How Bad Is the French Vaccine Roll Out? – politicalbetting.com

Philip_Thompson said:

Gardenwalker said:

Leon said:

HarryFreeman said:

Leon said:

HarryFreeman said:

Leon said:

kinabalu said:

algarkirk said:

kinabalu said:

LostPassword said:

DavidL said:

CarlottaVance said:

Politico's vaccine data (2 days worth in most cases):

https:/vaccinate/www.politico.eu/coronavirus-in-europe/

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."

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/apr/30/curtains-cash-johnson-brexit-peace-northern-ireland

She's getting on a bit, I guess she's not as connected as she was, but she's still a significant writer in Labour circles. Either she knows Starmer is planning this, or she and the Guardian cabal are pushing him to do it.

It might be a game-changer if Brexit looks bad by 2024 (which it might). Single Market? Freedom of Movement? And end to red tape at the border, and go back to buying cottages in Greece or working in Frankfurt, without a worry?

I can imagine this offer tempting a lot of people away from the Tories, especially if - by 2024 - immigration is no longer an issue (who knows, long term, post Covid)

It's the obvious play for Starmer, and it could work

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.

Gallowgate said:

IshmaelZ said:

Gallowgate said:

HYUFD said:

Philip_Thompson said:

HYUFD said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Gallowgate said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Gallowgate said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Gallowgate said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Gallowgate said:

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?

Philip_Thompson said:

Gardenwalker said:

Philip_Thompson said:

HYUFD said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Gallowgate said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Gallowgate said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Gallowgate said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Gallowgate said:

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? 🤷‍♂️

Leon said:

Casino_Royale said:

Leon said:

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

Anabobazina said:

Gallowgate said:

HYUFD said:

Gallowgate said:

HYUFD said:

Gallowgate said:

HYUFD said:

Gallowgate said:

HYUFD said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Gallowgate said:

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.

You have plenty of space up there, if you are so keen on more development you can have it!
https://lginform.local.gov.uk/reports/lgastandard?mod-metric=176&mod-area=E92000001&mod-group=AllRegions_England&mod-type=namedComparisonGroup

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.

Casino_Royale said:

Gallowgate said:

HYUFD said:

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.

Gallowgate said:

Anabobazina said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Gallowgate said:

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.

HYUFD said:

Philip_Thompson said:

HYUFD said:

Gardenwalker said:

Philip_Thompson said:

HYUFD said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Gallowgate said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Gallowgate said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Gallowgate said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Gallowgate said:

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

Gardenwalker said:

Leon said:

HarryFreeman said:

Leon said:

HarryFreeman said:

Leon said:

kinabalu said:

algarkirk said:

kinabalu said:

LostPassword said:

DavidL said:

CarlottaVance said:

Politico's vaccine data (2 days worth in most cases):

https:/vaccinate/www.politico.eu/coronavirus-in-europe/

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."

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/apr/30/curtains-cash-johnson-brexit-peace-northern-ireland

She's getting on a bit, I guess she's not as connected as she was, but she's still a significant writer in Labour circles. Either she knows Starmer is planning this, or she and the Guardian cabal are pushing him to do it.

It might be a game-changer if Brexit looks bad by 2024 (which it might). Single Market? Freedom of Movement? And end to red tape at the border, and go back to buying cottages in Greece or working in Frankfurt, without a worry?

I can imagine this offer tempting a lot of people away from the Tories, especially if - by 2024 - immigration is no longer an issue (who knows, long term, post Covid)

It's the obvious play for Starmer, and it could work

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.

Leon said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Leon said:

Philip_Thompson said:

HYUFD said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Gallowgate said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Gallowgate said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Gallowgate said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Gallowgate said:

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

Philip_Thompson said:

Anabobazina said:

Gallowgate said:

HYUFD said:

Gallowgate said:

HYUFD said:

Gallowgate said:

HYUFD said:

Gallowgate said:

HYUFD said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Gallowgate said:

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.

You have plenty of space up there, if you are so keen on more development you can have it!
https://lginform.local.gov.uk/reports/lgastandard?mod-metric=176&mod-area=E92000001&mod-group=AllRegions_England&mod-type=namedComparisonGroup

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?

swing_voter said:

Brom said:

swing_voter said:

Brom said:

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`.

Anabobazina said:

Gallowgate said:

IshmaelZ said:

Gallowgate said:

HYUFD said:

Philip_Thompson said:

HYUFD said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Gallowgate said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Gallowgate said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Gallowgate said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Gallowgate said:

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.

Philip_Thompson said:

Anabobazina said:

Gallowgate said:

IshmaelZ said:

Gallowgate said:

HYUFD said:

Philip_Thompson said:

HYUFD said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Gallowgate said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Gallowgate said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Gallowgate said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Gallowgate said:

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?

Philip_Thompson said:

Leon said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Leon said:

Philip_Thompson said:

HYUFD said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Gallowgate said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Gallowgate said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Gallowgate said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Gallowgate said:

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.

Gallowgate said:

IshmaelZ said:

Gallowgate said:

IshmaelZ said:

Gallowgate said:

HYUFD said:

Philip_Thompson said:

HYUFD said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Gallowgate said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Gallowgate said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Gallowgate said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Gallowgate said:

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.

kinabalu said:

Carnyx said:

kinabalu said:

Leon said:

TOPPING said:

kinabalu said:

IshmaelZ said:

moonshine said:

Cyclefree said:

TOPPING said:

Malmesbury said:

TOPPING said:

MaxPB said:

noneoftheabove said:

MaxPB said:

Northern_Al said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Daily Mail back on board this morning

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.

MattW said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Anabobazina said:

Gallowgate said:

IshmaelZ said:

Gallowgate said:

HYUFD said:

Philip_Thompson said:

HYUFD said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Gallowgate said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Gallowgate said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Gallowgate said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Gallowgate said:

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.

dixiedean said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

kinabalu said:

Dura_Ace said:

Scott_xP said:

Charles said:

Lord brownlow

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.

Folk are loaded or skint relative to who they hang out with. Twas ever thus.
Ergo the PM sees himself as skint.

Scott_xP said:

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

https://twitter.com/ukfisheriesltd/status/1386615819506003969?s=21

kinabalu said:

Gardenwalker said:

Leon said:

HarryFreeman said:

Leon said:

HarryFreeman said:

Leon said:

kinabalu said:

algarkirk said:

kinabalu said:

LostPassword said:

DavidL said:

CarlottaVance said:

Politico's vaccine data (2 days worth in most cases):

https:/vaccinate/www.politico.eu/coronavirus-in-europe/

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."

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/apr/30/curtains-cash-johnson-brexit-peace-northern-ireland

She's getting on a bit, I guess she's not as connected as she was, but she's still a significant writer in Labour circles. Either she knows Starmer is planning this, or she and the Guardian cabal are pushing him to do it.

It might be a game-changer if Brexit looks bad by 2024 (which it might). Single Market? Freedom of Movement? And end to red tape at the border, and go back to buying cottages in Greece or working in Frankfurt, without a worry?

I can imagine this offer tempting a lot of people away from the Tories, especially if - by 2024 - immigration is no longer an issue (who knows, long term, post Covid)

It's the obvious play for Starmer, and it could work

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.

Philip_Thompson said:

HYUFD said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Leon said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Leon said:

Philip_Thompson said:

HYUFD said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Gallowgate said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Gallowgate said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Gallowgate said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Gallowgate said:

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.

Fishing said:

Gallowgate said:

MattW said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Anabobazina said:

Gallowgate said:

IshmaelZ said:

Gallowgate said:

HYUFD said:

Philip_Thompson said:

HYUFD said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Gallowgate said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Gallowgate said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Gallowgate said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Gallowgate said:

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.

Gardenwalker said:

kinabalu said:

Gardenwalker said:

Leon said:

HarryFreeman said:

Leon said:

HarryFreeman said:

Leon said:

kinabalu said:

algarkirk said:

kinabalu said:

LostPassword said:

DavidL said:

CarlottaVance said:

Politico's vaccine data (2 days worth in most cases):

https:/vaccinate/www.politico.eu/coronavirus-in-europe/

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."

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/apr/30/curtains-cash-johnson-brexit-peace-northern-ireland

She's getting on a bit, I guess she's not as connected as she was, but she's still a significant writer in Labour circles. Either she knows Starmer is planning this, or she and the Guardian cabal are pushing him to do it.

It might be a game-changer if Brexit looks bad by 2024 (which it might). Single Market? Freedom of Movement? And end to red tape at the border, and go back to buying cottages in Greece or working in Frankfurt, without a worry?

I can imagine this offer tempting a lot of people away from the Tories, especially if - by 2024 - immigration is no longer an issue (who knows, long term, post Covid)

It's the obvious play for Starmer, and it could work

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.

DavidL said:

Leon said:

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...

Theuniondivvie said:

I was aware Berlin had some Benin bronzes but didn’t know they’d bought them off the Brits who’d done the pauchling.

https://twitter.com/arthistorynews/status/1387878822310301701?s=21

Gallowgate said:

Fishing said:

Gallowgate said:

MattW said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Anabobazina said:

Gallowgate said:

IshmaelZ said:

Gallowgate said:

HYUFD said:

Philip_Thompson said:

HYUFD said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Gallowgate said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Gallowgate said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Gallowgate said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Gallowgate said:

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

kinabalu said:

Leon said:

kinabalu said:

Leon said:

TOPPING said:

kinabalu said:

IshmaelZ said:

moonshine said:

Cyclefree said:

TOPPING said:

Malmesbury said:

TOPPING said:

MaxPB said:

noneoftheabove said:

MaxPB said:

Northern_Al said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Daily Mail back on board this morning

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?

Gallowgate said:

Casino_Royale said:

Gallowgate said:

HYUFD said:

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.

Philip_Thompson said:

HYUFD said:

Philip_Thompson said:

HYUFD said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Leon said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Leon said:

Philip_Thompson said:

HYUFD said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Gallowgate said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Gallowgate said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Gallowgate said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Gallowgate said:

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.

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 52% 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

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.

turbotubbs said:

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.

Leon said:

turbotubbs said:

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

IshmaelZ said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Casino_Royale said:

Gallowgate said:

Casino_Royale said:

Gallowgate said:

HYUFD said:

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.

HYUFD said:

Philip_Thompson said:

HYUFD said:

Philip_Thompson said:

HYUFD said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Leon said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Leon said:

Philip_Thompson said:

HYUFD said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Gallowgate said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Gallowgate said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Gallowgate said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Gallowgate said:

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.

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 52% 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

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

Gardenwalker said:

kinabalu said:

Gardenwalker said:

Leon said:

HarryFreeman said:

Leon said:

HarryFreeman said:

Leon said:

kinabalu said:

algarkirk said:

kinabalu said:

LostPassword said:

DavidL said:

CarlottaVance said:

Politico's vaccine data (2 days worth in most cases):

https:/vaccinate/www.politico.eu/coronavirus-in-europe/

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."

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/apr/30/curtains-cash-johnson-brexit-peace-northern-ireland

She's getting on a bit, I guess she's not as connected as she was, but she's still a significant writer in Labour circles. Either she knows Starmer is planning this, or she and the Guardian cabal are pushing him to do it.

It might be a game-changer if Brexit looks bad by 2024 (which it might). Single Market? Freedom of Movement? And end to red tape at the border, and go back to buying cottages in Greece or working in Frankfurt, without a worry?

I can imagine this offer tempting a lot of people away from the Tories, especially if - by 2024 - immigration is no longer an issue (who knows, long term, post Covid)

It's the obvious play for Starmer, and it could work

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.

Gallowgate said:

This has recently been completed. It is the tallest building in the North East, I believe.

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.

Casino_Royale said:

kle4 said:

Casino_Royale said:

Gallowgate said:

HYUFD said:

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.

Leon said:

turbotubbs said:

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

MaxPB said:

Leon said:

kinabalu said:

Carnyx said:

kinabalu said:

Leon said:

TOPPING said:

kinabalu said:

IshmaelZ said:

moonshine said:

Cyclefree said:

TOPPING said:

Malmesbury said:

TOPPING said:

MaxPB said:

noneoftheabove said:

MaxPB said:

Northern_Al said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Daily Mail back on board this morning

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.

Edit - it's also not much a of a secret pub...