politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » For a party with less than one MP UKIP sure knows how to hog t

Richard_Tyndall said:

FF43 said:

ThreeQuidder said:

With respect to money spent in the UK, there is no such thing as EU money, there is only British taxpayers' money. And the same, mutatis mutandis, for other contributor countries.

Indeed the UK is a net payer to the EU. However public revenues aren't a fixed amount. Brexit will almost certainly squeeze UK revenues by more than our net payments to the EU, There will be less money to spend on Cornwall (or the NHS - pace the £350 million claim)

Why? In five years time when you have the evidence you can make that claim. Right now you have no idea what effect Brexit will have on public revenues. You are simply making unfounded assumptions.

Wilfred said:

isam said:

Essexit said:

isam said:

Re Jaywick, maybe it is above Carswells pay grade, and a bit socialist, but I'd buy the land off the residents, demolish it & build new housing m, maybe affordable/maybe even
Luxury. It's quite a nice spot really!

Surely if there were profit in doing that, someone would have done it by now? Frinton provides all the luxury housing needed in the area, for one.

Sorry I mean the council should buy the land and build new housing in it. Not luxury obviously

Living fairly near (other side of Colchester), I'd like to point out that much of this has already started. Essex County Council started a project to resurface the roads in July 2015 for two years, which I'd assume must be nearly finished by now (http://www.essexhighways.org/Highway-Schemes-and-Developments/other-schemes/Jaywick-Improvement-Works.aspx).

Secondly, Tendring District Council have been trumpeting at least three new private-sector developments of flats along the seafront in the last few months (http://www.tendringdc.gov.uk/council/news-pr/news-listing/third-major-development-scheme-put-forward-jaywick-sands), all replacing vacant/derelict buildings.

Is it enough? Probably not, but it's better than anything that's happened for the last few decades. Is it Carswell's achievement? I don't really know enough to comment, but I'd very strongly suspect not.

Essexit said:

Danny565 said:

Charles said:

isam said:

The truth is that Ukip needed Carswell in 2014 and Carswell needed Ukip. The obvious 'musical differences' were set aside in order to win freedom from the EU. Now that has been achieved its best they go their separate ways.

At my candidate interview for UKIP I cautiously said 'I know he's our new poster boy and all that, but what has Carswell actually done for Clacton in the last 9 years?'... the interviewer said 'precisely'

A marriage of convenience that has run its course

Interestingly, Tim Shipman in "All Out War" (excellent book, although only just started) says that the original defection was a deliberate move by Hannan and Carswell to try and detoxify the UKIP brand as there was an inverse correlation between UKIP support and Brexit support.

So Carswell was arrogant enough to believe his defection would alone "detoxify" a party's brand??

He didn't quite succeed in that, granted, but throwing his support as the sole UKIP MP behind Vote Leave could have been crucial in the close designation battle. It's reasonable to argue that his defection was decisive in the referendum.

Hertsmere_Pubgoer said:

JosiasJessop said:

HurstLlama said:

isam said:

The residents own the roads! That's the problem I think.

And if the council adopted the roads they would wack each resident with a hefty (four figure bill), do a half-hearted resurfacing job and then ignore said road for the next twenty years, no matter how much it breaks up in the interim.

The residents of a new estate up the road from me have made a positive decision to keep the roads on the estate out of the council's hands because between them they think they can do a better job of maintenance for lower cost. Looking at the state of the roads around here, they are probably correct.

One of the problems with such private estates is the fact that half-hearted resurfacing jobs are done. The real costs are underground. You need to dig deep and build proper drains (rainwater and sewerage), water and electricity supplies. Trunking for cable can also be added. You then need to build a proper subbase, insert kerbing and other furniture (e.g. streetlights).

Only then do you do the blacktop. All the real work is below that and invisible.

And all this has to be done whilst the residents have continued access to their homes, water and sewerage. It is really, really expensive to do right. But if it is done right it'll last a very long time.

Too often the solution for both councils and locals is to chuck a new layer of tarmac on, or even just spray tar and graded material. Which then disintegrates the next winter.

A lot of the time ime. The developer will put down a road surface only suitable for cars etc.
Forgetting the fact that dust bin lorries and removal trucks weigh significantly more and wear out the surface a lot sooner.

MarqueeMark said:

Essexit said:

Danny565 said:

Charles said:

isam said:

The truth is that Ukip needed Carswell in 2014 and Carswell needed Ukip. The obvious 'musical differences' were set aside in order to win freedom from the EU. Now that has been achieved its best they go their separate ways.

At my candidate interview for UKIP I cautiously said 'I know he's our new poster boy and all that, but what has Carswell actually done for Clacton in the last 9 years?'... the interviewer said 'precisely'

A marriage of convenience that has run its course

Interestingly, Tim Shipman in "All Out War" (excellent book, although only just started) says that the original defection was a deliberate move by Hannan and Carswell to try and detoxify the UKIP brand as there was an inverse correlation between UKIP support and Brexit support.

So Carswell was arrogant enough to believe his defection would alone "detoxify" a party's brand??

He didn't quite succeed in that, granted, but throwing his support as the sole UKIP MP behind Vote Leave could have been crucial in the close designation battle. It's reasonable to argue that his defection was decisive in the referendum.

Hmmm. That's arguable. Given UKIP nearly derailed the result with Farage and THAT poster, I think the influence was mixed at best.

The only defection that was truly crucial was that of Boris from on to off the Camerons' Christmas card list....

rural_voter said:

Wilfred said:

isam said:

Essexit said:

isam said:

Re Jaywick, maybe it is above Carswells pay grade, and a bit socialist, but I'd buy the land off the residents, demolish it & build new housing m, maybe affordable/maybe even
Luxury. It's quite a nice spot really!

Surely if there were profit in doing that, someone would have done it by now? Frinton provides all the luxury housing needed in the area, for one.

Sorry I mean the council should buy the land and build new housing in it. Not luxury obviously

Living fairly near (other side of Colchester), I'd like to point out that much of this has already started. Essex County Council started a project to resurface the roads in July 2015 for two years, which I'd assume must be nearly finished by now (http://www.essexhighways.org/Highway-Schemes-and-Developments/other-schemes/Jaywick-Improvement-Works.aspx).

Secondly, Tendring District Council have been trumpeting at least three new private-sector developments of flats along the seafront in the last few months (http://www.tendringdc.gov.uk/council/news-pr/news-listing/third-major-development-scheme-put-forward-jaywick-sands), all replacing vacant/derelict buildings.

Is it enough? Probably not, but it's better than anything that's happened for the last few decades. Is it Carswell's achievement? I don't really know enough to comment, but I'd very strongly suspect not.

It may be a bit socialist but Michael Portillo now seems to support the idea of the public sector following Harold Macmillan's housing policy, i.e. basically

'Bugger the borrowing requirement: build, build, build'.

Portillo suggested they could be sold to sitting tenants if and when the market suited. I'd have thought this would make a tidy central or local government profit as long as the land is compulsorily purchased as farmland, developed as housing and let at RSL-type rents. Resale of houses after 10-15 years if the tenants want to buy at say 90% of market value would probably enable the whole cycle to begin again and make another good profit for taxpayers.

rcs1000 said:

Cyan said:

How will the EU immunity story affect Le Pen?

The EU parliament will decide today on whether to remove her immunity from French prosecution in respect of her tweets of three disgusting ISIS execution photos in 2015 and two cases of alleged defamation.

I haven't found any good reports on this. The best I've found is from Bloomberg. As I understand it, MEPs have the same immunity in their home countries as they would if they were MPs, which varies from country to country.

Can she sell the narrative that the EU is persecuting her for trying to stand up for France against Islam? I think she probably can, and that this will strengthen her.

According to Bloomberg, the timetable is as follows:

today, 28 Feb: an EU parliamentary committee considers a request from a French court to remove her immunity regarding the tweets and the instances of alleged defamation;

next week: the committee makes recommendations to the EU parliament;

later in March: the whole EU parliament votes on the issue.

This seems ideal for Le Pen, especially given that Wilders is likely to be in the news a lot in the second half of March. It will help her push the message that getting a plurality isn't good enough, faced with the EU powers that be, which are "soft on Islam" and assisted by the French compradore "establishment". With "enemies" like this in the EU parliament, does she need "friends"?

Polls are currently saying that from R1 to R2 she'll increase her percentage from 26% to 39% against Macron and 42% against Fillon, so by 50-62%. That wouldn't give her the Elysée, but it would break new ground for an FN candidate.

Would you like a bet on Mme Le Pen's second round vote? How about you pay £10 for every point below 42%, and I pay you £10 for every point above. Settled to one decimal place.

Cyan said:

Perhaps I'm the only person here who's interested in Nicolas Dupont-Aignan, but his average poll score has gone up from 1.8% to 2.7% from Jan to Feb, and if Le Pen does get damaged judicially...

He's available at 640.

FF43 said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

FF43 said:

ThreeQuidder said:

With respect to money spent in the UK, there is no such thing as EU money, there is only British taxpayers' money. And the same, mutatis mutandis, for other contributor countries.

Indeed the UK is a net payer to the EU. However public revenues aren't a fixed amount. Brexit will almost certainly squeeze UK revenues by more than our net payments to the EU, There will be less money to spend on Cornwall (or the NHS - pace the £350 million claim)

Why? In five years time when you have the evidence you can make that claim. Right now you have no idea what effect Brexit will have on public revenues. You are simply making unfounded assumptions.

It's widely reported that Brexit will hit public finances. Indeed our very own Chancellor of the Exchequer estimates there will be a £59 billion hit directly due to Brexit over five years. He won't be wanting to exaggerate.

RobD said:

FF43 said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

FF43 said:

ThreeQuidder said:

With respect to money spent in the UK, there is no such thing as EU money, there is only British taxpayers' money. And the same, mutatis mutandis, for other contributor countries.

Indeed the UK is a net payer to the EU. However public revenues aren't a fixed amount. Brexit will almost certainly squeeze UK revenues by more than our net payments to the EU, There will be less money to spend on Cornwall (or the NHS - pace the £350 million claim)

Why? In five years time when you have the evidence you can make that claim. Right now you have no idea what effect Brexit will have on public revenues. You are simply making unfounded assumptions.

It's widely reported that Brexit will hit public finances. Indeed our very own Chancellor of the Exchequer estimates there will be a £59 billion hit directly due to Brexit over five years. He won't be wanting to exaggerate.

He's already got half of that back -- http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2017/02/28/budget-2017-chancellor-course-29bn-windfall/

David_Evershed said:

Wilfred said:

isam said:

Essexit said:

isam said:

Re Jaywick, maybe it is above Carswells pay grade, and a bit socialist, but I'd buy the land off the residents, demolish it & build new housing m, maybe affordable/maybe even
Luxury. It's quite a nice spot really!

Surely if there were profit in doing that, someone would have done it by now? Frinton provides all the luxury housing needed in the area, for one.

Sorry I mean the council should buy the land and build new housing in it. Not luxury obviously

Living fairly near (other side of Colchester), I'd like to point out that much of this has already started. Essex County Council started a project to resurface the roads in July 2015 for two years, which I'd assume must be nearly finished by now (http://www.essexhighways.org/Highway-Schemes-and-Developments/other-schemes/Jaywick-Improvement-Works.aspx).

Secondly, Tendring District Council have been trumpeting at least three new private-sector developments of flats along the seafront in the last few months (http://www.tendringdc.gov.uk/council/news-pr/news-listing/third-major-development-scheme-put-forward-jaywick-sands), all replacing vacant/derelict buildings.

Is it enough? Probably not, but it's better than anything that's happened for the last few decades. Is it Carswell's achievement? I don't really know enough to comment, but I'd very strongly suspect not.

The County Council are responsible for non trunk road highways and the District Council are responsible for housing development and planning.

Philip_Thompson said:

HurstLlama said:

Philip_Thompson said:

HurstLlama said:

isam said:

The residents own the roads! That's the problem I think.

And if the council adopted the roads they would wack each resident with a hefty (four figure bill), do a half-hearted resurfacing job and then ignore said road for the next twenty years, no matter how much it breaks up in the interim.

The residents of a new estate up the road from me have made a positive decision to keep the roads on the estate out of the council's hands because between them they think they can do a better job of maintenance for lower cost. Looking at the state of the roads around here, they are probably correct.

Eh?

I've got a newbuild home that is due to have the road adopted by the Council and I've not been advised on any bill for it happening. Whether the road would be adopted or not was a major issue during the survey prior to construction, we wanted it adopted as we had been advised that if it was not adopted we'd be liable for repairs while if it is adopted the Council would be and we pay the same Council Tax either way.

The bill Mr. Thompson is sent to residents on an existing non-adopted road which the council, for one reason or another decides to adopt. It is usually hefty and in my experience is in the four figures bracket.

Whether your local council actually maintain your road is, in my view, a matter of doubt. My council certainly does not maintain the roads in my village to any sort of standard. We have wheel-breaking potholes all over the place and it has been getting progressively worse for ten years or more.

We were never advised of a possible bill upon adoption ...

MyBurningEars said:

Bromptonaut said:

MyBurningEars said:

Bromptonaut said:

CornishBlue said:

Exactly. Plenty of thick people who voted either way.

But the thickness of the people of Cornwall, who voted Leave en masse and thus denied themselves squillions in EU funding, is greater than most.

This only makes them "thick" if they were of the opinion that money is the most important priority in life for Cornish people, that this trumped any other social and political concerns they had because MONEY MONEY MONEY CORNWALL MUST HAVE THE LOVELY MONEY and any issues of sovereignty or identity or whether Britain is a long-term fit for the long-term evolution of the EU go out of the window because CASH IS THE CORNISH KING OH MY GOD GIVE US ALL THE MONEY GIVE US ALL YOUR F***KING EU MONEY and whether it's been democratic for the British public to have been pushed so far along a route of European integration that has never had strong popular support really doesn't matter because GIMME GIMME GIMME oh look it's eu referendum date let's vote leave that sounds fun.

Otherwise, they're not "thick". They're just people with different opinions and priorities to you.

Proof.

One of my bugbears with The Left (and I write this despite having voted Communist in the last Euro elections!) is their trope that "anyone who votes in a way that lies contrary to what my opinion of their own interests is, must be suffering from false consciousness".

To be fair, you hear it from right-wingers occasionally too ("why do all these folk in poor constituencies keep voting Labour for 50 years, if at the end of it the place is as bad a dump as it was at the start?") but left-wingers do seem to enjoy the idea that the only reason someone didn't vote the way they "should" have done is some kind of mental delusion. It's an ugly viewpoint.

These days people voted the wrong way, contrary to the way their real interests and feelings lie (as perceived by me, who benefits from a clearer view of it than they themselves), because they were a bunch of thickheads is starting to get on my mostly metaphorical tits too.

glw said:

AndyJS said:

It's slightly scary how deluded Corbyn supporters like Cat Smith and Richard Burgon are. Everything that happens is somehow interpreted as an endorsement of the current Labour leadership.

Burgon and Smith are two prime examples of everything that is wrong with the modern Labour Party.

kle4 said:

MyBurningEars said:

Bromptonaut said:

MyBurningEars said:

Bromptonaut said:

CornishBlue said:

Exactly. Plenty of thick people who voted either way.

But the thickness of the people of Cornwall, who voted Leave en masse and thus denied themselves squillions in EU funding, is greater than most.

This only makes them "thick" if they were of the opinion that money is the most important priority in life for Cornish people, that this trumped any other social and political concerns they had because MONEY MONEY MONEY CORNWALL MUST HAVE THE LOVELY MONEY and any issues of sovereignty or identity or whether Britain is a long-term fit for the long-term evolution of the EU go out of the window because CASH IS THE CORNISH KING OH MY GOD GIVE US ALL THE MONEY GIVE US ALL YOUR F***KING EU MONEY and whether it's been democratic for the British public to have been pushed so far along a route of European integration that has never had strong popular support really doesn't matter because GIMME GIMME GIMME oh look it's eu referendum date let's vote leave that sounds fun.

Otherwise, they're not "thick". They're just people with different opinions and priorities to you.

Proof.

One of my bugbears with The Left (and I write this despite having voted Communist in the last Euro elections!) is their trope that "anyone who votes in a way that lies contrary to what my opinion of their own interests is, must be suffering from false consciousness".

To be fair, you hear it from right-wingers occasionally too ("why do all these folk in poor constituencies keep voting Labour for 50 years, if at the end of it the place is as bad a dump as it was at the start?") but left-wingers do seem to enjoy the idea that the only reason someone didn't vote the way they "should" have done is some kind of mental delusion. It's an ugly viewpoint.

These days people voted the wrong way, contrary to the way their real interests and feelings lie (as perceived by me, who benefits from a clearer view of it than they themselves), because they were a bunch of thickheads is starting to get on my mostly metaphorical tits too.

Well said

Sandpit said:

Pro_Rata said:

Off-topic: Interesting set of graphics from NYT on the US historical issues tracker.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/02/27/us/politics/most-important-problem-gallup-polling-question.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=g-artboard g-artboard-v3 &module=b-lede-package-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=0

That's a brilliant dataset, only possible by asking the same question over a long period of time.

In the UK I think ICM do a similar poll, running back to the '70s, that Mike sometimes picks up on.

JosiasJessop said:

Sandpit said:

This guy is completely nuts, as are his two 'customers', but thank God there are people like this around:
https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/836328719165763584

For fun, I've just been 'entertaining' (*) my son by trying to research and calculate how much it would cost to sustain a colony of six people on Mars using current-ish tech. That is not to set it up, but to send the equipment to sustain it once it has been set up.

So far I've got $7-8 billion just for resupplies alone, assuming no In-Situ Resource Utilisation. I'm probably way off, as that's not too far off what the ISS costs in total ...

(*) Ahem

HurstLlama said:

JosiasJessop said:

Sandpit said:

This guy is completely nuts, as are his two 'customers', but thank God there are people like this around:
https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/836328719165763584

For fun, I've just been 'entertaining' (*) my son by trying to research and calculate how much it would cost to sustain a colony of six people on Mars using current-ish tech. That is not to set it up, but to send the equipment to sustain it once it has been set up.

So far I've got $7-8 billion just for resupplies alone, assuming no In-Situ Resource Utilisation. I'm probably way off, as that's not too far off what the ISS costs in total ...

(*) Ahem

Your son is what, two maybe getting on for three? A precocious lad indeed to be to be entertained by spreadsheets charting the costs of a projected colony on Mars.

Anyway, I suspect your figures maybe subject to financial quantum as defined by the late Terry Pratchett in his fine book "Pyramids" - add another nought.

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Jessop, perhaps you should start him a bit slower. The importance of a space cannon could be a good place to start.

JosiasJessop said:

Sandpit said:

This guy is completely nuts, as are his two 'customers', but thank God there are people like this around:
https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/836328719165763584

For fun, I've just been 'entertaining' (*) my son by trying to research and calculate how much it would cost to sustain a colony of six people on Mars using current-ish tech. That is not to set it up, but to send the equipment to sustain it once it has been set up.

So far I've got $7-8 billion just for resupplies alone, assuming no In-Situ Resource Utilisation. I'm probably way off, as that's not too far off what the ISS costs in total ...

(*) Ahem

rcs1000 said:

HurstLlama said:

JosiasJessop said:

Sandpit said:

This guy is completely nuts, as are his two 'customers', but thank God there are people like this around:
https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/836328719165763584

For fun, I've just been 'entertaining' (*) my son by trying to research and calculate how much it would cost to sustain a colony of six people on Mars using current-ish tech. That is not to set it up, but to send the equipment to sustain it once it has been set up.

So far I've got $7-8 billion just for resupplies alone, assuming no In-Situ Resource Utilisation. I'm probably way off, as that's not too far off what the ISS costs in total ...

(*) Ahem

Your son is what, two maybe getting on for three? A precocious lad indeed to be to be entertained by spreadsheets charting the costs of a projected colony on Mars.

Anyway, I suspect your figures maybe subject to financial quantum as defined by the late Terry Pratchett in his fine book "Pyramids" - add another nought.

Ooohhhh... I've not read Pyramids

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Jessop, I don't even know who that is.

Mr. D, we do not comment on media reports of the lunar trebuchet programme.