Some development is needed yes but focused on brownbelt areas first
The classic NIMBY mating call
Everyone's a NIMBY, though, when it comes down to it.
Why would you volunteer for 2-3 years of difficulty selling your house, construction noise, blighted views, extra traffic and a potential impact on your property price?
You'd have to pay residents £30-£40k a pop to make it go away, which isn't viable.
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.
This really isn't true. Lots of prominent Leavers insisted we would stay in the Single Market. Like Daniel Hannan, the Viscount Brexit
"Absolutely no one is talking about threatening our place in the Single Market"
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.
I feel like you're missing the point. I'm not saying we should bulldoze Epping Forest. I was making a point about NIMBYs in general.
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?
There is mediocre green belt land and there is pristine green belt land. The idea one should flatten Epping Forest – an absolute living gem and prized ancient woodland loved by the folk of north and east London is madness. It is the lung of north London.
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. 🤦♂️
Presumably you're also in favour of all those High Street shops being turned into flats. Yours is a grim future - the country as a vast housing estate punctuated by the occasional ring-road DIY store.
And that will be England gone, The shadows, the meadows, the lanes, The guildhalls, the carved choirs. There’ll be books; it will linger on In galleries; but all that remains For us will be concrete and tyres.
Most things are never meant. This won’t be, most likely; but greeds And garbage are too thick-strewn To be swept up now, or invent Excuses that make them all needs. I just think it will happen, soon.
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? 🤷♂️
You're more Eng Nat than libertarian or any other 'ian' or 'ist'.
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?
Building on green belt does screw the next generation. And the current generation left behind. We ought to be building new towns, up north, or refurbishing run-down towns. That will include subsidising employers to move there. We need to spread economic activity throughout the country, not concentrate prosperity in London and the Home Counties commuter belt.
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
I don't think we know. We're at the confluence of three different weather systems, which is why I think it will be more erratic and unpredictable.
We'll live, of course, sea level rises will be far more modest than people think, but I could see weird shit like frosts in June, occasionally, and heatwaves in November.
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.
I feel like you're missing the point. I'm not saying we should bulldoze Epping Forest. I was making a point about NIMBYs in general.
In which case, I apologise. I was late to the discussion and may have got the wrong end of the stick!
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.
Absolutely Epping Forest itself should be protected.
However the actual woodland is a teensy tiny proportion of the borough of Epping Forest. So sure protect the Forest itself, but the rest of the borough?
Some development is needed yes but focused on brownbelt areas first
The classic NIMBY mating call
Everyone's a NIMBY, though, when it comes down to it.
Why would you volunteer for 2-3 years of difficulty selling your house, construction noise, blighted views, extra traffic and a potential impact on your property price?
You'd have to pay residents £30-£40k a pop to make it go away, which isn't viable.
Well my house was built in 2018 on green belt land. I cannot in good conscious complain about further development. I bought the house with an understanding that the views of the Northumberland countryside from my window are unlikely to last. I feel all people should go into such transactions with that expectation rather than any other entitlement.
Some development is needed yes but focused on brownbelt areas first
The classic NIMBY mating call
Yes, that was a very 'local councillor' answer. Brownfield is certainly something people would like to focus on, and developers are pretty unscrupulous at trying to unlock more greenfield areas first instead, but what people generally want when they bang on about brownbelt or brownfield is there should be no new development around edges/on fields until that happens, and politicians imply that by saying focus on brownbelt, since of course they know that certainly cannot be guaranteed.
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.
There's plenty of room in the South.
Newcastle has a far bigger population than Chelmsford or Basildon.
However the North East has no city anywhere near the population of London and lots of Londoners keep moving out to buy here because it is cheaper and livable.
Most residents here in Epping Forest already own their own properties, the home ownership issue is only really a major issue in London anyway where most now rent, but London is full of brownbelt where cheaper properties can be built so Londoners can afford to buy in their own city and then fewer would need to move out here in the South and East and we would not have as much demand for new housing here.
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.
Do tell. Because any pub which is open at the moment must have a significant garden, and/or a large terrace on the street, making it quite prominent
A pub in Hampstead with a large beer garden, which is "quiet and out of the way"? Really?
Luckily, I don't need to visit this pub, as I live right next door to a vast, yet little-known park, the Regent's Park. Most people aren't aware of it and head straight for Clapham Common, or their acid trip ends
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
For now most are - and many of them want to pull the ladder up behind them.
However the home ownership rates are trending in the wrong direction, with the vote trending in the wrong direction too as a result. Or perhaps for those who can't own their home they see it as the right direction? Up here homes are being built, sprawls are happening, and as a result people are buying and owning their own home and voting accordingly.
I'd vote for a local councillor if they flat out said that housing targets are what they are and there's only so much they can do.
The usual form of words is something like they will 'fight for sustainable development in appropriate locations' but that's a bit too weaselly for me (though they certainly can succeed in defeating or at least pushing back developer hopes for specific sites which are truly unreasonable in the short to medium term, but that's harder to say).
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.
But she flunked it for a compelling political reason. If she'd gone the overt Soft Brexit route she'd have been toppled as Tory leader.
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.
Do tell. Because any pub which is open at the moment must have a significant garden, and/or a large terrace on the street, making it quite prominent
A pub in Hampstead with a large beer garden, which is "quiet and out of the way"? Really?
Luckily, I don't need to visit this pub, as I live right next door to a vast, yet little-known park, the Regent's Park. Most people aren't aware of it and head straight for Clapham Common, or their acid trip ends
Doesn't The Old Bull and Bush have a beer garden? Is that still going?
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
You say it would be massively unpopular but the Tories have pushed this policy up here in the North - and are reaping the rewards as a result as red seats turn blue once people are able to own their own home.
If NIMBYism leads to the South being mostly renting instead of owner occupiers it will switch red and it will deserve to do so too. That's already happened in London and it is spreading out from there as people get priced out of the market.
So no it won't be unpopular, not long term. What is unpopular in the long term is ensuring people have no choice but to be tenants.
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
We reconvened our Beer club in Edinburgh last night for the first time in over a year. It was great but my word it was cold. 5 degrees + a windchill factor. Bracing. If only Nicola would let us drink indoors...
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.
Absolutely Epping Forest itself should be protected.
However the actual woodland is a teensy tiny proportion of the borough of Epping Forest. So sure protect the Forest itself, but the rest of the borough?
Very clever to have the name apply to the borough though. Reminds me how land designated as ancient woodland does not mean every part of it has, well, ancient woods on it, and one example I saw had cash crop trees but of course people were outraged that part of it would be used for something not ancient woodlandy (not houses, I add).
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.
This really isn't true. Lots of prominent Leavers insisted we would stay in the Single Market. Like Daniel Hannan, the Viscount Brexit
"Absolutely no one is talking about threatening our place in the Single Market"
The EU are 2 months behind us, possibly slightly more but then their takeup levels will be lower. So if they don't fully open up until the end of the summer and have a daily death rate 5, maybe 10 times higher than the UK I don't think anyone will be looking across the Channel and easily forgetting the UK's success.
Vaccine rates or not....the UK still has an unenviable mortality rate compared to many of our European friends....
Far too high of course, but our death rate will probably end up close to the European average and yet our economy and freedoms will be recovered much quicker.
I really hope you are right..... but that is a massive `probably`.
Not really imo.
Very likely to be within +/- 10%.
EU mortality is very consistent, and one more month at the current rate will do it. Unfortunately the current 3rd wave will not be choked off in that timespan.
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.
Do tell. Because any pub which is open at the moment must have a significant garden, and/or a large terrace on the street, making it quite prominent
A pub in Hampstead with a large beer garden, which is "quiet and out of the way"? Really?
Luckily, I don't need to visit this pub, as I live right next door to a vast, yet little-known park, the Regent's Park. Most people aren't aware of it and head straight for Clapham Common, or their acid trip ends
Doesn't The Old Bull and Bush have a beer garden? Is that still going?
Probably, but that's in Highgate, not Hampstead.
And I know all the pubs in Highgate with beer gardens are rammed. Hampstead must be even rammier
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?
There is mediocre green belt land and there is pristine green belt land. The idea one should flatten Epping Forest – an absolute living gem and prized ancient woodland loved by the folk of north and east London is madness. It is the lung of north London.
Nobody, not one single person, has suggested that we should.
But the Forest is not the borough. Do you have any idea what percentage of the borough is outside of that woodland?
Some development is needed yes but focused on brownbelt areas first
The classic NIMBY mating call
Everyone's a NIMBY, though, when it comes down to it.
Why would you volunteer for 2-3 years of difficulty selling your house, construction noise, blighted views, extra traffic and a potential impact on your property price?
You'd have to pay residents £30-£40k a pop to make it go away, which isn't viable.
The issue isn't NIMBY tendency itself, of course that is natural to a degree, but how much disruption and delay pandering to that NIMBYism can cause even when it is clear there is not the reasoning or evidence to back them up. Sometimes there is evidence to back it up, but the common NIMBY reaction means the justified ones are hard to tell apart from the unjustified.
A classic scenario many councillors have to grapple with is when an area already has outline permission for something, so there can still be objections to full permission in various areas, but their NIMBY residents pushing them to object are pretty clearly still arguing about the principle, which is already settled.
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?
There is mediocre green belt land and there is pristine green belt land. The idea one should flatten Epping Forest – an absolute living gem and prized ancient woodland loved by the folk of north and east London is madness. It is the lung of north London.
Nobody, not one single person, has suggested that we should.
But the Forest is not the borough. Do you have any idea what percentage of the borough is outside of that woodland?
Also @HYUFD specifically mentioned fields. Fields aren't woodland.
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
You say it would be massively unpopular but the Tories have pushed this policy up here in the North - and are reaping the rewards as a result as red seats turn blue once people are able to own their own home.
If NIMBYism leads to the South being mostly renting instead of owner occupiers it will switch red and it will deserve to do so too. That's already happened in London and it is spreading out from there as people get priced out of the market.
So no it won't be unpopular, not long term. What is unpopular in the long term is ensuring people have no choice but to be tenants.
The answer is obvious, post Covid. Convert all the empty offices to housing. People will go back to living in the City. Canary Wharf will buzz with life all week. They will be flats but they will be affordable for young people. Sorted
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
You say it would be massively unpopular but the Tories have pushed this policy up here in the North - and are reaping the rewards as a result as red seats turn blue once people are able to own their own home.
If NIMBYism leads to the South being mostly renting instead of owner occupiers it will switch red and it will deserve to do so too. That's already happened in London and it is spreading out from there as people get priced out of the market.
So no it won't be unpopular, not long term. What is unpopular in the long term is ensuring people have no choice but to be tenants.
No, that was mainly because of Corbyn and Brexit and the desire to get Brexit done.
The Tories lost 13 seats in 2017 and gained 48 seats in 2019, there was not a vast increase in home ownership in the North in those 2 years and in fact here in Epping Forest we have one of the safest Tory seats nationally already with 64% voting Tory in 2019 but at local level the LDs and Greens are making inroads because of opposition to new development.
In London we do have a problem because most Londoners now rent and vote Labour but that means it is London where most of the new affordable housing should be built in brownbelt there as it is London where we have the biggest shortage of homeowning Tory voters not the SouthEast. Indeed many Londoners already only move to the SouthEast to buy a cheaper property than they could get in London and then become Tory voters anyway
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.
Oh, why? In case you get D&V?
Maybe. But I suspect it's more to do with keeping out the sorts of people who would order oysters in a pub instead of just necking a few jars like normal proper blokes 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".
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.
As you say people don't realise there is mediocre or unexceptional greenbelt. Or refer to land as greenbelt when it is not Greenbelt, as it were.
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
You say it would be massively unpopular but the Tories have pushed this policy up here in the North - and are reaping the rewards as a result as red seats turn blue once people are able to own their own home.
If NIMBYism leads to the South being mostly renting instead of owner occupiers it will switch red and it will deserve to do so too. That's already happened in London and it is spreading out from there as people get priced out of the market.
So no it won't be unpopular, not long term. What is unpopular in the long term is ensuring people have no choice but to be tenants.
No, that was mainly because of Corbyn and Brexit and the desire to get Brexit done.
The Tories lost 13 seats in 2017 and gained 48 seats in 2019, there was not a vast increase in home ownership in the North in those 2 years and in fact here in Epping Forest we have one of the safest Tory seats nationally already with 64% voting Tory in 2019 but at local level the LDs are making inroads because of opposition to new development.
In London we do have a problem because most Londoners now rent and vote Labour but that means it is London where most of the new affordable housing should be built in brownbelt there as it is London where we have the biggest shortage of homeowning Tory voters
You're 100% wrong.
The North, as those of us who live or lived here from across the political spectrum like myself, Gallowgate and RochdalePioneers can confirm, has been absolutely abuzz for the past decade in construction.
The trend from red to blue did not begin in 2019 and wasn't simply a Brexit factor (which is why its not fading away now), the trend has been going on for the past decade and predates Brexit. It will continue too.
Home ownership rates in the north and south are reversing, political allegiances are too as a result.
Your I'm Alright Jackboots selfishness in suggesting that building should only happen in London when there isn't the brownfield space to build enough homes in London for the people who need them is disgusting.
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.
Oh, why? In case you get D&V?
Maybe. But I suspect it's more to do with keeping out the sorts of people who would order oysters in a pub instead of just necking a few jars like normal proper blokes do.
Alternatively, it's a lie? There is no quiet, out of the way pub in Hampstead with a large beer garden that you can just breeze into.
I kinda wish is wasn't a lie, tho.
For decades I had a fantasy that I would happen upon a hidden corner of Regent's Park, barely known, not even on the map, a total secret, full of wildflowers and maybe native English fauna. A tiny tiny Eden in the middle of London
A couple of years ago I did, indeed, chance upon a corner of the Park I'd never visited before, enchantingly pretty, not entirely unknown, but new to me. Not Eden, but delightful. Incredible that I had never discovered it hitherto. I've lived near this park for 35 years
A secret gem of a leafy pub in Hampstead would be like that
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?
There is mediocre green belt land and there is pristine green belt land. The idea one should flatten Epping Forest – an absolute living gem and prized ancient woodland loved by the folk of north and east London is madness. It is the lung of north London.
Nobody, not one single person, has suggested that we should.
But the Forest is not the borough. Do you have any idea what percentage of the borough is outside of that woodland?
When I last looked London "greenbelt" was full of scrubland and poor quality ground.
We will need some of it at some time, but not that much.
I think office->resi in London offers a lot, but we also need some ultra-high density. Turn one of those riverside Council Estates into a river city on the density of the Barbican, or higher. A real Singapore-on-Thames.
The green belt is one of the great British inventions of the 20th century.
I know brownfield is a cliche but when I look at my own local inner boroughs (Islington, Hackney) I see very largely low rise development and lots of room for more dwellings.
Provided protection is there for historic buildings and streetscapes, I am a YIMBY.
If that really is the answer, why can't BoZo say it?
Vanity. He doesn't want to be seen as somebody who can't afford 60 grand for a renovation.
Perhaps he's been telling Carrie he's loaded.
Boris is loaded by any normal definition. He is surely a millionaire, even if he cannot rub shoulders with Rishi or Jacob Rees-Mogg.
He's affluent compared to most but in his circles he's a pauper. Of the various arguments advanced for the case that he'll step down as PM before he has to, this one - money - is the one I find the strongest. I still don't quite buy it, but it does make sense and wouldn't be a total shock.
Some enterprising young chap round here set up a "temporary mobile" bar, usually reserved for music festivals, on a bit of waste land and car park on an industrial estate near me. It's proving incredibly popular and has acres of outdoor space.
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?
There is mediocre green belt land and there is pristine green belt land. The idea one should flatten Epping Forest – an absolute living gem and prized ancient woodland loved by the folk of north and east London is madness. It is the lung of north London.
Nobody, not one single person, has suggested that we should.
But the Forest is not the borough. Do you have any idea what percentage of the borough is outside of that woodland?
When I last looked London "greenbelt" was full of scrubland and poor quality ground.
We will need some of it at some time, but not that much.
I think office->resi in London offers a lot, but we also need some ultra-high density. Turn one of those riverside Council Estates into a river city on the density of the Barbican, or higher. A real Singapore-on-Thames.
Isn't the problem that British people don't want ultra-high density? We want sprawling suburbia with gardens, garages, and drives.
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?
There is mediocre green belt land and there is pristine green belt land. The idea one should flatten Epping Forest – an absolute living gem and prized ancient woodland loved by the folk of north and east London is madness. It is the lung of north London.
Nobody, not one single person, has suggested that we should.
But the Forest is not the borough. Do you have any idea what percentage of the borough is outside of that woodland?
When I last looked London "greenbelt" was full of scrubland and poor quality ground.
We will need some of it at some time, but not that much.
I think office->resi in London offers a lot, but we also need some ultra-high density. Turn one of those riverside Council Estates into a river city on the density of the Barbican, or higher. A real Singapore-on-Thames.
The scrubland should be greened. Yes to a Barbican-on-sea.
Much of East London is - STILL - post-industrial wasteland.
As far as I can remember I have never been to Epping Forest and know little about it so I hit Wikipedia. It sounded like a place to visit until I got to the body count! James Moody in particular sounds like a delightful character.
Some enterprising young chap round here set up a "temporary mobile" bar, usually reserved for music festivals, on a bit of waste land and car park on an industrial estate near me. It's proving incredibly popular and has acres of outdoor space.
Still incredibly cold mind. I miss the indoors.
Disappointing. I always thought that chaps in Newcastle didn't put their T shirts on until it was about -5.
Re the weather. One of the great problems is that our memories are rarely accurate. What was the weather line in April 1989? Or 1999? Its hard to say from memory. In my head my summer holidays were all warm and sunny and spent in North Devon. Only one part of that sentence is true. UK weather is usually dominated by westerlies, but by no means always. When things get stuck in different patterns, we tend to notice. Great events such as 1948, 1963, 1976 and so on stick in the memory because they were so unusual. Its odd that for the time of the pandemic, the UK weather has been unusual, but I'd draw no conclusions from it. Its also important to remember what an average temperature means. Saying the temperature should be about 16 for London in April (or whatever) does not reflect day to day variability, in the same way that taking 100 people and averaging their ages (lets say 40?) does not mean everyone you meet will be 40.
Operator of the UK’s biggest fishing vessel, currently in dock in Hull, suggests it may have done its last catch, and that all cod will have to be imported now, after failure to secure deals (apart from Svalbard) in waters fished routinely last year https://twitter.com/faisalislam/status/1387835064554336263
Some enterprising young chap round here set up a "temporary mobile" bar, usually reserved for music festivals, on a bit of waste land and car park on an industrial estate near me. It's proving incredibly popular and has acres of outdoor space.
Still incredibly cold mind. I miss the indoors.
Disappointing. I always thought that chaps in Newcastle didn't put their T shirts on until it was about -5.
Aye, but that's usually after 10 hours drinking broon ale in a tightly packed and sweltering pub.
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.
But she flunked it for a compelling political reason. If she'd gone the overt Soft Brexit route she'd have been toppled as Tory leader.
I don’t believe that to be true. For a brief moment - a few months - nobody could define Brexit.
Remainers were in shock. Theresa said nothing, and the loons on her backbench were able to shape the narrative.
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?
There is mediocre green belt land and there is pristine green belt land. The idea one should flatten Epping Forest – an absolute living gem and prized ancient woodland loved by the folk of north and east London is madness. It is the lung of north London.
Nobody, not one single person, has suggested that we should.
But the Forest is not the borough. Do you have any idea what percentage of the borough is outside of that woodland?
When I last looked London "greenbelt" was full of scrubland and poor quality ground.
We will need some of it at some time, but not that much.
I think office->resi in London offers a lot, but we also need some ultra-high density. Turn one of those riverside Council Estates into a river city on the density of the Barbican, or higher. A real Singapore-on-Thames.
Isn't the problem that British people don't want ultra-high density? We want sprawling suburbia with gardens, garages, and drives.
I think it varies depending on your time of life. Most single people in their 20s will put up with living on top of each other, but having five kids in a tiny flat on the 18th story of a tower block would be a nightmare.
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
You say it would be massively unpopular but the Tories have pushed this policy up here in the North - and are reaping the rewards as a result as red seats turn blue once people are able to own their own home.
If NIMBYism leads to the South being mostly renting instead of owner occupiers it will switch red and it will deserve to do so too. That's already happened in London and it is spreading out from there as people get priced out of the market.
So no it won't be unpopular, not long term. What is unpopular in the long term is ensuring people have no choice but to be tenants.
No, that was mainly because of Corbyn and Brexit and the desire to get Brexit done.
The Tories lost 13 seats in 2017 and gained 48 seats in 2019, there was not a vast increase in home ownership in the North in those 2 years and in fact here in Epping Forest we have one of the safest Tory seats nationally already with 64% voting Tory in 2019 but at local level the LDs are making inroads because of opposition to new development.
In London we do have a problem because most Londoners now rent and vote Labour but that means it is London where most of the new affordable housing should be built in brownbelt there as it is London where we have the biggest shortage of homeowning Tory voters
You're 100% wrong.
The North, as those of us who live or lived here from across the political spectrum like myself, Gallowgate and RochdalePioneers can confirm, has been absolutely abuzz for the past decade in construction.
The trend from red to blue did not begin in 2019 and wasn't simply a Brexit factor (which is why its not fading away now), the trend has been going on for the past decade and predates Brexit. It will continue too.
Home ownership rates in the north and south are reversing, political allegiances are too as a result.
Your I'm Alright Jackboots selfishness in suggesting that building should only happen in London when there isn't the brownfield space to build enough homes in London for the people who need them is disgusting.
No, I am right.
70% of white British in the East and 72% of those who live in the South East already own their own homes, actually higher than the 66% in Yorkshire, 62% in the North East (and 50% of BME North Easterners) and 67% in the North West who own their own homes.
Only in London is the home ownership rate lower than in the North with only 62% of white British Londoners and just 35% of BME Londoners owning their own home.
Some enterprising young chap round here set up a "temporary mobile" bar, usually reserved for music festivals, on a bit of waste land and car park on an industrial estate near me. It's proving incredibly popular and has acres of outdoor space.
Still incredibly cold mind. I miss the indoors.
Disappointing. I always thought that chaps in Newcastle didn't put their T shirts on until it was about -5.
Aye, but that's usually after 10 hours drinking broon ale in a tightly packed and sweltering pub.
The way it was explained to me it was:
-5 T shirts -20 a light jacket -50 hell freezes over and Sunderland qualify for Europe.
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?
There is mediocre green belt land and there is pristine green belt land. The idea one should flatten Epping Forest – an absolute living gem and prized ancient woodland loved by the folk of north and east London is madness. It is the lung of north London.
Nobody, not one single person, has suggested that we should.
But the Forest is not the borough. Do you have any idea what percentage of the borough is outside of that woodland?
When I last looked London "greenbelt" was full of scrubland and poor quality ground.
We will need some of it at some time, but not that much.
I think office->resi in London offers a lot, but we also need some ultra-high density. Turn one of those riverside Council Estates into a river city on the density of the Barbican, or higher. A real Singapore-on-Thames.
Isn't the problem that British people don't want ultra-high density? We want sprawling suburbia with gardens, garages, and drives.
I think it varies depending on your time of life. Most single people in their 20s will put up with living on top of each other, but having five kids in a tiny flat on the 18th story of a tower block would be a nightmare.
Of course, but young people on young people salaries won't be able to afford a flat in "Singapore-on-Thames", which no doubt will be bought up by Chinese investors and/or be covered in flammable cladding
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.
Do tell. Because any pub which is open at the moment must have a significant garden, and/or a large terrace on the street, making it quite prominent
A pub in Hampstead with a large beer garden, which is "quiet and out of the way"? Really?
Luckily, I don't need to visit this pub, as I live right next door to a vast, yet little-known park, the Regent's Park. Most people aren't aware of it and head straight for Clapham Common, or their acid trip ends
This one is a little bar in the Belsize area with a couple of tables outside.
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.
But she flunked it for a compelling political reason. If she'd gone the overt Soft Brexit route she'd have been toppled as Tory leader.
I don’t believe that to be true. For a brief moment - a few months - nobody could define Brexit.
Remainers were in shock. Theresa said nothing, and the loons on her backbench were able to shape the narrative.
You mean the people who won the referendum defined it using the arguments made by both sides during the referendum? 🤔
What a shock that the losers who lost the referendum didn't get to redefine defeat into victory.
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?
There is mediocre green belt land and there is pristine green belt land. The idea one should flatten Epping Forest – an absolute living gem and prized ancient woodland loved by the folk of north and east London is madness. It is the lung of north London.
Nobody, not one single person, has suggested that we should.
But the Forest is not the borough. Do you have any idea what percentage of the borough is outside of that woodland?
When I last looked London "greenbelt" was full of scrubland and poor quality ground.
We will need some of it at some time, but not that much.
I think office->resi in London offers a lot, but we also need some ultra-high density. Turn one of those riverside Council Estates into a river city on the density of the Barbican, or higher. A real Singapore-on-Thames.
Isn't the problem that British people don't want ultra-high density? We want sprawling suburbia with gardens, garages, and drives.
Highrise in Docklands has been desirable, as has the Barbican and similar - including similar in some lower priced areas.
I think there is a niche in London.
After all, London has 300k French people and nearly 4m EU citizens have registered to stay in the UK - for a start.
Some development is needed yes but focused on brownbelt areas first
The classic NIMBY mating call
Everyone's a NIMBY, though, when it comes down to it.
Why would you volunteer for 2-3 years of difficulty selling your house, construction noise, blighted views, extra traffic and a potential impact on your property price?
You'd have to pay residents £30-£40k a pop to make it go away, which isn't viable.
The issue isn't NIMBY tendency itself, of course that is natural to a degree, but how much disruption and delay pandering to that NIMBYism can cause even when it is clear there is not the reasoning or evidence to back them up. Sometimes there is evidence to back it up, but the common NIMBY reaction means the justified ones are hard to tell apart from the unjustified.
A classic scenario many councillors have to grapple with is when an area already has outline permission for something, so there can still be objections to full permission in various areas, but their NIMBY residents pushing them to object are pretty clearly still arguing about the principle, which is already settled.
Why would it be any different?
Existing residents have votes. Prospective ones do not.
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
We reconvened our Beer club in Edinburgh last night for the first time in over a year. It was great but my word it was cold. 5 degrees + a windchill factor. Bracing. If only Nicola would let us drink indoors...
Cheer up, if she’d let you get ripped in Auld Reekie before Christmas, a chilly April pint might be the least of your worries,
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"...
I think that nonsense. The consent to current rules is temporary and provisional - and the fact that the degree to, and point beyond which, people find them objectionable differs considerably really doesn’t matter once most decide they are no longer necessary or justifiable.
And so the prediction that wokeness would empty the museums begins to come true. Though in this case it just means more visitors to the British Museum and other sensible places that aren't interested in becoming ornate sieves holding a collection of empty air.
Another problem with high-rise in the UK is that we don't build enough car parking. This will become even more of a problem when electric cars become common place.
Any high-rise should include secure underground car parking and space for at least 2 vehicles per unit.
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?
There is mediocre green belt land and there is pristine green belt land. The idea one should flatten Epping Forest – an absolute living gem and prized ancient woodland loved by the folk of north and east London is madness. It is the lung of north London.
Nobody, not one single person, has suggested that we should.
But the Forest is not the borough. Do you have any idea what percentage of the borough is outside of that woodland?
When I last looked London "greenbelt" was full of scrubland and poor quality ground.
We will need some of it at some time, but not that much.
I think office->resi in London offers a lot, but we also need some ultra-high density. Turn one of those riverside Council Estates into a river city on the density of the Barbican, or higher. A real Singapore-on-Thames.
Isn't the problem that British people don't want ultra-high density? We want sprawling suburbia with gardens, garages, and drives.
I think it varies depending on your time of life. Most single people in their 20s will put up with living on top of each other, but having five kids in a tiny flat on the 18th story of a tower block would be a nightmare.
Of course, but young people on young people salaries won't be able to afford a flat in "Singapore-on-Thames", which no doubt will be bought up by Chinese investors and/or be covered in flammable cladding
Maybe not just investors. Maybe tens of thousands of migrants from HK. That would really put the after burners on so far as London's attempts to break into the Pacific markets are concerned.
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
You say it would be massively unpopular but the Tories have pushed this policy up here in the North - and are reaping the rewards as a result as red seats turn blue once people are able to own their own home.
If NIMBYism leads to the South being mostly renting instead of owner occupiers it will switch red and it will deserve to do so too. That's already happened in London and it is spreading out from there as people get priced out of the market.
So no it won't be unpopular, not long term. What is unpopular in the long term is ensuring people have no choice but to be tenants.
No, that was mainly because of Corbyn and Brexit and the desire to get Brexit done.
The Tories lost 13 seats in 2017 and gained 48 seats in 2019, there was not a vast increase in home ownership in the North in those 2 years and in fact here in Epping Forest we have one of the safest Tory seats nationally already with 64% voting Tory in 2019 but at local level the LDs are making inroads because of opposition to new development.
In London we do have a problem because most Londoners now rent and vote Labour but that means it is London where most of the new affordable housing should be built in brownbelt there as it is London where we have the biggest shortage of homeowning Tory voters
You're 100% wrong.
The North, as those of us who live or lived here from across the political spectrum like myself, Gallowgate and RochdalePioneers can confirm, has been absolutely abuzz for the past decade in construction.
The trend from red to blue did not begin in 2019 and wasn't simply a Brexit factor (which is why its not fading away now), the trend has been going on for the past decade and predates Brexit. It will continue too.
Home ownership rates in the north and south are reversing, political allegiances are too as a result.
Your I'm Alright Jackboots selfishness in suggesting that building should only happen in London when there isn't the brownfield space to build enough homes in London for the people who need them is disgusting.
No, I am right.
70% of white British in the East and 72% of those who live in the South East already own their own homes, actually higher than the 66% in Yorkshire, 62% in the North East (and 50% of BME North Easterners) and 67% in the North West who own their own homes.
Only in London is the home ownership rate lower than in the North with only 62% of white British Londoners and just 35% of BME Londoners owning their own home.
If you exclude London from being part of the South East. 🤦♂️🙄
And anyway my point was the trends. Home ownership was very high in the south but is falling. Home ownership was lower in the north but is rising. The trend is the difference.
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.
Do tell. Because any pub which is open at the moment must have a significant garden, and/or a large terrace on the street, making it quite prominent
A pub in Hampstead with a large beer garden, which is "quiet and out of the way"? Really?
Luckily, I don't need to visit this pub, as I live right next door to a vast, yet little-known park, the Regent's Park. Most people aren't aware of it and head straight for Clapham Common, or their acid trip ends
This one is a little bar in the Belsize area with a couple of tables outside.
Are you implying I'm inventing it?
An outrageous slur if so. I for one do not think that to gain PB cred points for some unfathomable reason a chartered accountant wanting to appear on the case and in order to participate in the debate about all pubs being ram packed would invent a story that he had found a little, out of the way pub in or around Hampstead which very few people go to and for which IIRC no registration was required.
Some development is needed yes but focused on brownbelt areas first
The classic NIMBY mating call
Everyone's a NIMBY, though, when it comes down to it.
Why would you volunteer for 2-3 years of difficulty selling your house, construction noise, blighted views, extra traffic and a potential impact on your property price?
You'd have to pay residents £30-£40k a pop to make it go away, which isn't viable.
The issue isn't NIMBY tendency itself, of course that is natural to a degree, but how much disruption and delay pandering to that NIMBYism can cause even when it is clear there is not the reasoning or evidence to back them up. Sometimes there is evidence to back it up, but the common NIMBY reaction means the justified ones are hard to tell apart from the unjustified.
A classic scenario many councillors have to grapple with is when an area already has outline permission for something, so there can still be objections to full permission in various areas, but their NIMBY residents pushing them to object are pretty clearly still arguing about the principle, which is already settled.
Why would it be any different?
Existing residents have votes. Prospective ones do not.
Some development is needed yes but focused on brownbelt areas first
The classic NIMBY mating call
Everyone's a NIMBY, though, when it comes down to it.
Why would you volunteer for 2-3 years of difficulty selling your house, construction noise, blighted views, extra traffic and a potential impact on your property price?
You'd have to pay residents £30-£40k a pop to make it go away, which isn't viable.
Well my house was built in 2018 on green belt land. I cannot in good conscious complain about further development. I bought the house with an understanding that the views of the Northumberland countryside from my window are unlikely to last. I feel all people should go into such transactions with that expectation rather than any other entitlement.
I understand, and that's commendable.
The crunch time for you, though, will come when proposals go from the general to the particular.
Some development is needed yes but focused on brownbelt areas first
The classic NIMBY mating call
Everyone's a NIMBY, though, when it comes down to it.
Why would you volunteer for 2-3 years of difficulty selling your house, construction noise, blighted views, extra traffic and a potential impact on your property price?
You'd have to pay residents £30-£40k a pop to make it go away, which isn't viable.
Well my house was built in 2018 on green belt land. I cannot in good conscious complain about further development. I bought the house with an understanding that the views of the Northumberland countryside from my window are unlikely to last. I feel all people should go into such transactions with that expectation rather than any other entitlement.
I understand, and that's commendable.
The crunch time for you, though, will come when proposals go from the general to the particular.
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
You say it would be massively unpopular but the Tories have pushed this policy up here in the North - and are reaping the rewards as a result as red seats turn blue once people are able to own their own home.
If NIMBYism leads to the South being mostly renting instead of owner occupiers it will switch red and it will deserve to do so too. That's already happened in London and it is spreading out from there as people get priced out of the market.
So no it won't be unpopular, not long term. What is unpopular in the long term is ensuring people have no choice but to be tenants.
No, that was mainly because of Corbyn and Brexit and the desire to get Brexit done.
The Tories lost 13 seats in 2017 and gained 48 seats in 2019, there was not a vast increase in home ownership in the North in those 2 years and in fact here in Epping Forest we have one of the safest Tory seats nationally already with 64% voting Tory in 2019 but at local level the LDs are making inroads because of opposition to new development.
In London we do have a problem because most Londoners now rent and vote Labour but that means it is London where most of the new affordable housing should be built in brownbelt there as it is London where we have the biggest shortage of homeowning Tory voters
You're 100% wrong.
The North, as those of us who live or lived here from across the political spectrum like myself, Gallowgate and RochdalePioneers can confirm, has been absolutely abuzz for the past decade in construction.
The trend from red to blue did not begin in 2019 and wasn't simply a Brexit factor (which is why its not fading away now), the trend has been going on for the past decade and predates Brexit. It will continue too.
Home ownership rates in the north and south are reversing, political allegiances are too as a result.
Your I'm Alright Jackboots selfishness in suggesting that building should only happen in London when there isn't the brownfield space to build enough homes in London for the people who need them is disgusting.
No, I am right.
70% of white British in the East and 72% of those who live in the South East already own their own homes, actually higher than the 66% in Yorkshire, 62% in the North East (and 50% of BME North Easterners) and 67% in the North West who own their own homes.
Only in London is the home ownership rate lower than in the North with only 62% of white British Londoners and just 35% of BME Londoners owning their own home.
If you exclude London from being part of the South East. 🤦♂️🙄
And anyway my point was the trends. Home ownership was very high in the south but is falling. Home ownership was lower in the north but is rising. The trend is the difference.
London is not part of the South East no, it is overspill from Londoners looking for cheaper properties they can buy in the South East which is creating the demand for development here as not enough new affordable housing to buy is being built in London
Re the weather. One of the great problems is that our memories are rarely accurate. What was the weather line in April 1989? Or 1999? Its hard to say from memory. In my head my summer holidays were all warm and sunny and spent in North Devon. Only one part of that sentence is true. UK weather is usually dominated by westerlies, but by no means always. When things get stuck in different patterns, we tend to notice. Great events such as 1948, 1963, 1976 and so on stick in the memory because they were so unusual. Its odd that for the time of the pandemic, the UK weather has been unusual, but I'd draw no conclusions from it. Its also important to remember what an average temperature means. Saying the temperature should be about 16 for London in April (or whatever) does not reflect day to day variability, in the same way that taking 100 people and averaging their ages (lets say 40?) does not mean everyone you meet will be 40.
The people walking past my flat are wearing winter coats, woolly hats and SCARVES
It is 10C with a biting wind. Tomorrow is the first of May. It has been cold for months; it is odd. Probably nothing, but it is odd
And so the prediction that wokeness would empty the museums begins to come true. Though in this case it just means more visitors to the British Museum and other sensible places that aren't interested in becoming ornate sieves holding a collection of empty air.
I'm always surprised* that the chaps who think Athenians should be happy with exact facsimiles of their statuary aren't content with the same arrangement for their own museums. The Bronzes should be relatively simple to reproduce compared to the Marbles I think.
Re the weather. One of the great problems is that our memories are rarely accurate. What was the weather line in April 1989? Or 1999? Its hard to say from memory. In my head my summer holidays were all warm and sunny and spent in North Devon. Only one part of that sentence is true. UK weather is usually dominated by westerlies, but by no means always. When things get stuck in different patterns, we tend to notice. Great events such as 1948, 1963, 1976 and so on stick in the memory because they were so unusual. Its odd that for the time of the pandemic, the UK weather has been unusual, but I'd draw no conclusions from it. Its also important to remember what an average temperature means. Saying the temperature should be about 16 for London in April (or whatever) does not reflect day to day variability, in the same way that taking 100 people and averaging their ages (lets say 40?) does not mean everyone you meet will be 40.
The people walking past my flat are wearing winter coats, woolly hats and SCARVES
It is 10C with a biting wind. Tomorrow is the first of May. It has been cold for months; it is odd. Probably nothing, but it is odd
Imagine if a year ago instead of basking in the glorious sunshine of the time it had been like this.
Some development is needed yes but focused on brownbelt areas first
The classic NIMBY mating call
Everyone's a NIMBY, though, when it comes down to it.
Why would you volunteer for 2-3 years of difficulty selling your house, construction noise, blighted views, extra traffic and a potential impact on your property price?
You'd have to pay residents £30-£40k a pop to make it go away, which isn't viable.
Well my house was built in 2018 on green belt land. I cannot in good conscious complain about further development. I bought the house with an understanding that the views of the Northumberland countryside from my window are unlikely to last. I feel all people should go into such transactions with that expectation rather than any other entitlement.
I understand, and that's commendable.
The crunch time for you, though, will come when proposals go from the general to the particular.
It is an exceptionally selfish creed.
Utterly contemptible.
So stop cheerleading for the party whose lifeblood it is.
Some development is needed yes but focused on brownbelt areas first
The classic NIMBY mating call
Everyone's a NIMBY, though, when it comes down to it.
Why would you volunteer for 2-3 years of difficulty selling your house, construction noise, blighted views, extra traffic and a potential impact on your property price?
You'd have to pay residents £30-£40k a pop to make it go away, which isn't viable.
Well my house was built in 2018 on green belt land. I cannot in good conscious complain about further development. I bought the house with an understanding that the views of the Northumberland countryside from my window are unlikely to last. I feel all people should go into such transactions with that expectation rather than any other entitlement.
I understand, and that's commendable.
The crunch time for you, though, will come when proposals go from the general to the particular.
It is an exceptionally selfish creed.
Utterly contemptible.
So stop cheerleading for the party whose lifeblood it is.
It comes with zero car parking, other than a bit of "on street parking". Zero car parking for "luxury apartments"!
Absolutely insane.
Not insane at all. Clairvoyant
Cars are going. Electric self drive cars will be here in 5-10 years. World changing. No need to own a car. It will transform our cities for the better, making them cleaner, quieter, lovelier. All those car parks, drives, garages? - gone. They can be turned into urban woodlands. Marvellous.
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
You say it would be massively unpopular but the Tories have pushed this policy up here in the North - and are reaping the rewards as a result as red seats turn blue once people are able to own their own home.
If NIMBYism leads to the South being mostly renting instead of owner occupiers it will switch red and it will deserve to do so too. That's already happened in London and it is spreading out from there as people get priced out of the market.
So no it won't be unpopular, not long term. What is unpopular in the long term is ensuring people have no choice but to be tenants.
No, that was mainly because of Corbyn and Brexit and the desire to get Brexit done.
The Tories lost 13 seats in 2017 and gained 48 seats in 2019, there was not a vast increase in home ownership in the North in those 2 years and in fact here in Epping Forest we have one of the safest Tory seats nationally already with 64% voting Tory in 2019 but at local level the LDs are making inroads because of opposition to new development.
In London we do have a problem because most Londoners now rent and vote Labour but that means it is London where most of the new affordable housing should be built in brownbelt there as it is London where we have the biggest shortage of homeowning Tory voters
You're 100% wrong.
The North, as those of us who live or lived here from across the political spectrum like myself, Gallowgate and RochdalePioneers can confirm, has been absolutely abuzz for the past decade in construction.
The trend from red to blue did not begin in 2019 and wasn't simply a Brexit factor (which is why its not fading away now), the trend has been going on for the past decade and predates Brexit. It will continue too.
Home ownership rates in the north and south are reversing, political allegiances are too as a result.
Your I'm Alright Jackboots selfishness in suggesting that building should only happen in London when there isn't the brownfield space to build enough homes in London for the people who need them is disgusting.
No, I am right.
70% of white British in the East and 72% of those who live in the South East already own their own homes, actually higher than the 66% in Yorkshire, 62% in the North East (and 50% of BME North Easterners) and 67% in the North West who own their own homes.
Only in London is the home ownership rate lower than in the North with only 62% of white British Londoners and just 35% of BME Londoners owning their own home.
If you exclude London from being part of the South East. 🤦♂️🙄
And anyway my point was the trends. Home ownership was very high in the south but is falling. Home ownership was lower in the north but is rising. The trend is the difference.
London is not part of the South East no, it is overspill from Londoners looking for cheaper properties they can buy in the South East which is creating the demand for development here as not enough new affordable housing to buy is being built in London
It is absolutely farcical to say that London is not part of the South East and very large numbers of people live in what you'd call the South East and commute in to London.
Your argument is like suggesting that Liverpool and Manchester are not a part of the Northwest.
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.
Oh, why? In case you get D&V?
Maybe. But I suspect it's more to do with keeping out the sorts of people who would order oysters in a pub instead of just necking a few jars like normal proper blokes do.
Alternatively, it's a lie? There is no quiet, out of the way pub in Hampstead with a large beer garden that you can just breeze into.
I kinda wish is wasn't a lie, tho.
For decades I had a fantasy that I would happen upon a hidden corner of Regent's Park, barely known, not even on the map, a total secret, full of wildflowers and maybe native English fauna. A tiny tiny Eden in the middle of London
A couple of years ago I did, indeed, chance upon a corner of the Park I'd never visited before, enchantingly pretty, not entirely unknown, but new to me. Not Eden, but delightful. Incredible that I had never discovered it hitherto. I've lived near this park for 35 years
A secret gem of a leafy pub in Hampstead would be like that
The Duke of Hamilton might fit the bill? It's a bit out of the way but still usually very busy.
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.
But she flunked it for a compelling political reason. If she'd gone the overt Soft Brexit route she'd have been toppled as Tory leader.
I don’t believe that to be true. For a brief moment - a few months - nobody could define Brexit.
Remainers were in shock. Theresa said nothing, and the loons on her backbench were able to shape the narrative.
If she'd have 'carpe diem' and defined Brexit as one which continued with Free Movement, she would have been roasted. The immigration issue was such a big driver of the Leave vote. Ending FM was one "red line" she had to have. From there she tried to square the circle and fudge a kind of hard soft Brexit - or soft hard Brexit if we prefer - and she would perhaps have eventually managed it. But it would have been harrowing and politically very tricky - because of the need to avoid passing something only on the back of Labour votes - and she knew this. Hence she gambled with the early election, and losing her majority turned her task (of delivering a pragmatic Brexit AND keeping her job) from "very tricky" to "next to impossible".
It comes with zero car parking, other than a bit of "on street parking". Zero car parking for "luxury apartments"!
Absolutely insane.
Completely agreed.
I've said that I support a free market with planning regulations that people can the built to. I would put an expectation of 2 off-road parking spaces per residence as part of those regulations.
You still need someone capable of driving a car. And they have to stay alert while doing nothing, which is far harder than just driving the damned car yourself.
It comes with zero car parking, other than a bit of "on street parking". Zero car parking for "luxury apartments"!
Absolutely insane.
Not insane at all. Clairvoyant
Cars are going. Electric self drive cars will be here in 5-10 years. World changing. No need to own a car. It will transform our cities for the better, making them cleaner, quieter, lovelier. All those car parks, drives, garages? - gone. They can be turned into urban woodlands. Marvellous.
Embrace the future
I think people will still prefer their own vehicles, to be honest.
Some development is needed yes but focused on brownbelt areas first
The classic NIMBY mating call
Everyone's a NIMBY, though, when it comes down to it.
Why would you volunteer for 2-3 years of difficulty selling your house, construction noise, blighted views, extra traffic and a potential impact on your property price?
You'd have to pay residents £30-£40k a pop to make it go away, which isn't viable.
Well my house was built in 2018 on green belt land. I cannot in good conscious complain about further development. I bought the house with an understanding that the views of the Northumberland countryside from my window are unlikely to last. I feel all people should go into such transactions with that expectation rather than any other entitlement.
I understand, and that's commendable.
The crunch time for you, though, will come when proposals go from the general to the particular.
It is an exceptionally selfish creed.
Utterly contemptible.
So stop cheerleading for the party whose lifeblood it is.
I campaign to change the policy away from it. And its working where I live. Construction is going great guns here. 👍
This is what Johnson said about the Single Market during the campaign:
What we want is for Britain to be like many other countries in having free-trade access to the territory covered by the Single Market – but not to be subject to the vast, growing and politically-driven empire of EU law.
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?
Easy question to answer. Green belt. Lose that and we screw EVERY generation of every species.
Some development is needed yes but focused on brownbelt areas first
The classic NIMBY mating call
Everyone's a NIMBY, though, when it comes down to it.
Why would you volunteer for 2-3 years of difficulty selling your house, construction noise, blighted views, extra traffic and a potential impact on your property price?
You'd have to pay residents £30-£40k a pop to make it go away, which isn't viable.
The issue isn't NIMBY tendency itself, of course that is natural to a degree, but how much disruption and delay pandering to that NIMBYism can cause even when it is clear there is not the reasoning or evidence to back them up. Sometimes there is evidence to back it up, but the common NIMBY reaction means the justified ones are hard to tell apart from the unjustified.
A classic scenario many councillors have to grapple with is when an area already has outline permission for something, so there can still be objections to full permission in various areas, but their NIMBY residents pushing them to object are pretty clearly still arguing about the principle, which is already settled.
Why would it be any different?
Existing residents have votes. Prospective ones do not.
The point was there's not even as many votes in it as the loud NIMBYs might indicate. Obviously you cannot presume all those not objecting support, but they clearly are not as exercised. A local cllr still really has no option but to pander to those NIMBY's to some degree, of course they do, but there is a difference between valid or reasonable objections and unreasonable ones, and where they are unreasonable there should be as little pandering as possible from those in the decision making chain.
It comes with zero car parking, other than a bit of "on street parking". Zero car parking for "luxury apartments"!
Absolutely insane.
Not insane at all. Clairvoyant
Cars are going. Electric self drive cars will be here in 5-10 years. World changing. No need to own a car. It will transform our cities for the better, making them cleaner, quieter, lovelier. All those car parks, drives, garages? - gone. They can be turned into urban woodlands. Marvellous.
Embrace the future
About the only time you sound like a typical member of the metropolitan elite is when you start talking about cars.
London is massively unrepresentative of the rest of the UK.
Re the weather. One of the great problems is that our memories are rarely accurate. What was the weather line in April 1989? Or 1999? Its hard to say from memory. In my head my summer holidays were all warm and sunny and spent in North Devon. Only one part of that sentence is true. UK weather is usually dominated by westerlies, but by no means always. When things get stuck in different patterns, we tend to notice. Great events such as 1948, 1963, 1976 and so on stick in the memory because they were so unusual. Its odd that for the time of the pandemic, the UK weather has been unusual, but I'd draw no conclusions from it. Its also important to remember what an average temperature means. Saying the temperature should be about 16 for London in April (or whatever) does not reflect day to day variability, in the same way that taking 100 people and averaging their ages (lets say 40?) does not mean everyone you meet will be 40.
The people walking past my flat are wearing winter coats, woolly hats and SCARVES
It is 10C with a biting wind. Tomorrow is the first of May. It has been cold for months; it is odd. Probably nothing, but it is odd
I'm a frequenter of weather and climate forums as that's my other big interest and long-ago academic specialism.
It is indeed an unusual pattern though increasingly common in recent springs. Wet and windy with mild zonal flow throughout the boreal winter, and then high latitude anticyclones dominating Europe and the North Atlantic during spring, until the rain returns in early summer. Sometimes the anticyclone is positioned nicely to give us warm weather, like 2018 and 2020. Sometimes it's in the wrong place, as this year - centred over Greenland bringing continuous Northerlies. The so call WACC phenomenon (warm Arctic, cold continents).
Bad news for European vineyards which have been decimated by late frosts after early budburst in 4 out of the last 6 years (2016, 17, 20, 21), with this year's frosts being the worst.
We don't know what has caused this although there are a few statistical matches, with low Arctic ice concentration (reduces the poleward temperature gradient and weakens the jet stream), and low solar activity (does likewise), as well as the North Atlantic cold blob which surfaces to worry everyone about a shutdown of the North Atlantic drift every year or two.
You still need someone capable of driving a car. And they have to stay alert while doing nothing, which is far harder than just driving the damned car yourself.
Duh. They will fix that.
At one point every car had a man in front of it with a flag, because cars weren't trusted. Your discourse is on about that level
AI is going to change everything, this is just one aspect.
Most trains could operate without drivers tomorrow, the Docklands Light Railway has never had drivers, no one minds
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.
Oh, why? In case you get D&V?
Maybe. But I suspect it's more to do with keeping out the sorts of people who would order oysters in a pub instead of just necking a few jars like normal proper blokes do.
Alternatively, it's a lie? There is no quiet, out of the way pub in Hampstead with a large beer garden that you can just breeze into.
I kinda wish is wasn't a lie, tho.
For decades I had a fantasy that I would happen upon a hidden corner of Regent's Park, barely known, not even on the map, a total secret, full of wildflowers and maybe native English fauna. A tiny tiny Eden in the middle of London
A couple of years ago I did, indeed, chance upon a corner of the Park I'd never visited before, enchantingly pretty, not entirely unknown, but new to me. Not Eden, but delightful. Incredible that I had never discovered it hitherto. I've lived near this park for 35 years
A secret gem of a leafy pub in Hampstead would be like that
The Duke of Hamilton might fit the bill? It's a bit out of the way but still usually very busy.
It comes with zero car parking, other than a bit of "on street parking". Zero car parking for "luxury apartments"!
Absolutely insane.
At least it's actual housing rather than yet another block of extortionately priced student flats which is all we seem to get in Leeds, and they add no value to the community.
One local bar in the city centre here that has a roof terrace has been told to turn down their music by a new student tower block since April 12. They've had rooftop events late into the night without issues for years but all of a sudden grouchy first year students can kill off struggling nightlife. I get it's not the students' fault but the developers shouldn't get the priority, they should have to warn prospective tenants of the area.
And so the prediction that wokeness would empty the museums begins to come true. Though in this case it just means more visitors to the British Museum and other sensible places that aren't interested in becoming ornate sieves holding a collection of empty air.
I'm always surprised* that the chaps who think Athenians should be happy with exact facsimiles of their statuary aren't content with the same arrangement for their own museums. The Bronzes should be relatively simple to reproduce compared to the Marbles I think.
*not remotely surprised
Is it this capacity to believe and disbelieve something at the same time that makes independence so attractive to you?
Some development is needed yes but focused on brownbelt areas first
The classic NIMBY mating call
Everyone's a NIMBY, though, when it comes down to it.
Why would you volunteer for 2-3 years of difficulty selling your house, construction noise, blighted views, extra traffic and a potential impact on your property price?
You'd have to pay residents £30-£40k a pop to make it go away, which isn't viable.
Well my house was built in 2018 on green belt land. I cannot in good conscious complain about further development. I bought the house with an understanding that the views of the Northumberland countryside from my window are unlikely to last. I feel all people should go into such transactions with that expectation rather than any other entitlement.
I understand, and that's commendable.
The crunch time for you, though, will come when proposals go from the general to the particular.
I think most people do actually hold firm with their views in that situation. They don't exactly champion the new build, why would they, but they can see objections beyond a point become unreasonable given local circumstances and that they themselves live in FieldWoodMarsh road or some such giving an indication fo what it used to be, so just await the outcome.
Some development is needed yes but focused on brownbelt areas first
The classic NIMBY mating call
Everyone's a NIMBY, though, when it comes down to it.
Why would you volunteer for 2-3 years of difficulty selling your house, construction noise, blighted views, extra traffic and a potential impact on your property price?
You'd have to pay residents £30-£40k a pop to make it go away, which isn't viable.
The issue isn't NIMBY tendency itself, of course that is natural to a degree, but how much disruption and delay pandering to that NIMBYism can cause even when it is clear there is not the reasoning or evidence to back them up. Sometimes there is evidence to back it up, but the common NIMBY reaction means the justified ones are hard to tell apart from the unjustified.
A classic scenario many councillors have to grapple with is when an area already has outline permission for something, so there can still be objections to full permission in various areas, but their NIMBY residents pushing them to object are pretty clearly still arguing about the principle, which is already settled.
Why would it be any different?
Existing residents have votes. Prospective ones do not.
The point was there's not even as many votes in it as the loud NIMBYs might indicate. Obviously you cannot presume all those not objecting support, but they clearly are not as exercised. A local cllr still really has no option but to pander to those NIMBY's to some degree, of course they do, but there is a difference between valid or reasonable objections and unreasonable ones, and where they are unreasonable there should be as little pandering as possible from those in the decision making chain.
Those votes make the difference between the councillor winning or losing their seat. Whether they are reasonable or not doesn't come into it.
Latest: easyJet Stronger demand for bookings in September, October and November as passengers remain unsure about where they’ll be able to travel in summer
easyJet has said it expects to start flying more from late May onwards, still waiting on further government info
It comes with zero car parking, other than a bit of "on street parking". Zero car parking for "luxury apartments"!
Absolutely insane.
Not insane at all. Clairvoyant
Cars are going. Electric self drive cars will be here in 5-10 years. World changing. No need to own a car. It will transform our cities for the better, making them cleaner, quieter, lovelier. All those car parks, drives, garages? - gone. They can be turned into urban woodlands. Marvellous.
Embrace the future
I think people will still prefer their own vehicles, to be honest.
People will still prefer their own vehicles the way people still prefer their own horses. Nice to have, but hardly essential. Cars will become a luxury for the very privileged few, they will otherwise be taxed into oblivion. Because the benefits of a carless city are so vast: no congestion, no pollution, all that land freed up for housing, gardens and parks! The North Circular will become an orbital forest, people will float above it in driverless taxi-drones
All this is coming. Drone deliveries are here already
"Coffee by drone? Start-up Manna raises funds to deliver in UK
Irish group already drops groceries, takeaways and medicines to thousands of people"
You still need someone capable of driving a car. And they have to stay alert while doing nothing, which is far harder than just driving the damned car yourself.
Duh. They will fix that.
At one point every car had a man in front of it with a flag, because cars weren't trusted. Your discourse is on about that level
AI is going to change everything, this is just one aspect.
Most trains could operate without drivers tomorrow, the Docklands Light Railway has never had drivers, no one minds
Sure but why would we need cars when we can all get around on Marty McFly's flying hoverboard anyway?
Owning your own car gives you freedom to go wherever you want, whenever you want, on the open road. As cars become environmentally friendly there is no excuse not to be having more roads, more cars anymore. Cars are the future.
Comments
Why would you volunteer for 2-3 years of difficulty selling your house, construction noise, blighted views, extra traffic and a potential impact on your property price?
You'd have to pay residents £30-£40k a pop to make it go away, which isn't viable.
"Absolutely no one is talking about threatening our place in the Single Market"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vkof9CVerrQ
And that will be England gone,
The shadows, the meadows, the lanes,
The guildhalls, the carved choirs.
There’ll be books; it will linger on
In galleries; but all that remains
For us will be concrete and tyres.
Most things are never meant.
This won’t be, most likely; but greeds
And garbage are too thick-strewn
To be swept up now, or invent
Excuses that make them all needs.
I just think it will happen, soon.
And I say this despite "polegate".
We'll live, of course, sea level rises will be far more modest than people think, but I could see weird shit like frosts in June, occasionally, and heatwaves in November.
However the actual woodland is a teensy tiny proportion of the borough of Epping Forest. So sure protect the Forest itself, but the rest of the borough?
However the North East has no city anywhere near the population of London and lots of Londoners keep moving out to buy here because it is cheaper and livable.
Most residents here in Epping Forest already own their own properties, the home ownership issue is only really a major issue in London anyway where most now rent, but London is full of brownbelt where cheaper properties can be built so Londoners can afford to buy in their own city and then fewer would need to move out here in the South and East and we would not have as much demand for new housing here.
A pub in Hampstead with a large beer garden, which is "quiet and out of the way"? Really?
Luckily, I don't need to visit this pub, as I live right next door to a vast, yet little-known park, the Regent's Park. Most people aren't aware of it and head straight for Clapham Common, or their acid trip ends
However the home ownership rates are trending in the wrong direction, with the vote trending in the wrong direction too as a result. Or perhaps for those who can't own their home they see it as the right direction? Up here homes are being built, sprawls are happening, and as a result people are buying and owning their own home and voting accordingly.
Ergo the PM sees himself as skint.
https://twitter.com/arthistorynews/status/1387878822310301701?s=21
The usual form of words is something like they will 'fight for sustainable development in appropriate locations' but that's a bit too weaselly for me (though they certainly can succeed in defeating or at least pushing back developer hopes for specific sites which are truly unreasonable in the short to medium term, but that's harder to say).
If NIMBYism leads to the South being mostly renting instead of owner occupiers it will switch red and it will deserve to do so too. That's already happened in London and it is spreading out from there as people get priced out of the market.
So no it won't be unpopular, not long term. What is unpopular in the long term is ensuring people have no choice but to be tenants.
Very likely to be within +/- 10%.
EU mortality is very consistent, and one more month at the current rate will do it. Unfortunately the current 3rd wave will not be choked off in that timespan.
And I know all the pubs in Highgate with beer gardens are rammed. Hampstead must be even rammier
But the Forest is not the borough. Do you have any idea what percentage of the borough is outside of that woodland?
A classic scenario many councillors have to grapple with is when an area already has outline permission for something, so there can still be objections to full permission in various areas, but their NIMBY residents pushing them to object are pretty clearly still arguing about the principle, which is already settled.
The Tories lost 13 seats in 2017 and gained 48 seats in 2019, there was not a vast increase in home ownership in the North in those 2 years and in fact here in Epping Forest we have one of the safest Tory seats nationally already with 64% voting Tory in 2019 but at local level the LDs and Greens are making inroads because of opposition to new development.
In London we do have a problem because most Londoners now rent and vote Labour but that means it is London where most of the new affordable housing should be built in brownbelt there as it is London where we have the biggest shortage of homeowning Tory voters not the SouthEast. Indeed many Londoners already only move to the SouthEast to buy a cheaper property than they could get in London and then become Tory voters anyway
The North, as those of us who live or lived here from across the political spectrum like myself, Gallowgate and RochdalePioneers can confirm, has been absolutely abuzz for the past decade in construction.
The trend from red to blue did not begin in 2019 and wasn't simply a Brexit factor (which is why its not fading away now), the trend has been going on for the past decade and predates Brexit. It will continue too.
Home ownership rates in the north and south are reversing, political allegiances are too as a result.
Your I'm Alright Jackboots selfishness in suggesting that building should only happen in London when there isn't the brownfield space to build enough homes in London for the people who need them is disgusting.
I kinda wish is wasn't a lie, tho.
For decades I had a fantasy that I would happen upon a hidden corner of Regent's Park, barely known, not even on the map, a total secret, full of wildflowers and maybe native English fauna. A tiny tiny Eden in the middle of London
A couple of years ago I did, indeed, chance upon a corner of the Park I'd never visited before, enchantingly pretty, not entirely unknown, but new to me. Not Eden, but delightful. Incredible that I had never discovered it hitherto. I've lived near this park for 35 years
A secret gem of a leafy pub in Hampstead would be like that
We will need some of it at some time, but not that much.
I think office->resi in London offers a lot, but we also need some ultra-high density. Turn one of those riverside Council Estates into a river city on the density of the Barbican, or higher. A real Singapore-on-Thames.
I know brownfield is a cliche but when I look at my own local inner boroughs (Islington, Hackney) I see very largely low rise development and lots of room for more dwellings.
Provided protection is there for historic buildings and streetscapes, I am a YIMBY.
Still incredibly cold mind. I miss the indoors.
https://twitter.com/BritainElects/status/1387768444859437069
Labour now matching last time's good result, while the Tories are doing better than in previous polls and the PC surge has faded.
Yes to a Barbican-on-sea.
Much of East London is - STILL - post-industrial wasteland.
At least he hasn't handed over control of customs to his private Italian bankers. Yet.
Its also important to remember what an average temperature means. Saying the temperature should be about 16 for London in April (or whatever) does not reflect day to day variability, in the same way that taking 100 people and averaging their ages (lets say 40?) does not mean everyone you meet will be 40.
EU are very unhappy that Norway cut the EU cod quota in the Svalbard area by 37%.
The EU and Norway are currently in a stand-off after the EU allocated 28,431 tonnes of cod to the EU fleet in 2021 pre-bilateral talks. The Norwegians have called this “unacceptable behaviour” and are offering the EU 24,233 tonnes, 10,631 tonnes less than the TAC for 2020, which was 34,864 tonnes. This makes the EU’s cut of the cod quota 37% causing EU fisheries organisations to claim that Norway has no legal basis for this cut.
https://thefishingdaily.com/latest-news/eapo-urges-commission-not-to-back-down-on-svalbard-cod-quota/#:~:text=The Norwegians have called this,legal basis for this cut.
There's been lots of furious EU shouting about Norway's "flagrant breach of international law" and similar.
For a brief moment - a few months - nobody could define Brexit.
Remainers were in shock.
Theresa said nothing, and the loons on her backbench were able to shape the narrative.
70% of white British in the East and 72% of those who live in the South East already own their own homes, actually higher than the 66% in Yorkshire, 62% in the North East (and 50% of BME North Easterners) and 67% in the North West who own their own homes.
Only in London is the home ownership rate lower than in the North with only 62% of white British Londoners and just 35% of BME Londoners owning their own home.
https://www.ethnicity-facts-figures.service.gov.uk/housing/owning-and-renting/home-ownership/latest#by-ethnicity-and-area
Indeed on the latest Yougov the South remains the Tories best area, with the Tories on 54% in the South, compared to just 35% in the North and an even lower 34% in London
https://docs.cdn.yougov.com/5wmdyo10ta/TheTimes_Voting_Intention_Track_210428__W.pdf
-5 T shirts
-20 a light jacket
-50 hell freezes over and Sunderland qualify for Europe.
Are you implying I'm inventing it?
What a shock that the losers who lost the referendum didn't get to redefine defeat into victory.
I think there is a niche in London.
After all, London has 300k French people and nearly 4m EU citizens have registered to stay in the UK - for a start.
It was a crime it was converted to flats.
Although according to Wiki, it is “empty”.
Existing residents have votes. Prospective ones do not.
Any high-rise should include secure underground car parking and space for at least 2 vehicles per unit.
And anyway my point was the trends. Home ownership was very high in the south but is falling. Home ownership was lower in the north but is rising. The trend is the difference.
The crunch time for you, though, will come when proposals go from the general to the particular.
Utterly contemptible.
https://www.hadrianstower.com
It comes with zero car parking, other than a bit of "on street parking". Zero car parking for "luxury apartments"!
Absolutely insane.
It is 10C with a biting wind. Tomorrow is the first of May. It has been cold for months; it is odd. Probably nothing, but it is odd
*not remotely surprised
Cars are going. Electric self drive cars will be here in 5-10 years. World changing. No need to own a car. It will transform our cities for the better, making them cleaner, quieter, lovelier. All those car parks, drives, garages? - gone. They can be turned into urban woodlands. Marvellous.
Embrace the future
Your argument is like suggesting that Liverpool and Manchester are not a part of the Northwest.
Edit - it's also not much a of a secret pub...
I've said that I support a free market with planning regulations that people can the built to. I would put an expectation of 2 off-road parking spaces per residence as part of those regulations.
You still need someone capable of driving a car. And they have to stay alert while doing nothing, which is far harder than just driving the damned car yourself.
https://www.getsurrey.co.uk/news/surrey-news/woking-victoria-square-now-cost-19827608.amp
Original cost: £150m
Cost at start of building: £460m
Final cost: £700m
The Tories deserve to be wiped out in Woking, but they won’t.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PQpsVGYqdPA
What we want is for Britain to be like many other countries in having free-trade access to the territory covered by the Single Market – but not to be subject to the vast, growing and politically-driven empire of EU law.
http://www.voteleavetakecontrol.org/boris_johnson_the_liberal_cosmopolitan_case_to_vote_leave.html
While not explicitly spelled out its pretty clear they are arguing for access to rather than membership of the Single Market.
London is massively unrepresentative of the rest of the UK.
It is indeed an unusual pattern though increasingly common in recent springs. Wet and windy with mild zonal flow throughout the boreal winter, and then high latitude anticyclones dominating Europe and the North Atlantic during spring, until the rain returns in early summer. Sometimes the anticyclone is positioned nicely to give us warm weather, like 2018 and 2020. Sometimes it's in the wrong place, as this year - centred over Greenland bringing continuous Northerlies. The so call WACC phenomenon (warm Arctic, cold continents).
Bad news for European vineyards which have been decimated by late frosts after early budburst in 4 out of the last 6 years (2016, 17, 20, 21), with this year's frosts being the worst.
We don't know what has caused this although there are a few statistical matches, with low Arctic ice concentration (reduces the poleward temperature gradient and weakens the jet stream), and low solar activity (does likewise), as well as the North Atlantic cold blob which surfaces to worry everyone about a shutdown of the North Atlantic drift every year or two.
At one point every car had a man in front of it with a flag, because cars weren't trusted. Your discourse is on about that level
AI is going to change everything, this is just one aspect.
Most trains could operate without drivers tomorrow, the Docklands Light Railway has never had drivers, no one minds
I think we need a judge-led enquiry.
One local bar in the city centre here that has a roof terrace has been told to turn down their music by a new student tower block since April 12. They've had rooftop events late into the night without issues for years but all of a sudden grouchy first year students can kill off struggling nightlife. I get it's not the students' fault but the developers shouldn't get the priority, they should have to warn prospective tenants of the area.
SummerAutumn holiday....Latest: easyJet Stronger demand for bookings in September, October and November as passengers remain unsure about where they’ll be able to travel in summer
easyJet has said it expects to start flying more from late May onwards, still waiting on further government info
https://twitter.com/AlexInAir/status/1388089305600495618?s=20
All this is coming. Drone deliveries are here already
"Coffee by drone? Start-up Manna raises funds to deliver in UK
Irish group already drops groceries, takeaways and medicines to thousands of people"
https://www.ft.com/content/cea2c993-b166-48f2-89a6-2caa914af785
Owning your own car gives you freedom to go wherever you want, whenever you want, on the open road. As cars become environmentally friendly there is no excuse not to be having more roads, more cars anymore. Cars are the future.