politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » After what’s been described as Trump’s worst week yet the bett

First

Demoted to third, like Scottish Labour.

Fifth!

SquareRoot said:

It is very troubling to have such a bozo as President of the US at such a difficult time. It is amazing that Trump hasn't worked out that what he does for business doesn't do for politics.

There’s none so blind as them as won’t see!

I’d be a lot more hopeful if the Dems showed any signs of learning from last year, though. At the moment the ‘opposition’ seems to be largely principled Republicans and the discontented on the streets.
Where’s the successor to the junior Senator from Illinois?

The opposition to Donald Trump has been more about his wickedness than his wrongness. The Democrats should be reversing the emphasis.

The Republicans seem to have no appetite for positively opposing the president. So betting on him surviving looks like the value bet.

OldKingCole said:

SquareRoot said:

It is very troubling to have such a bozo as President of the US at such a difficult time. It is amazing that Trump hasn't worked out that what he does for business doesn't do for politics.

There’s none so blind as them as won’t see!

I’d be a lot more hopeful if the Dems showed any signs of learning from last year, though. At the moment the ‘opposition’ seems to be largely principled Republicans and the discontented on the streets.
Where’s the successor to the junior Senator from Illinois?

Early days, but this guy might be worth keeping an eye on:
http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/07/28/seth-moulton-congressman-run-president-2020-profile-215428

AlastairMeeks said:

The opposition to Donald Trump has been more about his wickedness than his wrongness. The Democrats should be reversing the emphasis.

The Republicans seem to have no appetite for positively opposing the president. So betting on him surviving looks like the value bet.

Trump approval ratings are still above 50% in 17 states:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/donald-trump-approval-rating-11-us-states-he-won-presidential-election-inauguration-republican-a7862386.html

I cannot help but wonder what is needed to get it down to zero.

AlastairMeeks said:

foxinsoxuk said:

While waiting on the latest idiocy from the Donald, PBers may care to watch the Momentum Dinner Party video, reputedly 500 000 shares in 5 hours:

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/jul/28/they-just-dont-get-it-video-upset-corbyn-deniers-labour-momentum?CMP=fb_gu

I was most interested to know where you could buy a house in 1981 that cost £20,000 then and is now worth £1.5million. My parents paid more than that in 1978 for a house that sold last year for £345,000.

The video makes a good job of showing the self-serving hypocrisies that the elderly use to justify themselves. It doesn't try to show why Jeremy Corbyn offers any kind of answer for the young, who have hypocrisies of their own.

I doubt the figures too, but Momentum do seem to be keeping their momentum (!) going. You cannot fatten a pig on market day, and they are going to be ready when this government falls.

Nigelb said:

OldKingCole said:

SquareRoot said:

It is very troubling to have such a bozo as President of the US at such a difficult time. It is amazing that Trump hasn't worked out that what he does for business doesn't do for politics.

There’s none so blind as them as won’t see!

I’d be a lot more hopeful if the Dems showed any signs of learning from last year, though. At the moment the ‘opposition’ seems to be largely principled Republicans and the discontented on the streets.
Where’s the successor to the junior Senator from Illinois?

Early days, but this guy might be worth keeping an eye on:
http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/07/28/seth-moulton-congressman-run-president-2020-profile-215428

Yes, interesting, long-ish shot.

AlastairMeeks said:

foxinsoxuk said:

While waiting on the latest idiocy from the Donald, PBers may care to watch the Momentum Dinner Party video, reputedly 500 000 shares in 5 hours:

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/jul/28/they-just-dont-get-it-video-upset-corbyn-deniers-labour-momentum?CMP=fb_gu

I was most interested to know where you could buy a house in 1981 that cost £20,000 then and is now worth £1.5million.

I bought my first house in 1981 for £21,000, Zoopla currently estimate its value around £154,000......(adjusted for earnings £21,000 would be £104,000) but that's the North East for you.......they just don't get it.....

Even money for Trump to last the distance would appear value to me, it's constitutionally very hard to shift a sitting president that cares nothing for public opinion.

Tying up money for 3 years is another matter...

CarlottaVance said:

AlastairMeeks said:

foxinsoxuk said:

While waiting on the latest idiocy from the Donald, PBers may care to watch the Momentum Dinner Party video, reputedly 500 000 shares in 5 hours:

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/jul/28/they-just-dont-get-it-video-upset-corbyn-deniers-labour-momentum?CMP=fb_gu

I was most interested to know where you could buy a house in 1981 that cost £20,000 then and is now worth £1.5million.

I bought my first house in 1981 for £21,000, Zoopla currently estimate its value around £154,000......(adjusted for earnings £21,000 would be £104,000) but that's the North East for you.......they just don't get it.....

My first house in Sussex cost 27,000 in 1981 Its now estimated at 384,000.. Momentum talking bollocks... just like Corbyn over his student loans promise

Roger said:

AlastairMeeks said:

foxinsoxuk said:

While waiting on the latest idiocy from the Donald, PBers may care to watch the Momentum Dinner Party video, reputedly 500 000 shares in 5 hours:

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/jul/28/they-just-dont-get-it-video-upset-corbyn-deniers-labour-momentum?CMP=fb_gu

I was most interested to know where you could buy a house in 1981 that cost £20,000 then and is now worth £1.5million. My parents paid more than that in 1978 for a house that sold last year for £345,000.

The video makes a good job of showing the self-serving hypocrisies that the elderly use to justify themselves. It doesn't try to show why Jeremy Corbyn offers any kind of answer for the young, who have hypocrisies of their own.

The unacceptable face of capitalism....

https://www.theguardian.com/money/2017/jul/25/leasehold-houses-and-the-ground-rent-scandal-all-you-need-to-know

those are Alistairs cleints

CarlottaVance said:

AlastairMeeks said:

foxinsoxuk said:

While waiting on the latest idiocy from the Donald, PBers may care to watch the Momentum Dinner Party video, reputedly 500 000 shares in 5 hours:

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/jul/28/they-just-dont-get-it-video-upset-corbyn-deniers-labour-momentum?CMP=fb_gu

I was most interested to know where you could buy a house in 1981 that cost £20,000 then and is now worth £1.5million.

I bought my first house in 1981 for £21,000, Zoopla currently estimate its value around £154,000......(adjusted for earnings £21,000 would be £104,000) but that's the North East for you.......they just don't get it.....

The 2 bed flat I bought in Wimbledon for £36 000 with my brother in 1985 would sell for about £850 000 at the moment. I sold my share to him in 1990 when I went to the antipodes. Even allowing for inflation, I reckon that is an eightfold increase.

My brother sold it and bought a 3 bed house on Wimbledon Common, worth probably £1.5 million now. A nice spot, but no way could he get a mortgage on anything like it were he 30 again.

While the facts in the video are wrong the truth is there, albeit a little exaggerated.

Ah, in the those good old days, you could leave a job on Friday night and walk into another one on a Monday morning.

As long as you were prepared to do hard physical labour, turn up on time and do what you're told. Those jobs are gone now. I had a summer job loading 1cwt bags of fertilizer onto tractor trailers without the benefit of pallets or forklift trucks. Manual handling regulations would no longer allow it.

But aren't Labour now the party of the ABC1s anyway - particularly in London?

foxinsoxuk said:

CarlottaVance said:

AlastairMeeks said:

foxinsoxuk said:

While waiting on the latest idiocy from the Donald, PBers may care to watch the Momentum Dinner Party video, reputedly 500 000 shares in 5 hours:

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/jul/28/they-just-dont-get-it-video-upset-corbyn-deniers-labour-momentum?CMP=fb_gu

I was most interested to know where you could buy a house in 1981 that cost £20,000 then and is now worth £1.5million.

I bought my first house in 1981 for £21,000, Zoopla currently estimate its value around £154,000......(adjusted for earnings £21,000 would be £104,000) but that's the North East for you.......they just don't get it.....

While the facts in the video are wrong the truth is there, albeit a little exaggerated.

A little?

While some areas have seen big increases in value - none have seen multiples like Momentum quote - and the areas where you could buy a house for £20,000 in 1980 aren't them.....in one area - where I bought, Momentum are out by a factor of ten

Anyway - good of Momentum to highlight the iniquities of nepotism, eh Messer's Corbyn & McDonnell?

Mortimer said:

Just read Paris' negative piece from yesterday - the new headbangers have lost; when will they get it? Europeanist neo-liberalism has been roundly rejected - move on man!

Sounds interesting. Do you have a link?

CD13 said:

Ah, in the those good old days, you could leave a job on Friday night and walk into another one on a Monday morning.

As long as you were prepared to do hard physical labour, turn up on time and do what you're told. Those jobs are gone now. I had a summer job loading 1cwt bags of fertilizer onto tractor trailers without the benefit of pallets or forklift trucks. Manual handling regulations would no longer allow it.

But aren't Labour now the party of the ABC1s anyway - particularly in London?

Plenty of jobs coming available shortly if you don't mind getting up early:

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/jul/29/eu-workers-fifth-labour-force-18-sectors-britain-economy

Mortimer said:

Just read Paris' negative piece from yesterday - the new headbangers have lost; when will they get it? Europeanist neo-liberalism has been roundly rejected - move on man!

Parris has lost it, since he wrote that famous piece denouncing the people of Clacton.

Mortimer said:

An Aussie friend posted this on fb yesterday - could well apply to the left in this country:

https://meanjin.com.au/essays/in-defence-of-the-bad-white-working-class/

Corbyn doesn't speak the language of Labour's Old base, as well as scaring the Tory horses. It is what gives me confidence he will never be PM.

The swings in the June election would suggest that Corbyn can get the old Labour base out.

Con take Bolsover? Or Lab take Canterbury and Kensington? Which was the truth?

CD13 said:

Ah, in the those good old days, you could leave a job on Friday night and walk into another one on a Monday morning.

As long as you were prepared to do hard physical labour, turn up on time and do what you're told. Those jobs are gone now. I had a summer job loading 1cwt bags of fertilizer onto tractor trailers without the benefit of pallets or forklift trucks. Manual handling regulations would no longer allow it.

But aren't Labour now the party of the ABC1s anyway - particularly in London?

In 1986 my son, having finished his A levels and having not applied to Uni, went up to London the Monday morning after leaving school, went round the agencies and landed a job the next morning.
Mind, he’s regarded in the family as having, as the saying goes, more front than Blackpool!

foxinsoxuk said:

Mortimer said:

An Aussie friend posted this on fb yesterday - could well apply to the left in this country:

https://meanjin.com.au/essays/in-defence-of-the-bad-white-working-class/

Corbyn doesn't speak the language of Labour's Old base, as well as scaring the Tory horses. It is what gives me confidence he will never be PM.

The swings in the June election would suggest that Corbyn can get the old Labour base out.

Con take Bolsover? Or Lab take Canterbury and Kensington? Which was the truth?

But what too many people (including on here) are forgetting is that at the last election the question was 'how big will Mrs May's majority' be; not who should be PM.

In that context, the quinoa eating virtue signallers cannot win.

foxinsoxuk said:

Mortimer said:

An Aussie friend posted this on fb yesterday - could well apply to the left in this country:

https://meanjin.com.au/essays/in-defence-of-the-bad-white-working-class/

Corbyn doesn't speak the language of Labour's Old base, as well as scaring the Tory horses. It is what gives me confidence he will never be PM.

The swings in the June election would suggest that Corbyn can get the old Labour base out.

Con take Bolsover? Or Lab take Canterbury and Kensington? Which was the truth?

The Cons have taken 20 seats that voted Labour in 2010, and 36 have gone the other way, suggesting there's truth in both viewpoints.

Sean_F said:

foxinsoxuk said:

Mortimer said:

An Aussie friend posted this on fb yesterday - could well apply to the left in this country:

https://meanjin.com.au/essays/in-defence-of-the-bad-white-working-class/

Corbyn doesn't speak the language of Labour's Old base, as well as scaring the Tory horses. It is what gives me confidence he will never be PM.

The swings in the June election would suggest that Corbyn can get the old Labour base out.

Con take Bolsover? Or Lab take Canterbury and Kensington? Which was the truth?

The Cons have taken 20 seats that voted Labour in 2010, and 36 have gone the other way, suggesting there's truth in both viewpoints.

Those Con gain seats were mostly from the SNP if I am right.

Comparing with 2010 is comparing to the pre Corbyn era.

Mortimer's Australian article is well worth reading. It touches on many of the class and race interplay issues that I was discussing with Islam yesterday afternoon. It also shows how Australia is changing. There is no going back to the Anglosphere so beloved of the PB league of Empire Loyalists.

foxinsoxuk said:

Sean_F said:

foxinsoxuk said:

Mortimer said:

An Aussie friend posted this on fb yesterday - could well apply to the left in this country:

https://meanjin.com.au/essays/in-defence-of-the-bad-white-working-class/

Corbyn doesn't speak the language of Labour's Old base, as well as scaring the Tory horses. It is what gives me confidence he will never be PM.

The swings in the June election would suggest that Corbyn can get the old Labour base out.

Con take Bolsover? Or Lab take Canterbury and Kensington? Which was the truth?

The Cons have taken 20 seats that voted Labour in 2010, and 36 have gone the other way, suggesting there's truth in both viewpoints.

Those Con gain seats were mostly from the SNP if I am right.

Comparing with 2010 is comparing to the pre Corbyn era.

Mortimer's Australian article is well worth reading. It touches on many of the class and race interplay issues that I was discussing with Islam yesterday afternoon. It also shows how Australia is changing. There is no going back to the Anglosphere so beloved of the PB league of Empire Loyalists.

Hmm

the Empire Loyalists are long gone

today the largest self deception is the those Europhiles who think they can just walk back in and take up from where they left.

The UK is damaged goods, suspect in every way, and can never be at the heart of Europe.

stop kidding yourself

foxinsoxuk said:

Sean_F said:

foxinsoxuk said:

Mortimer said:

An Aussie friend posted this on fb yesterday - could well apply to the left in this country:

https://meanjin.com.au/essays/in-defence-of-the-bad-white-working-class/

Corbyn doesn't speak the language of Labour's Old base, as well as scaring the Tory horses. It is what gives me confidence he will never be PM.

The swings in the June election would suggest that Corbyn can get the old Labour base out.

Con take Bolsover? Or Lab take Canterbury and Kensington? Which was the truth?

The Cons have taken 20 seats that voted Labour in 2010, and 36 have gone the other way, suggesting there's truth in both viewpoints.

Those Con gain seats were mostly from the SNP if I am right.

Comparing with 2010 is comparing to the pre Corbyn era.

Mortimer's Australian article is well worth reading. It touches on many of the class and race interplay issues that I was discussing with Islam yesterday afternoon. It also shows how Australia is changing. There is no going back to the Anglosphere so beloved of the PB league of Empire Loyalists.

The Conservatives gained five in Scotland from the SNP, which had been Labour in 2010. The other 15 are in England.

There is much of the country (some of it places Labour must win, like North Kent) which has no time for Corbyn.

stodge said:

There is a serious debate to be had about housing but no one wants or is able to have it.

Too many people have too strong a vested interest in the status quo to do anything serious about the situation. Pledges to build thousands of new homes will regrettably remain pledges.

Housing isn't just about houses (there's a surprise). It's about defining and shaping communities. In my part of London, it's all about flats on brownfield sites. Build 500 flats - easy - but that means at least an extra 1000 - 1200 people moving in to an area. That beings pressure on transport, medical services and a range of other infrastructural aspects little of which is picked up by the developer through the absurd Section 106 arrangements.

Further out, new estates of houses (not all the same one hopes but a mix of dwellings to reflect the myriad familial structures from single people to six bedroom houses) creating new communities requiring roads, shops, schools, doctors and the like but how much green do we want to lose ? Should the priorities not be the developer land-banks and public sector unused land ? I don't know.

It shouldn't be about Bellway or Persimmon coining it in either - building has to involve both freehold and leasehold - I know Conservatives love the idea of home ownership but there's an argument for a strong private rental sector but that needs proper regulation as we're seeing with the evolution of the new slums in parts of London with the kind of overcrowding in properties we thought had been left behind in the 1930s.

I don't particularly object to controls on leasehold houses, but people really should read the documents before they buy.

partypoliticalorphan said:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-40742706
Some harmless fun for Sunday morning. I managed 11 out of 16. I'm sure other PBers will knock that for six.

I also got 11

stodge said:

There is a serious debate to be had about housing but no one wants or is able to have it.

Too many people have too strong a vested interest in the status quo to do anything serious about the situation. Pledges to build thousands of new homes will regrettably remain pledges.

Housing isn't just about houses (there's a surprise). It's about defining and shaping communities. In my part of London, it's all about flats on brownfield sites. Build 500 flats - easy - but that means at least an extra 1000 - 1200 people moving in to an area. That beings pressure on transport, medical services and a range of other infrastructural aspects little of which is picked up by the developer through the absurd Section 106 arrangements.

Further out, new estates of houses (not all the same one hopes but a mix of dwellings to reflect the myriad familial structures from single people to six bedroom houses) creating new communities requiring roads, shops, schools, doctors and the like but how much green do we want to lose ? Should the priorities not be the developer land-banks and public sector unused land ? I don't know.

It shouldn't be about Bellway or Persimmon coining it in either - building has to involve both freehold and leasehold - I know Conservatives love the idea of home ownership but there's an argument for a strong private rental sector but that needs proper regulation as we're seeing with the evolution of the new slums in parts of London with the kind of overcrowding in properties we thought had been left behind in the 1930s.

First thing we should sort out is our borders unless you get control of the numbers coming here,you can not plan for the future.

rcs1000 said:

partypoliticalorphan said:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-40742706
Some harmless fun for Sunday morning. I managed 11 out of 16. I'm sure other PBers will knock that for six.

I also got 11

12 for me - pretty bad given a nearly photographic memory...

foxinsoxuk said:

partypoliticalorphan said:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-40742706
Some harmless fun for Sunday morning. I managed 11 out of 16. I'm sure other PBers will knock that for six.

10/16 for me...

Snap!

Tykejohnno said:

First thing we should sort out is our borders unless you get control of the numbers coming here,you can not plan for the future.

To a point, yes but even within the UK there is a huge migratory pull toward London and the South East which any Government needs to consider in terms of economic balance and housing provision.

As an aside, we in the UK are far too invested in property. If you look at net worth by asset type, for the vast majority of people in the UK, it's their home. And that's largely a consequence of rising house prices over the last 40 years.

We all save in the Bank of Bricks and Mortar - and why not, it's been by far the best place to put money for a long, long time.

Unfortunately, this has had two terrible consequences. Firstly, there are millions of people who can no longer afford to buy their own property. Secondly, there is a generation of people in their late 40s, 50s and 60s, who's entire wealth is tied up in their property.

If we bring housing prices down to help the former group, we destroy the savings of the older one. If housing prices remain high, then the oldies continue to benefit at the expense of the young.

Managing this transition will be extremely challenging.

rcs1000 said:

partypoliticalorphan said:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-40742706
Some harmless fun for Sunday morning. I managed 11 out of 16. I'm sure other PBers will knock that for six.

I also got 11

12

foxinsoxuk said:

partypoliticalorphan said:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-40742706
Some harmless fun for Sunday morning. I managed 11 out of 16. I'm sure other PBers will knock that for six.

10/16 for me...

Only 9 I’m afraid.

rcs1000 said:

partypoliticalorphan said:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-40742706
Some harmless fun for Sunday morning. I managed 11 out of 16. I'm sure other PBers will knock that for six.

I also got 11

9/16

surbiton said:

Sean_F said:

foxinsoxuk said:

Sean_F said:

foxinsoxuk said:

Mortimer said:

An Aussie friend posted this on fb yesterday - could well apply to the left in this country:

https://meanjin.com.au/essays/in-defence-of-the-bad-white-working-class/

Corbyn doesn't speak the language of Labour's Old base, as well as scaring the Tory horses. It is what gives me confidence he will never be PM.

The swings in the June election would suggest that Corbyn can get the old Labour base out.

Con take Bolsover? Or Lab take Canterbury and Kensington? Which was the truth?

The Cons have taken 20 seats that voted Labour in 2010, and 36 have gone the other way, suggesting there's truth in both viewpoints.

Those Con gain seats were mostly from the SNP if I am right.

Comparing with 2010 is comparing to the pre Corbyn era.

Mortimer's Australian article is well worth reading. It touches on many of the class and race interplay issues that I was discussing with Islam yesterday afternoon. It also shows how Australia is changing. There is no going back to the Anglosphere so beloved of the PB league of Empire Loyalists.

The Conservatives gained five in Scotland from the SNP, which had been Labour in 2010. The other 15 are in England.

There is much of the country (some of it places Labour must win, like North Kent) which has no time for Corbyn.

Labour could win 17 seats from the SNP with only a 3.5% swing. It is quite possible. I think Labour could get 30 seats at the next election. There is a part of the electorate now who did not vote in the last 20 years.

There are three blocs in Scottish politics. One is centre-right, unionist, eurosceptic, and they now have a viable party.

Another is left wing and unionist, and they now have a viable party.

The third is everyone who supports independence, who will do well on 35% + of the vote, but whose support is spread quite evenly, and who will suffer if their vote dips much below that level.

OldKingCole said:

Sean_F said:

stodge said:

There is a serious debate to be had about housing but no one wants or is able to have it.

Too many people have too strong a vested interest in the status quo to do anything serious about the situation. Pledges to build thousands of new homes will regrettably remain pledges.

Housing isn't just about houses (there's a surprise). It's about defining and shaping communities. In my part of London, it's all about flats on brownfield sites. Build 500 flats - easy - but that means at least an extra 1000 - 1200 people moving in to an area. That beings pressure on transport, medical services and a range of other infrastructural aspects little of which is picked up by the developer through the absurd Section 106 arrangements.

Further out, new estates of houses (not all the same one hopes but a mix of dwellings to reflect the myriad familial structures from single people to six bedroom houses) creating new communities requiring roads, shops, schools, doctors and the like but how much green do we want to lose ? Should the priorities not be the developer land-banks and public sector unused land ? I don't know.

It shouldn't be about Bellway or Persimmon coining it in either - building has to involve both freehold and leasehold - I know Conservatives love the idea of home ownership but there's an argument for a strong private rental sector but that needs proper regulation as we're seeing with the evolution of the new slums in parts of London with the kind of overcrowding in properties we thought had been left behind in the 1930s.

I don't particularly object to controls on leasehold houses, but people really should read the documents before they buy.

There’s a role for solicitors and conveyancers here, isn’t there?

Yes, but I suspect lots of people don't read the reports on title their solicitors send them. Solicitors get loads of work out of people not reading things before signing them.

surbiton said:

Alanbrooke said:

Meanwhile away from the PB Brexit fixation there's an election in Germany

CDU 40%
SPD 23%
Afd 9%
Greens, FDP, Linke all on 8%

so much for Martin Schulz, it remains to be seen in Merkel can avoid screwing up a CDU led government again

http://www.faz.net/aktuell/politik/inland/f-a-z-wahlbarometer-so-wollen-die-deutschen-waehlen-14406977.html

C'mon Merkel. Europe's greatest leader for a long, long time.

it was Emperor Macron the First last month

rcs1000 said:

As an aside, we in the UK are far too invested in property. If you look at net worth by asset type, for the vast majority of people in the UK, it's their home. And that's largely a consequence of rising house prices over the last 40 years.

We all save in the Bank of Bricks and Mortar - and why not, it's been by far the best place to put money for a long, long time.

Unfortunately, this has had two terrible consequences. Firstly, there are millions of people who can no longer afford to buy their own property. Secondly, there is a generation of people in their late 40s, 50s and 60s, who's entire wealth is tied up in their property.

If we bring housing prices down to help the former group, we destroy the savings of the older one. If housing prices remain high, then the oldies continue to benefit at the expense of the young.

Managing this transition will be extremely challenging.

Do you know what the proportions of housing capital and stock market capital in 1997 and what they are now ?

foxinsoxuk said:

Sean_F said:

foxinsoxuk said:

Mortimer said:

An Aussie friend posted this on fb yesterday - could well apply to the left in this country:

https://meanjin.com.au/essays/in-defence-of-the-bad-white-working-class/

Corbyn doesn't speak the language of Labour's Old base, as well as scaring the Tory horses. It is what gives me confidence he will never be PM.

The swings in the June election would suggest that Corbyn can get the old Labour base out.

Con take Bolsover? Or Lab take Canterbury and Kensington? Which was the truth?

The Cons have taken 20 seats that voted Labour in 2010, and 36 have gone the other way, suggesting there's truth in both viewpoints.

Those Con gain seats were mostly from the SNP if I am right.

Comparing with 2010 is comparing to the pre Corbyn era.

Mortimer's Australian article is well worth reading. It touches on many of the class and race interplay issues that I was discussing with Islam yesterday afternoon. It also shows how Australia is changing. There is no going back to the Anglosphere so beloved of the PB league of Empire Loyalists.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Sunil060902/sandbox

Alanbrooke said:

surbiton said:

Alanbrooke said:

Meanwhile away from the PB Brexit fixation there's an election in Germany

CDU 40%
SPD 23%
Afd 9%
Greens, FDP, Linke all on 8%

so much for Martin Schulz, it remains to be seen in Merkel can avoid screwing up a CDU led government again

http://www.faz.net/aktuell/politik/inland/f-a-z-wahlbarometer-so-wollen-die-deutschen-waehlen-14406977.html

C'mon Merkel. Europe's greatest leader for a long, long time.

it was Emperor Macron the First last month

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/jul/29/emmanuel-macron-divine-aura-fades-jupiter-france

Regarding comments on housing.

It is really, really tiring hearing the same criticisms of planning rehearsed endlessly, by otherwise educated and intelligent people.

Planning has become a whipping boy for thirty plus years of public policy failure

It is a myth that you can 'relax planning' and solve everything, but it is a convenient answer. The government have, to all extents and purposes, actually relaxed planning rules almost as much as it is concievably possibly to do. Under the current rules, if a local authority don't allocate enough land or deliver enough housing, then a developer can in theory build almost anywhere as long as it is not a green belt or a protected landscape.

The trouble is that when you look at these sites in the open countryside they are completely unsuitable for housebuilding and there are very good reasons why they should not be developed. The principal reason is that there is no infrastructure to support new communities and the occupants of new houses will simply have to drive miles and miles to access even the most basic services, nevermind schools, hospitals etc. People will of course move to these new houses, but this just creates congestion on countryside roads that are often unsafe and were never designed to take large amounts of traffic. The benefits of the housing being provided is nearly always outweighed by harm to the wider community, when you get beyond the bluster of the argument that the need to provide more housing overrides everything else.

When you talk to serious people in the development industry it becomes apparent that the fundamental problem is actually to do with how infrastructure is delivered. Since the government privatised large parts of infrastructure delivery from the 1980's onwards, the cost of providing new infrastructure necessary to support new development has increased to the point where it is just not viable for many new developments. In many cases the total value of the new housing being built is not sufficient to support the infrastructure necessary to deliver it. And then you have the problem that land ownership is heavily fragmented and the associated wrangling over who has to foot the bill for the supporting infrastructure.

There have been many attempts to solve this problem but they have been mostly unsuccessful. Normally by the government declaring some sort of initiative to build new towns/ eco towns/ garden suburbs etc etc, and then banging peoples heads together to make the project work. But they haven't really changed the underlying flaws of the system or delivered much.

It makes little sense that we have this problem, whereas no other country in northern Europe does.

rcs1000 said:

another_richard said:

rcs1000 said:

As an aside, we in the UK are far too invested in property. If you look at net worth by asset type, for the vast majority of people in the UK, it's their home. And that's largely a consequence of rising house prices over the last 40 years.

We all save in the Bank of Bricks and Mortar - and why not, it's been by far the best place to put money for a long, long time.

Unfortunately, this has had two terrible consequences. Firstly, there are millions of people who can no longer afford to buy their own property. Secondly, there is a generation of people in their late 40s, 50s and 60s, who's entire wealth is tied up in their property.

If we bring housing prices down to help the former group, we destroy the savings of the older one. If housing prices remain high, then the oldies continue to benefit at the expense of the young.

Managing this transition will be extremely challenging.

Do you know what the proportions of housing capital and stock market capital in 1997 and what they are now ?

Off the top of my head, no.

But I would bet that - given stock markets have barely budged in the last 20 years, while house prices (especially in London) have gone through the roof - there has been a big swing from stock market to housing.

That was my assumption as well.

This has led to the problem that the wealth of people is now more dependent upon the performance of property prices than the performance of business. Consequently there's a lot less interest in economic and business issues - notice how little they were mentioned in the election and how wealth creation is of no interest to Corbyn.

I can remember in the 1990s whenever a news program said "the biggest financial asset people have is their home" my dad would say "no its not, its their pension".

That will be apply to a lot less people now than then.

Morris_Dancer said:

A house?

I dream of living in a house. It'd be like a palace to me. Dwelling in a rotting shed, and grateful for it!

Speak to Pulpstar. His house looks fantastic value to me.

Went to see Dunkirk last night - glad I saw it, a remarkably convincing, unsentimental, pictures of people under extreme stress with a dramatic national backdrop (there's very little about the battle per se, and I suspect some young people will struggle to work out the context). The plot is minimal, though, and the characters not really explored in great depth. I must admit to preferring the sentimental, propagandist Mrs Miniver (would be interested in Casino's view?), but that was about rallying spirits and this is about individuals at a moment of extreme crisis.

There's a very interesting discussion of the soundtrack here:

http://uk.businessinsider.com/dunkirk-music-christopher-nolan-hans-zimmer-2017-7

- I noticed something going on with the music, but didn't grasp the exact intention (which is probably intended to be subconscious).

Sean_F said:

OldKingCole said:

Sean_F said:

stodge said:

There is a serious debate to be had about housing but no one wants or is able to have it.

Too many people have too strong a vested interest in the status quo to do anything serious about the situation. Pledges to build thousands of new homes will regrettably remain pledges.

Housing isn't just about houses (there's a surprise). It's about defining and shaping communities. In my part of London, it's all about flats on brownfield sites. Build 500 flats - easy - but that means at least an extra 1000 - 1200 people moving in to an area. That beings pressure on transport, medical services and a range of other infrastructural aspects little of which is picked up by the developer through the absurd Section 106 arrangements.

Further out, new estates of houses (not all the same one hopes but a mix of dwellings to reflect the myriad familial structures from single people to six bedroom houses) creating new communities requiring roads, shops, schools, doctors and the like but how much green do we want to lose ? Should the priorities not be the developer land-banks and public sector unused land ? I don't know.

It shouldn't be about Bellway or Persimmon coining it in either - building has to involve both freehold and leasehold - I know Conservatives love the idea of home ownership but there's an argument for a strong private rental sector but that needs proper regulation as we're seeing with the evolution of the new slums in parts of London with the kind of overcrowding in properties we thought had been left behind in the 1930s.

I don't particularly object to controls on leasehold houses, but people really should read the documents before they buy.

There’s a role for solicitors and conveyancers here, isn’t there?

Yes, but I suspect lots of people don't read the reports on title their solicitors send them. Solicitors get loads of work out of people not reading things before signing them.

Can you blame them though?

Well, for that I can. A very important purchase where the issues are usually well explained, and relatively concise. But most "terms and conditions" you are supposed to read, prior to agreeing to them, are dozens and dozens of pages long.

No-one ever reads them.

Mr. Royale, I think Mr. Pulpstar might take it amiss if I seek to claim his house by right of conquest.

Anyway, I do have Castle Dancer. And the genetic research laboratory beneath it.

Time for me to be off. Somewhat nervous of the race.

Theuniondivvie said:

partypoliticalorphan said:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-40742706
Some harmless fun for Sunday morning. I managed 11 out of 16. I'm sure other PBers will knock that for six.

15 out of 16 I'm slightly ashamed to say.

A more jowly than remembered John Major did me in.

I am going to admit to a Theresa May like performance here - I was expecting about 14 or 15/16 but ended up with a frankly pathetic 7/16.

It's all my fault but I am going to carry on anyway.

On the plus side I don't have to do that quiz again until 2022 now!