Build more houses, problem solved (and construction jobs in a productive non-service industry).
I live in the north in one of the fastest growing towns in the country and there are new estates being developed allowing me to buy my first home and get onto the property ladder by buying a new-build house.
"Build more houses"
With a declining per capita GDP building houses people can no longer afford isn't a solution.
Only 8% of the land of the UK is developed. We're still a very green country.
Housing is unaffordable because it is so difficult and expensive to build new houses. This is entirely a factor of the planning laws. The significant majority of the value of a house is the planning permission not the materials. We can house people, and affordably so, if we make planning hassle go away. A profound liberalisation would trigger an immediate explosion in house building - but would of course also collapse house prices. The blocker is the nimbyist block of existing house and land owners.
If Miliband is serious about breaking privilege and helping generation rent he could abolish planning permission. Your land - do with it what you will. But as we all know this would be a brave electoral move (in the Sir Humphrey sense).
Planning permission is an interesting example of a left wing measure that has become very popular with right wing voters.
Prior to Attlee's government, there were planning and building controls in some big urban areas, but by and large, people could build as they pleased on their own land. There's a bit in Screwtape Proposes a Toast where Screwtape (speaking here for CS Lewis) is scornful of the whole idea that the State should prohibit someone from doing as they please with their own property.
But, abolishing planning permission just isn't in the realm of practical politics.
I honestly think that is a good move from Ed... It reads well, although I do feel awkward watching him... But I think that's because deep down I want him to do well and always feel nervous that people will mess up on live tv
I wanted him to stick with the blue labour policies he looked like he was going to use at the start if his leadership and there is def a bit of old loyalty in preferring him to DC... Unfortunately I rumbled that it's me projecting what I want labour to be rather than what they are, hence moving to ukip
I can't believe Labour strategists somehow thought it was a good idea to draw attention back to the 'weirdo'. They are bloody bonkers. Is there a Tory mole in there? Seriously?
Build more houses, problem solved (and construction jobs in a productive non-service industry).
I live in the north in one of the fastest growing towns in the country and there are new estates being developed allowing me to buy my first home and get onto the property ladder by buying a new-build house.
"Build more houses"
With a declining per capita GDP building houses people can no longer afford isn't a solution.
Only 8% of the land of the UK is developed. We're still a very green country.
Housing is unaffordable because it is so difficult and expensive to build new houses. This is entirely a factor of the planning laws. The significant majority of the value of a house is the planning permission not the materials. We can house people, and affordably so, if we make planning hassle go away. A profound liberalisation would trigger an immediate explosion in house building - but would of course also collapse house prices. The blocker is the nimbyist block of existing house and land owners.
If Miliband is serious about breaking privilege and helping generation rent he could abolish planning permission. Your land - do with it what you will. But as we all know this would be a brave electoral move (in the Sir Humphrey sense).
When people talk about building more housing,they always forget the infrastructure like more schools,roads,hospitals,clinics,more dams and so on would be needed if the population increases in those area's.
I honestly think that is a good move from Ed... It reads well, although I do feel awkward watching him... But I think that's because deep down I want him to do well and always feel nervous that people will mess up on live tv
I wanted him to stick with the blue labour policies he looked like he was going to use at the start if his leadership and there is def a bit of old loyalty in preferring him to DC... Unfortunately I rumbled that it's me projecting what I want labour to be rather than what they are, hence moving to ukip
It would be a good move if he combined it with this amorphous guff he claims to stand for, and elucidates what it is. Thus far we only know he's weird, has stuffed energy prices and his party want to tax hard working middle class people more to pay for layabouts. The fact he isn't on 10% or less is an indictment of how pervasive the begging bowl culture has got,
@carrieapples: On Monday, @Ed_Miliband missed the PM's statement on Ukraine to get a pic with Obama. Today he hates photo ops. You couldn't make it up.
This was how you started the debate on Doncaster. I had previously been saying how ukip were taking WWC votes from labour, bit hadn't mentioned this area
"Doncaster is one of the whitest and most working class constituencies in the UK. If UKIP is really serious about going after the Labour vote it should surely make a real effort there with a high profile candidate. Perhaps even the Nigemeister himself - after all, the locals must feel horribly betrayed by their sitting MP. We should expect a massive switch to UKIP next year, shouldn't we?"
Given your sarcastic nature I think it is obvious you thought you were in to a winner
Then there was a massive switch to ukip in the locals
The next year was, of course, referring to the GE. As I believe I said in other posts, I had no idea how the locals would go. I can't remember, but I think I may even have offered you a vote on Ed getting about 50% of the vote share. Still happy to if you fancy it.
There was talk of a bet but nothing was done...
If you want to bet on Ed getting over 50% in Doncaster North at EVS I'm happy to play, how much for?
EdM to get 50% or more of the votes cast in his constituency at the next general election. £20?
Build more houses, problem solved (and construction jobs in a productive non-service industry).
I live in the north in one of the fastest growing towns in the country and there are new estates being developed allowing me to buy my first home and get onto the property ladder by buying a new-build house.
"Build more houses"
With a declining per capita GDP building houses people can no longer afford isn't a solution.
Only 8% of the land of the UK is developed. We're still a very green country.
Housing is unaffordable because it is so difficult and expensive to build new houses. This is entirely a factor of the planning laws. The significant majority of the value of a house is the planning permission not the materials. We can house people, and affordably so, if we make planning hassle go away. A profound liberalisation would trigger an immediate explosion in house building - but would of course also collapse house prices. The blocker is the nimbyist block of existing house and land owners.
If Miliband is serious about breaking privilege and helping generation rent he could abolish planning permission. Your land - do with it what you will. But as we all know this would be a brave electoral move (in the Sir Humphrey sense).
Does that mean people could delve into their land to produce natural gas or oil without restriction? Or perhaps stick-up massive tower blocks where ever they liked regardless of the rights of adjoining landowners? What about the effect of development on water, sewerage, road capacity, school places, medical services, public transport? Planning permission is a about bit more than NIMBYs.
Come to West Sussex, look at the number of houses being built - building sites throwing up the slums of tomorrow are everywhere. We are not even talking about new estates there is a whole new town going up on the edge of Horsham (no new hospitals, no expansion of the ambulance service, no new roads, no new railways, of course). Then come back and tell us how difficult it is to get permission to build new houses.
- immigration *restricted* to people above the cost/benefit break even line
I love the idea that the government can figure out which people will be above the cost/benefit line.
I run a small tech startup in Japan. Right now, Japan loves small tech startups. They're coming up with all kinds of ideas that are supposed to attract us to Japan, some of which the taxpayer will actually spend money on. But each career step I've taken to be able to do this - teaching to software engineering (didn't have an engineering degree), setting up in business (company directors are supposed "investors", but you need to put in more money than I had to qualify to be one of those), getting a visa for somebody I was working with (company too small and piddling to sponsor a visa) has involved some kind of trick or dodge to subvert the intentions of the people who wrote the immigration rules.
"I love the idea that the government can figure out which people will be above the cost/benefit line."
Who said they could. My point is the arithmetic of it.
Build more houses, problem solved (and construction jobs in a productive non-service industry).
I live in the north in one of the fastest growing towns in the country and there are new estates being developed allowing me to buy my first home and get onto the property ladder by buying a new-build house.
"Build more houses"
With a declining per capita GDP building houses people can no longer afford isn't a solution.
Only 8% of the land of the UK is developed. We're still a very green country.
Housing is unaffordable because it is so difficult and expensive to build new houses. This is entirely a factor of the planning laws. The significant majority of the value of a house is the planning permission not the materials. We can house people, and affordably so, if we make planning hassle go away. A profound liberalisation would trigger an immediate explosion in house building - but would of course also collapse house prices. The blocker is the nimbyist block of existing house and land owners.
If Miliband is serious about breaking privilege and helping generation rent he could abolish planning permission. Your land - do with it what you will. But as we all know this would be a brave electoral move (in the Sir Humphrey sense).
Exactly right. To quote the prophet, we all know what to do, we just don't know how to get re-elected after we've done it.
Clearly abolishing planning rules completely is a non-starter, or your neighbour might erect a 6 storey chemical plant in his garden or a gaudy palace in the Cotswolds.
But...there's alot of 'brownfield' land where just allowing development to get on would make a significant difference. I'd propose that somehow the planning needs for a suitably defined 'brownfield' site be hugely reduced.
This was how you started the debate on Doncaster. I had previously been saying how ukip were taking WWC votes from labour, bit hadn't mentioned this area
"Doncaster is one of the whitest and most working class constituencies in the UK. If UKIP is really serious about going after the Labour vote it should surely make a real effort there with a high profile candidate. Perhaps even the Nigemeister himself - after all, the locals must feel horribly betrayed by their sitting MP. We should expect a massive switch to UKIP next year, shouldn't we?"
Given your sarcastic nature I think it is obvious you thought you were in to a winner
Then there was a massive switch to ukip in the locals
The next year was, of course, referring to the GE. As I believe I said in other posts, I had no idea how the locals would go. I can't remember, but I think I may even have offered you a vote on Ed getting about 50% of the vote share. Still happy to if you fancy it.
There was talk of a bet but nothing was done...
If you want to bet on Ed getting over 50% in Doncaster North at EVS I'm happy to play, how much for?
EdM to get 50% or more of the votes cast in his constituency at the next general election. £20?
As long as the constituency is Doncaster North you're on. Wouldn't be fair one of us if he stood in Hackney or Hornchurch... So yeah as long as it's Doncaster North
@carrieapples: On Monday, @Ed_Miliband missed the PM's statement on Ukraine to get a pic with Obama. Today he hates photo ops. You couldn't make it up.
Selfies with Barry are more important than responding to the deaths of British nationals in a rocket attack from a war zone. It's what he believes in, it's something different for us to cherish.
This was how you started the debate on Doncaster. I had previously been saying how ukip were taking WWC votes from labour, bit hadn't mentioned this area
"Doncaster is one of the whitest and most working class constituencies in the UK. If UKIP is really serious about going after the Labour vote it should surely make a real effort there with a high profile candidate. Perhaps even the Nigemeister himself - after all, the locals must feel horribly betrayed by their sitting MP. We should expect a massive switch to UKIP next year, shouldn't we?"
Given your sarcastic nature I think it is obvious you thought you were in to a winner
Then there was a massive switch to ukip in the locals
The next year was, of course, referring to the GE. As I believe I said in other posts, I had no idea how the locals would go. I can't remember, but I think I may even have offered you a vote on Ed getting about 50% of the vote share. Still happy to if you fancy it.
There was talk of a bet but nothing was done...
If you want to bet on Ed getting over 50% in Doncaster North at EVS I'm happy to play, how much for?
EdM to get 50% or more of the votes cast in his constituency at the next general election. £20?
As long as the constituency is Doncaster North you're on. Wouldn't be fair one of us if he stood in Hackney or Hornchurch... So yeah as long as it's Doncaster North
@JohnRentoul: Someone who watches The Thick of It says EdM may have just given the "I called you here to announce nothing" speech from the first episode.
Clearly abolishing planning rules completely is a non-starter, or your neighbour might erect a 6 storey chemical plant in his garden or a gaudy palace in the Cotswolds.
But...there's alot of 'brownfield' land where just allowing development to get on would make a significant difference. I'd propose that somehow the planning needs for a suitably defined 'brownfield' site be hugely reduced.
There's an evil, horrible but possibly necessary strategy to this which basically involves paying off the blocking minority. Depending on your political leanings you could frame this as a communitarian property development collective or a new kind of property right. Either way, you give the neighbours a share in the profits from developing something close to them, and in return you loosen up the planning requirements. So your neighbour can erect a 6 storey chemical plant in his garden if he wants to, but only if he cuts you in.
This was how you started the debate on Doncaster. I had previously been saying how ukip were taking WWC votes from labour, bit hadn't mentioned this area
"Doncaster is one of the whitest and most working class constituencies in the UK. If UKIP is really serious about going after the Labour vote it should surely make a real effort there with a high profile candidate. Perhaps even the Nigemeister himself - after all, the locals must feel horribly betrayed by their sitting MP. We should expect a massive switch to UKIP next year, shouldn't we?"
Given your sarcastic nature I think it is obvious you thought you were in to a winner
Then there was a massive switch to ukip in the locals
The next year was, of course, referring to the GE. As I believe I said in other posts, I had no idea how the locals would go. I can't remember, but I think I may even have offered you a vote on Ed getting about 50% of the vote share. Still happy to if you fancy it.
There was talk of a bet but nothing was done...
If you want to bet on Ed getting over 50% in Doncaster North at EVS I'm happy to play, how much for?
EdM to get 50% or more of the votes cast in his constituency at the next general election. £20?
As long as the constituency is Doncaster North you're on. Wouldn't be fair one of us if he stood in Hackney or Hornchurch... So yeah as long as it's Doncaster North
@Tykejohnno Are you pointing out that George Eaton failed English comprehension?
By what twist of logic does he get from.... "Miliband didn't say he was opposed to photo-opps, he said he was opposed to those who thought they were the most important thing"
To..... "What about ed's big photo op with Obama,you couldn't make it up,christ help us ;-)"
Does anyone remember IDS popularity trajectory after he made the Quiet Man speech? I seem to remember it was the nail in his coffin - but happy to be refuted by actual facts.
Also what should we remember this speech from Microband as? Suitable suggestions gratefully received.
Clearly abolishing planning rules completely is a non-starter, or your neighbour might erect a 6 storey chemical plant in his garden or a gaudy palace in the Cotswolds.
But...there's alot of 'brownfield' land where just allowing development to get on would make a significant difference. I'd propose that somehow the planning needs for a suitably defined 'brownfield' site be hugely reduced.
There's an evil, horrible but possibly necessary strategy to this which basically involves paying off the blocking minority. Depending on your political leanings you could frame this as a communitarian property development collective or a new kind of property right. Either way, you give the neighbours a share in the profits from developing something close to them, and in return you loosen up the planning requirements. So your neighbour can erect a 6 storey chemical plant in his garden if he wants to, but only if he cuts you in.
I don't see that it's evil to try to monetise externalities.
This was how you started the debate on Doncaster. I had previously been saying how ukip were taking WWC votes from labour, bit hadn't mentioned this area
"Doncaster is one of the whitest and most working class constituencies in the UK. If UKIP is really serious about going after the Labour vote it should surely make a real effort there with a high profile candidate. Perhaps even the Nigemeister himself - after all, the locals must feel horribly betrayed by their sitting MP. We should expect a massive switch to UKIP next year, shouldn't we?"
Given your sarcastic nature I think it is obvious you thought you were in to a winner
Then there was a massive switch to ukip in the locals
The next year was, of course, referring to the GE. As I believe I said in other posts, I had no idea how the locals would go. I can't remember, but I think I may even have offered you a vote on Ed getting about 50% of the vote share. Still happy to if you fancy it.
There was talk of a bet but nothing was done...
If you want to bet on Ed getting over 50% in Doncaster North at EVS I'm happy to play, how much for?
EdM to get 50% or more of the votes cast in his constituency at the next general election. £20?
As long as the constituency is Doncaster North you're on. Wouldn't be fair one of us if he stood in Hackney or Hornchurch... So yeah as long as it's Doncaster North
Clearly abolishing planning rules completely is a non-starter, or your neighbour might erect a 6 storey chemical plant in his garden or a gaudy palace in the Cotswolds.
But...there's alot of 'brownfield' land where just allowing development to get on would make a significant difference. I'd propose that somehow the planning needs for a suitably defined 'brownfield' site be hugely reduced.
There's an evil, horrible but possibly necessary strategy to this which basically involves paying off the blocking minority. Depending on your political leanings you could frame this as a communitarian property development collective or a new kind of property right. Either way, you give the neighbours a share in the profits from developing something close to them, and in return you loosen up the planning requirements. So your neighbour can erect a 6 storey chemical plant in his garden if he wants to, but only if he cuts you in.
Land Value Tax would have a similar effect (your neighbour develops a nasty chemical plant in his garden, so your land is less desirable / valuable, so your tax goes down.)
Well he clearly rates Barry shots as more important than dead Britons.
I know you rate Ed Miliband highly but say he'd still been in Britain, what do you think he could have done to bring them back?
As leader of her majesty's opposition, he has a duty to respond to the government on such grave issues. The fact he neglected his duty speaks volumes. Nothing he could have done would bring them back, but he didn't have to denigrate their memory by sodding off on a publicity junkit. He's an arsehole as well as a weirdo.
This was how you started the debate on Doncaster. I had previously been saying how ukip were taking WWC votes from labour, bit hadn't mentioned this area
"Doncaster is one of the whitest and most working class constituencies in the UK. If UKIP is really serious about going after the Labour vote it should surely make a real effort there with a high profile candidate. Perhaps even the Nigemeister himself - after all, the locals must feel horribly betrayed by their sitting MP. We should expect a massive switch to UKIP next year, shouldn't we?"
Given your sarcastic nature I think it is obvious you thought you were in to a winner
Then there was a massive switch to ukip in the locals
The next year was, of course, referring to the GE. As I believe I said in other posts, I had no idea how the locals would go. I can't remember, but I think I may even have offered you a vote on Ed getting about 50% of the vote share. Still happy to if you fancy it.
There was talk of a bet but nothing was done...
If you want to bet on Ed getting over 50% in Doncaster North at EVS I'm happy to play, how much for?
EdM to get 50% or more of the votes cast in his constituency at the next general election. £20?
As long as the constituency is Doncaster North you're on. Wouldn't be fair one of us if he stood in Hackney or Hornchurch... So yeah as long as it's Doncaster North
OK. May the best man win.
Could be a close call ...... Baxter currently gives Labour 52.7% of the vote.
Well he clearly rates Barry shots as more important than dead Britons.
I know you rate Ed Miliband highly but say he'd still been in Britain, what do you think he could have done to bring them back?
You might have a point, were Ed Miliband not auditioning for the role of Prime Minister....
If he has nothing to add on the matter of UK citizens being blasted from the skies, then perhaps he doesn't have anything to add on anything? The voters will take note - and pass due judgment at the end of the audition process.
This was how you started the debate on Doncaster. I had previously been saying how ukip were taking WWC votes from labour, bit hadn't mentioned this area
"Doncaster is one of the whitest and most working class constituencies in the UK. If UKIP is really serious about going after the Labour vote it should surely make a real effort there with a high profile candidate. Perhaps even the Nigemeister himself - after all, the locals must feel horribly betrayed by their sitting MP. We should expect a massive switch to UKIP next year, shouldn't we?"
Given your sarcastic nature I think it is obvious you thought you were in to a winner
Then there was a massive switch to ukip in the locals
The next year was, of course, referring to the GE. As I believe I said in other posts, I had no idea how the locals would go. I can't remember, but I think I may even have offered you a vote on Ed getting about 50% of the vote share. Still happy to if you fancy it.
There was talk of a bet but nothing was done...
If you want to bet on Ed getting over 50% in Doncaster North at EVS I'm happy to play, how much for?
EdM to get 50% or more of the votes cast in his constituency at the next general election. £20?
As long as the constituency is Doncaster North you're on. Wouldn't be fair one of us if he stood in Hackney or Hornchurch... So yeah as long as it's Doncaster North
OK. May the best man win.
Could be a close call ...... Baxter currently gives Labour 52.7% of the vote.
Indeed - I had a quick look at which side of that bet I would want to be on - and couldn't decide!
This was how you started the debate on Doncaster. I had previously been saying how ukip were taking WWC votes from labour, bit hadn't mentioned this area
"Doncaster is one of the whitest and most working class constituencies in the UK. If UKIP is really serious about going after the Labour vote it should surely make a real effort there with a high profile candidate. Perhaps even the Nigemeister himself - after all, the locals must feel horribly betrayed by their sitting MP. We should expect a massive switch to UKIP next year, shouldn't we?"
Given your sarcastic nature I think it is obvious you thought you were in to a winner
Then there was a massive switch to ukip in the locals
The next year was, of course, referring to the GE. As I believe I said in other posts, I had no idea how the locals would go. I can't remember, but I think I may even have offered you a vote on Ed getting about 50% of the vote share. Still happy to if you fancy it.
There was talk of a bet but nothing was done...
If you want to bet on Ed getting over 50% in Doncaster North at EVS I'm happy to play, how much for?
EdM to get 50% or more of the votes cast in his constituency at the next general election. £20?
As long as the constituency is Doncaster North you're on. Wouldn't be fair one of us if he stood in Hackney or Hornchurch... So yeah as long as it's Doncaster North
OK. May the best man win.
Could be a close call ...... Baxter currently gives Labour 52.7% of the vote.
That's why I am only going £20. I am confidentish, no more. EdM is not a bloke I'd want to stake a lot of cash on.
@Tykejohnno Are you pointing out that George Eaton failed English comprehension?
By what twist of logic does he get from.... "Miliband didn't say he was opposed to photo-opps, he said he was opposed to those who thought they were the most important thing"
To..... "What about ed's big photo op with Obama,you couldn't make it up,christ help us ;-)"
No,I'm saying he's a little posh tw@t,in my opinion ;-)
The logic is ,he said he was opposed to those who thought they were the most important thing but did everything in his powers to get his photo op with Obama,that was easy wasn't it.
Clearly abolishing planning rules completely is a non-starter, or your neighbour might erect a 6 storey chemical plant in his garden or a gaudy palace in the Cotswolds.
But...there's alot of 'brownfield' land where just allowing development to get on would make a significant difference. I'd propose that somehow the planning needs for a suitably defined 'brownfield' site be hugely reduced.
Changing the planning rules is not the answer. There are already lots of exemptions and reliefs for re-developing brownfield sites. What needs to happen is that planning permissions should be refused on greenfield sites whilst substantial brownfield sites are unused in a council area.
We should also tighten the rules on what properties can be built. Throwing up estates of 4 bedroom detached properties does little to help a market that really needs one and two bedroom properties.
The removal of planning rules will probably do a lot to help the profits of construction firms but little to actually solve the housing issue.
Does anyone remember IDS popularity trajectory after he made the Quiet Man speech? I seem to remember it was the nail in his coffin - but happy to be refuted by actual facts.
Also what should we remember this speech from Microband as? Suitable suggestions gratefully received.
I think you're labouring under the misapprehension that IDS was anything other than the political walking dead.
The nails in his coffin were the votes supporting him in the Conservative leadership campaign itself.
This was of course the Tory gothic period as IDS was replaced by Michael Howard.
@Tykejohnno You are saying that when there is a crisis, Ed should drop everything to get back to the House? Dave didn't even stop his holiday during the riots?
If he has nothing to add on the matter of UK citizens being blasted from the skies, then perhaps he doesn't have anything to add on anything? The voters will take note - and pass due judgment at the end of the audition process.
Right, no doubt they were hanging on his every word.
I'm going on Aeroflot next week and I'd like to state for the record that in the event of my untimely death, Ed Miliband can be in whatever country he likes, I couldn't give a shit either way.
I agree that many CEOs don't justify their large pay packets but am not convinced it is up to the Government to dictate pay packets in private companies. Surely it is up to the owners/shareholders to make this decision. It is also worth pointing out that these CEOs ought to be handing over over half of their inflated salaries to the Government in the form of taxes so cutting executive pay will cut the Government's tax take.
Fair go, Mr Gareth, I am also doubtful of government interference in private contracts. However, as soon as one introduces a minimum wage that principle has been breached. What would be so awful as to introduce a maximum wage? Moreover, the salary of those at the top would be linked to the salary they pay their staff; pay the worker bees more and they can award themselves pay rises too. That would also offset the loss of tax revenue that you mentioned.
The thing is, it's trivially easy to dodge any such rule that is applied as a sticking plaster solution.
Take John Lewis for example. They've received a bit of stick for using contracted out cleaners. That means that they can boast of paying all their employees the "living wage" while the cleaning company that employs their cleaners only pays the minimum wage.
In your proposed system a company can simply contract-out their lowest-paid staff, and then since their lowest-paid remaining staff would earn more they could give the CEO a bumper pay increase.
The reason your scheme fails is because the incentives are wrong, and it's still the executives who are in charge of setting their own pay.
A better alternative would be to do something to strengthen Unions, including giving them seats on the board, repealing some of the anti-Union laws, etc. Or you could give shareholders more power to limit executive pay (after all it's supposed to be their money), and perhaps devolve the voting rights of shareholders to pension investors rather than pension scheme administrators.
You have to find a way of involving people in the pay-setting process who don't have an incentive to say yes to huge pay increases every year, otherwise they'll always find a tricksy way around whatever rules you create.
Ed Miliband’s big speech this lunchtime was introduced by Tulip Siddiq, Labour’s PPC in Hampstead and Kilburn. Not a great week to appear on stage with someone previously best known for smiling in a photo alongside Vladimir Putin last year:
I do wonder what wallies are advising Ed, if the polls remain they will be the same wallies advising him to make real decisions come next year, not just to play student politics.
John Bulford, economic advisor to the EY ITEM Club, reckons the 0.8% growth reading could be revised up next month:
"The disparity between official figures, which show manufacturing output growing by just 0.2% and construction contracting by 0.5%, and business survey data, which show both sectors roaring ahead, is glaring. With that in mind, it would not be a surprise to see the Q2 figures revised up in the next release in mid-August.”
Fisher's [ and Rod's ] whole model depends on swingback. So biased is his model towards swingback that he had predicted a year or so back that CON had a 97% chance of getting an absolute majority !
So what do you do when the third party loses 60% of it's votes and a fourth party emerges with votes 5 times as large as GE2010 ?
Still pretend that all is hunky dory ? Swingback , my arse !
@Tykejohnno You are saying that when there is a crisis, Ed should drop everything to get back to the House? Dave didn't even stop his holiday during the riots?
Eh ?
We were on about the two faced speech of ed miliband,he didn't think the most important thing was a photo op but the most important thing some days ago was ed's photo op with Obama.
@Tykejohnno You are saying that when there is a crisis, Ed should drop everything to get back to the House? Dave didn't even stop his holiday during the riots?
Dave has got the job. Ed wants the job. You would think Ed would have more hunger.
And a better sense of priorities. But then, Ed is crap....
@Tykejohnno You are saying that when there is a crisis, Ed should drop everything to get back to the House? Dave didn't even stop his holiday during the riots?
Dave has got the job. Ed wants the job. You would think Ed would have more hunger.
And a better sense of priorities. But then, Ed is crap....
I don't want to live in a world where the would-be Prime Minister is judged on where he is when British citizens die, however tragically. It'd be the ultimate triumph of presentation over substance.
I say that as someone who believes that Ed is weirder than American cheese.
@Tykejohnno I didn't realise it was just the photo op, I thought he got to talk to talk to the Prez? 20 minutes is not a long time I grant you, but possibly immensely useful. More useful than listening to Dave, then nodding in agreement, I have a dog in the back of my car that does that.
Of course it's hypocritical in the extreme - you might think satire is dead when the Labour Party, yes the Labour Party, claims not to be interested in photo-op politics and cynical personal attacks. Still, as an example of photo-op politics and cynical personal attacks, it's very skilfully written.
The most telling thing about Ed was the response of big brother David after the leadership election, David could barely believe he'd lost to his geeky little brother. Like him or not, Cameron genuinely believes he should be the PM, Ed seems terrified of the concept.
"But I am not from central casting. You can find people who are more square-jawed. More chiselled. Look less like Wallace. You could probably even find people who look better eating a bacon sandwich."
An astute Lib Dem friend of mine noted that Ed Miliband needed to 'own' his "weirdness". I think he was right and it seems Ed is doing so.
Grimsby, Dudley North and South, Boston, Thanet North and South, Great Yarmouth, Thurrock, Folkestone & Hythe, Eastleigh, St. Austell, Plymouth Moor View, Castle Point, Sittingbourne & Sheppey, Bognor Regis, Portsmouth South, Huntingdon, Basildon, are all worth watching.
Well let's have a look at those in 2010. Figures are CON LAB LIB UKIP
Maybe I'm missing something but I'm struggling to see how a load of seats in which UKIP came last in 2010, with typically no more than 20% of the winner's vote share and in one case no vote at all, can be considered winnable by UKIP.
It looks like a list of marginals but in every case marginal among two or all three of the others. None is marginal in the sense that the winner got 10,000 votes and three others got 9,500.
Eastleigh in particular looks unlikely. If UKIP can't win it with the whole of their resources concentrated there in a by-election after the incumbent has been jailed for perjury, the prospects for winning it in a GE when they are more thinly stretched and recently beaten seem slimmer still.
@Tykejohnno I didn't realise it was just the photo op, I thought he got to talk to talk to the Prez? 20 minutes is not a long time I grant you, but possibly immensely useful. More useful than listening to Dave, then nodding in agreement, I have a dog in the back of my car that does that.
Again,ed just told us on photo op's he was opposed to those who thought they were the most important thing,(ed didn't think so last week)just imagine if Cameron had said it,you would be having a field day.
John Bulford, economic advisor to the EY ITEM Club, reckons the 0.8% growth reading could be revised up next month:
"The disparity between official figures, which show manufacturing output growing by just 0.2% and construction contracting by 0.5%, and business survey data, which show both sectors roaring ahead, is glaring. With that in mind, it would not be a surprise to see the Q2 figures revised up in the next release in mid-August.”
If my July sales is anything to go by, I am surprised that manufacturing even grew by 0.2% in June. The Orders in July has fallen of the cliff.
We sell only to manufacturing. Small, medium, large. All sorts. Some orders are not being cancelled , but rescheduled to later.
Export companies are definitely are less optimistic than six months back.
Something strange in going on.. Let's see PMI or better still the real data next month.
Since, Services constitute 75% of British GDP and Manufacturing only 10% - GDP could be doing very well if IKEA is doing well. Then again, people need disposable income to buy.
With wages growth still negative or very small, how do we square the circle ?
It is still artifically low interest rates. That is why Carney is finding new excuses not to raise interest rates. The House of Cards could just collapse.
It has been quite a culture shock for my kids, being in Portugal. Meal times are no longer dominated by people tapping away at their I phones and children are having to speak to each other instead. They are even speaking to their parents. I am encouraging them to look at it as one of these living history experiments. But if the internet is indeed the future of business and trade Portugal is in even worse trouble than we thought.
Which part are you in? Friends (Labour councillors) take all their holidays in the north, because they like the un-touristy traditional flavour.
On topic, I think Mike K is right - the Doncaster focus is tactical, to gain attention and rattle the cages, rather than a serious attempt. Good by-election though!
Now if only they'd get their orgainsation to the point that they sort out how one books stands, my (non-partisan) day job would be very pleased. Less than two months to go, and no information available whatsoever. Even worse than last year, when we did get a stand and had a pleasant day (there are lots of animal-friendly UKIP people).
For @NickPalmer and others who are interested in the UKIP conference in Doncaster:
John Bulford, economic advisor to the EY ITEM Club, reckons the 0.8% growth reading could be revised up next month:
"The disparity between official figures, which show manufacturing output growing by just 0.2% and construction contracting by 0.5%, and business survey data, which show both sectors roaring ahead, is glaring. With that in mind, it would not be a surprise to see the Q2 figures revised up in the next release in mid-August.”
The September update on GDP methodology will hopefully show why the ONS are out of step with all of the other indicators. Last time I did the calculation economic growth is about 1% higher than is being stated and the recession was about 0.5% shallower than is being stated. If the ONS close that gap the government will be very lucky as the per capita output mark may be met slightly earlier.
Going on the PSF figures alone it is clear that the economy is outperforming the current headline rate given, even after seasonal adjustments tax take is up by a lot more than growth over the last two year period, even after taking into account inflation and distortions from the pre-announcement of the 45% rate and the lowering of the headline corporation tax rate. After all of those changes tax yield has still outperformed economic growth without any new significant tax rises.
It's odd to get one set of statistics disagreeing with another like this so I really hope September marks a step-change for the ONS.
Grimsby, Dudley North and South, Boston, Thanet North and South, Great Yarmouth, Thurrock, Folkestone & Hythe, Eastleigh, St. Austell, Plymouth Moor View, Castle Point, Sittingbourne & Sheppey, Bognor Regis, Portsmouth South, Huntingdon, Basildon, are all worth watching.
Well let's have a look at those in 2010. Figures are CON LAB LIB UKIP
Maybe I'm missing something but I'm struggling to see how a load of seats in which UKIP came last in 2010, with typically no more than 20% of the winner's vote share and in one case no vote at all, can be considered winnable by UKIP.
It looks like a list of marginals but in every case marginal among two or all three of the others. None is marginal in the sense that the winner got 10,000 votes and three others got 9,500.
Eastleigh in particular looks unlikely. If UKIP can't win it with the whole of their resources concentrated there in a by-election after the incumbent has been jailed for perjury, the prospects for winning it in a GE when they are more thinly stretched and recently beaten seem slimmer still.
I look like Wallace and can't eat a bacon sandwich but there's more to politics than photo opportunities, says Ed Miliband (who flew to the US for a picture with Obama)
Grimsby, Dudley North and South, Boston, Thanet North and South, Great Yarmouth, Thurrock, Folkestone & Hythe, Eastleigh, St. Austell, Plymouth Moor View, Castle Point, Sittingbourne & Sheppey, Bognor Regis, Portsmouth South, Huntingdon, Basildon, are all worth watching.
Well let's have a look at those in 2010. Figures are CON LAB LIB UKIP
Maybe I'm missing something but I'm struggling to see how a load of seats in which UKIP came last in 2010, with typically no more than 20% of the winner's vote share and in one case no vote at all, can be considered winnable by UKIP.
It looks like a list of marginals but in every case marginal among two or all three of the others. None is marginal in the sense that the winner got 10,000 votes and three others got 9,500.
Eastleigh in particular looks unlikely. If UKIP can't win it with the whole of their resources concentrated there in a by-election after the incumbent has been jailed for perjury, the prospects for winning it in a GE when they are more thinly stretched and recently beaten seem slimmer still.
Multiply the UKIP vote by 3 or 4 times, (and that's slightly below current poll ratings for UKIP) and UKIP are in contention.
Ed's not weird .He's just different.It is this difference which the media narrative is perpetuating because being different can be used in a divisive way.In the same sense,anyone with a disability knows that disability is caused by society.We are all different which,paradoxically,is what unites us.Vive la difference!
@Tykejohnno I didn't realise it was just the photo op, I thought he got to talk to talk to the Prez? 20 minutes is not a long time I grant you, but possibly immensely useful. More useful than listening to Dave, then nodding in agreement, I have a dog in the back of my car that does that.
Again,ed just told us on photo op's he was opposed to those who thought they were the most important thing,(ed didn't think so last week)just imagine if Cameron had said it,you would be having a field day.
Nothing wrong with ‘photo-ops’ – just avoid those involving the letter ‘B’
Barry, Bacon, Butty and Bouquet – that sort of thing…
I look like Wallace and can't eat a bacon sandwich but there's more to politics than photo opportunities, says Ed Miliband (who flew to the US for a picture with Obama)
@Tykejohnno I didn't realise it was just the photo op, I thought he got to talk to talk to the Prez? 20 minutes is not a long time I grant you, but possibly immensely useful. More useful than listening to Dave, then nodding in agreement, I have a dog in the back of my car that does that.
Again,ed just told us on photo op's he was opposed to those who thought they were the most important thing,(ed didn't think so last week)just imagine if Cameron had said it,you would be having a field day.
Nothing wrong with ‘photo-ops’ – just avoid those involving the letter ‘B’
Barry, Bacon, Butty and Bouquet – that sort of thing…
@Tykejohnno I didn't realise it was just the photo op, I thought he got to talk to talk to the Prez? 20 minutes is not a long time I grant you, but possibly immensely useful. More useful than listening to Dave, then nodding in agreement, I have a dog in the back of my car that does that.
Again,ed just told us on photo op's he was opposed to those who thought they were the most important thing,(ed didn't think so last week)just imagine if Cameron had said it,you would be having a field day.
Nothing wrong with ‘photo-ops’ – just avoid those involving the letter ‘B’
Barry, Bacon, Butty and Bouquet – that sort of thing…
@sjarichards: @DPJHodges Somewhere in Lab HQ there must literally be a media grid that says Mon: photo opp with Obama...Fri: Speech decrying photo opps
@Tykejohnno You are saying that when there is a crisis, Ed should drop everything to get back to the House? Dave didn't even stop his holiday during the riots?
Grimsby, Dudley North and South, Boston, Thanet North and South, Great Yarmouth, Thurrock, Folkestone & Hythe, Eastleigh, St. Austell, Plymouth Moor View, Castle Point, Sittingbourne & Sheppey, Bognor Regis, Portsmouth South, Huntingdon, Basildon, are all worth watching.
Well let's have a look at those in 2010. Figures are CON LAB LIB UKIP
Maybe I'm missing something but I'm struggling to see how a load of seats in which UKIP came last in 2010, with typically no more than 20% of the winner's vote share and in one case no vote at all, can be considered winnable by UKIP.
It looks like a list of marginals but in every case marginal among two or all three of the others. None is marginal in the sense that the winner got 10,000 votes and three others got 9,500.
UKIP are on ~14% nationally.
If the Lib Dems were to get say 3% then their vote distro may well look something like UKIP's at the 2010GE - they will get more, but at 3% I'd venture to guess most political parties would have a fairly evenly distributed vote. The "lumpiness" needed to win FPTP seats disappears.
Now UKIP are on, I believe, 14%. That 11% will not be gained uniformly. There are areas where they won't go ahead so much, I'd expect them to lose deposits in Glasgow and London for instance, Sheffield Central.. and other areas like the east coast, parts of Essex and Lincolnshire, even some parts of the north (Doncaster, Rotherham) where they will outperform their UNS and may even in seats Thurrock, Thanet South, Boston & Skegness come very close to or actually win the seat.
The seat calculators don't see them winning a seat on 14% but it would take a remarkable uniformity of increase in support with low variation for them not to.
Just because their performance was uniform on ~ 3% last time, does not mean they will have a uniform increase to 14%.
It will be far less lumpy than the Lib Dems 10% or w/e they get but it will still have enough "lumps" to get them very close or win a few seats.
Lord Ashcroft's polling and Local Election results give a good pointer to this.
Eastleigh by the same polling and results is sticking Lib Dem whereas on UNS it may well go (Conservative)
@volcanopete Except on PB where we are all practically Greek gods, though with "enhanced undercarriage" obviously? (except the ladies of course who will have other arrangements)
Grimsby, Dudley North and South, Boston, Thanet North and South, Great Yarmouth, Thurrock, Folkestone & Hythe, Eastleigh, St. Austell, Plymouth Moor View, Castle Point, Sittingbourne & Sheppey, Bognor Regis, Portsmouth South, Huntingdon, Basildon, are all worth watching.
Well let's have a look at those in 2010. Figures are CON LAB LIB UKIP
Maybe I'm missing something but I'm struggling to see how a load of seats in which UKIP came last in 2010, with typically no more than 20% of the winner's vote share and in one case no vote at all, can be considered winnable by UKIP.
It looks like a list of marginals but in every case marginal among two or all three of the others. None is marginal in the sense that the winner got 10,000 votes and three others got 9,500.
Eastleigh in particular looks unlikely. If UKIP can't win it with the whole of their resources concentrated there in a by-election after the incumbent has been jailed for perjury, the prospects for winning it in a GE when they are more thinly stretched and recently beaten seem slimmer still.
Multiply the UKIP vote by 3 or 4 times, (and that's slightly below current poll ratings for UKIP) and UKIP are in contention.
@maaarsh He was on holiday for most of the "riots"
Yes, in a defined 'holiday' period for MPs. Ed jetted off for a photo op when Parliament was sitting. It's not like he missed the Ukraine statement because it was an emergency recalled Parliament.
We should also tighten the rules on what properties can be built. Throwing up estates of 4 bedroom detached properties does little to help a market that really needs one and two bedroom properties.
Have you tried calling up the housing developers and explaining to them what the market really needs?
Your Capital city is going to hell in a handcart, but you have a violin concerto to perform? Niether Bojo or Dave managed it back till it was all over bar the shouting.
Grimsby, Dudley North and South, Boston, Thanet North and South, Great Yarmouth, Thurrock, Folkestone & Hythe, Eastleigh, St. Austell, Plymouth Moor View, Castle Point, Sittingbourne & Sheppey, Bognor Regis, Portsmouth South, Huntingdon, Basildon, are all worth watching.
Well let's have a look at those in 2010. Figures are CON LAB LIB UKIP
Maybe I'm missing something but I'm struggling to see how a load of seats in which UKIP came last in 2010, with typically no more than 20% of the winner's vote share and in one case no vote at all, can be considered winnable by UKIP.
It looks like a list of marginals but in every case marginal among two or all three of the others. None is marginal in the sense that the winner got 10,000 votes and three others got 9,500.
Eastleigh in particular looks unlikely. If UKIP can't win it with the whole of their resources concentrated there in a by-election after the incumbent has been jailed for perjury, the prospects for winning it in a GE when they are more thinly stretched and recently beaten seem slimmer still.
Multiply the UKIP vote by 3 or 4 times, (and that's slightly below current poll ratings for UKIP) and UKIP are in contention.
Why would you do that?
UKIP achieved 919,471 votes at the last General Election (3.1%)
They were around 3% in the polls before that one.
Assuming a lowish estimate (Some may say realistic) of 9% for UKIP in GE2015 trebling the number of voters in each seat takes you from 3 -> 9%... !
12% = Quadruple.
Some areas higher, others lower - it won't be uniform multiplicative or additive (traditional) swing. But its a working starting point.
If the Lib Dems were to get say 3% then their vote distro may well look something like UKIP's at the 2010GE - they will get more, but at 3% I'd venture to guess most political parties would have a fairly evenly distributed vote. The "lumpiness" needed to win FPTP seats disappears.
Now UKIP are on, I believe, 14%. That 11% will not be gained uniformly. There are areas where they won't go ahead so much, I'd expect them to lose deposits in Glasgow and London for instance, Sheffield Central.. and other areas like the east coast, parts of Essex and Lincolnshire, even some parts of the north (Doncaster, Rotherham) where they will outperform their UNS and may even in seats Thurrock, Thanet South, Boston & Skegness come very close to or actually win the seat.
The seat calculators don't see them winning a seat on 14% but it would take a remarkable uniformity of increase in support with low variation for them not to.
Just because their performance was uniform on ~ 3% last time, does not mean they will have a uniform increase to 14%.
It will be far less lumpy than the Lib Dems 10% or w/e they get but it will still have enough "lumps" to get them very close or win a few seats.
Lord Ashcroft's polling and Local Election results give a good pointer to this.
Eastleigh by the same polling and results is sticking Lib Dem whereas on UNS it may well go (Conservative)
But UKIP won't poll 14% in a year, any more than they polled in May 2010 what they had polled in July 2009. The question is what they fall back to.
Their performance last time wasn't a uniform 3%, and if you look at how it did shake out, there is no reason for UKIP optimism. Broadly, everywhere UKIP did well, so did the Tories. Thus - but for UKIP - the Tories would have got Balls out of Morley. UKIP's best %age of the poll was Christchurch where they got about 8%. Unfortunately for UKIP the Tories got nearly 28,000 votes so that Christchurch was both UKIP's best poll share but also one of its worst losing margins.
I don't think the Ashcroft polling is a pointer to anything quite frankly. I still reckon on a UKIP vote of about 5%.
Would anyone like to have a bet with me on Tory seats in Scotland versus UKIP seats in UK at the next GE?
I would buy this. So if CON get 3 seats in Scawtland and UKIP get none, I win 3 points at £whatever per point. If UKIP win 6 seats and Tories lose their only seat in Scotland, I pay 6 x £whatever.
Grimsby, Dudley North and South, Boston, Thanet North and South, Great Yarmouth, Thurrock, Folkestone & Hythe, Eastleigh, St. Austell, Plymouth Moor View, Castle Point, Sittingbourne & Sheppey, Bognor Regis, Portsmouth South, Huntingdon, Basildon, are all worth watching.
Well let's have a look at those in 2010. Figures are CON LAB LIB UKIP
Maybe I'm missing something but I'm struggling to see how a load of seats in which UKIP came last in 2010, with typically no more than 20% of the winner's vote share and in one case no vote at all, can be considered winnable by UKIP.
UKIP are on ~14% nationally.
If the Lib Dems were to get say 3% then their vote distro may well look something like UKIP's at the 2010GE - they will get more, but at 3% I'd venture to guess most political parties would have a fairly evenly distributed vote. The "lumpiness" needed to win FPTP seats disappears.
Now UKIP are on, I believe, 14%. That 11% will not be gained uniformly. There are areas where they won't go ahead so much, I'd expect them to lose deposits in Glasgow and London for instance, Sheffield Central.. and other areas like the east coast, parts of Essex and Lincolnshire, even some parts of the north (Doncaster, Rotherham) where they will outperform their UNS and may even in seats Thurrock, Thanet South, Boston & Skegness come very close to or actually win the seat.
The seat calculators don't see them winning a seat on 14% but it would take a remarkable uniformity of increase in support with low variation for them not to.
Just because their performance was uniform on ~ 3% last time, does not mean they will have a uniform increase to 14%.
It will be far less lumpy than the Lib Dems 10% or w/e they get but it will still have enough "lumps" to get them very close or win a few seats.
Lord Ashcroft's polling and Local Election results give a good pointer to this.
Eastleigh by the same polling and results is sticking Lib Dem whereas on UNS it may well go (Conservative)
I would pretty much adopt that analysis.
Around these parts, though, there is a different vibe (i.e. how voters see their choice in 2015) between Waveney and Great Yarmouth in Suffolk, where UKIP may poll well but don't have the narrative (through northern Essex, where they don't stand a chance) through to the estuary (e.g. Thurrock) where we may well see some strong UKIP challenges or even gains because UKIP is close to displacing Labour as the challenger to the Conservatives and is therefore in a position to frame that as the voters' choice.
Clearly abolishing planning rules completely is a non-starter, or your neighbour might erect a 6 storey chemical plant in his garden or a gaudy palace in the Cotswolds.
But...there's alot of 'brownfield' land where just allowing development to get on would make a significant difference. I'd propose that somehow the planning needs for a suitably defined 'brownfield' site be hugely reduced.
There's an evil, horrible but possibly necessary strategy to this which basically involves paying off the blocking minority. Depending on your political leanings you could frame this as a communitarian property development collective or a new kind of property right. Either way, you give the neighbours a share in the profits from developing something close to them, and in return you loosen up the planning requirements. So your neighbour can erect a 6 storey chemical plant in his garden if he wants to, but only if he cuts you in.
I don't see that it's evil to try to monetise externalities.
There's a legitimate argument for it, certainly, but in an ideal world I don't think you want to effectively extend property rights to everything in your field of vision, which is what it would take to make this thing work.
Anyhow I definitely think there's a practical policy in there somewhere. Do it right and you hit localism, communitarianism and Thatcherite property-owning democracy buttons all in one go, and solve an actual problem to boot.
If the Lib Dems were to get say 3% then their vote distro may well look something like UKIP's at the 2010GE - they will get more, but at 3% I'd venture to guess most political parties would have a fairly evenly distributed vote. The "lumpiness" needed to win FPTP seats disappears.
Now UKIP are on, I believe, 14%. That 11% will not be gained uniformly. There are areas where they won't go ahead so much, I'd expect them to lose deposits in Glasgow and London for instance, Sheffield Central.. and other areas like the east coast, parts of Essex and Lincolnshire, even some parts of the north (Doncaster, Rotherham) where they will outperform their UNS and may even in seats Thurrock, Thanet South, Boston & Skegness come very close to or actually win the seat.
The seat calculators don't see them winning a seat on 14% but it would take a remarkable uniformity of increase in support with low variation for them not to.
Just because their performance was uniform on ~ 3% last time, does not mean they will have a uniform increase to 14%.
It will be far less lumpy than the Lib Dems 10% or w/e they get but it will still have enough "lumps" to get them very close or win a few seats.
Lord Ashcroft's polling and Local Election results give a good pointer to this.
Eastleigh by the same polling and results is sticking Lib Dem whereas on UNS it may well go (Conservative)
But UKIP won't poll 14% in a year, any more than they polled in May 2010 what they had polled in July 2009. The question is what they fall back to.
Their performance last time wasn't a uniform 3%, and if you look at how it did shake out, there is no reason for UKIP optimism. Broadly, everywhere UKIP did well, so did the Tories. Thus - but for UKIP - the Tories would have got Balls out of Morley. UKIP's best %age of the poll was Christchurch where they got about 8%. Unfortunately for UKIP the Tories got nearly 28,000 votes so that Christchurch was both UKIP's best poll share but also one of its worst losing margins.
I don't think the Ashcroft polling is a pointer to anything quite frankly.
Well the Bookies clearly think they do - take Thurrock for instance.
Right now it is 8-11 Labour, 4-1 Conservatives.
If you don't believe UKIP are in the race there then you could back both for a 78% book on the matter.
That is effectively laying UKIP at 7-2.
2-7 Conservative or Labour is MASSIVE odds if you don't see UKIP being in the Thurrock race.
Some areas higher, others lower - it won't be uniform multiplicative or additive (traditional) swing. But its a working starting point.
Only if you assume there's no end to UKIP's appeal. However, just as it's easier for CON to get from 30 to 35% than from 35 to 40%, so it is difficult for UKIP to get much past some other %age. In a GE, that is.
To me, that %age is about where they are now. To assume that they will poll 14% next year is like assuming that Blair would poll 61% in 1997; the case in each instance being polls.
If the Lib Dems were to get say 3% then their vote distro may well look something like UKIP's at the 2010GE - they will get more, but at 3% I'd venture to guess most political parties would have a fairly evenly distributed vote. The "lumpiness" needed to win FPTP seats disappears.
Now UKIP are on, I believe, 14%. That 11% will not be gained uniformly. There are areas where they won't go ahead so much, I'd expect them to lose deposits in Glasgow and London for instance, Sheffield Central.. and other areas like the east coast, parts of Essex and Lincolnshire, even some parts of the north (Doncaster, Rotherham) where they will outperform their UNS and may even in seats Thurrock, Thanet South, Boston & Skegness come very close to or actually win the seat.
The seat calculators don't see them winning a seat on 14% but it would take a remarkable uniformity of increase in support with low variation for them not to.
Just because their performance was uniform on ~ 3% last time, does not mean they will have a uniform increase to 14%.
It will be far less lumpy than the Lib Dems 10% or w/e they get but it will still have enough "lumps" to get them very close or win a few seats.
Lord Ashcroft's polling and Local Election results give a good pointer to this.
Eastleigh by the same polling and results is sticking Lib Dem whereas on UNS it may well go (Conservative)
But UKIP won't poll 14% in a year, any more than they polled in May 2010 what they had polled in July 2009. The question is what they fall back to.
Their performance last time wasn't a uniform 3%, and if you look at how it did shake out, there is no reason for UKIP optimism. Broadly, everywhere UKIP did well, so did the Tories. Thus - but for UKIP - the Tories would have got Balls out of Morley. UKIP's best %age of the poll was Christchurch where they got about 8%. Unfortunately for UKIP the Tories got nearly 28,000 votes so that Christchurch was both UKIP's best poll share but also one of its worst losing margins.
I don't think the Ashcroft polling is a pointer to anything quite frankly.
Well the Bookies clearly think they do - take Thurrock for instance.
Right now it is 8-11 Labour, 4-1 Conservatives.
If you don't believe UKIP are in the race there then you could back both for a 78% book on the matter.
That is effectively laying UKIP at 7-2.
2-7 Conservative or Labour is MASSIVE odds if you don't see UKIP being in the Thurrock race.
That may be more down to the punters than the bookies.
New Populus VI: Lab 37 (-); Cons 35 (+3); LD 9 (-); UKIP 9 (-4); Oth 10 (+1)
And, as ever, Friday is like a Tory for the weekend, sir
Plus a big dip for the kip.
I'm struggling to find a chart of UKIP scores for Populus, but I think that's the lowest for some time. Happy to be corrected though. The rest unremarkable.
Comments
Prior to Attlee's government, there were planning and building controls in some big urban areas, but by and large, people could build as they pleased on their own land. There's a bit in Screwtape Proposes a Toast where Screwtape (speaking here for CS Lewis) is scornful of the whole idea that the State should prohibit someone from doing as they please with their own property.
But, abolishing planning permission just isn't in the realm of practical politics.
I wanted him to stick with the blue labour policies he looked like he was going to use at the start if his leadership and there is def a bit of old loyalty in preferring him to DC... Unfortunately I rumbled that it's me projecting what I want labour to be rather than what they are, hence moving to ukip
That said, a win's a win.
Guido amusing: http://order-order.com/2014/07/25/miliband-dont-vote-for-me/
Tory photo ops: Baaaaad
Labour:idiots...
Come to West Sussex, look at the number of houses being built - building sites throwing up the slums of tomorrow are everywhere. We are not even talking about new estates there is a whole new town going up on the edge of Horsham (no new hospitals, no expansion of the ambulance service, no new roads, no new railways, of course). Then come back and tell us how difficult it is to get permission to build new houses.
Who said they could. My point is the arithmetic of it.
But...there's alot of 'brownfield' land where just allowing development to get on would make a significant difference. I'd propose that somehow the planning needs for a suitably defined 'brownfield' site be hugely reduced.
From what I gather it is the decontamination costs which holds up "brownfield sites.
George Eaton @georgeeaton
Miliband didn't say he was opposed to photo-opps, he said he was opposed to those who thought they were the most important thing
What about ed's big photo op with Obama,you couldn't make it up,christ help us ;-)
Are you pointing out that George Eaton failed English comprehension?
By what twist of logic does he get from....
"Miliband didn't say he was opposed to photo-opps, he said he was opposed to those who thought they were the most important thing"
To.....
"What about ed's big photo op with Obama,you couldn't make it up,christ help us ;-)"
Also what should we remember this speech from Microband as? Suitable suggestions gratefully received.
Must have been a good speech from Ed then.
Nothing he could have done would bring them back, but he didn't have to denigrate their memory by sodding off on a publicity junkit. He's an arsehole as well as a weirdo.
If he has nothing to add on the matter of UK citizens being blasted from the skies, then perhaps he doesn't have anything to add on anything? The voters will take note - and pass due judgment at the end of the audition process.
The logic is ,he said he was opposed to those who thought they were the most important thing but did everything in his powers to get his photo op with Obama,that was easy wasn't it.
We should also tighten the rules on what properties can be built. Throwing up estates of 4 bedroom detached properties does little to help a market that really needs one and two bedroom properties.
The removal of planning rules will probably do a lot to help the profits of construction firms but little to actually solve the housing issue.
The nails in his coffin were the votes supporting him in the Conservative leadership campaign itself.
This was of course the Tory gothic period as IDS was replaced by Michael Howard.
Spooky ....
You are saying that when there is a crisis, Ed should drop everything to get back to the House?
Dave didn't even stop his holiday during the riots?
I'm going on Aeroflot next week and I'd like to state for the record that in the event of my untimely death, Ed Miliband can be in whatever country he likes, I couldn't give a shit either way.
Take John Lewis for example. They've received a bit of stick for using contracted out cleaners. That means that they can boast of paying all their employees the "living wage" while the cleaning company that employs their cleaners only pays the minimum wage.
In your proposed system a company can simply contract-out their lowest-paid staff, and then since their lowest-paid remaining staff would earn more they could give the CEO a bumper pay increase.
The reason your scheme fails is because the incentives are wrong, and it's still the executives who are in charge of setting their own pay.
A better alternative would be to do something to strengthen Unions, including giving them seats on the board, repealing some of the anti-Union laws, etc. Or you could give shareholders more power to limit executive pay (after all it's supposed to be their money), and perhaps devolve the voting rights of shareholders to pension investors rather than pension scheme administrators.
You have to find a way of involving people in the pay-setting process who don't have an incentive to say yes to huge pay increases every year, otherwise they'll always find a tricksy way around whatever rules you create.
http://order-order.com/2014/07/25/miliband-speech-introduced-by-smiling-putin-chum/
Photo-ops hey....
I do wonder what wallies are advising Ed, if the polls remain they will be the same wallies advising him to make real decisions come next year, not just to play student politics.
"The disparity between official figures, which show manufacturing output growing by just 0.2% and construction contracting by 0.5%, and business survey data, which show both sectors roaring ahead, is glaring. With that in mind, it would not be a surprise to see the Q2 figures revised up in the next release in mid-August.”
http://www.theguardian.com/business/live/2014/jul/25/uk-economy-growth-gdp-peak-george-osborne-business-live
He wasn't the devil incarnate last year, he only got full promotion recently
So what do you do when the third party loses 60% of it's votes and a fourth party emerges with votes 5 times as large as GE2010 ?
Still pretend that all is hunky dory ? Swingback , my arse !
Interesting little bit:
"He admitted using "long words" that didn't make "soundbites""
presumably like "endogenous growth theory" and we know how that breath of fresh air narrative ended.
We were on about the two faced speech of ed miliband,he didn't think the most important thing was a photo op but the most important thing some days ago was ed's photo op with Obama.
And a better sense of priorities. But then, Ed is crap....
I say that as someone who believes that Ed is weirder than American cheese.
I didn't realise it was just the photo op, I thought he got to talk to talk to the Prez?
20 minutes is not a long time I grant you, but possibly immensely useful.
More useful than listening to Dave, then nodding in agreement, I have a dog in the back of my car that does that.
http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2014/07/ed-milibands-speech-to-launch-labours-summer-campaign-full-text/
Of course it's hypocritical in the extreme - you might think satire is dead when the Labour Party, yes the Labour Party, claims not to be interested in photo-op politics and cynical personal attacks. Still, as an example of photo-op politics and cynical personal attacks, it's very skilfully written.
An astute Lib Dem friend of mine noted that Ed Miliband needed to 'own' his "weirdness". I think he was right and it seems Ed is doing so.
The Ed's are a busted flush now!
Grimsby, 10063 10777 7388 2043
Dudley North 14274 14923 4066 3267
...and South, 16450 12594 5989 3132
Boston, 21325 8899 6371 4081
Thanet North 22826 9298 8400 2819
...and South, 22043 14426 6935 2529
Great Yarmouth, 18571 14295 6188 2066
Thurrock, 16869 16777 4901 3390
Folkestone & Hythe, 26109 5719 15987 2439
Eastleigh, 21102 5153 24966 1933
St. Austell, 18877 3386 20189 1757
Plymouth Moor View, 13845 15433 7016 3188
Castle Point, 19806 6609 4232 0!!
Sittingbourne & Sheppey, 24313 11930 7943 2610
Bognor Regis, 24087 6580 11024 3036
Portsmouth South, 13721 5640 18921 876
Huntingdon, 26516 5982 15697 3258
Basildon 21922 9584 6538 1591
Maybe I'm missing something but I'm struggling to see how a load of seats in which UKIP came last in 2010, with typically no more than 20% of the winner's vote share and in one case no vote at all, can be considered winnable by UKIP.
It looks like a list of marginals but in every case marginal among two or all three of the others. None is marginal in the sense that the winner got 10,000 votes and three others got 9,500.
Eastleigh in particular looks unlikely. If UKIP can't win it with the whole of their resources concentrated there in a by-election after the incumbent has been jailed for perjury, the prospects for winning it in a GE when they are more thinly stretched and recently beaten seem slimmer still.
We sell only to manufacturing. Small, medium, large. All sorts. Some orders are not being cancelled , but rescheduled to later.
Export companies are definitely are less optimistic than six months back.
Something strange in going on.. Let's see PMI or better still the real data next month.
Since, Services constitute 75% of British GDP and Manufacturing only 10% - GDP could be doing very well if IKEA is doing well. Then again, people need disposable income to buy.
With wages growth still negative or very small, how do we square the circle ?
It is still artifically low interest rates. That is why Carney is finding new excuses not to raise interest rates. The House of Cards could just collapse.
http://www.ukip.org/doncaster
LD 742 Con 352 ind 208 UKIP 146 Lab 48
Ward is in Beith's Berwick Upon Tweed constituency
Going on the PSF figures alone it is clear that the economy is outperforming the current headline rate given, even after seasonal adjustments tax take is up by a lot more than growth over the last two year period, even after taking into account inflation and distortions from the pre-announcement of the 45% rate and the lowering of the headline corporation tax rate. After all of those changes tax yield has still outperformed economic growth without any new significant tax rises.
It's odd to get one set of statistics disagreeing with another like this so I really hope September marks a step-change for the ONS.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2705555/I-look-like-Wallace-t-eat-bacon-sandwich-s-politics-photo-opportunities-says-Ed-Miliband-flew-US-picture-Obama.html
Barry, Bacon, Butty and Bouquet – that sort of thing…
But maybe they were being ultra-smart: perhaps it was all part of a cunning strategy to rework his image as 'Not Flash, Just Geeky'.
If the Lib Dems were to get say 3% then their vote distro may well look something like UKIP's at the 2010GE - they will get more, but at 3% I'd venture to guess most political parties would have a fairly evenly distributed vote. The "lumpiness" needed to win FPTP seats disappears.
Now UKIP are on, I believe, 14%. That 11% will not be gained uniformly. There are areas where they won't go ahead so much, I'd expect them to lose deposits in Glasgow and London for instance, Sheffield Central.. and other areas like the east coast, parts of Essex and Lincolnshire, even some parts of the north (Doncaster, Rotherham) where they will outperform their UNS and may even in seats Thurrock, Thanet South, Boston & Skegness come very close to or actually win the seat.
The seat calculators don't see them winning a seat on 14% but it would take a remarkable uniformity of increase in support with low variation for them not to.
Just because their performance was uniform on ~ 3% last time, does not mean they will have a uniform increase to 14%.
It will be far less lumpy than the Lib Dems 10% or w/e they get but it will still have enough "lumps" to get them very close or win a few seats.
Lord Ashcroft's polling and Local Election results give a good pointer to this.
Eastleigh by the same polling and results is sticking Lib Dem whereas on UNS it may well go (Conservative)
Except on PB where we are all practically Greek gods, though with "enhanced undercarriage" obviously?
(except the ladies of course who will have other arrangements)
He was on holiday for most of the "riots"
Your Capital city is going to hell in a handcart, but you have a violin concerto to perform?
Niether Bojo or Dave managed it back till it was all over bar the shouting.
They were around 3% in the polls before that one.
Assuming a lowish estimate (Some may say realistic) of 9% for UKIP in GE2015 trebling the number of voters in each seat takes you from 3 -> 9%... !
12% = Quadruple.
Some areas higher, others lower - it won't be uniform multiplicative or additive (traditional) swing. But its a working starting point.
Their performance last time wasn't a uniform 3%, and if you look at how it did shake out, there is no reason for UKIP optimism. Broadly, everywhere UKIP did well, so did the Tories. Thus - but for UKIP - the Tories would have got Balls out of Morley. UKIP's best %age of the poll was Christchurch where they got about 8%. Unfortunately for UKIP the Tories got nearly 28,000 votes so that Christchurch was both UKIP's best poll share but also one of its worst losing margins.
I don't think the Ashcroft polling is a pointer to anything quite frankly. I still reckon on a UKIP vote of about 5%.
New Populus VI: Lab 37 (-); Cons 35 (+3); LD 9 (-); UKIP 9 (-4); Oth 10 (+1)
And, as ever, Friday is like a Tory for the weekend, sir
Plus a big dip for the kip.
I would buy this. So if CON get 3 seats in Scawtland and UKIP get none, I win 3 points at £whatever per point. If UKIP win 6 seats and Tories lose their only seat in Scotland, I pay 6 x £whatever.
Anyone fancy a bit?
Around these parts, though, there is a different vibe (i.e. how voters see their choice in 2015) between Waveney and Great Yarmouth in Suffolk, where UKIP may poll well but don't have the narrative (through northern Essex, where they don't stand a chance) through to the estuary (e.g. Thurrock) where we may well see some strong UKIP challenges or even gains because UKIP is close to displacing Labour as the challenger to the Conservatives and is therefore in a position to frame that as the voters' choice.
Anyhow I definitely think there's a practical policy in there somewhere. Do it right and you hit localism, communitarianism and Thatcherite property-owning democracy buttons all in one go, and solve an actual problem to boot.
Right now it is 8-11 Labour, 4-1 Conservatives.
If you don't believe UKIP are in the race there then you could back both for a 78% book on the matter.
That is effectively laying UKIP at 7-2.
2-7 Conservative or Labour is MASSIVE odds if you don't see UKIP being in the Thurrock race.
To me, that %age is about where they are now. To assume that they will poll 14% next year is like assuming that Blair would poll 61% in 1997; the case in each instance being polls.
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2012/02/04/david-cameron-visits-morrisons-_n_1254186.html
Aunty thoughtfully provides lots of photos explaining why.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-28459474