'm going to stick my neck out here and make a clear and unambiguous prediction without caveat.
I think the vaccine rollout has been so good, and so popular, and so demonstrably more competent than elsewhere, that it will be the exception that proves the rule. The electorate will do gratitude, this one time, and the Tories will increase their majority at the next general election (I am reminded of a certain infamous article, yes).
Striking and plausible. Hats off. I'm not ruling that sort of scenario out but I will let a year pass before making the official 'newpunditry-newpolitics' long range call for the next GE.
I price it as follows atm -
Tory majority 50% Hung parliament 40% Labour majority 10%
Labour majority closer to zero (Scotland) hung parliament higher, Tory majority (any majority 2 and over) a little lower.
Maybe Boris beating Covid dovetails with Mrs T. beating General Galtieri, although I don't think so.
It's the economy, and should that (and I expect it to) change, then the Johnson teflon coating will be shed, and the stunts and the scandals will no longer be charming.
So you'd be 45/50/5 then. Something like that. Same page, really, when you consider we're still a long way out. It'll be interesting to see how close (or not) our probabilities are in a year or so.
What these charts fairly consistently show is that the UK not only started vaccinating much earlier but continues to vaccinate quicker than the EU as a whole. We are roughly 13% of EU +UK and in this table we have 20% of new vaccines. The result is that our lead over the EU increases as we head to full vaccination and we will be there 2 -2.5 months ahead of the EU.
Which will be worth a few thousand lives in each of the major countries but in the overall scheme of things for the pandemic is not likely to be that material. Italy and Belgium are already well ahead of us in deaths per million and will move more so but it is unlikely that France and Germany will catch up.
Economically, our faster vaccination means that our recovery should be rough a quarter ahead of the EU but we were hit harder than most with more severe lockdowns so a faster recovery was pretty likely anyway.
What this might mean for the government is that the considerable credit that it is getting for fast and effective roll out is likely to fade fairly quickly and may well be gone by the end of this year when the focus will be on the overall performance where the UK is mid table at best, not even that on some measures. It seems probable to me that Tory leads will wane considerably at that point.
I'm going to stick my neck out here and make a clear and unambiguous prediction without caveat.
I think the vaccine rollout has been so good, and so popular, and so demonstrably more competent than elsewhere, that it will be the exception that proves the rule. The electorate will do gratitude, this one time, and the Tories will increase their majority at the next general election (I am reminded of a certain infamous article, yes).
Striking and plausible. Hats off. I'm not ruling that sort of scenario out but I will let a year pass before making the official 'newpunditry-newpolitics' long range call for the next GE.
I price it as follows atm -
Tory majority 50% Hung parliament 40% Labour majority 10%
Very much agree with this. Pricing Labour is tricky. It seems to me that a Labour majority required a black swan shift in sentiment, and that barring a game changer a Tory majority and hung parliament cover nearly 100% of the eventualities. In a sense therefore a 10% chance seems high, but the volatility of the political climate indicates caution. But the bookies current 7/2 Labour majority is fantasy stuff.
Yes, I'm pricing a Labour majority like a long dated, out-of-the-money option. It's well underwater in current conditions but there's quite a bit of "time value". Hence the 10%. I'd actually lump on if the odds were (say) 15/1.
THIS final paragraph in the latest Polly Tuscany Remoaner whine-fest might be relevant to the debate
"A necessary trigger will come to hand soon for Labour to lead the charge against the bad Brexit deal. In his wild rant at prime minister’s questions, Johnson accused Labour of voting against it, and many wish it had – though between a rock and a hard place, no deal wasn’t an option. Well before the next election, Labour will lead the cause of guiding Britain towards a return to the single market, and the safer haven of a Norway solution."
She's getting on a bit, I guess she's not as connected as she was, but she's still a significant writer in Labour circles. Either she knows Starmer is planning this, or she and the Guardian cabal are pushing him to do it.
It might be a game-changer if Brexit looks bad by 2024 (which it might). Single Market? Freedom of Movement? And end to red tape at the border, and go back to buying cottages in Greece or working in Frankfurt, without a worry?
I can imagine this offer tempting a lot of people away from the Tories, especially if - by 2024 - immigration is no longer an issue (who knows, long term, post Covid)
It's the obvious play for Starmer, and it could work
She's wishful thinking. Starmer may be dull but he's not daft.
Who knows. Not you, not I. It all depends how Brexit is playing out by, say, early 2023. And Starmer is desperate for Clear Blue Water between him and the Tories. A game-changing policy, a brand new battlefield. This fits the bill, perfectly
Brexit as an issue is diminishing in the minds of the public and certainly rejoining is for the birds. Yes there are a few noisy Lt Onoda types like Polly.
Next election will be fought on cutting the NHS waiting lists and the economy.
Straw Man. Rejoining was never mentioned, neither by me nor Polly. I can't see that ever happening
Single Market? Definitely. Business will want it, young people will want it (Freedom of Movement), Remainers (and they will still exist) will want it. It's not going away as an issue because Brexity Single Market problems are now a feature not a bug
Any costs of Brexit for business have been sunk - opportunities to hire from beyond the EU have increased. Any hokum plan to join some more restrictive arrangement will come at a steep price. Not sure Starmer wants to go into an election banging on about Europe. I hope he does as it will cost him votes.
Is it possible the Gulf Stream failed last year, and no one noticed because of Covid?
It's nine degrees in London, the day before May. We have had more frosts this April than we get in a normal Winter (in toto). Last week in Cornwall I experienced weather I have never before experienced in the UK, intense sun (I got sunburned) but a bitterly cold wind, so cold that even in the sun it was painful to be out
The closest equivalent I can think of is the climate you get in the High Andes. Bolivia, or Peru. Cusco, La Paz.
I have just been on a weather boffin website where someone said the recent weather in England has been closer to the climate of the Cairngorms in summer
Mandeep Sharma feels utterly deserted by his government.
He is one of the 9,000 Australian nationals stranded in India right now, left to fend for themselves after Canberra this week banned all flights from the pandemic-ravaged nation until mid-May.
-------
What the f##k are you doing there? You have had a year to get back to Australia and its clear the deal, if you leave there is a huge risk you won't be able to return.
We have friends who are ‘stranded’ in the Canary Islands (can’t remember which one, my wife likes them I think they’re grifting freeloaders) and they sometimes moan on Facebook they can’t get back but they’re having a great time there. They’re running their business remotely and we, and others, pop down and keep an eye on the house.
It's also amusing that people are still treating Hartlepool as a *possible* Con gain rather than an absolute dead certainty.
If the Tories can gain a seat in a by-election while in Government it will be a shock, not a certainty. It would also signal about 15 more Labour-held seats as probable Tory gains next time, which gives a baseline of a Tory majority of 110 going into the next election.
My money is where my mouth is, I've bet on a Labour hold.
Like I said — amusing.
We'll see. If I'm wrong I'll lose some money, but I'll be happy to take 110 majority as a baseline going into the next election before swing.
Is that seriously what you think?
Not exactly because uniform swing doesn't apply and Hartlepool is somewhat of a 'special case' because of the ridiculously high Brexit Party vote.
But generally for the next election I expect nothing other than a repeat of 2019, based on the current status quo.
That's the point though, I don't think its possible to say that the Brexit Party vote are Tories in exile. They're far more likely to be Labour in exile "neverTories" who were not prepared to vote Tory, even to "Get Brexit Done".
If constituencies with a very high Brexit Party vote is split about 2:1 then that switches Hartlepool from red to blue - but Hartlepool is not a "special case" it is one of 15 seats like this. It would also switch 14 other constituencies too. There are 15 constituencies across the country that would fall to the blue team like Hartlepool if high BXP splits that way.
Perhaps you're right, perhaps high BXP will split Tory and not as I think be "neverTories" but if so then that's setting a baseline of 110 majority that should be in the Tory column without any other swings just from squeezing BXP next time.
I'd expect Labour, under Starmer, to win some metropolitan liberal elite seats in the south to make up for the further loss in the North — leading us back to 2019.
I also expect Labour to make gains in the South too. Quite frankly there are some long-held Tory areas that the Tories deserve to lose due to pandering to NIMBYism and meaning that people can't afford their own homes. If that means the likes of IDS lose their seat then I can live with that.
If that balances out net to another 2019 style result but IDS and other southern MPs replaced with Northern ones then even better.
A clueless post.
If the Tories concrete all over the greenbelt and homecounties they will not just lose Remain voting areas of London like Chingford to Labour, they will lose dozens of Home Counties seats which they have lost to the LDs at council level now over anti development to the LDs too from Chelmsford and Esher and Walton to Tunbridge Wells and Wantage and Witney and Henley.
It is fine for you in the North, you have very low density and vast amounts of countryside still left and no commuter belt the size of London's so you do not need to worry, in the South, particularly here in the South East, we are far more densely populated and want to preserve the countryside and fields we have to remain livable.
Yes our housing is more expensive but that is a product of living in the London commuter belt, we can build some more affordable housing in brownbelt areas but housing will always be cheaper in the North and Midlands so if you still cannot afford to buy in London and the South then move to the Midlands or North
'If you can't afford to buy a house in the South because we won't let them get built then you should move.'
Once again I'm ashamed to be in the same party as you. I believe in the free market and the free market can solve the housing crisis if we deregulate planning, you do not.
HYUFD seems the more authentic Conservative.
He’s pro-Union and seems to want to conserve things.
Is it possible the Gulf Stream failed last year, and no one noticed because of Covid?
It's nine degrees in London, the day before May. We have had more frosts this April than we get in a normal Winter (in toto). Last week in Cornwall I experienced weather I have never before experienced in the UK, intense sun (I got sunburned) but a bitterly cold wind, so cold that even in the sun it was painful to be out
The closest equivalent I can think of is the climate you get in the High Andes. Bolivia, or Peru. Cusco, La Paz.
I have just been on a weather boffin website where someone said the recent weather in England has been closer to the climate of the Cairngorms in summer
My gas (heating) usage is up by a decent amount this year already, although that may be because I'm in the house all day. In fact I had to put the heating on this morning and it's nearly May! It's usually off from February onwards...
Front page headline 'What a boost for Britain ' on vaccine rollout and plummeting infections
And on the inside 'The Jokes on you , Sir Keir' referring to his woeful photo stunt
It was an avoidable error by Starmer and he needs better advisors
Quite right, Starmer's woeful photo stunt at John Lewis demeans his office.
I mean, could anybody imagine our Prime Minister engaging in cheap publicity stunts to try to pretend he's a man of the people? He has far more dignity than that. Perish the thought.
Boris has that priced in. Starmer is supposed to be serious and competent. He's already failed at the latter and now he's failing at the former with that cringey photo.
Starmer does no stunts - You cant be PM with less personality than your opponent! Starmer does stunts - You cant be PM doing stunts like that!
Have Starmer critics thought maybe they just dont like him because he is a lefty, not because of his personality?
No, he's just not very good and it's disappointing because we need a strong opposition to the government more than ever given how our liberties are being curtailed. A good opposition leader would be planning with Tory rebels right now to defeat the government on their likely renewal of the virus measures in September. Instead he'll bitch for about two seconds and then quietly vote in favour leaving 60-80 Tory rebels wondering what they need to do to get the opposition to actually bloody oppose.
Rightly or wrongly from a public health perspective our liberties have been curtailed for the past 13 months.
Not a peep from anyone until the week before last or somesuch.
With ongoing huge popularity as evidenced in the polls why on earth would they decide to change policy now? Keep us if not scared, then anxious and in need of nanny.
Alternatively - after a number of false starts, we have a defined policy program to deal with COVID19. That is working....
And in the meantime unparalleled restrictions on our liberty have been waved through with a smile.
As I said, perhaps this was necessary. But the enthusiasm with which the country, not least here on PB, has embraced the restrictions of freedoms has been imo extraodinary.
Britons will be slaves, it seems.
I’ve been amazed at the collective reflex to defer to authority figures over the last year. I was always under the impression that the British cultural norm was instinctive distrust of authority. I can only assume it’s because they’ve put up on stage a doctor and a “scientist”, for whom the normal rules go out the window.
Nonsense. People think lockdown is the right way to go, so they go with it. Like driving on the left. Am I deferring to authority figures, failing to show enough distrust for authority etc when I stop at red lights, put a seatbelt on and so on? This "look at the sheeple" stuff aims for sophistication and actually sounds like Rik Mayall in the Young Ones.
There's a lot of nonsense about. I diagnose the cause as a mix of virtue-signaling and paranoia. This latter perhaps fed by the trauma and claustrophobia of the past year.
"I'm a rugged, freedom luvin' bear, always chaffing against these petty-fogging rules that all you pussies accept without a murmur."
"I'm an astute and seasoned unit, sussing that the "authorities" have a nefarious plan to keep the rules in place even after the virus is gone cos they love the power. I don't just trust them like you naive kiddies."
These are the main 2 strands.
What was that quiet, out of the way pub in Hampstead you went to the other day? Sounds great.
Epping Forest density - 390/km2 Newcastle upon Tyne density - 2,646/km2
They have been building thousands of houses in Newcastle over the past 20 years and continue to do so.
England population density 432/km2.
Epping Forest is below average. Not that you'd know it from Mr I'm Alright Jackboots.
Population density in London in persons per hectare is 57.0, in Newcastle it is only 25.41, in the South East it is 4.81, in the North East it is just 3.11
Plus it is people moving from densely populated London to the South East which is increasing the demand for housing here.
If people cannot afford to buy in London they move to the South East for cheaper property, if people cannot even afford to buy in the South East then there is a limit to how much affordable housing we can build here in the South East while preserving our countryside so they can move North instead.
Epping Forest density - 390/km2 Newcastle upon Tyne density - 2,646/km2
They have been building thousands of houses in Newcastle over the past 20 years and continue to do so.
England population density 432/km2.
Epping Forest is below average. Not that you'd know it from Mr I'm Alright Jackboots.
Population density in London is 57.0, in the South East it is 4.81, in the North East it is just 3.11
Plus it is people moving from densely populated London to the South East which is increasing the demand for housing here.
If people cannot afford to buy in London they move to the South East for cheaper property, if people cannot even afford to buy in the South East then there is a limit to how much affordable housing we can build here in the South East while preserving our countryside so they can move North.
What these charts fairly consistently show is that the UK not only started vaccinating much earlier but continues to vaccinate quicker than the EU as a whole. We are roughly 13% of EU +UK and in this table we have 20% of new vaccines. The result is that our lead over the EU increases as we head to full vaccination and we will be there 2 -2.5 months ahead of the EU.
Which will be worth a few thousand lives in each of the major countries but in the overall scheme of things for the pandemic is not likely to be that material. Italy and Belgium are already well ahead of us in deaths per million and will move more so but it is unlikely that France and Germany will catch up.
Economically, our faster vaccination means that our recovery should be rough a quarter ahead of the EU but we were hit harder than most with more severe lockdowns so a faster recovery was pretty likely anyway.
What this might mean for the government is that the considerable credit that it is getting for fast and effective roll out is likely to fade fairly quickly and may well be gone by the end of this year when the focus will be on the overall performance where the UK is mid table at best, not even that on some measures. It seems probable to me that Tory leads will wane considerably at that point.
I'm going to stick my neck out here and make a clear and unambiguous prediction without caveat.
I think the vaccine rollout has been so good, and so popular, and so demonstrably more competent than elsewhere, that it will be the exception that proves the rule. The electorate will do gratitude, this one time, and the Tories will increase their majority at the next general election (I am reminded of a certain infamous article, yes).
Striking and plausible. Hats off. I'm not ruling that sort of scenario out but I will let a year pass before making the official 'newpunditry-newpolitics' long range call for the next GE.
I price it as follows atm -
Tory majority 50% Hung parliament 40% Labour majority 10%
Very much agree with this. Pricing Labour is tricky. It seems to me that a Labour majority required a black swan shift in sentiment, and that barring a game changer a Tory majority and hung parliament cover nearly 100% of the eventualities. In a sense therefore a 10% chance seems high, but the volatility of the political climate indicates caution. But the bookies current 7/2 Labour majority is fantasy stuff.
Yes, I'm pricing a Labour majority like a long dated, out-of-the-money option. It's well underwater in current conditions but there's quite a bit of "time value". Hence the 10%. I'd actually lump on if the odds were (say) 15/1.
THIS final paragraph in the latest Polly Tuscany Remoaner whine-fest might be relevant to the debate
"A necessary trigger will come to hand soon for Labour to lead the charge against the bad Brexit deal. In his wild rant at prime minister’s questions, Johnson accused Labour of voting against it, and many wish it had – though between a rock and a hard place, no deal wasn’t an option. Well before the next election, Labour will lead the cause of guiding Britain towards a return to the single market, and the safer haven of a Norway solution."
She's getting on a bit, I guess she's not as connected as she was, but she's still a significant writer in Labour circles. Either she knows Starmer is planning this, or she and the Guardian cabal are pushing him to do it.
It might be a game-changer if Brexit looks bad by 2024 (which it might). Single Market? Freedom of Movement? And end to red tape at the border, and go back to buying cottages in Greece or working in Frankfurt, without a worry?
I can imagine this offer tempting a lot of people away from the Tories, especially if - by 2024 - immigration is no longer an issue (who knows, long term, post Covid)
It's the obvious play for Starmer, and it could work
She's wishful thinking. Starmer may be dull but he's not daft.
Who knows. Not you, not I. It all depends how Brexit is playing out by, say, early 2023. And Starmer is desperate for Clear Blue Water between him and the Tories. A game-changing policy, a brand new battlefield. This fits the bill, perfectly
Brexit as an issue is diminishing in the minds of the public and certainly rejoining is for the birds. Yes there are a few noisy Lt Onoda types like Polly.
Next election will be fought on cutting the NHS waiting lists and the economy.
Straw Man. Rejoining was never mentioned, neither by me nor Polly. I can't see that ever happening
Single Market? Definitely. Business will want it, young people will want it (Freedom of Movement), Remainers (and they will still exist) will want it. It's not going away as an issue because Brexity Single Market problems are now a feature not a bug
Any costs of Brexit for business have been sunk - opportunities to hire from beyond the EU have increased. Any hokum plan to join some more restrictive arrangement will come at a steep price. Not sure Starmer wants to go into an election banging on about Europe. I hope he does as it will cost him votes.
It would be a risk, for sure, but if Starmer is looking at ANOTHER Labour defeat then why not roll the dice, he'll have nothing to lose, and the policy can be sold as Freedom in Europe! But not the hated EU!
France and the EU not doing too badly.....that'll have Max and Leon crying into their cornflakes
There is a curious strand that thinks people in the UK will be upset that the EU vaccination programme has improved. I see no evidence for that.
Yes, their programme having been slower than ours has been sharply focused upon, it emphasises our good roll out and the European Commission, Macron and the German government leaking were early on quite blatantly trying to turn their dispute with AZ into a dispute with the UK and that rankled.
But the EU having sped up is great news for everyone. Of course once they got supplies and resolved bureaucratic issues they could go very fast indeed, and that's fantastic.
It doesnt mean their vaccine programme failings which will extend the pandemic for them by several months do not exist, just as our earlier vaccine rollout does not mean our own big pandemic failings do not exist.
As has been made clear theoretically any EU nation could have sought supplies outside or not through the shared programme. Whatever positives in supposed fairness exists that has had a negative result of delay and they need to learn lessons, all places have their own lessons to learn.
That doesnt mean people want the situation to be bad.
I think real anger is justified by:
1 - The transparent diversion tactics. 2 - The trashing of a vaccine, creating hesitation in the wider world outside Europe. That will cause people to die.
The EU have revealed themselves to be absolute arseholes on this matter.
But there is still a decent chunk of people looking to use EU failure to justify Brexit (in the absence of sunny uplands). They will be disappointed to see Europe “open up” a month or so after us.
Not in the slightest. Nobody wants to see the EU's population die unnecessarily and it's in the UKs interests to see the virus eliminated there. Plus people will want it to be safe to have holidays etc
But the vaccine difference does justify Brexit. It is proof of concept that shows that taking back control allows the UK to act in a way that suits the UK. It shows that we can hold our decision makers to account now.
Only one thing justifies Brexit. That when asked whether they wanted it, more people said yes than said no.
Front page headline 'What a boost for Britain ' on vaccine rollout and plummeting infections
And on the inside 'The Jokes on you , Sir Keir' referring to his woeful photo stunt
It was an avoidable error by Starmer and he needs better advisors
Quite right, Starmer's woeful photo stunt at John Lewis demeans his office.
I mean, could anybody imagine our Prime Minister engaging in cheap publicity stunts to try to pretend he's a man of the people? He has far more dignity than that. Perish the thought.
Boris has that priced in. Starmer is supposed to be serious and competent. He's already failed at the latter and now he's failing at the former with that cringey photo.
Starmer does no stunts - You cant be PM with less personality than your opponent! Starmer does stunts - You cant be PM doing stunts like that!
Have Starmer critics thought maybe they just dont like him because he is a lefty, not because of his personality?
No, he's just not very good and it's disappointing because we need a strong opposition to the government more than ever given how our liberties are being curtailed. A good opposition leader would be planning with Tory rebels right now to defeat the government on their likely renewal of the virus measures in September. Instead he'll bitch for about two seconds and then quietly vote in favour leaving 60-80 Tory rebels wondering what they need to do to get the opposition to actually bloody oppose.
Rightly or wrongly from a public health perspective our liberties have been curtailed for the past 13 months.
Not a peep from anyone until the week before last or somesuch.
With ongoing huge popularity as evidenced in the polls why on earth would they decide to change policy now? Keep us if not scared, then anxious and in need of nanny.
Alternatively - after a number of false starts, we have a defined policy program to deal with COVID19. That is working....
And in the meantime unparalleled restrictions on our liberty have been waved through with a smile.
As I said, perhaps this was necessary. But the enthusiasm with which the country, not least here on PB, has embraced the restrictions of freedoms has been imo extraodinary.
Britons will be slaves, it seems.
I’ve been amazed at the collective reflex to defer to authority figures over the last year. I was always under the impression that the British cultural norm was instinctive distrust of authority. I can only assume it’s because they’ve put up on stage a doctor and a “scientist”, for whom the normal rules go out the window.
Nonsense. People think lockdown is the right way to go, so they go with it. Like driving on the left. Am I deferring to authority figures, failing to show enough distrust for authority etc when I stop at red lights, put a seatbelt on and so on? This "look at the sheeple" stuff aims for sophistication and actually sounds like Rik Mayall in the Young Ones.
There's a lot of nonsense about. I diagnose the cause as a mix of virtue-signaling and paranoia. This latter perhaps fed by the trauma and claustrophobia of the past year.
"I'm a rugged, freedom luvin' bear, always chaffing against these petty-fogging rules that all you pussies accept without a murmur."
"I'm an astute and seasoned unit, sussing that the "authorities" have a nefarious plan to keep the rules in place even after the virus is gone cos they love the power. I don't just trust them like you naive kiddies."
These are the main 2 strands.
What was that quiet, out of the way pub in Hampstead you went to the other day? Sounds great.
Yes, I'd like to visit that pub, too. Perhaps it is called The Moon Under Water
It's also amusing that people are still treating Hartlepool as a *possible* Con gain rather than an absolute dead certainty.
If the Tories can gain a seat in a by-election while in Government it will be a shock, not a certainty. It would also signal about 15 more Labour-held seats as probable Tory gains next time, which gives a baseline of a Tory majority of 110 going into the next election.
My money is where my mouth is, I've bet on a Labour hold.
Like I said — amusing.
We'll see. If I'm wrong I'll lose some money, but I'll be happy to take 110 majority as a baseline going into the next election before swing.
Is that seriously what you think?
Not exactly because uniform swing doesn't apply and Hartlepool is somewhat of a 'special case' because of the ridiculously high Brexit Party vote.
But generally for the next election I expect nothing other than a repeat of 2019, based on the current status quo.
That's the point though, I don't think its possible to say that the Brexit Party vote are Tories in exile. They're far more likely to be Labour in exile "neverTories" who were not prepared to vote Tory, even to "Get Brexit Done".
If constituencies with a very high Brexit Party vote is split about 2:1 then that switches Hartlepool from red to blue - but Hartlepool is not a "special case" it is one of 15 seats like this. It would also switch 14 other constituencies too. There are 15 constituencies across the country that would fall to the blue team like Hartlepool if high BXP splits that way.
Perhaps you're right, perhaps high BXP will split Tory and not as I think be "neverTories" but if so then that's setting a baseline of 110 majority that should be in the Tory column without any other swings just from squeezing BXP next time.
I'd expect Labour, under Starmer, to win some metropolitan liberal elite seats in the south to make up for the further loss in the North — leading us back to 2019.
I also expect Labour to make gains in the South too. Quite frankly there are some long-held Tory areas that the Tories deserve to lose due to pandering to NIMBYism and meaning that people can't afford their own homes. If that means the likes of IDS lose their seat then I can live with that.
If that balances out net to another 2019 style result but IDS and other southern MPs replaced with Northern ones then even better.
A clueless post.
If the Tories concrete all over the greenbelt and homecounties they will not just lose Remain voting areas of London like Chingford to Labour, they will lose dozens of Home Counties seats which they have lost to the LDs at council level now over anti development to the LDs too from Chelmsford and Esher and Walton to Tunbridge Wells and Wantage and Witney and Henley.
It is fine for you in the North, you have very low density and vast amounts of countryside still left and no commuter belt the size of London's so you do not need to worry, in the South, particularly here in the South East, we are far more densely populated and want to preserve the countryside and fields we have to remain livable.
Yes our housing is more expensive but that is a product of living in the London commuter belt, we can build some more affordable housing in brownbelt areas but housing will always be cheaper in the North and Midlands so if you still cannot afford to buy in London and the South then move to the Midlands or North
'If you can't afford to buy a house in the South because we won't let them get built then you should move.'
Once again I'm ashamed to be in the same party as you. I believe in the free market and the free market can solve the housing crisis if we deregulate planning, you do not.
HYUFD seems the more authentic Conservative.
He’s pro-Union and seems to want to conserve things.
You’re a libertarian rascal in cross-dress.
I make no secret that I'm a libertarian not a conservative.
The most libertarian party in the UK is the Conservative Party, which is sister party to the Australian Liberal Party. I'd rather my party had the name of its Australian sister party but what can you do? 🤷♂️
It's also amusing that people are still treating Hartlepool as a *possible* Con gain rather than an absolute dead certainty.
If the Tories can gain a seat in a by-election while in Government it will be a shock, not a certainty. It would also signal about 15 more Labour-held seats as probable Tory gains next time, which gives a baseline of a Tory majority of 110 going into the next election.
My money is where my mouth is, I've bet on a Labour hold.
Like I said — amusing.
We'll see. If I'm wrong I'll lose some money, but I'll be happy to take 110 majority as a baseline going into the next election before swing.
Is that seriously what you think?
Not exactly because uniform swing doesn't apply and Hartlepool is somewhat of a 'special case' because of the ridiculously high Brexit Party vote.
But generally for the next election I expect nothing other than a repeat of 2019, based on the current status quo.
That's the point though, I don't think its possible to say that the Brexit Party vote are Tories in exile. They're far more likely to be Labour in exile "neverTories" who were not prepared to vote Tory, even to "Get Brexit Done".
If constituencies with a very high Brexit Party vote is split about 2:1 then that switches Hartlepool from red to blue - but Hartlepool is not a "special case" it is one of 15 seats like this. It would also switch 14 other constituencies too. There are 15 constituencies across the country that would fall to the blue team like Hartlepool if high BXP splits that way.
Perhaps you're right, perhaps high BXP will split Tory and not as I think be "neverTories" but if so then that's setting a baseline of 110 majority that should be in the Tory column without any other swings just from squeezing BXP next time.
I'd expect Labour, under Starmer, to win some metropolitan liberal elite seats in the south to make up for the further loss in the North — leading us back to 2019.
I also expect Labour to make gains in the South too. Quite frankly there are some long-held Tory areas that the Tories deserve to lose due to pandering to NIMBYism and meaning that people can't afford their own homes. If that means the likes of IDS lose their seat then I can live with that.
If that balances out net to another 2019 style result but IDS and other southern MPs replaced with Northern ones then even better.
A clueless post.
If the Tories concrete all over the greenbelt and homecounties they will not just lose Remain voting areas of London like Chingford to Labour, they will lose dozens of Home Counties seats which they have lost to the LDs at council level now over anti development to the LDs too from Chelmsford and Esher and Walton to Tunbridge Wells and Wantage and Witney and Henley.
It is fine for you in the North, you have very low density and vast amounts of countryside still left and no commuter belt the size of London's so you do not need to worry, in the South, particularly here in the South East, we are far more densely populated and want to preserve the countryside and fields we have to remain livable.
Yes our housing is more expensive but that is a product of living in the London commuter belt, we can build some more affordable housing in brownbelt areas but housing will always be cheaper in the North and Midlands so if you still cannot afford to buy in London and the South then move to the Midlands or North
'If you can't afford to buy a house in the South because we won't let them get built then you should move.'
Once again I'm ashamed to be in the same party as you. I believe in the free market and the free market can solve the housing crisis if we deregulate planning, you do not.
Unlike you I am not and never have been a pure free marketeer, as Leon says we do not want to turn our Home Counties from a green and pleasant land into a concrete jungle.
What these charts fairly consistently show is that the UK not only started vaccinating much earlier but continues to vaccinate quicker than the EU as a whole. We are roughly 13% of EU +UK and in this table we have 20% of new vaccines. The result is that our lead over the EU increases as we head to full vaccination and we will be there 2 -2.5 months ahead of the EU.
Which will be worth a few thousand lives in each of the major countries but in the overall scheme of things for the pandemic is not likely to be that material. Italy and Belgium are already well ahead of us in deaths per million and will move more so but it is unlikely that France and Germany will catch up.
Economically, our faster vaccination means that our recovery should be rough a quarter ahead of the EU but we were hit harder than most with more severe lockdowns so a faster recovery was pretty likely anyway.
What this might mean for the government is that the considerable credit that it is getting for fast and effective roll out is likely to fade fairly quickly and may well be gone by the end of this year when the focus will be on the overall performance where the UK is mid table at best, not even that on some measures. It seems probable to me that Tory leads will wane considerably at that point.
I'm going to stick my neck out here and make a clear and unambiguous prediction without caveat.
I think the vaccine rollout has been so good, and so popular, and so demonstrably more competent than elsewhere, that it will be the exception that proves the rule. The electorate will do gratitude, this one time, and the Tories will increase their majority at the next general election (I am reminded of a certain infamous article, yes).
Striking and plausible. Hats off. I'm not ruling that sort of scenario out but I will let a year pass before making the official 'newpunditry-newpolitics' long range call for the next GE.
I price it as follows atm -
Tory majority 50% Hung parliament 40% Labour majority 10%
Very much agree with this. Pricing Labour is tricky. It seems to me that a Labour majority required a black swan shift in sentiment, and that barring a game changer a Tory majority and hung parliament cover nearly 100% of the eventualities. In a sense therefore a 10% chance seems high, but the volatility of the political climate indicates caution. But the bookies current 7/2 Labour majority is fantasy stuff.
Yes, I'm pricing a Labour majority like a long dated, out-of-the-money option. It's well underwater in current conditions but there's quite a bit of "time value". Hence the 10%. I'd actually lump on if the odds were (say) 15/1.
THIS final paragraph in the latest Polly Tuscany Remoaner whine-fest might be relevant to the debate
"A necessary trigger will come to hand soon for Labour to lead the charge against the bad Brexit deal. In his wild rant at prime minister’s questions, Johnson accused Labour of voting against it, and many wish it had – though between a rock and a hard place, no deal wasn’t an option. Well before the next election, Labour will lead the cause of guiding Britain towards a return to the single market, and the safer haven of a Norway solution."
She's getting on a bit, I guess she's not as connected as she was, but she's still a significant writer in Labour circles. Either she knows Starmer is planning this, or she and the Guardian cabal are pushing him to do it.
It might be a game-changer if Brexit looks bad by 2024 (which it might). Single Market? Freedom of Movement? And end to red tape at the border, and go back to buying cottages in Greece or working in Frankfurt, without a worry?
I can imagine this offer tempting a lot of people away from the Tories, especially if - by 2024 - immigration is no longer an issue (who knows, long term, post Covid)
It's the obvious play for Starmer, and it could work
She's wishful thinking. Starmer may be dull but he's not daft.
Who knows. Not you, not I. It all depends how Brexit is playing out by, say, early 2023. And Starmer is desperate for Clear Blue Water between him and the Tories. A game-changing policy, a brand new battlefield. This fits the bill, perfectly
Brexit as an issue is diminishing in the minds of the public and certainly rejoining is for the birds. Yes there are a few noisy Lt Onoda types like Polly.
Next election will be fought on cutting the NHS waiting lists and the economy.
Straw Man. Rejoining was never mentioned, neither by me nor Polly. I can't see that ever happening
Single Market? Definitely. Business will want it, young people will want it (Freedom of Movement), Remainers (and they will still exist) will want it. It's not going away as an issue because Brexity Single Market problems are now a feature not a bug
There is no political space for it at present. We have Theresa May to blame for that.
For a critical juncture in British history - summer 2016 - we could have retained our Single Market membership and all the ancillary trade benefits.
She flunked it, fearing the ultras on the Tory backbench, and not thinking to appeal to likely supporters in Opposition.
It is overwhelmingly in British interests to be able to access the Single Market, and frankly the same is true for Freedom of Movement.
It's also amusing that people are still treating Hartlepool as a *possible* Con gain rather than an absolute dead certainty.
If the Tories can gain a seat in a by-election while in Government it will be a shock, not a certainty. It would also signal about 15 more Labour-held seats as probable Tory gains next time, which gives a baseline of a Tory majority of 110 going into the next election.
My money is where my mouth is, I've bet on a Labour hold.
Like I said — amusing.
We'll see. If I'm wrong I'll lose some money, but I'll be happy to take 110 majority as a baseline going into the next election before swing.
Is that seriously what you think?
Not exactly because uniform swing doesn't apply and Hartlepool is somewhat of a 'special case' because of the ridiculously high Brexit Party vote.
But generally for the next election I expect nothing other than a repeat of 2019, based on the current status quo.
That's the point though, I don't think its possible to say that the Brexit Party vote are Tories in exile. They're far more likely to be Labour in exile "neverTories" who were not prepared to vote Tory, even to "Get Brexit Done".
If constituencies with a very high Brexit Party vote is split about 2:1 then that switches Hartlepool from red to blue - but Hartlepool is not a "special case" it is one of 15 seats like this. It would also switch 14 other constituencies too. There are 15 constituencies across the country that would fall to the blue team like Hartlepool if high BXP splits that way.
Perhaps you're right, perhaps high BXP will split Tory and not as I think be "neverTories" but if so then that's setting a baseline of 110 majority that should be in the Tory column without any other swings just from squeezing BXP next time.
I'd expect Labour, under Starmer, to win some metropolitan liberal elite seats in the south to make up for the further loss in the North — leading us back to 2019.
I also expect Labour to make gains in the South too. Quite frankly there are some long-held Tory areas that the Tories deserve to lose due to pandering to NIMBYism and meaning that people can't afford their own homes. If that means the likes of IDS lose their seat then I can live with that.
If that balances out net to another 2019 style result but IDS and other southern MPs replaced with Northern ones then even better.
A clueless post.
If the Tories concrete all over the greenbelt and homecounties they will not just lose Remain voting areas of London like Chingford to Labour, they will lose dozens of Home Counties seats which they have lost to the LDs at council level now over anti development to the LDs too from Chelmsford and Esher and Walton to Tunbridge Wells and Wantage and Witney and Henley.
It is fine for you in the North, you have very low density and vast amounts of countryside still left and no commuter belt the size of London's so you do not need to worry, in the South, particularly here in the South East, we are far more densely populated and want to preserve the countryside and fields we have to remain livable.
Yes our housing is more expensive but that is a product of living in the London commuter belt, we can build some more affordable housing in brownbelt areas but housing will always be cheaper in the North and Midlands so if you still cannot afford to buy in London and the South then move to the Midlands or North
'If you can't afford to buy a house in the South because we won't let them get built then you should move.'
Once again I'm ashamed to be in the same party as you. I believe in the free market and the free market can solve the housing crisis if we deregulate planning, you do not.
HYUFD seems the more authentic Conservative.
He’s pro-Union and seems to want to conserve things.
You’re a libertarian rascal in cross-dress.
I make no secret that I'm a libertarian not a conservative.
The most libertarian party in the UK is the Conservative Party, which is sister party to the Australian Liberal Party. I'd rather my party had the name of its Australian sister party but what can you do? 🤷♂️
It's also amusing that people are still treating Hartlepool as a *possible* Con gain rather than an absolute dead certainty.
If the Tories can gain a seat in a by-election while in Government it will be a shock, not a certainty. It would also signal about 15 more Labour-held seats as probable Tory gains next time, which gives a baseline of a Tory majority of 110 going into the next election.
My money is where my mouth is, I've bet on a Labour hold.
Like I said — amusing.
We'll see. If I'm wrong I'll lose some money, but I'll be happy to take 110 majority as a baseline going into the next election before swing.
Is that seriously what you think?
Not exactly because uniform swing doesn't apply and Hartlepool is somewhat of a 'special case' because of the ridiculously high Brexit Party vote.
But generally for the next election I expect nothing other than a repeat of 2019, based on the current status quo.
That's the point though, I don't think its possible to say that the Brexit Party vote are Tories in exile. They're far more likely to be Labour in exile "neverTories" who were not prepared to vote Tory, even to "Get Brexit Done".
If constituencies with a very high Brexit Party vote is split about 2:1 then that switches Hartlepool from red to blue - but Hartlepool is not a "special case" it is one of 15 seats like this. It would also switch 14 other constituencies too. There are 15 constituencies across the country that would fall to the blue team like Hartlepool if high BXP splits that way.
Perhaps you're right, perhaps high BXP will split Tory and not as I think be "neverTories" but if so then that's setting a baseline of 110 majority that should be in the Tory column without any other swings just from squeezing BXP next time.
I'd expect Labour, under Starmer, to win some metropolitan liberal elite seats in the south to make up for the further loss in the North — leading us back to 2019.
I also expect Labour to make gains in the South too. Quite frankly there are some long-held Tory areas that the Tories deserve to lose due to pandering to NIMBYism and meaning that people can't afford their own homes. If that means the likes of IDS lose their seat then I can live with that.
If that balances out net to another 2019 style result but IDS and other southern MPs replaced with Northern ones then even better.
A clueless post.
If the Tories concrete all over the greenbelt and homecounties they will not just lose Remain voting areas of London like Chingford to Labour, they will lose dozens of Home Counties seats which they have lost to the LDs at council level now over anti development to the LDs too from Chelmsford and Esher and Walton to Tunbridge Wells and Wantage and Witney and Henley.
It is fine for you in the North, you have very low density and vast amounts of countryside still left and no commuter belt the size of London's so you do not need to worry, in the South, particularly here in the South East, we are far more densely populated and want to preserve the countryside and fields we have to remain livable.
Yes our housing is more expensive but that is a product of living in the London commuter belt, we can build some more affordable housing in brownbelt areas but housing will always be cheaper in the North and Midlands so if you still cannot afford to buy in London and the South then move to the Midlands or North
'If you can't afford to buy a house in the South because we won't let them get built then you should move.'
Once again I'm ashamed to be in the same party as you. I believe in the free market and the free market can solve the housing crisis if we deregulate planning, you do not.
Unlike you I am not and never have been a pure free marketeer, as Leon says we do not want to turn our Home Counties from a green and pleasant land into a concrete jungle.
I am a conservative not a libertarian
But you're happy to turn the green and pleasant land in the north into a concrete jungle?
You NIMBYs don't actively appreciate that the reason why your Home Counties "green and pleasant land" is so valuable is because of its proximity to the "concrete jungle".
What these charts fairly consistently show is that the UK not only started vaccinating much earlier but continues to vaccinate quicker than the EU as a whole. We are roughly 13% of EU +UK and in this table we have 20% of new vaccines. The result is that our lead over the EU increases as we head to full vaccination and we will be there 2 -2.5 months ahead of the EU.
Which will be worth a few thousand lives in each of the major countries but in the overall scheme of things for the pandemic is not likely to be that material. Italy and Belgium are already well ahead of us in deaths per million and will move more so but it is unlikely that France and Germany will catch up.
Economically, our faster vaccination means that our recovery should be rough a quarter ahead of the EU but we were hit harder than most with more severe lockdowns so a faster recovery was pretty likely anyway.
What this might mean for the government is that the considerable credit that it is getting for fast and effective roll out is likely to fade fairly quickly and may well be gone by the end of this year when the focus will be on the overall performance where the UK is mid table at best, not even that on some measures. It seems probable to me that Tory leads will wane considerably at that point.
I'm going to stick my neck out here and make a clear and unambiguous prediction without caveat.
I think the vaccine rollout has been so good, and so popular, and so demonstrably more competent than elsewhere, that it will be the exception that proves the rule. The electorate will do gratitude, this one time, and the Tories will increase their majority at the next general election (I am reminded of a certain infamous article, yes).
Striking and plausible. Hats off. I'm not ruling that sort of scenario out but I will let a year pass before making the official 'newpunditry-newpolitics' long range call for the next GE.
I price it as follows atm -
Tory majority 50% Hung parliament 40% Labour majority 10%
Very much agree with this. Pricing Labour is tricky. It seems to me that a Labour majority required a black swan shift in sentiment, and that barring a game changer a Tory majority and hung parliament cover nearly 100% of the eventualities. In a sense therefore a 10% chance seems high, but the volatility of the political climate indicates caution. But the bookies current 7/2 Labour majority is fantasy stuff.
Yes, I'm pricing a Labour majority like a long dated, out-of-the-money option. It's well underwater in current conditions but there's quite a bit of "time value". Hence the 10%. I'd actually lump on if the odds were (say) 15/1.
THIS final paragraph in the latest Polly Tuscany Remoaner whine-fest might be relevant to the debate
"A necessary trigger will come to hand soon for Labour to lead the charge against the bad Brexit deal. In his wild rant at prime minister’s questions, Johnson accused Labour of voting against it, and many wish it had – though between a rock and a hard place, no deal wasn’t an option. Well before the next election, Labour will lead the cause of guiding Britain towards a return to the single market, and the safer haven of a Norway solution."
She's getting on a bit, I guess she's not as connected as she was, but she's still a significant writer in Labour circles. Either she knows Starmer is planning this, or she and the Guardian cabal are pushing him to do it.
It might be a game-changer if Brexit looks bad by 2024 (which it might). Single Market? Freedom of Movement? And end to red tape at the border, and go back to buying cottages in Greece or working in Frankfurt, without a worry?
I can imagine this offer tempting a lot of people away from the Tories, especially if - by 2024 - immigration is no longer an issue (who knows, long term, post Covid)
It's the obvious play for Starmer, and it could work
Aside from a hardcore minority, I don't think most previously vocal Remainers are that interested in the EU - it's just a trojan horse to express their values of globalism and openness.
Most in my circle have now moved onto XR, Veganism, BLM, "Equity", LBQT+ history, trashing the Sewell Report, .. things like that. Surprisingly few latch onto trans, however.
It's also amusing that people are still treating Hartlepool as a *possible* Con gain rather than an absolute dead certainty.
If the Tories can gain a seat in a by-election while in Government it will be a shock, not a certainty. It would also signal about 15 more Labour-held seats as probable Tory gains next time, which gives a baseline of a Tory majority of 110 going into the next election.
My money is where my mouth is, I've bet on a Labour hold.
Like I said — amusing.
We'll see. If I'm wrong I'll lose some money, but I'll be happy to take 110 majority as a baseline going into the next election before swing.
Is that seriously what you think?
Not exactly because uniform swing doesn't apply and Hartlepool is somewhat of a 'special case' because of the ridiculously high Brexit Party vote.
But generally for the next election I expect nothing other than a repeat of 2019, based on the current status quo.
That's the point though, I don't think its possible to say that the Brexit Party vote are Tories in exile. They're far more likely to be Labour in exile "neverTories" who were not prepared to vote Tory, even to "Get Brexit Done".
If constituencies with a very high Brexit Party vote is split about 2:1 then that switches Hartlepool from red to blue - but Hartlepool is not a "special case" it is one of 15 seats like this. It would also switch 14 other constituencies too. There are 15 constituencies across the country that would fall to the blue team like Hartlepool if high BXP splits that way.
Perhaps you're right, perhaps high BXP will split Tory and not as I think be "neverTories" but if so then that's setting a baseline of 110 majority that should be in the Tory column without any other swings just from squeezing BXP next time.
I'd expect Labour, under Starmer, to win some metropolitan liberal elite seats in the south to make up for the further loss in the North — leading us back to 2019.
I also expect Labour to make gains in the South too. Quite frankly there are some long-held Tory areas that the Tories deserve to lose due to pandering to NIMBYism and meaning that people can't afford their own homes. If that means the likes of IDS lose their seat then I can live with that.
If that balances out net to another 2019 style result but IDS and other southern MPs replaced with Northern ones then even better.
A clueless post.
If the Tories concrete all over the greenbelt and homecounties they will not just lose Remain voting areas of London like Chingford to Labour, they will lose dozens of Home Counties seats which they have lost to the LDs at council level now over anti development to the LDs too from Chelmsford and Esher and Walton to Tunbridge Wells and Wantage and Witney and Henley.
It is fine for you in the North, you have very low density and vast amounts of countryside still left and no commuter belt the size of London's so you do not need to worry, in the South, particularly here in the South East, we are far more densely populated and want to preserve the countryside and fields we have to remain livable.
Yes our housing is more expensive but that is a product of living in the London commuter belt, we can build some more affordable housing in brownbelt areas but housing will always be cheaper in the North and Midlands so if you still cannot afford to buy in London and the South then move to the Midlands or North
'If you can't afford to buy a house in the South because we won't let them get built then you should move.'
Once again I'm ashamed to be in the same party as you. I believe in the free market and the free market can solve the housing crisis if we deregulate planning, you do not.
HYUFD seems the more authentic Conservative.
He’s pro-Union and seems to want to conserve things.
You’re a libertarian rascal in cross-dress.
I make no secret that I'm a libertarian not a conservative.
The most libertarian party in the UK is the Conservative Party, which is sister party to the Australian Liberal Party. I'd rather my party had the name of its Australian sister party but what can you do? 🤷♂️
Apart from under Malcolm Turnbull and Malcolm Fraser even the Australian Liberal Party has been more conservative than liberal and that is certainly the case under Scott Morrison. Plus the National Party is the conservative party in Australia anyway.
In most other countries you would be in the liberal party not the conservative, from Canada to Germany to France to Spain too, even here you are more an Orange Book LD who is pro Brexit than a traditional Tory like me
France and the EU not doing too badly.....that'll have Max and Leon crying into their cornflakes
There is a curious strand that thinks people in the UK will be upset that the EU vaccination programme has improved. I see no evidence for that.
Yes, their programme having been slower than ours has been sharply focused upon, it emphasises our good roll out and the European Commission, Macron and the German government leaking were early on quite blatantly trying to turn their dispute with AZ into a dispute with the UK and that rankled.
But the EU having sped up is great news for everyone. Of course once they got supplies and resolved bureaucratic issues they could go very fast indeed, and that's fantastic.
It doesnt mean their vaccine programme failings which will extend the pandemic for them by several months do not exist, just as our earlier vaccine rollout does not mean our own big pandemic failings do not exist.
As has been made clear theoretically any EU nation could have sought supplies outside or not through the shared programme. Whatever positives in supposed fairness exists that has had a negative result of delay and they need to learn lessons, all places have their own lessons to learn.
That doesnt mean people want the situation to be bad.
I think real anger is justified by:
1 - The transparent diversion tactics. 2 - The trashing of a vaccine, creating hesitation in the wider world outside Europe. That will cause people to die.
The EU have revealed themselves to be absolute arseholes on this matter.
But there is still a decent chunk of people looking to use EU failure to justify Brexit (in the absence of sunny uplands). They will be disappointed to see Europe “open up” a month or so after us.
Not in the slightest. Nobody wants to see the EU's population die unnecessarily and it's in the UKs interests to see the virus eliminated there. Plus people will want it to be safe to have holidays etc
But the vaccine difference does justify Brexit. It is proof of concept that shows that taking back control allows the UK to act in a way that suits the UK. It shows that we can hold our decision makers to account now.
We were still, effectively, members when we kicked off the VTF.
Yes, but decisions made in the UK were able to be quicker and better and more democratically accountable than decisions made in Brussels.
Do you think that concept magically stops with vaccines and can never apply to any other policy ever again in the future?
We could, as Malta and Hungary did, as fully paid up (or in our case de facto) members of the EU, be as nimble as we liked.
You seem to be saying that in areas of our competence the UK would not be robust or confident enough to act on our own. That is a worrying indication of your insecurity about our country. Have more faith in the UK, Philip.
But that’s why Brexit happened. Our politicians could have implemented a whole load of changes to adapt to the challenges of EU membership. They didn’t, so voters took matters into their own hands.
This is the most accurate take on Brexit in a while!
Epping Forest density - 390/km2 Newcastle upon Tyne density - 2,646/km2
They have been building thousands of houses in Newcastle over the past 20 years and continue to do so.
England population density 432/km2.
Epping Forest is below average. Not that you'd know it from Mr I'm Alright Jackboots.
Population density in London is 57.0, in the South East it is 4.81, in the North East it is just 3.11
Plus it is people moving from densely populated London to the South East which is increasing the demand for housing here.
If people cannot afford to buy in London they move to the South East for cheaper property, if people cannot even afford to buy in the South East then there is a limit to how much affordable housing we can build here in the South East while preserving our countryside so they can move North.
It's also amusing that people are still treating Hartlepool as a *possible* Con gain rather than an absolute dead certainty.
If the Tories can gain a seat in a by-election while in Government it will be a shock, not a certainty. It would also signal about 15 more Labour-held seats as probable Tory gains next time, which gives a baseline of a Tory majority of 110 going into the next election.
My money is where my mouth is, I've bet on a Labour hold.
Like I said — amusing.
We'll see. If I'm wrong I'll lose some money, but I'll be happy to take 110 majority as a baseline going into the next election before swing.
Is that seriously what you think?
Not exactly because uniform swing doesn't apply and Hartlepool is somewhat of a 'special case' because of the ridiculously high Brexit Party vote.
But generally for the next election I expect nothing other than a repeat of 2019, based on the current status quo.
That's the point though, I don't think its possible to say that the Brexit Party vote are Tories in exile. They're far more likely to be Labour in exile "neverTories" who were not prepared to vote Tory, even to "Get Brexit Done".
If constituencies with a very high Brexit Party vote is split about 2:1 then that switches Hartlepool from red to blue - but Hartlepool is not a "special case" it is one of 15 seats like this. It would also switch 14 other constituencies too. There are 15 constituencies across the country that would fall to the blue team like Hartlepool if high BXP splits that way.
Perhaps you're right, perhaps high BXP will split Tory and not as I think be "neverTories" but if so then that's setting a baseline of 110 majority that should be in the Tory column without any other swings just from squeezing BXP next time.
I'd expect Labour, under Starmer, to win some metropolitan liberal elite seats in the south to make up for the further loss in the North — leading us back to 2019.
I also expect Labour to make gains in the South too. Quite frankly there are some long-held Tory areas that the Tories deserve to lose due to pandering to NIMBYism and meaning that people can't afford their own homes. If that means the likes of IDS lose their seat then I can live with that.
If that balances out net to another 2019 style result but IDS and other southern MPs replaced with Northern ones then even better.
A clueless post.
If the Tories concrete all over the greenbelt and homecounties they will not just lose Remain voting areas of London like Chingford to Labour, they will lose dozens of Home Counties seats which they have lost to the LDs at council level now over anti development to the LDs too from Chelmsford and Esher and Walton to Tunbridge Wells and Wantage and Witney and Henley.
It is fine for you in the North, you have very low density and vast amounts of countryside still left and no commuter belt the size of London's so you do not need to worry, in the South, particularly here in the South East, we are far more densely populated and want to preserve the countryside and fields we have to remain livable.
Yes our housing is more expensive but that is a product of living in the London commuter belt, we can build some more affordable housing in brownbelt areas but housing will always be cheaper in the North and Midlands so if you still cannot afford to buy in London and the South then move to the Midlands or North
'If you can't afford to buy a house in the South because we won't let them get built then you should move.'
Once again I'm ashamed to be in the same party as you. I believe in the free market and the free market can solve the housing crisis if we deregulate planning, you do not.
HYUFD is right and you are wrong. No one wants a free for all that turns the SE into a rainy, grey English version of Los Angeles' sprawl. It would be wildly unpopular, and in the end self-defeating, as people would flee this dystopia. By that time it would be too late as we would have tarmacked the entire southern half of the country
What's wrong with Los Angeles? Inner city Los Angeles has its problems sure, just like inner city London does.
But across "Greater Los Angeles" there is a population density of 212/km^2. That's half the English average. Across that region houses are bigger, have bigger gardens, more green spaces where people live. What of that is objectionable? When people are having to live in extortionate flatshares because of a lack of available housing, what part of more, bigger houses with gardens and green space do you find to be a dystopia?
Besides the thing with the free market that works is if people don't want it, the market won't provide it in general.
There is already a sprawl across the Southeast that already exists. What doesn't exist is sufficient housing for the people living there, nor much in the way for many people of gardens etc.
Epping Forest density - 390/km2 Newcastle upon Tyne density - 2,646/km2
They have been building thousands of houses in Newcastle over the past 20 years and continue to do so.
England population density 432/km2.
Epping Forest is below average. Not that you'd know it from Mr I'm Alright Jackboots.
Population density in London is 57.0, in the South East it is 4.81, in the North East it is just 3.11
Plus it is people moving from densely populated London to the South East which is increasing the demand for housing here.
If people cannot afford to buy in London they move to the South East for cheaper property, if people cannot even afford to buy in the South East then there is a limit to how much affordable housing we can build here in the South East while preserving our countryside so they can move North.
It's also amusing that people are still treating Hartlepool as a *possible* Con gain rather than an absolute dead certainty.
If the Tories can gain a seat in a by-election while in Government it will be a shock, not a certainty. It would also signal about 15 more Labour-held seats as probable Tory gains next time, which gives a baseline of a Tory majority of 110 going into the next election.
My money is where my mouth is, I've bet on a Labour hold.
Like I said — amusing.
We'll see. If I'm wrong I'll lose some money, but I'll be happy to take 110 majority as a baseline going into the next election before swing.
Is that seriously what you think?
Not exactly because uniform swing doesn't apply and Hartlepool is somewhat of a 'special case' because of the ridiculously high Brexit Party vote.
But generally for the next election I expect nothing other than a repeat of 2019, based on the current status quo.
That's the point though, I don't think its possible to say that the Brexit Party vote are Tories in exile. They're far more likely to be Labour in exile "neverTories" who were not prepared to vote Tory, even to "Get Brexit Done".
If constituencies with a very high Brexit Party vote is split about 2:1 then that switches Hartlepool from red to blue - but Hartlepool is not a "special case" it is one of 15 seats like this. It would also switch 14 other constituencies too. There are 15 constituencies across the country that would fall to the blue team like Hartlepool if high BXP splits that way.
Perhaps you're right, perhaps high BXP will split Tory and not as I think be "neverTories" but if so then that's setting a baseline of 110 majority that should be in the Tory column without any other swings just from squeezing BXP next time.
I'd expect Labour, under Starmer, to win some metropolitan liberal elite seats in the south to make up for the further loss in the North — leading us back to 2019.
I also expect Labour to make gains in the South too. Quite frankly there are some long-held Tory areas that the Tories deserve to lose due to pandering to NIMBYism and meaning that people can't afford their own homes. If that means the likes of IDS lose their seat then I can live with that.
If that balances out net to another 2019 style result but IDS and other southern MPs replaced with Northern ones then even better.
A clueless post.
If the Tories concrete all over the greenbelt and homecounties they will not just lose Remain voting areas of London like Chingford to Labour, they will lose dozens of Home Counties seats which they have lost to the LDs at council level now over anti development to the LDs too from Chelmsford and Esher and Walton to Tunbridge Wells and Wantage and Witney and Henley.
It is fine for you in the North, you have very low density and vast amounts of countryside still left and no commuter belt the size of London's so you do not need to worry, in the South, particularly here in the South East, we are far more densely populated and want to preserve the countryside and fields we have to remain livable.
Yes our housing is more expensive but that is a product of living in the London commuter belt, we can build some more affordable housing in brownbelt areas but housing will always be cheaper in the North and Midlands so if you still cannot afford to buy in London and the South then move to the Midlands or North
'If you can't afford to buy a house in the South because we won't let them get built then you should move.'
Once again I'm ashamed to be in the same party as you. I believe in the free market and the free market can solve the housing crisis if we deregulate planning, you do not.
HYUFD is right and you are wrong. No one wants a free for all that turns the SE into a rainy, grey English version of Los Angeles' sprawl. It would be wildly unpopular, and in the end self-defeating, as people would flee this dystopia. By that time it would be too late as we would have tarmacked the entire southern half of the country
TBH it already feels like that. Greater London seems to go on forever.
It's also amusing that people are still treating Hartlepool as a *possible* Con gain rather than an absolute dead certainty.
If the Tories can gain a seat in a by-election while in Government it will be a shock, not a certainty. It would also signal about 15 more Labour-held seats as probable Tory gains next time, which gives a baseline of a Tory majority of 110 going into the next election.
My money is where my mouth is, I've bet on a Labour hold.
Like I said — amusing.
We'll see. If I'm wrong I'll lose some money, but I'll be happy to take 110 majority as a baseline going into the next election before swing.
Is that seriously what you think?
Not exactly because uniform swing doesn't apply and Hartlepool is somewhat of a 'special case' because of the ridiculously high Brexit Party vote.
But generally for the next election I expect nothing other than a repeat of 2019, based on the current status quo.
That's the point though, I don't think its possible to say that the Brexit Party vote are Tories in exile. They're far more likely to be Labour in exile "neverTories" who were not prepared to vote Tory, even to "Get Brexit Done".
If constituencies with a very high Brexit Party vote is split about 2:1 then that switches Hartlepool from red to blue - but Hartlepool is not a "special case" it is one of 15 seats like this. It would also switch 14 other constituencies too. There are 15 constituencies across the country that would fall to the blue team like Hartlepool if high BXP splits that way.
Perhaps you're right, perhaps high BXP will split Tory and not as I think be "neverTories" but if so then that's setting a baseline of 110 majority that should be in the Tory column without any other swings just from squeezing BXP next time.
I'd expect Labour, under Starmer, to win some metropolitan liberal elite seats in the south to make up for the further loss in the North — leading us back to 2019.
I also expect Labour to make gains in the South too. Quite frankly there are some long-held Tory areas that the Tories deserve to lose due to pandering to NIMBYism and meaning that people can't afford their own homes. If that means the likes of IDS lose their seat then I can live with that.
If that balances out net to another 2019 style result but IDS and other southern MPs replaced with Northern ones then even better.
A clueless post.
If the Tories concrete all over the greenbelt and homecounties they will not just lose Remain voting areas of London like Chingford to Labour, they will lose dozens of Home Counties seats which they have lost to the LDs at council level now over anti development to the LDs too from Chelmsford and Esher and Walton to Tunbridge Wells and Wantage and Witney and Henley.
It is fine for you in the North, you have very low density and vast amounts of countryside still left and no commuter belt the size of London's so you do not need to worry, in the South, particularly here in the South East, we are far more densely populated and want to preserve the countryside and fields we have to remain livable.
Yes our housing is more expensive but that is a product of living in the London commuter belt, we can build some more affordable housing in brownbelt areas but housing will always be cheaper in the North and Midlands so if you still cannot afford to buy in London and the South then move to the Midlands or North
'If you can't afford to buy a house in the South because we won't let them get built then you should move.'
Once again I'm ashamed to be in the same party as you. I believe in the free market and the free market can solve the housing crisis if we deregulate planning, you do not.
HYUFD seems the more authentic Conservative.
He’s pro-Union and seems to want to conserve things.
You’re a libertarian rascal in cross-dress.
Indeed, if Philip Thompson had his way the only Tory voters we would have left in the South East would be estate agents and property developers.
Some development is needed yes but focused on brownbelt areas first
Is it possible the Gulf Stream failed last year, and no one noticed because of Covid?
It's nine degrees in London, the day before May. We have had more frosts this April than we get in a normal Winter (in toto). Last week in Cornwall I experienced weather I have never before experienced in the UK, intense sun (I got sunburned) but a bitterly cold wind, so cold that even in the sun it was painful to be out
The closest equivalent I can think of is the climate you get in the High Andes. Bolivia, or Peru. Cusco, La Paz.
I have just been on a weather boffin website where someone said the recent weather in England has been closer to the climate of the Cairngorms in summer
The weather has become much more unpredictable here over the last 10-15 years.
My area of Newcastle is full of them. Whinging about houses being built despite living in houses built recently on green belt land... They mainly vote Lib Dem funnily enough.
It's also amusing that people are still treating Hartlepool as a *possible* Con gain rather than an absolute dead certainty.
If the Tories can gain a seat in a by-election while in Government it will be a shock, not a certainty. It would also signal about 15 more Labour-held seats as probable Tory gains next time, which gives a baseline of a Tory majority of 110 going into the next election.
My money is where my mouth is, I've bet on a Labour hold.
Like I said — amusing.
We'll see. If I'm wrong I'll lose some money, but I'll be happy to take 110 majority as a baseline going into the next election before swing.
Is that seriously what you think?
Not exactly because uniform swing doesn't apply and Hartlepool is somewhat of a 'special case' because of the ridiculously high Brexit Party vote.
But generally for the next election I expect nothing other than a repeat of 2019, based on the current status quo.
That's the point though, I don't think its possible to say that the Brexit Party vote are Tories in exile. They're far more likely to be Labour in exile "neverTories" who were not prepared to vote Tory, even to "Get Brexit Done".
If constituencies with a very high Brexit Party vote is split about 2:1 then that switches Hartlepool from red to blue - but Hartlepool is not a "special case" it is one of 15 seats like this. It would also switch 14 other constituencies too. There are 15 constituencies across the country that would fall to the blue team like Hartlepool if high BXP splits that way.
Perhaps you're right, perhaps high BXP will split Tory and not as I think be "neverTories" but if so then that's setting a baseline of 110 majority that should be in the Tory column without any other swings just from squeezing BXP next time.
I'd expect Labour, under Starmer, to win some metropolitan liberal elite seats in the south to make up for the further loss in the North — leading us back to 2019.
I also expect Labour to make gains in the South too. Quite frankly there are some long-held Tory areas that the Tories deserve to lose due to pandering to NIMBYism and meaning that people can't afford their own homes. If that means the likes of IDS lose their seat then I can live with that.
If that balances out net to another 2019 style result but IDS and other southern MPs replaced with Northern ones then even better.
A clueless post.
If the Tories concrete all over the greenbelt and homecounties they will not just lose Remain voting areas of London like Chingford to Labour, they will lose dozens of Home Counties seats which they have lost to the LDs at council level now over anti development to the LDs too from Chelmsford and Esher and Walton to Tunbridge Wells and Wantage and Witney and Henley.
It is fine for you in the North, you have very low density and vast amounts of countryside still left and no commuter belt the size of London's so you do not need to worry, in the South, particularly here in the South East, we are far more densely populated and want to preserve the countryside and fields we have to remain livable.
Yes our housing is more expensive but that is a product of living in the London commuter belt, we can build some more affordable housing in brownbelt areas but housing will always be cheaper in the North and Midlands so if you still cannot afford to buy in London and the South then move to the Midlands or North
'If you can't afford to buy a house in the South because we won't let them get built then you should move.'
Once again I'm ashamed to be in the same party as you. I believe in the free market and the free market can solve the housing crisis if we deregulate planning, you do not.
Unlike you I am not and never have been a pure free marketeer, as Leon says we do not want to turn our Home Counties from a green and pleasant land into a concrete jungle.
I am a conservative not a libertarian
But you're happy to turn the green and pleasant land in the north into a concrete jungle?
You NIMBYs don't actively appreciate that the reason why your Home Counties "green and pleasant land" is so valuable is because of its proximity to the "concrete jungle".
The more valuable the more reason to preserve it surely?
Nimby is a really tiresome expression. I am all for keeping londons green belt green, and I don't live within 200 miles of it.
My area of Newcastle is full of them. Whinging about houses being built despite living in houses built recently on green belt land... They mainly vote Lib Dem funnily enough.
Do they justify this position via some dodgy charts?
It's also amusing that people are still treating Hartlepool as a *possible* Con gain rather than an absolute dead certainty.
If the Tories can gain a seat in a by-election while in Government it will be a shock, not a certainty. It would also signal about 15 more Labour-held seats as probable Tory gains next time, which gives a baseline of a Tory majority of 110 going into the next election.
My money is where my mouth is, I've bet on a Labour hold.
Like I said — amusing.
We'll see. If I'm wrong I'll lose some money, but I'll be happy to take 110 majority as a baseline going into the next election before swing.
Is that seriously what you think?
Not exactly because uniform swing doesn't apply and Hartlepool is somewhat of a 'special case' because of the ridiculously high Brexit Party vote.
But generally for the next election I expect nothing other than a repeat of 2019, based on the current status quo.
That's the point though, I don't think its possible to say that the Brexit Party vote are Tories in exile. They're far more likely to be Labour in exile "neverTories" who were not prepared to vote Tory, even to "Get Brexit Done".
If constituencies with a very high Brexit Party vote is split about 2:1 then that switches Hartlepool from red to blue - but Hartlepool is not a "special case" it is one of 15 seats like this. It would also switch 14 other constituencies too. There are 15 constituencies across the country that would fall to the blue team like Hartlepool if high BXP splits that way.
Perhaps you're right, perhaps high BXP will split Tory and not as I think be "neverTories" but if so then that's setting a baseline of 110 majority that should be in the Tory column without any other swings just from squeezing BXP next time.
I'd expect Labour, under Starmer, to win some metropolitan liberal elite seats in the south to make up for the further loss in the North — leading us back to 2019.
I also expect Labour to make gains in the South too. Quite frankly there are some long-held Tory areas that the Tories deserve to lose due to pandering to NIMBYism and meaning that people can't afford their own homes. If that means the likes of IDS lose their seat then I can live with that.
If that balances out net to another 2019 style result but IDS and other southern MPs replaced with Northern ones then even better.
A clueless post.
If the Tories concrete all over the greenbelt and homecounties they will not just lose Remain voting areas of London like Chingford to Labour, they will lose dozens of Home Counties seats which they have lost to the LDs at council level now over anti development to the LDs too from Chelmsford and Esher and Walton to Tunbridge Wells and Wantage and Witney and Henley.
It is fine for you in the North, you have very low density and vast amounts of countryside still left and no commuter belt the size of London's so you do not need to worry, in the South, particularly here in the South East, we are far more densely populated and want to preserve the countryside and fields we have to remain livable.
Yes our housing is more expensive but that is a product of living in the London commuter belt, we can build some more affordable housing in brownbelt areas but housing will always be cheaper in the North and Midlands so if you still cannot afford to buy in London and the South then move to the Midlands or North
'If you can't afford to buy a house in the South because we won't let them get built then you should move.'
Once again I'm ashamed to be in the same party as you. I believe in the free market and the free market can solve the housing crisis if we deregulate planning, you do not.
HYUFD seems the more authentic Conservative.
He’s pro-Union and seems to want to conserve things.
You’re a libertarian rascal in cross-dress.
Indeed, if Philip Thompson had his way the only Tory voters we would have left in the South East would be estate agents and property developers.
Some development is needed yes but focused on brownbelt areas first
I think you'd find if I had my way there'd be plenty of homeowners too. More homeowners than there are now in fact.
The brownbelt areas have been done to death. There isn't enough brownbelt. 🤦♂️
Epping Forest density - 390/km2 Newcastle upon Tyne density - 2,646/km2
They have been building thousands of houses in Newcastle over the past 20 years and continue to do so.
England population density 432/km2.
Epping Forest is below average. Not that you'd know it from Mr I'm Alright Jackboots.
Population density in London is 57.0, in the South East it is 4.81, in the North East it is just 3.11
Plus it is people moving from densely populated London to the South East which is increasing the demand for housing here.
If people cannot afford to buy in London they move to the South East for cheaper property, if people cannot even afford to buy in the South East then there is a limit to how much affordable housing we can build here in the South East while preserving our countryside so they can move North.
Epping Forest density - 390/km2 Newcastle upon Tyne density - 2,646/km2
They have been building thousands of houses in Newcastle over the past 20 years and continue to do so.
England population density 432/km2.
Epping Forest is below average. Not that you'd know it from Mr I'm Alright Jackboots.
Population density in London is 57.0, in the South East it is 4.81, in the North East it is just 3.11
Plus it is people moving from densely populated London to the South East which is increasing the demand for housing here.
If people cannot afford to buy in London they move to the South East for cheaper property, if people cannot even afford to buy in the South East then there is a limit to how much affordable housing we can build here in the South East while preserving our countryside so they can move North.
There's plenty of room for development in Epping Forest mate. Get building!
There are limits here too as we have the Forest to protect for starters
I assume most residents of Epping Forest live where there was once forest. Why was it ok to clear it for them but not for future residents?
Not really, Epping Forest is preserved by the Corporation of London and largely as it has been for centuries.
The rest of us also do not want to live in an urban sprawl otherwise we would live in suburban London
You live on the Central Line ffs. You already live in suburban London!
My area of Newcastle is full of people like you. They think they live in deepest-darkest Northumberland but they actually live 20 minutes from the City Centre. It's ridiculous.
It's also amusing that people are still treating Hartlepool as a *possible* Con gain rather than an absolute dead certainty.
If the Tories can gain a seat in a by-election while in Government it will be a shock, not a certainty. It would also signal about 15 more Labour-held seats as probable Tory gains next time, which gives a baseline of a Tory majority of 110 going into the next election.
My money is where my mouth is, I've bet on a Labour hold.
Like I said — amusing.
We'll see. If I'm wrong I'll lose some money, but I'll be happy to take 110 majority as a baseline going into the next election before swing.
Is that seriously what you think?
Not exactly because uniform swing doesn't apply and Hartlepool is somewhat of a 'special case' because of the ridiculously high Brexit Party vote.
But generally for the next election I expect nothing other than a repeat of 2019, based on the current status quo.
That's the point though, I don't think its possible to say that the Brexit Party vote are Tories in exile. They're far more likely to be Labour in exile "neverTories" who were not prepared to vote Tory, even to "Get Brexit Done".
If constituencies with a very high Brexit Party vote is split about 2:1 then that switches Hartlepool from red to blue - but Hartlepool is not a "special case" it is one of 15 seats like this. It would also switch 14 other constituencies too. There are 15 constituencies across the country that would fall to the blue team like Hartlepool if high BXP splits that way.
Perhaps you're right, perhaps high BXP will split Tory and not as I think be "neverTories" but if so then that's setting a baseline of 110 majority that should be in the Tory column without any other swings just from squeezing BXP next time.
I'd expect Labour, under Starmer, to win some metropolitan liberal elite seats in the south to make up for the further loss in the North — leading us back to 2019.
I also expect Labour to make gains in the South too. Quite frankly there are some long-held Tory areas that the Tories deserve to lose due to pandering to NIMBYism and meaning that people can't afford their own homes. If that means the likes of IDS lose their seat then I can live with that.
If that balances out net to another 2019 style result but IDS and other southern MPs replaced with Northern ones then even better.
A clueless post.
If the Tories concrete all over the greenbelt and homecounties they will not just lose Remain voting areas of London like Chingford to Labour, they will lose dozens of Home Counties seats which they have lost to the LDs at council level now over anti development to the LDs too from Chelmsford and Esher and Walton to Tunbridge Wells and Wantage and Witney and Henley.
It is fine for you in the North, you have very low density and vast amounts of countryside still left and no commuter belt the size of London's so you do not need to worry, in the South, particularly here in the South East, we are far more densely populated and want to preserve the countryside and fields we have to remain livable.
Yes our housing is more expensive but that is a product of living in the London commuter belt, we can build some more affordable housing in brownbelt areas but housing will always be cheaper in the North and Midlands so if you still cannot afford to buy in London and the South then move to the Midlands or North
'If you can't afford to buy a house in the South because we won't let them get built then you should move.'
Once again I'm ashamed to be in the same party as you. I believe in the free market and the free market can solve the housing crisis if we deregulate planning, you do not.
HYUFD is right and you are wrong. No one wants a free for all that turns the SE into a rainy, grey English version of Los Angeles' sprawl. It would be wildly unpopular, and in the end self-defeating, as people would flee this dystopia. By that time it would be too late as we would have tarmacked the entire southern half of the country
What's wrong with Los Angeles? Inner city Los Angeles has its problems sure, just like inner city London does.
But across "Greater Los Angeles" there is a population density of 212/km^2. That's half the English average. Across that region houses are bigger, have bigger gardens, more green spaces where people live. What of that is objectionable? When people are having to live in extortionate flatshares because of a lack of available housing, what part of more, bigger houses with gardens and green space do you find to be a dystopia?
Besides the thing with the free market that works is if people don't want it, the market won't provide it in general.
There is already a sprawl across the Southeast that already exists. What doesn't exist is sufficient housing for the people living there, nor much in the way for many people of gardens etc.
California is already facing problems with water shortages too but California has vast amounts of rural areas so many Los Angeles residents have been able to move from the urban sprawl, the South East is barely a fraction the size of California
Epping Forest density - 390/km2 Newcastle upon Tyne density - 2,646/km2
They have been building thousands of houses in Newcastle over the past 20 years and continue to do so.
England population density 432/km2.
Epping Forest is below average. Not that you'd know it from Mr I'm Alright Jackboots.
Population density in London is 57.0, in the South East it is 4.81, in the North East it is just 3.11
Plus it is people moving from densely populated London to the South East which is increasing the demand for housing here.
If people cannot afford to buy in London they move to the South East for cheaper property, if people cannot even afford to buy in the South East then there is a limit to how much affordable housing we can build here in the South East while preserving our countryside so they can move North.
There's plenty of room for development in Epping Forest mate. Get building!
There are limits here too as we have the Forest to protect for starters
I assume most residents of Epping Forest live where there was once forest. Why was it ok to clear it for them but not for future residents?
Not really, Epping Forest is preserved by the Corporation of London and largely as it has been for centuries.
The rest of us also do not want to live in an urban sprawl otherwise we would live in suburban London
You live on the Central Line ffs. You already live in suburban London!
My area of Newcastle is full of people like you. They think they live in deepest-darkest Northumberland but they actually live 20 minutes from the City Centre. It's ridiculous.
No I don't, I live in an area surrounded by fields and the Forest. It just happens to be at the end of the central line
It's also amusing that people are still treating Hartlepool as a *possible* Con gain rather than an absolute dead certainty.
If the Tories can gain a seat in a by-election while in Government it will be a shock, not a certainty. It would also signal about 15 more Labour-held seats as probable Tory gains next time, which gives a baseline of a Tory majority of 110 going into the next election.
My money is where my mouth is, I've bet on a Labour hold.
Like I said — amusing.
We'll see. If I'm wrong I'll lose some money, but I'll be happy to take 110 majority as a baseline going into the next election before swing.
Is that seriously what you think?
Not exactly because uniform swing doesn't apply and Hartlepool is somewhat of a 'special case' because of the ridiculously high Brexit Party vote.
But generally for the next election I expect nothing other than a repeat of 2019, based on the current status quo.
That's the point though, I don't think its possible to say that the Brexit Party vote are Tories in exile. They're far more likely to be Labour in exile "neverTories" who were not prepared to vote Tory, even to "Get Brexit Done".
If constituencies with a very high Brexit Party vote is split about 2:1 then that switches Hartlepool from red to blue - but Hartlepool is not a "special case" it is one of 15 seats like this. It would also switch 14 other constituencies too. There are 15 constituencies across the country that would fall to the blue team like Hartlepool if high BXP splits that way.
Perhaps you're right, perhaps high BXP will split Tory and not as I think be "neverTories" but if so then that's setting a baseline of 110 majority that should be in the Tory column without any other swings just from squeezing BXP next time.
I'd expect Labour, under Starmer, to win some metropolitan liberal elite seats in the south to make up for the further loss in the North — leading us back to 2019.
I also expect Labour to make gains in the South too. Quite frankly there are some long-held Tory areas that the Tories deserve to lose due to pandering to NIMBYism and meaning that people can't afford their own homes. If that means the likes of IDS lose their seat then I can live with that.
If that balances out net to another 2019 style result but IDS and other southern MPs replaced with Northern ones then even better.
A clueless post.
If the Tories concrete all over the greenbelt and homecounties they will not just lose Remain voting areas of London like Chingford to Labour, they will lose dozens of Home Counties seats which they have lost to the LDs at council level now over anti development to the LDs too from Chelmsford and Esher and Walton to Tunbridge Wells and Wantage and Witney and Henley.
It is fine for you in the North, you have very low density and vast amounts of countryside still left and no commuter belt the size of London's so you do not need to worry, in the South, particularly here in the South East, we are far more densely populated and want to preserve the countryside and fields we have to remain livable.
Yes our housing is more expensive but that is a product of living in the London commuter belt, we can build some more affordable housing in brownbelt areas but housing will always be cheaper in the North and Midlands so if you still cannot afford to buy in London and the South then move to the Midlands or North
'If you can't afford to buy a house in the South because we won't let them get built then you should move.'
Once again I'm ashamed to be in the same party as you. I believe in the free market and the free market can solve the housing crisis if we deregulate planning, you do not.
HYUFD is right and you are wrong. No one wants a free for all that turns the SE into a rainy, grey English version of Los Angeles' sprawl. It would be wildly unpopular, and in the end self-defeating, as people would flee this dystopia. By that time it would be too late as we would have tarmacked the entire southern half of the country
What's wrong with Los Angeles? Inner city Los Angeles has its problems sure, just like inner city London does.
But across "Greater Los Angeles" there is a population density of 212/km^2. That's half the English average. Across that region houses are bigger, have bigger gardens, more green spaces where people live. What of that is objectionable? When people are having to live in extortionate flatshares because of a lack of available housing, what part of more, bigger houses with gardens and green space do you find to be a dystopia?
Besides the thing with the free market that works is if people don't want it, the market won't provide it in general.
There is already a sprawl across the Southeast that already exists. What doesn't exist is sufficient housing for the people living there, nor much in the way for many people of gardens etc.
Some parts of LA are very nice, large parts of the endless suburbs are horrible, saved only and partly by the glorious climate
It's also bad for health. Dense walkable cities are the ideal, endless burbs where everyone drives simply create more obesity
If you want to live in one of the most densely populated areas of Europe - SE England - you have to accept it is unlikely you will get a garden, unless you are rich or lucky. It's a trade off. We all have to make them, all the time
Besides, your argument is pointless. No party will ever adopt this policy, because it would be massively unpopular. The Tories are already pushing the boundaries now, and meeting resistance
But you're happy to turn the green and pleasant land in the north into a concrete jungle?
You NIMBYs don't actively appreciate that the reason why your Home Counties "green and pleasant land" is so valuable is because of its proximity to the "concrete jungle".
Back in Stockton on Tees, there has been continuous house building across the borough for 20 years. Green field, brown field, housing estate bulldoze and regenerate, the lot. So its really funny that the government insisted the borough wasn't building sufficient houses and thus allowed developers to build absolutely everywhere, regardless of objections from the MP downwards.
Only now that they have allowed developers to build more houses can they have any control over where developers build houses. Not the quantities mind, they're still going to concrete the shit out of the place to keep the donors to the Tory party developers happy.
It's also amusing that people are still treating Hartlepool as a *possible* Con gain rather than an absolute dead certainty.
If the Tories can gain a seat in a by-election while in Government it will be a shock, not a certainty. It would also signal about 15 more Labour-held seats as probable Tory gains next time, which gives a baseline of a Tory majority of 110 going into the next election.
My money is where my mouth is, I've bet on a Labour hold.
Like I said — amusing.
We'll see. If I'm wrong I'll lose some money, but I'll be happy to take 110 majority as a baseline going into the next election before swing.
Is that seriously what you think?
Not exactly because uniform swing doesn't apply and Hartlepool is somewhat of a 'special case' because of the ridiculously high Brexit Party vote.
But generally for the next election I expect nothing other than a repeat of 2019, based on the current status quo.
That's the point though, I don't think its possible to say that the Brexit Party vote are Tories in exile. They're far more likely to be Labour in exile "neverTories" who were not prepared to vote Tory, even to "Get Brexit Done".
If constituencies with a very high Brexit Party vote is split about 2:1 then that switches Hartlepool from red to blue - but Hartlepool is not a "special case" it is one of 15 seats like this. It would also switch 14 other constituencies too. There are 15 constituencies across the country that would fall to the blue team like Hartlepool if high BXP splits that way.
Perhaps you're right, perhaps high BXP will split Tory and not as I think be "neverTories" but if so then that's setting a baseline of 110 majority that should be in the Tory column without any other swings just from squeezing BXP next time.
I'd expect Labour, under Starmer, to win some metropolitan liberal elite seats in the south to make up for the further loss in the North — leading us back to 2019.
I also expect Labour to make gains in the South too. Quite frankly there are some long-held Tory areas that the Tories deserve to lose due to pandering to NIMBYism and meaning that people can't afford their own homes. If that means the likes of IDS lose their seat then I can live with that.
If that balances out net to another 2019 style result but IDS and other southern MPs replaced with Northern ones then even better.
A clueless post.
If the Tories concrete all over the greenbelt and homecounties they will not just lose Remain voting areas of London like Chingford to Labour, they will lose dozens of Home Counties seats which they have lost to the LDs at council level now over anti development to the LDs too from Chelmsford and Esher and Walton to Tunbridge Wells and Wantage and Witney and Henley.
It is fine for you in the North, you have very low density and vast amounts of countryside still left and no commuter belt the size of London's so you do not need to worry, in the South, particularly here in the South East, we are far more densely populated and want to preserve the countryside and fields we have to remain livable.
Yes our housing is more expensive but that is a product of living in the London commuter belt, we can build some more affordable housing in brownbelt areas but housing will always be cheaper in the North and Midlands so if you still cannot afford to buy in London and the South then move to the Midlands or North
'If you can't afford to buy a house in the South because we won't let them get built then you should move.'
Once again I'm ashamed to be in the same party as you. I believe in the free market and the free market can solve the housing crisis if we deregulate planning, you do not.
Unlike you I am not and never have been a pure free marketeer, as Leon says we do not want to turn our Home Counties from a green and pleasant land into a concrete jungle.
I am a conservative not a libertarian
But you're happy to turn the green and pleasant land in the north into a concrete jungle?
You NIMBYs don't actively appreciate that the reason why your Home Counties "green and pleasant land" is so valuable is because of its proximity to the "concrete jungle".
The more valuable the more reason to preserve it surely?
Nimby is a really tiresome expression. I am all for keeping londons green belt green, and I don't live within 200 miles of it.
The choice is either to screw the next generation or keep the green belt. What's more important?
What these charts fairly consistently show is that the UK not only started vaccinating much earlier but continues to vaccinate quicker than the EU as a whole. We are roughly 13% of EU +UK and in this table we have 20% of new vaccines. The result is that our lead over the EU increases as we head to full vaccination and we will be there 2 -2.5 months ahead of the EU.
Which will be worth a few thousand lives in each of the major countries but in the overall scheme of things for the pandemic is not likely to be that material. Italy and Belgium are already well ahead of us in deaths per million and will move more so but it is unlikely that France and Germany will catch up.
Economically, our faster vaccination means that our recovery should be rough a quarter ahead of the EU but we were hit harder than most with more severe lockdowns so a faster recovery was pretty likely anyway.
What this might mean for the government is that the considerable credit that it is getting for fast and effective roll out is likely to fade fairly quickly and may well be gone by the end of this year when the focus will be on the overall performance where the UK is mid table at best, not even that on some measures. It seems probable to me that Tory leads will wane considerably at that point.
I'm going to stick my neck out here and make a clear and unambiguous prediction without caveat.
I think the vaccine rollout has been so good, and so popular, and so demonstrably more competent than elsewhere, that it will be the exception that proves the rule. The electorate will do gratitude, this one time, and the Tories will increase their majority at the next general election (I am reminded of a certain infamous article, yes).
Striking and plausible. Hats off. I'm not ruling that sort of scenario out but I will let a year pass before making the official 'newpunditry-newpolitics' long range call for the next GE.
I price it as follows atm -
Tory majority 50% Hung parliament 40% Labour majority 10%
Very much agree with this. Pricing Labour is tricky. It seems to me that a Labour majority required a black swan shift in sentiment, and that barring a game changer a Tory majority and hung parliament cover nearly 100% of the eventualities. In a sense therefore a 10% chance seems high, but the volatility of the political climate indicates caution. But the bookies current 7/2 Labour majority is fantasy stuff.
Yes, I'm pricing a Labour majority like a long dated, out-of-the-money option. It's well underwater in current conditions but there's quite a bit of "time value". Hence the 10%. I'd actually lump on if the odds were (say) 15/1.
THIS final paragraph in the latest Polly Tuscany Remoaner whine-fest might be relevant to the debate
"A necessary trigger will come to hand soon for Labour to lead the charge against the bad Brexit deal. In his wild rant at prime minister’s questions, Johnson accused Labour of voting against it, and many wish it had – though between a rock and a hard place, no deal wasn’t an option. Well before the next election, Labour will lead the cause of guiding Britain towards a return to the single market, and the safer haven of a Norway solution."
She's getting on a bit, I guess she's not as connected as she was, but she's still a significant writer in Labour circles. Either she knows Starmer is planning this, or she and the Guardian cabal are pushing him to do it.
It might be a game-changer if Brexit looks bad by 2024 (which it might). Single Market? Freedom of Movement? And end to red tape at the border, and go back to buying cottages in Greece or working in Frankfurt, without a worry?
I can imagine this offer tempting a lot of people away from the Tories, especially if - by 2024 - immigration is no longer an issue (who knows, long term, post Covid)
It's the obvious play for Starmer, and it could work
She's wishful thinking. Starmer may be dull but he's not daft.
Who knows. Not you, not I. It all depends how Brexit is playing out by, say, early 2023. And Starmer is desperate for Clear Blue Water between him and the Tories. A game-changing policy, a brand new battlefield. This fits the bill, perfectly
Brexit as an issue is diminishing in the minds of the public and certainly rejoining is for the birds. Yes there are a few noisy Lt Onoda types like Polly.
Next election will be fought on cutting the NHS waiting lists and the economy.
Straw Man. Rejoining was never mentioned, neither by me nor Polly. I can't see that ever happening
Single Market? Definitely. Business will want it, young people will want it (Freedom of Movement), Remainers (and they will still exist) will want it. It's not going away as an issue because Brexity Single Market problems are now a feature not a bug
There is no political space for it at present. We have Theresa May to blame for that.
For a critical juncture in British history - summer 2016 - we could have retained our Single Market membership and all the ancillary trade benefits.
She flunked it, fearing the ultras on the Tory backbench, and not thinking to appeal to likely supporters in Opposition.
It is overwhelmingly in British interests to be able to access the Single Market, and frankly the same is true for Freedom of Movement.
It will return, the only question is when.
That was the argument made in the referendum by the Remain campaign. They lost.
The Leave Campaign said they'd leave the Single Market but get a trade agreement instead. We left the Single Market and got a trade agreement instead.
Why you think you should get your way when you lost the referendum is beyond me.
What these charts fairly consistently show is that the UK not only started vaccinating much earlier but continues to vaccinate quicker than the EU as a whole. We are roughly 13% of EU +UK and in this table we have 20% of new vaccines. The result is that our lead over the EU increases as we head to full vaccination and we will be there 2 -2.5 months ahead of the EU.
Which will be worth a few thousand lives in each of the major countries but in the overall scheme of things for the pandemic is not likely to be that material. Italy and Belgium are already well ahead of us in deaths per million and will move more so but it is unlikely that France and Germany will catch up.
Economically, our faster vaccination means that our recovery should be rough a quarter ahead of the EU but we were hit harder than most with more severe lockdowns so a faster recovery was pretty likely anyway.
What this might mean for the government is that the considerable credit that it is getting for fast and effective roll out is likely to fade fairly quickly and may well be gone by the end of this year when the focus will be on the overall performance where the UK is mid table at best, not even that on some measures. It seems probable to me that Tory leads will wane considerably at that point.
I'm going to stick my neck out here and make a clear and unambiguous prediction without caveat.
I think the vaccine rollout has been so good, and so popular, and so demonstrably more competent than elsewhere, that it will be the exception that proves the rule. The electorate will do gratitude, this one time, and the Tories will increase their majority at the next general election (I am reminded of a certain infamous article, yes).
Striking and plausible. Hats off. I'm not ruling that sort of scenario out but I will let a year pass before making the official 'newpunditry-newpolitics' long range call for the next GE.
I price it as follows atm -
Tory majority 50% Hung parliament 40% Labour majority 10%
Very much agree with this. Pricing Labour is tricky. It seems to me that a Labour majority required a black swan shift in sentiment, and that barring a game changer a Tory majority and hung parliament cover nearly 100% of the eventualities. In a sense therefore a 10% chance seems high, but the volatility of the political climate indicates caution. But the bookies current 7/2 Labour majority is fantasy stuff.
Yes, I'm pricing a Labour majority like a long dated, out-of-the-money option. It's well underwater in current conditions but there's quite a bit of "time value". Hence the 10%. I'd actually lump on if the odds were (say) 15/1.
THIS final paragraph in the latest Polly Tuscany Remoaner whine-fest might be relevant to the debate
"A necessary trigger will come to hand soon for Labour to lead the charge against the bad Brexit deal. In his wild rant at prime minister’s questions, Johnson accused Labour of voting against it, and many wish it had – though between a rock and a hard place, no deal wasn’t an option. Well before the next election, Labour will lead the cause of guiding Britain towards a return to the single market, and the safer haven of a Norway solution."
She's getting on a bit, I guess she's not as connected as she was, but she's still a significant writer in Labour circles. Either she knows Starmer is planning this, or she and the Guardian cabal are pushing him to do it.
It might be a game-changer if Brexit looks bad by 2024 (which it might). Single Market? Freedom of Movement? And end to red tape at the border, and go back to buying cottages in Greece or working in Frankfurt, without a worry?
I can imagine this offer tempting a lot of people away from the Tories, especially if - by 2024 - immigration is no longer an issue (who knows, long term, post Covid)
It's the obvious play for Starmer, and it could work
She's wishful thinking. Starmer may be dull but he's not daft.
Who knows. Not you, not I. It all depends how Brexit is playing out by, say, early 2023. And Starmer is desperate for Clear Blue Water between him and the Tories. A game-changing policy, a brand new battlefield. This fits the bill, perfectly
Also, there is a difference between seeking to roll back Brexit now and doing so in a couple of years time. "Your way isn't really working, is it Boris?" has a better chance of working than "Rejoin NOW NOW NOW".
There will be problems with our New Relationship with Europe, and we may find ourselves buzzing round like a nimble fly whilst the Commission sits there like a non-nimble lizard. The benefits of bits of alignment to reduce admin and improve mobility may well be blatantly obvious on a case-by-case basis.
And in terms of the raw politics, the UK is back to a lead for the 2016 vote having been a mistake;
It's fairly cynical politics to not push this yet, and I wonder if remoaner disillusionment with Starmer is one of the things pushing his ratings down. But I get the logic of not saying anything now. Trouble is that you can't share a plan like that without destroying it.
It's also amusing that people are still treating Hartlepool as a *possible* Con gain rather than an absolute dead certainty.
If the Tories can gain a seat in a by-election while in Government it will be a shock, not a certainty. It would also signal about 15 more Labour-held seats as probable Tory gains next time, which gives a baseline of a Tory majority of 110 going into the next election.
My money is where my mouth is, I've bet on a Labour hold.
Like I said — amusing.
We'll see. If I'm wrong I'll lose some money, but I'll be happy to take 110 majority as a baseline going into the next election before swing.
Is that seriously what you think?
Not exactly because uniform swing doesn't apply and Hartlepool is somewhat of a 'special case' because of the ridiculously high Brexit Party vote.
But generally for the next election I expect nothing other than a repeat of 2019, based on the current status quo.
That's the point though, I don't think its possible to say that the Brexit Party vote are Tories in exile. They're far more likely to be Labour in exile "neverTories" who were not prepared to vote Tory, even to "Get Brexit Done".
If constituencies with a very high Brexit Party vote is split about 2:1 then that switches Hartlepool from red to blue - but Hartlepool is not a "special case" it is one of 15 seats like this. It would also switch 14 other constituencies too. There are 15 constituencies across the country that would fall to the blue team like Hartlepool if high BXP splits that way.
Perhaps you're right, perhaps high BXP will split Tory and not as I think be "neverTories" but if so then that's setting a baseline of 110 majority that should be in the Tory column without any other swings just from squeezing BXP next time.
I'd expect Labour, under Starmer, to win some metropolitan liberal elite seats in the south to make up for the further loss in the North — leading us back to 2019.
I also expect Labour to make gains in the South too. Quite frankly there are some long-held Tory areas that the Tories deserve to lose due to pandering to NIMBYism and meaning that people can't afford their own homes. If that means the likes of IDS lose their seat then I can live with that.
If that balances out net to another 2019 style result but IDS and other southern MPs replaced with Northern ones then even better.
A clueless post.
If the Tories concrete all over the greenbelt and homecounties they will not just lose Remain voting areas of London like Chingford to Labour, they will lose dozens of Home Counties seats which they have lost to the LDs at council level now over anti development to the LDs too from Chelmsford and Esher and Walton to Tunbridge Wells and Wantage and Witney and Henley.
It is fine for you in the North, you have very low density and vast amounts of countryside still left and no commuter belt the size of London's so you do not need to worry, in the South, particularly here in the South East, we are far more densely populated and want to preserve the countryside and fields we have to remain livable.
Yes our housing is more expensive but that is a product of living in the London commuter belt, we can build some more affordable housing in brownbelt areas but housing will always be cheaper in the North and Midlands so if you still cannot afford to buy in London and the South then move to the Midlands or North
'If you can't afford to buy a house in the South because we won't let them get built then you should move.'
Once again I'm ashamed to be in the same party as you. I believe in the free market and the free market can solve the housing crisis if we deregulate planning, you do not.
HYUFD seems the more authentic Conservative.
He’s pro-Union and seems to want to conserve things.
You’re a libertarian rascal in cross-dress.
Indeed, if Philip Thompson had his way the only Tory voters we would have left in the South East would be estate agents and property developers.
Some development is needed yes but focused on brownbelt areas first
I think you'd find if I had my way there'd be plenty of homeowners too. More homeowners than there are now in fact.
The brownbelt areas have been done to death. There isn't enough brownbelt. 🤦♂️
Most SouthEast residents are already homeowners.
Just owning a home does not make you automatically a Tory voter either, Blair won homeowners with a mortgage in 1997 and 2001
Epping Forest density - 390/km2 Newcastle upon Tyne density - 2,646/km2
They have been building thousands of houses in Newcastle over the past 20 years and continue to do so.
England population density 432/km2.
Epping Forest is below average. Not that you'd know it from Mr I'm Alright Jackboots.
Population density in London is 57.0, in the South East it is 4.81, in the North East it is just 3.11
Plus it is people moving from densely populated London to the South East which is increasing the demand for housing here.
If people cannot afford to buy in London they move to the South East for cheaper property, if people cannot even afford to buy in the South East then there is a limit to how much affordable housing we can build here in the South East while preserving our countryside so they can move North.
There's plenty of room for development in Epping Forest mate. Get building!
There are limits here too as we have the Forest to protect for starters
I assume most residents of Epping Forest live where there was once forest. Why was it ok to clear it for them but not for future residents?
Not really, Epping Forest is preserved by the Corporation of London and largely as it has been for centuries.
The rest of us also do not want to live in an urban sprawl otherwise we would live in suburban London
You live on the Central Line ffs. You already live in suburban London!
My area of Newcastle is full of people like you. They think they live in deepest-darkest Northumberland but they actually live 20 minutes from the City Centre. It's ridiculous.
No I don't, I live in an area surrounded by fields and the Forest. It just happens to be at the end of the central line
You're surrounded by fields and Forest artificially because of NIMBYs. You live in suburban London that has pulled the ladder up to preserve a middle class utopia.
Front page headline 'What a boost for Britain ' on vaccine rollout and plummeting infections
And on the inside 'The Jokes on you , Sir Keir' referring to his woeful photo stunt
It was an avoidable error by Starmer and he needs better advisors
Quite right, Starmer's woeful photo stunt at John Lewis demeans his office.
I mean, could anybody imagine our Prime Minister engaging in cheap publicity stunts to try to pretend he's a man of the people? He has far more dignity than that. Perish the thought.
Boris has that priced in. Starmer is supposed to be serious and competent. He's already failed at the latter and now he's failing at the former with that cringey photo.
Starmer does no stunts - You cant be PM with less personality than your opponent! Starmer does stunts - You cant be PM doing stunts like that!
Have Starmer critics thought maybe they just dont like him because he is a lefty, not because of his personality?
No, he's just not very good and it's disappointing because we need a strong opposition to the government more than ever given how our liberties are being curtailed. A good opposition leader would be planning with Tory rebels right now to defeat the government on their likely renewal of the virus measures in September. Instead he'll bitch for about two seconds and then quietly vote in favour leaving 60-80 Tory rebels wondering what they need to do to get the opposition to actually bloody oppose.
Rightly or wrongly from a public health perspective our liberties have been curtailed for the past 13 months.
Not a peep from anyone until the week before last or somesuch.
With ongoing huge popularity as evidenced in the polls why on earth would they decide to change policy now? Keep us if not scared, then anxious and in need of nanny.
Alternatively - after a number of false starts, we have a defined policy program to deal with COVID19. That is working....
And in the meantime unparalleled restrictions on our liberty have been waved through with a smile.
As I said, perhaps this was necessary. But the enthusiasm with which the country, not least here on PB, has embraced the restrictions of freedoms has been imo extraodinary.
Britons will be slaves, it seems.
I’ve been amazed at the collective reflex to defer to authority figures over the last year. I was always under the impression that the British cultural norm was instinctive distrust of authority. I can only assume it’s because they’ve put up on stage a doctor and a “scientist”, for whom the normal rules go out the window.
Nonsense. People think lockdown is the right way to go, so they go with it. Like driving on the left. Am I deferring to authority figures, failing to show enough distrust for authority etc when I stop at red lights, put a seatbelt on and so on? This "look at the sheeple" stuff aims for sophistication and actually sounds like Rik Mayall in the Young Ones.
There's a lot of nonsense about. I diagnose the cause as a mix of virtue-signaling and paranoia. This latter perhaps fed by the trauma and claustrophobia of the past year.
"I'm a rugged, freedom luvin' bear, always chaffing against these petty-fogging rules that all you pussies accept without a murmur."
"I'm an astute and seasoned unit, sussing that the "authorities" have a nefarious plan to keep the rules in place even after the virus is gone cos they love the power. I don't just trust them like you naive kiddies."
These are the main 2 strands.
What was that quiet, out of the way pub in Hampstead you went to the other day? Sounds great.
Yes, I'd like to visit that pub, too. Perhaps it is called The Moon Under Water
Pretty sure GO’s Platonic pub would be in environs more proley. He’d recoil in horror from a Tower Hamlets ‘spoons, mind.
But you're happy to turn the green and pleasant land in the north into a concrete jungle?
You NIMBYs don't actively appreciate that the reason why your Home Counties "green and pleasant land" is so valuable is because of its proximity to the "concrete jungle".
Back in Stockton on Tees, there has been continuous house building across the borough for 20 years. Green field, brown field, housing estate bulldoze and regenerate, the lot. So its really funny that the government insisted the borough wasn't building sufficient houses and thus allowed developers to build absolutely everywhere, regardless of objections from the MP downwards.
Only now that they have allowed developers to build more houses can they have any control over where developers build houses. Not the quantities mind, they're still going to concrete the shit out of the place to keep the donors to the Tory party developers happy.
And keep the new homeowners happy too. 👍
That's a great thing that's happened in Stockton and it needs to happen everywhere. Free market. Have the owner occupier rates in Stockton gone up or down compared to the national average? Has the voting gone up or down compared to the national average?
The developers move on once they're done. The people who buy the homes and live in them are the ones that matter.
Front page headline 'What a boost for Britain ' on vaccine rollout and plummeting infections
And on the inside 'The Jokes on you , Sir Keir' referring to his woeful photo stunt
It was an avoidable error by Starmer and he needs better advisors
Quite right, Starmer's woeful photo stunt at John Lewis demeans his office.
I mean, could anybody imagine our Prime Minister engaging in cheap publicity stunts to try to pretend he's a man of the people? He has far more dignity than that. Perish the thought.
Boris has that priced in. Starmer is supposed to be serious and competent. He's already failed at the latter and now he's failing at the former with that cringey photo.
Starmer does no stunts - You cant be PM with less personality than your opponent! Starmer does stunts - You cant be PM doing stunts like that!
Have Starmer critics thought maybe they just dont like him because he is a lefty, not because of his personality?
No, he's just not very good and it's disappointing because we need a strong opposition to the government more than ever given how our liberties are being curtailed. A good opposition leader would be planning with Tory rebels right now to defeat the government on their likely renewal of the virus measures in September. Instead he'll bitch for about two seconds and then quietly vote in favour leaving 60-80 Tory rebels wondering what they need to do to get the opposition to actually bloody oppose.
Rightly or wrongly from a public health perspective our liberties have been curtailed for the past 13 months.
Not a peep from anyone until the week before last or somesuch.
With ongoing huge popularity as evidenced in the polls why on earth would they decide to change policy now? Keep us if not scared, then anxious and in need of nanny.
Alternatively - after a number of false starts, we have a defined policy program to deal with COVID19. That is working....
And in the meantime unparalleled restrictions on our liberty have been waved through with a smile.
As I said, perhaps this was necessary. But the enthusiasm with which the country, not least here on PB, has embraced the restrictions of freedoms has been imo extraodinary.
Britons will be slaves, it seems.
I’ve been amazed at the collective reflex to defer to authority figures over the last year. I was always under the impression that the British cultural norm was instinctive distrust of authority. I can only assume it’s because they’ve put up on stage a doctor and a “scientist”, for whom the normal rules go out the window.
Nonsense. People think lockdown is the right way to go, so they go with it. Like driving on the left. Am I deferring to authority figures, failing to show enough distrust for authority etc when I stop at red lights, put a seatbelt on and so on? This "look at the sheeple" stuff aims for sophistication and actually sounds like Rik Mayall in the Young Ones.
There's a lot of nonsense about. I diagnose the cause as a mix of virtue-signaling and paranoia. This latter perhaps fed by the trauma and claustrophobia of the past year.
"I'm a rugged, freedom luvin' bear, always chaffing against these petty-fogging rules that all you pussies accept without a murmur."
"I'm an astute and seasoned unit, sussing that the "authorities" have a nefarious plan to keep the rules in place even after the virus is gone cos they love the power. I don't just trust them like you naive kiddies."
These are the main 2 strands.
What was that quiet, out of the way pub in Hampstead you went to the other day? Sounds great.
Yes, I'd like to visit that pub, too. Perhaps it is called The Moon Under Water
It's great. No need for contact details unless you insist on ordering oysters.
My actual opinion is quite different to @Philip_Thompson's. I don't believe in a planning free-for-all but there does have to be a green belt compromise. There's a middle ground between "abolish the greenbelt" and "lol brownbelt".
The fact is that some leafy middle-class suburbs are going to have to give up some fields.
Can one of the PB Tories please explain the government's strategy with regards to cladding? As they have removed any hope for the residents there are c. 1.3m flats that are now unsellable. I know that the donors to the Tory party developers are happy, but building more flats to replace these dangerous ones now effectively blocked from the market seems daft.
Front page headline 'What a boost for Britain ' on vaccine rollout and plummeting infections
And on the inside 'The Jokes on you , Sir Keir' referring to his woeful photo stunt
It was an avoidable error by Starmer and he needs better advisors
Quite right, Starmer's woeful photo stunt at John Lewis demeans his office.
I mean, could anybody imagine our Prime Minister engaging in cheap publicity stunts to try to pretend he's a man of the people? He has far more dignity than that. Perish the thought.
Boris has that priced in. Starmer is supposed to be serious and competent. He's already failed at the latter and now he's failing at the former with that cringey photo.
Starmer does no stunts - You cant be PM with less personality than your opponent! Starmer does stunts - You cant be PM doing stunts like that!
Have Starmer critics thought maybe they just dont like him because he is a lefty, not because of his personality?
No, he's just not very good and it's disappointing because we need a strong opposition to the government more than ever given how our liberties are being curtailed. A good opposition leader would be planning with Tory rebels right now to defeat the government on their likely renewal of the virus measures in September. Instead he'll bitch for about two seconds and then quietly vote in favour leaving 60-80 Tory rebels wondering what they need to do to get the opposition to actually bloody oppose.
Rightly or wrongly from a public health perspective our liberties have been curtailed for the past 13 months.
Not a peep from anyone until the week before last or somesuch.
With ongoing huge popularity as evidenced in the polls why on earth would they decide to change policy now? Keep us if not scared, then anxious and in need of nanny.
Alternatively - after a number of false starts, we have a defined policy program to deal with COVID19. That is working....
And in the meantime unparalleled restrictions on our liberty have been waved through with a smile.
As I said, perhaps this was necessary. But the enthusiasm with which the country, not least here on PB, has embraced the restrictions of freedoms has been imo extraodinary.
Britons will be slaves, it seems.
I’ve been amazed at the collective reflex to defer to authority figures over the last year. I was always under the impression that the British cultural norm was instinctive distrust of authority. I can only assume it’s because they’ve put up on stage a doctor and a “scientist”, for whom the normal rules go out the window.
Nonsense. People think lockdown is the right way to go, so they go with it. Like driving on the left. Am I deferring to authority figures, failing to show enough distrust for authority etc when I stop at red lights, put a seatbelt on and so on? This "look at the sheeple" stuff aims for sophistication and actually sounds like Rik Mayall in the Young Ones.
There's a lot of nonsense about. I diagnose the cause as a mix of virtue-signaling and paranoia. This latter perhaps fed by the trauma and claustrophobia of the past year.
"I'm a rugged, freedom luvin' bear, always chaffing against these petty-fogging rules that all you pussies accept without a murmur."
"I'm an astute and seasoned unit, sussing that the "authorities" have a nefarious plan to keep the rules in place even after the virus is gone cos they love the power. I don't just trust them like you naive kiddies."
These are the main 2 strands.
What was that quiet, out of the way pub in Hampstead you went to the other day? Sounds great.
Yes, I'd like to visit that pub, too. Perhaps it is called The Moon Under Water
It's great. No need for contact details unless you insist on ordering oysters.
It's also amusing that people are still treating Hartlepool as a *possible* Con gain rather than an absolute dead certainty.
If the Tories can gain a seat in a by-election while in Government it will be a shock, not a certainty. It would also signal about 15 more Labour-held seats as probable Tory gains next time, which gives a baseline of a Tory majority of 110 going into the next election.
My money is where my mouth is, I've bet on a Labour hold.
Like I said — amusing.
We'll see. If I'm wrong I'll lose some money, but I'll be happy to take 110 majority as a baseline going into the next election before swing.
Is that seriously what you think?
Not exactly because uniform swing doesn't apply and Hartlepool is somewhat of a 'special case' because of the ridiculously high Brexit Party vote.
But generally for the next election I expect nothing other than a repeat of 2019, based on the current status quo.
That's the point though, I don't think its possible to say that the Brexit Party vote are Tories in exile. They're far more likely to be Labour in exile "neverTories" who were not prepared to vote Tory, even to "Get Brexit Done".
If constituencies with a very high Brexit Party vote is split about 2:1 then that switches Hartlepool from red to blue - but Hartlepool is not a "special case" it is one of 15 seats like this. It would also switch 14 other constituencies too. There are 15 constituencies across the country that would fall to the blue team like Hartlepool if high BXP splits that way.
Perhaps you're right, perhaps high BXP will split Tory and not as I think be "neverTories" but if so then that's setting a baseline of 110 majority that should be in the Tory column without any other swings just from squeezing BXP next time.
I'd expect Labour, under Starmer, to win some metropolitan liberal elite seats in the south to make up for the further loss in the North — leading us back to 2019.
I also expect Labour to make gains in the South too. Quite frankly there are some long-held Tory areas that the Tories deserve to lose due to pandering to NIMBYism and meaning that people can't afford their own homes. If that means the likes of IDS lose their seat then I can live with that.
If that balances out net to another 2019 style result but IDS and other southern MPs replaced with Northern ones then even better.
A clueless post.
If the Tories concrete all over the greenbelt and homecounties they will not just lose Remain voting areas of London like Chingford to Labour, they will lose dozens of Home Counties seats which they have lost to the LDs at council level now over anti development to the LDs too from Chelmsford and Esher and Walton to Tunbridge Wells and Wantage and Witney and Henley.
It is fine for you in the North, you have very low density and vast amounts of countryside still left and no commuter belt the size of London's so you do not need to worry, in the South, particularly here in the South East, we are far more densely populated and want to preserve the countryside and fields we have to remain livable.
Yes our housing is more expensive but that is a product of living in the London commuter belt, we can build some more affordable housing in brownbelt areas but housing will always be cheaper in the North and Midlands so if you still cannot afford to buy in London and the South then move to the Midlands or North
'If you can't afford to buy a house in the South because we won't let them get built then you should move.'
Once again I'm ashamed to be in the same party as you. I believe in the free market and the free market can solve the housing crisis if we deregulate planning, you do not.
Unlike you I am not and never have been a pure free marketeer, as Leon says we do not want to turn our Home Counties from a green and pleasant land into a concrete jungle.
I am a conservative not a libertarian
But you're happy to turn the green and pleasant land in the north into a concrete jungle?
You NIMBYs don't actively appreciate that the reason why your Home Counties "green and pleasant land" is so valuable is because of its proximity to the "concrete jungle".
The more valuable the more reason to preserve it surely?
Nimby is a really tiresome expression. I am all for keeping londons green belt green, and I don't live within 200 miles of it.
The choice is either to screw the next generation or keep the green belt. What's more important?
Epping Forest density - 390/km2 Newcastle upon Tyne density - 2,646/km2
They have been building thousands of houses in Newcastle over the past 20 years and continue to do so.
England population density 432/km2.
Epping Forest is below average. Not that you'd know it from Mr I'm Alright Jackboots.
In fairness though, that's presumably because a very large proportion of the borough is taken up by... Epping Forest itself. (The 6,000 acre forest doesn't all fall within Epping Forest borough, but most of it does).
Is it possible the Gulf Stream failed last year, and no one noticed because of Covid?
It's nine degrees in London, the day before May. We have had more frosts this April than we get in a normal Winter (in toto). Last week in Cornwall I experienced weather I have never before experienced in the UK, intense sun (I got sunburned) but a bitterly cold wind, so cold that even in the sun it was painful to be out
The closest equivalent I can think of is the climate you get in the High Andes. Bolivia, or Peru. Cusco, La Paz.
I have just been on a weather boffin website where someone said the recent weather in England has been closer to the climate of the Cairngorms in summer
This has been the coldest April for around 60 years and we usually have around 4 frosts in April. We have had four times that. We are just stuck under a persistent wind from the north. Same one that brought the bitter weather in February. We are around 6 degrees below average for the time of year. According to Carole Kirkwood anyway, and Laura Tobin.
It's also amusing that people are still treating Hartlepool as a *possible* Con gain rather than an absolute dead certainty.
If the Tories can gain a seat in a by-election while in Government it will be a shock, not a certainty. It would also signal about 15 more Labour-held seats as probable Tory gains next time, which gives a baseline of a Tory majority of 110 going into the next election.
My money is where my mouth is, I've bet on a Labour hold.
Like I said — amusing.
We'll see. If I'm wrong I'll lose some money, but I'll be happy to take 110 majority as a baseline going into the next election before swing.
Is that seriously what you think?
Not exactly because uniform swing doesn't apply and Hartlepool is somewhat of a 'special case' because of the ridiculously high Brexit Party vote.
But generally for the next election I expect nothing other than a repeat of 2019, based on the current status quo.
That's the point though, I don't think its possible to say that the Brexit Party vote are Tories in exile. They're far more likely to be Labour in exile "neverTories" who were not prepared to vote Tory, even to "Get Brexit Done".
If constituencies with a very high Brexit Party vote is split about 2:1 then that switches Hartlepool from red to blue - but Hartlepool is not a "special case" it is one of 15 seats like this. It would also switch 14 other constituencies too. There are 15 constituencies across the country that would fall to the blue team like Hartlepool if high BXP splits that way.
Perhaps you're right, perhaps high BXP will split Tory and not as I think be "neverTories" but if so then that's setting a baseline of 110 majority that should be in the Tory column without any other swings just from squeezing BXP next time.
I'd expect Labour, under Starmer, to win some metropolitan liberal elite seats in the south to make up for the further loss in the North — leading us back to 2019.
I also expect Labour to make gains in the South too. Quite frankly there are some long-held Tory areas that the Tories deserve to lose due to pandering to NIMBYism and meaning that people can't afford their own homes. If that means the likes of IDS lose their seat then I can live with that.
If that balances out net to another 2019 style result but IDS and other southern MPs replaced with Northern ones then even better.
A clueless post.
If the Tories concrete all over the greenbelt and homecounties they will not just lose Remain voting areas of London like Chingford to Labour, they will lose dozens of Home Counties seats which they have lost to the LDs at council level now over anti development to the LDs too from Chelmsford and Esher and Walton to Tunbridge Wells and Wantage and Witney and Henley.
It is fine for you in the North, you have very low density and vast amounts of countryside still left and no commuter belt the size of London's so you do not need to worry, in the South, particularly here in the South East, we are far more densely populated and want to preserve the countryside and fields we have to remain livable.
Yes our housing is more expensive but that is a product of living in the London commuter belt, we can build some more affordable housing in brownbelt areas but housing will always be cheaper in the North and Midlands so if you still cannot afford to buy in London and the South then move to the Midlands or North
'If you can't afford to buy a house in the South because we won't let them get built then you should move.'
Once again I'm ashamed to be in the same party as you. I believe in the free market and the free market can solve the housing crisis if we deregulate planning, you do not.
Unlike you I am not and never have been a pure free marketeer, as Leon says we do not want to turn our Home Counties from a green and pleasant land into a concrete jungle.
I am a conservative not a libertarian
But you're happy to turn the green and pleasant land in the north into a concrete jungle?
You NIMBYs don't actively appreciate that the reason why your Home Counties "green and pleasant land" is so valuable is because of its proximity to the "concrete jungle".
The more valuable the more reason to preserve it surely?
Nimby is a really tiresome expression. I am all for keeping londons green belt green, and I don't live within 200 miles of it.
The choice is either to screw the next generation or keep the green belt. What's more important?
Avoiding false dichotomous.
Well not really. Treating the "green belt" as some holy religious concept is the cause of a lot of problems. There's a middle ground.
Can one of the PB Tories please explain the government's strategy with regards to cladding? As they have removed any hope for the residents there are c. 1.3m flats that are now unsellable. I know that the donors to the Tory party developers are happy, but building more flats to replace these dangerous ones now effectively blocked from the market seems daft.
Because the Grenfield Tower residents were, erm, not natural Tory voters? Because the BTL flats tend not to have any voters in them at all? Or if they do they are Not One of Us (cf. 'home owners as natural Tories' spiel on here passim).
Epping Forest density - 390/km2 Newcastle upon Tyne density - 2,646/km2
They have been building thousands of houses in Newcastle over the past 20 years and continue to do so.
England population density 432/km2.
Epping Forest is below average. Not that you'd know it from Mr I'm Alright Jackboots.
Population density in London is 57.0, in the South East it is 4.81, in the North East it is just 3.11
Plus it is people moving from densely populated London to the South East which is increasing the demand for housing here.
If people cannot afford to buy in London they move to the South East for cheaper property, if people cannot even afford to buy in the South East then there is a limit to how much affordable housing we can build here in the South East while preserving our countryside so they can move North.
There's plenty of room for development in Epping Forest mate. Get building!
There are limits here too as we have the Forest to protect for starters
I assume most residents of Epping Forest live where there was once forest. Why was it ok to clear it for them but not for future residents?
Not really, Epping Forest is preserved by the Corporation of London and largely as it has been for centuries.
The rest of us also do not want to live in an urban sprawl otherwise we would live in suburban London
You live on the Central Line ffs. You already live in suburban London!
My area of Newcastle is full of people like you. They think they live in deepest-darkest Northumberland but they actually live 20 minutes from the City Centre. It's ridiculous.
No I don't, I live in an area surrounded by fields and the Forest. It just happens to be at the end of the central line
You're surrounded by fields and Forest artificially because of NIMBYs. You live in suburban London that has pulled the ladder up to preserve a middle class utopia.
Epping Forest is an ancient woodland, site of special scientific interest and a hugely important recreational spot for Londoners. It cannot and should not be built on. You are wrong about this one.
My actual opinion is quite different to @Philip_Thompson's. I don't believe in a planning free-for-all but there does have to be a green belt compromise. There's a middle ground between "abolish the greenbelt" and "lol brownbelt".
The fact is that some leafy middle-class suburbs are going to have to give up some fields.
I'd keep national parks and some other bits and pieces as a greenbelt, in the same way as eg London has Hyde Park and NYC has Central Park and other bits and pieces.
But the greenbelt should be very much the exception not the norm. Reserved areas, not everywhere not already built upon when our population now is about 1/3rd high than it was when the Green Belt was introduced.
My actual opinion is quite different to @Philip_Thompson's. I don't believe in a planning free-for-all but there does have to be a green belt compromise. There's a middle ground between "abolish the greenbelt" and "lol brownbelt".
The fact is that some leafy middle-class suburbs are going to have to give up some fields.
The tragedy is that we need to build different kinds of houses for different stages of people's lives. With the shift in how people live and work the obvious strategy to pursue is to build spacious urban apartments next to public parks. The problem is that thanks to taking bungs from developers the government has put people off buying apartments.
Is it possible the Gulf Stream failed last year, and no one noticed because of Covid?
It's nine degrees in London, the day before May. We have had more frosts this April than we get in a normal Winter (in toto). Last week in Cornwall I experienced weather I have never before experienced in the UK, intense sun (I got sunburned) but a bitterly cold wind, so cold that even in the sun it was painful to be out
The closest equivalent I can think of is the climate you get in the High Andes. Bolivia, or Peru. Cusco, La Paz.
I have just been on a weather boffin website where someone said the recent weather in England has been closer to the climate of the Cairngorms in summer
The weather has become much more unpredictable here over the last 10-15 years.
It's going to get worse.
The argument I'm reading from weather geeks is actually the opposite, kind of. British weather is (or was) dominated by westerlies, as you would expect from an island at the western end of a continent, facing the Gulf Stream. That means it is predictably mild yet changeable, within parameters
Some of these geeks claim we are in a new phase of locking patterns, when the weather gets stuck in a groove and doesn't change as it "should"
Recall the bizarre sunny weather of last spring - the sunniest spring in UK history. Then the grey period from late September to March, the UNsunniest October/Winter in UK history.
Now this eerie cold spell, possibly the coldest April ever. It goes on and on. Locked in. More continental than insular
This evolution would chime with the Gulf Stream weakening
It's also amusing that people are still treating Hartlepool as a *possible* Con gain rather than an absolute dead certainty.
If the Tories can gain a seat in a by-election while in Government it will be a shock, not a certainty. It would also signal about 15 more Labour-held seats as probable Tory gains next time, which gives a baseline of a Tory majority of 110 going into the next election.
My money is where my mouth is, I've bet on a Labour hold.
Like I said — amusing.
We'll see. If I'm wrong I'll lose some money, but I'll be happy to take 110 majority as a baseline going into the next election before swing.
Is that seriously what you think?
Not exactly because uniform swing doesn't apply and Hartlepool is somewhat of a 'special case' because of the ridiculously high Brexit Party vote.
But generally for the next election I expect nothing other than a repeat of 2019, based on the current status quo.
That's the point though, I don't think its possible to say that the Brexit Party vote are Tories in exile. They're far more likely to be Labour in exile "neverTories" who were not prepared to vote Tory, even to "Get Brexit Done".
If constituencies with a very high Brexit Party vote is split about 2:1 then that switches Hartlepool from red to blue - but Hartlepool is not a "special case" it is one of 15 seats like this. It would also switch 14 other constituencies too. There are 15 constituencies across the country that would fall to the blue team like Hartlepool if high BXP splits that way.
Perhaps you're right, perhaps high BXP will split Tory and not as I think be "neverTories" but if so then that's setting a baseline of 110 majority that should be in the Tory column without any other swings just from squeezing BXP next time.
I'd expect Labour, under Starmer, to win some metropolitan liberal elite seats in the south to make up for the further loss in the North — leading us back to 2019.
I also expect Labour to make gains in the South too. Quite frankly there are some long-held Tory areas that the Tories deserve to lose due to pandering to NIMBYism and meaning that people can't afford their own homes. If that means the likes of IDS lose their seat then I can live with that.
If that balances out net to another 2019 style result but IDS and other southern MPs replaced with Northern ones then even better.
A clueless post.
If the Tories concrete all over the greenbelt and homecounties they will not just lose Remain voting areas of London like Chingford to Labour, they will lose dozens of Home Counties seats which they have lost to the LDs at council level now over anti development to the LDs too from Chelmsford and Esher and Walton to Tunbridge Wells and Wantage and Witney and Henley.
It is fine for you in the North, you have very low density and vast amounts of countryside still left and no commuter belt the size of London's so you do not need to worry, in the South, particularly here in the South East, we are far more densely populated and want to preserve the countryside and fields we have to remain livable.
Yes our housing is more expensive but that is a product of living in the London commuter belt, we can build some more affordable housing in brownbelt areas but housing will always be cheaper in the North and Midlands so if you still cannot afford to buy in London and the South then move to the Midlands or North
'If you can't afford to buy a house in the South because we won't let them get built then you should move.'
Once again I'm ashamed to be in the same party as you. I believe in the free market and the free market can solve the housing crisis if we deregulate planning, you do not.
Unlike you I am not and never have been a pure free marketeer, as Leon says we do not want to turn our Home Counties from a green and pleasant land into a concrete jungle.
I am a conservative not a libertarian
But you're happy to turn the green and pleasant land in the north into a concrete jungle?
You NIMBYs don't actively appreciate that the reason why your Home Counties "green and pleasant land" is so valuable is because of its proximity to the "concrete jungle".
The more valuable the more reason to preserve it surely?
Nimby is a really tiresome expression. I am all for keeping londons green belt green, and I don't live within 200 miles of it.
The choice is either to screw the next generation or keep the green belt. What's more important?
That's easy. I think we all know the answer.
IshmaelZ may find NIMBY a tiresome expression but I'm afraid it is well warranted far too often. Big developers are no saints or innocents when it comes to problems with planning and development, but you propose anything and people who can only be called NIMBY's will emerge.
The ones who object to any amount of development. Who employ blatant disruptive tactics and rhetoric to pretend they are only objecting on specific grounds rather than implacably opposed - there is always more consultation needed, more studies needed, more evidence, no matter how much has been done, they are not against development, they say, just not here, it's a democratic outrage that planning laws exist, because 50 people in a village of 3000 have objected, they search for a pretext to refuse when their real reason is not valid (see 5G masts), they want cheaper homes but don't want any built, etc etc
I don't want a free for all on Britain's green pastures, that's too simplistic a solution, but NIMBY's are most definitely a thing.
Front page headline 'What a boost for Britain ' on vaccine rollout and plummeting infections
And on the inside 'The Jokes on you , Sir Keir' referring to his woeful photo stunt
It was an avoidable error by Starmer and he needs better advisors
Quite right, Starmer's woeful photo stunt at John Lewis demeans his office.
I mean, could anybody imagine our Prime Minister engaging in cheap publicity stunts to try to pretend he's a man of the people? He has far more dignity than that. Perish the thought.
Boris has that priced in. Starmer is supposed to be serious and competent. He's already failed at the latter and now he's failing at the former with that cringey photo.
Starmer does no stunts - You cant be PM with less personality than your opponent! Starmer does stunts - You cant be PM doing stunts like that!
Have Starmer critics thought maybe they just dont like him because he is a lefty, not because of his personality?
No, he's just not very good and it's disappointing because we need a strong opposition to the government more than ever given how our liberties are being curtailed. A good opposition leader would be planning with Tory rebels right now to defeat the government on their likely renewal of the virus measures in September. Instead he'll bitch for about two seconds and then quietly vote in favour leaving 60-80 Tory rebels wondering what they need to do to get the opposition to actually bloody oppose.
Rightly or wrongly from a public health perspective our liberties have been curtailed for the past 13 months.
Not a peep from anyone until the week before last or somesuch.
With ongoing huge popularity as evidenced in the polls why on earth would they decide to change policy now? Keep us if not scared, then anxious and in need of nanny.
Alternatively - after a number of false starts, we have a defined policy program to deal with COVID19. That is working....
And in the meantime unparalleled restrictions on our liberty have been waved through with a smile.
As I said, perhaps this was necessary. But the enthusiasm with which the country, not least here on PB, has embraced the restrictions of freedoms has been imo extraodinary.
Britons will be slaves, it seems.
I’ve been amazed at the collective reflex to defer to authority figures over the last year. I was always under the impression that the British cultural norm was instinctive distrust of authority. I can only assume it’s because they’ve put up on stage a doctor and a “scientist”, for whom the normal rules go out the window.
Nonsense. People think lockdown is the right way to go, so they go with it. Like driving on the left. Am I deferring to authority figures, failing to show enough distrust for authority etc when I stop at red lights, put a seatbelt on and so on? This "look at the sheeple" stuff aims for sophistication and actually sounds like Rik Mayall in the Young Ones.
There's a lot of nonsense about. I diagnose the cause as a mix of virtue-signaling and paranoia. This latter perhaps fed by the trauma and claustrophobia of the past year.
"I'm a rugged, freedom luvin' bear, always chaffing against these petty-fogging rules that all you pussies accept without a murmur."
"I'm an astute and seasoned unit, sussing that the "authorities" have a nefarious plan to keep the rules in place even after the virus is gone cos they love the power. I don't just trust them like you naive kiddies."
These are the main 2 strands.
What was that quiet, out of the way pub in Hampstead you went to the other day? Sounds great.
Yes, I'd like to visit that pub, too. Perhaps it is called The Moon Under Water
It's great. No need for contact details unless you insist on ordering oysters.
Epping Forest density - 390/km2 Newcastle upon Tyne density - 2,646/km2
They have been building thousands of houses in Newcastle over the past 20 years and continue to do so.
England population density 432/km2.
Epping Forest is below average. Not that you'd know it from Mr I'm Alright Jackboots.
In fairness though, that's presumably because a very large proportion of the borough is taken top by... Epping Forest itself. (The 6,000 acre forest doesn't all fall within Epping Forest borough, but most of it does).
Well it was @HYUFD who asserted that the North was so underdeveloped compared to the south.
Basildon has less population density than Newcastle and we've been building houses on a massive scale for the past 20 years.
The City of Chelmsford has 1/5 of the population density of Newcastle.
Can one of the PB Tories please explain the government's strategy with regards to cladding? As they have removed any hope for the residents there are c. 1.3m flats that are now unsellable. I know that the donors to the Tory party developers are happy, but building more flats to replace these dangerous ones now effectively blocked from the market seems daft.
Because the Grenfield Tower residents were, erm, not natural Tory voters? Because the BTL flats tend not to have any voters in them at all? Or if they do they are Not One of Us (cf. 'home owners as natural Tories' spiel on here passim).
High % of Grenfield probably not registered to vote - for a variety of reasons.
Epping Forest density - 390/km2 Newcastle upon Tyne density - 2,646/km2
They have been building thousands of houses in Newcastle over the past 20 years and continue to do so.
England population density 432/km2.
Epping Forest is below average. Not that you'd know it from Mr I'm Alright Jackboots.
Population density in London is 57.0, in the South East it is 4.81, in the North East it is just 3.11
Plus it is people moving from densely populated London to the South East which is increasing the demand for housing here.
If people cannot afford to buy in London they move to the South East for cheaper property, if people cannot even afford to buy in the South East then there is a limit to how much affordable housing we can build here in the South East while preserving our countryside so they can move North.
There's plenty of room for development in Epping Forest mate. Get building!
There are limits here too as we have the Forest to protect for starters
I assume most residents of Epping Forest live where there was once forest. Why was it ok to clear it for them but not for future residents?
Not really, Epping Forest is preserved by the Corporation of London and largely as it has been for centuries.
The rest of us also do not want to live in an urban sprawl otherwise we would live in suburban London
You live on the Central Line ffs. You already live in suburban London!
My area of Newcastle is full of people like you. They think they live in deepest-darkest Northumberland but they actually live 20 minutes from the City Centre. It's ridiculous.
No I don't, I live in an area surrounded by fields and the Forest. It just happens to be at the end of the central line
You're surrounded by fields and Forest artificially because of NIMBYs. You live in suburban London that has pulled the ladder up to preserve a middle class utopia.
It is a liveable area and the LDs already have councillors here in opposition even to the development proposed by the relatively modest current local plan, if the entire district was concreted over it would be hard to get a single Tory councillor elected anywhere here.
Once the LDs win control of the council they then often move on to win the MP as they did from 1997 to 2010 for example
Comments
"A necessary trigger will come to hand soon for Labour to lead the charge against the bad Brexit deal. In his wild rant at prime minister’s questions, Johnson accused Labour of voting against it, and many wish it had – though between a rock and a hard place, no deal wasn’t an option. Well before the next election, Labour will lead the cause of guiding Britain towards a return to the single market, and the safer haven of a Norway solution."
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/apr/30/curtains-cash-johnson-brexit-peace-northern-ireland
She's getting on a bit, I guess she's not as connected as she was, but she's still a significant writer in Labour circles. Either she knows Starmer is planning this, or she and the Guardian cabal are pushing him to do it.
It might be a game-changer if Brexit looks bad by 2024 (which it might). Single Market? Freedom of Movement? And end to red tape at the border, and go back to buying cottages in Greece or working in Frankfurt, without a worry?
I can imagine this offer tempting a lot of people away from the Tories, especially if - by 2024 - immigration is no longer an issue (who knows, long term, post Covid)
It's the obvious play for Starmer, and it could work
Although people have been happy to be locked down now, while they're worried about the virus or while they know a vaccine rollout is happening, that doesn't mean that people will remain happy to be locked down in the future.
Such measures in normal circumstances would likely be deeply unpopular.
Crucially, the email, also sent to Conservative chief executive Darren Mott, shows a second donation of £58,000 was to pay for new decor for Mr Johnson and fiancee Carrie Symonds’s flat at 11 Downing Street.
This has not yet been declared to the Electoral Commission.
The £58,000 was to cover an identical amount secretly paid months earlier by Tory HQ for the refurbishment, including expensive wallpaper – in an attempt to disguise it.
The email appears to prove that the Tories planned to claim the £58,000 was paid not by Lord Brownlow but by a ‘soon to be formed Downing St Trust’ that did not exist – and still doesn’t, officially.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9492829/Leaked-memo-shows-Tory-chief-knew-58-000-donation-Boris-Johnsons-Downing-Street-flat.html
He got the science horribly wrong. He didn't understand asymptomatic transmission. He did not grasp the pro-social reasons for wearing masks. His idiotic, pig-headed myopia increased our death toll. Put him on trial
Headline of the year on The Times!
(Some knowledge of 70s glam rock required) https://twitter.com/JoeMurphyLondon/status/1388068519934316545/photo/1
If the Tories concrete all over the greenbelt and homecounties they will not just lose Remain voting areas of London like Chingford to Starmer Labour, they will lose dozens of soft Leave and Remain voting Home Counties seats which they have already lost to the LDs at council level now over anti development to the LDs at national level too from Chelmsford and Esher and Walton to Tunbridge Wells and Wantage and Witney and Henley and Lewes. That means no Tory majority in 2024.
It is fine for you in the North, you have very low population density and vast amounts of countryside still left and no commuter belt the size of London's so you do not need to worry about development, here in the South, particularly here in the South East, we are far more densely populated and want to preserve the countryside and fields we have to remain livable.
Yes our housing is more expensive but that is a product of living in the London commuter belt, we can build some more affordable housing in brownbelt areas but housing will always be cheaper in the North and Midlands so if you still cannot afford to buy in London and the South then move to the Midlands or North
He is one of the 9,000 Australian nationals stranded in India right now, left to fend for themselves after Canberra this week banned all flights from the pandemic-ravaged nation until mid-May.
-------
What the f##k are you doing there? You have had a year to get back to Australia and its clear the deal, if you leave there is a huge risk you won't be able to return.
My expectation is labour will probably win Hartlepool but it is a tossup and I see labour as the value bet.
The labour campaign has felt a little lacklustre but that may just be Covid.
Once again I'm ashamed to be in the same party as you. I believe in the free market and the free market can solve the housing crisis if we deregulate planning, you do not.
It's not a serious case, him and his wife are just poorly, not gasping. Besides my sympathy is limited, because they caught the bug on a very recent holiday..... in the Himalayas
But what about public transport? Government buildings? OK so what does it matter? Perhaps it doesn't. And it softens us up for restrictive measures whenever the govt pleases.
If I had a cartoon showing the Lab govt saying their new counter terrorism laws were justified and were not able to be abused and then moments later Walter Wolfgang being thrown out of the Lab conference under counter terrorism laws I would post it here now.
Newcastle upon Tyne density - 2,646/km2
They have been building thousands of houses in Newcastle over the past 20 years and continue to do so.
Next election will be fought on cutting the NHS waiting lists and the economy.
"I'm a rugged, freedom luvin' bear, always chaffing against these petty-fogging rules that all you pussies accept without a murmur."
"I'm an astute and seasoned unit, sussing that the "authorities" have a nefarious plan to keep the rules in place even after the virus is gone cos they love the power. I don't just trust them like you naive kiddies."
These are the main 2 strands.
Epping Forest is below average. Not that you'd know it from Mr I'm Alright Jackboots.
Single Market? Definitely. Business will want it, young people will want it (Freedom of Movement), Remainers (and they will still exist) will want it. It's not going away as an issue because Brexity Single Market problems are now a feature not a bug
Sometimes you get big effects, sometimes not, depending on behaviours and how important the intervention is. One of my favourites, as an epidemiologist, is cot deaths and the back to sleep campaign (the evidence started to become known, some midwives were advising back sleeping, prior to the campaigns, so the decline starts earlier than the campaigns, but the national campaign year and year after are striking):
Of course, also a cautionary tale as the advice before then was, due to bad science, to put infants to sleep in a pose similar to adult recovery position - extrapolating from adults to infants on limited evidence.
Similar thing with lockdowns. A lot of what was (and in some cases still is) law should only have been guidance.
It's nine degrees in London, the day before May. We have had more frosts this April than we get in a normal Winter (in toto). Last week in Cornwall I experienced weather I have never before experienced in the UK, intense sun (I got sunburned) but a bitterly cold wind, so cold that even in the sun it was painful to be out
The closest equivalent I can think of is the climate you get in the High Andes. Bolivia, or Peru. Cusco, La Paz.
I have just been on a weather boffin website where someone said the recent weather in England has been closer to the climate of the Cairngorms in summer
He’s pro-Union and seems to want to conserve things.
You’re a libertarian rascal in cross-dress.
Plus it is people moving from densely populated London to the South East which is increasing the demand for housing here.
If people cannot afford to buy in London they move to the South East for cheaper property, if people cannot even afford to buy in the South East then there is a limit to how much affordable housing we can build here in the South East while preserving our countryside so they can move North instead.
You have plenty of space up there, if you are so keen on more development you can have it!
https://lginform.local.gov.uk/reports/lgastandard?mod-metric=176&mod-area=E92000001&mod-group=AllRegions_England&mod-type=namedComparisonGroup
https://lginform.local.gov.uk/reports/lgastandard?mod-metric=176&mod-area=E08000021&mod-group=AllMetropolitanBoroughLaInCountry_England&mod-type=namedComparisonGroup
Moderna.
Astonishingly well organised, like nothing I’ve seen from the public sector.
Now that my age is being vaxxed there is a good quotient of yummy-mummies among attendees.
Sorry for the pervy aside.
The most libertarian party in the UK is the Conservative Party, which is sister party to the Australian Liberal Party. I'd rather my party had the name of its Australian sister party but what can you do? 🤷♂️
I am a conservative not a libertarian
We have Theresa May to blame for that.
For a critical juncture in British history - summer 2016 - we could have retained our Single Market membership and all the ancillary trade benefits.
She flunked it, fearing the ultras on the Tory backbench, and not thinking to appeal to likely supporters in Opposition.
It is overwhelmingly in British interests to be able to access the Single Market, and frankly the same is true for Freedom of Movement.
It will return, the only question is when.
You NIMBYs don't actively appreciate that the reason why your Home Counties "green and pleasant land" is so valuable is because of its proximity to the "concrete jungle".
Most in my circle have now moved onto XR, Veganism, BLM, "Equity", LBQT+ history, trashing the Sewell Report, .. things like that. Surprisingly few latch onto trans, however.
In most other countries you would be in the liberal party not the conservative, from Canada to Germany to France to Spain too, even here you are more an Orange Book LD who is pro Brexit than a traditional Tory like me
But across "Greater Los Angeles" there is a population density of 212/km^2. That's half the English average. Across that region houses are bigger, have bigger gardens, more green spaces where people live. What of that is objectionable? When people are having to live in extortionate flatshares because of a lack of available housing, what part of more, bigger houses with gardens and green space do you find to be a dystopia?
Besides the thing with the free market that works is if people don't want it, the market won't provide it in general.
There is already a sprawl across the Southeast that already exists. What doesn't exist is sufficient housing for the people living there, nor much in the way for many people of gardens etc.
Some development is needed yes but focused on brownbelt areas first
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leeds-41842608
It's going to get worse.
NO Development After Mine
My area of Newcastle is full of them. Whinging about houses being built despite living in houses built recently on green belt land... They mainly vote Lib Dem funnily enough.
Nimby is a really tiresome expression. I am all for keeping londons green belt green, and I don't live within 200 miles of it.
The brownbelt areas have been done to death. There isn't enough brownbelt. 🤦♂️
The rest of us also do not want to live in an urban sprawl otherwise we would live in suburban London
My area of Newcastle is full of people like you. They think they live in deepest-darkest Northumberland but they actually live 20 minutes from the City Centre. It's ridiculous.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9527659/Several-people-feared-dead-dozens-injured-incident-northern-Israel.html
It's also bad for health. Dense walkable cities are the ideal, endless burbs where everyone drives simply create more obesity
If you want to live in one of the most densely populated areas of Europe - SE England - you have to accept it is unlikely you will get a garden, unless you are rich or lucky. It's a trade off. We all have to make them, all the time
Besides, your argument is pointless. No party will ever adopt this policy, because it would be massively unpopular. The Tories are already pushing the boundaries now, and meeting resistance
Only now that they have allowed developers to build more houses can they have any control over where developers build houses. Not the quantities mind, they're still going to concrete the shit out of the place to keep the
donors to the Tory partydevelopers happy.The Leave Campaign said they'd leave the Single Market but get a trade agreement instead. We left the Single Market and got a trade agreement instead.
Why you think you should get your way when you lost the referendum is beyond me.
There will be problems with our New Relationship with Europe, and we may find ourselves buzzing round like a nimble fly whilst the Commission sits there like a non-nimble lizard. The benefits of bits of alignment to reduce admin and improve mobility may well be blatantly obvious on a case-by-case basis.
And in terms of the raw politics, the UK is back to a lead for the 2016 vote having been a mistake;
https://whatukthinks.org/eu/questions/in-highsight-do-you-think-britain-was-right-or-wrong-to-vote-to-leave-the-eu/
It's fairly cynical politics to not push this yet, and I wonder if remoaner disillusionment with Starmer is one of the things pushing his ratings down. But I get the logic of not saying anything now. Trouble is that you can't share a plan like that without destroying it.
Just owning a home does not make you automatically a Tory voter either, Blair won homeowners with a mortgage in 1997 and 2001
That's a great thing that's happened in Stockton and it needs to happen everywhere. Free market. Have the owner occupier rates in Stockton gone up or down compared to the national average? Has the voting gone up or down compared to the national average?
The developers move on once they're done. The people who buy the homes and live in them are the ones that matter.
The fact is that some leafy middle-class suburbs are going to have to give up some fields.
donors to the Tory partydevelopers are happy, but building more flats to replace these dangerous ones now effectively blocked from the market seems daft.According to Carole Kirkwood anyway, and Laura Tobin.
When the wind drops it’s quite warm.
Because the BTL flats tend not to have any voters in them at all? Or if they do they are Not One of Us (cf. 'home owners as natural Tories' spiel on here passim).
But the greenbelt should be very much the exception not the norm. Reserved areas, not everywhere not already built upon when our population now is about 1/3rd high than it was when the Green Belt was introduced.
Some of these geeks claim we are in a new phase of locking patterns, when the weather gets stuck in a groove and doesn't change as it "should"
Recall the bizarre sunny weather of last spring - the sunniest spring in UK history. Then the grey period from late September to March, the UNsunniest October/Winter in UK history.
Now this eerie cold spell, possibly the coldest April ever. It goes on and on. Locked in. More continental than insular
This evolution would chime with the Gulf Stream weakening
IshmaelZ may find NIMBY a tiresome expression but I'm afraid it is well warranted far too often. Big developers are no saints or innocents when it comes to problems with planning and development, but you propose anything and people who can only be called NIMBY's will emerge.
The ones who object to any amount of development. Who employ blatant disruptive tactics and rhetoric to pretend they are only objecting on specific grounds rather than implacably opposed - there is always more consultation needed, more studies needed, more evidence, no matter how much has been done, they are not against development, they say, just not here, it's a democratic outrage that planning laws exist, because 50 people in a village of 3000 have objected, they search for a pretext to refuse when their real reason is not valid (see 5G masts), they want cheaper homes but don't want any built, etc etc
I don't want a free for all on Britain's green pastures, that's too simplistic a solution, but NIMBY's are most definitely a thing.
Basildon has less population density than Newcastle and we've been building houses on a massive scale for the past 20 years.
The City of Chelmsford has 1/5 of the population density of Newcastle.
There's plenty of room in the South.
Once the LDs win control of the council they then often move on to win the MP as they did from 1997 to 2010 for example