Will Sunak’s position be stronger or weaker after today? – politicalbetting.com

I think I got away with it


Il’m trying to persuade my brother to do it, too. Then there’ll be two of us going “whhOOOOoooOOOoooh” - one in Peru and one in indochina and I bet that’s never happened before

Driver said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

YBarddCwsc said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

YBarddCwsc said:

geoffw said:

It's odd that so many here on a political betting site describe the DUP and ERG as bonkers. They are far from that, being quite rational, calculating and disciplined in their political positioning. Where they differ from those calling them bonkers is in their values and aspirations for NI.

It helps to be bonkers. The ERG seems to have been pretty successful in terms of obtaining political goals over the last decades. (True, the DUP are both bonkers and been unsuccessful ).

Let's, e.g., compare it to politicians who are keen on reducing wealth inequality. This is a political goal that has gone backwards over the last decades (or at best stagnated). No matter who is in power, there has been pretty meagre progress.

As we are (probably) coming to an end of a period of Tory rule, it is instructive to consider how Tory Governments (first Thatcher and then the Brexiteers) have changed the UK very dramatically.

By comparison, the Labour Governments of my lifetime -- though sometimes competent and sometimes incompetent -- have not achieved any comparably lasting changes in the UK.

I'm no fan of the last Labour government, but the last Labour Government achieved some lasting changes in the UK. Notably more equality for homosexuality, although that was a global phenomenon and they fell short of legalising equality in marriage itself which fell to David Cameron to achieve.

Devolution and BoE independence too, and the Minimum Wage.

What's remarkable though is that almost everything that the last Labour Government achieved was done in 1997/98. I'd be curious if even the most ardent of Labour supporters can name any lasting changes that were introduced from 1999 onwards?

Minimum wage -- I grant you. The Tories would never introduced that. But, it has not had much effect in reducing wealth inequality. So, in my book, it falls into the category of tinkering at the edges.

Devolution has been a disaster for Wales. It is poorer now that it was before 1999. The standard of Government has been abysmally low.

I will leave our Scottish posters to describe whether devolution has been good for Scotland.

You didn't ask for changes for the better, just lasting changes. Devolution certainly is a lasting change, even if it hasn't improved things.

On the same basis, perhaps you could include our indebtedness now as a lasting change brought about by Labour, but I don't know anyone from Labour who admits that was intentional, unlike devolution.

Increase in debt under last Labour government: £681bn. Increase in debt under current Tory government: £1,543bn. And counting.

That's a legacy of the deficit that Labour bequeathed.

Unless you think the Tories could or should have implemented a form of austerity so severe they ran a neutral budget from year one?

It was a legacy of the worst global financial crisis since WW2.

Which thanks to Brown's decade of preparation we were uniquely well-placed to weather?

Our increase in debt/GDP between 2007 and 2010 was a bit more than in the US and a bit less than in Japan.

LostPassword said:

mwadams said:

noneoftheabove said:

Stuartinromford said:

LostPassword said:

Stuartinromford said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Stuartinromford said:

Sandpit said:

darkage said:

Sunak should put it to a vote and let the headbangers lose. They need to face up to the reality that no one outside of their bubble cares about their concerns. On my estimation they have about 7 more years to make Brexit work and improve their levels of support amongst the working age population otherwise rejoin will come back on to the political agenda in a big way. As every year goes by, Leave/ERG lose a large tranche of their impassioned supporters because they are overwhelmingly old.

The issue is that the vast majority of the potential benefits are not being taken, and the constant prioritisation of the NI stuff doesn’t help. Where’s the serious deregulation, the free zones, the incentives for businesses and startups to locate in the UK? Every damn government department should have a massive Bill up for debate this year, and there should be a minister on the news every morning with a positive vision for the future. Yet nothing.

But Treasury authodoxy, and managed declinism, are still ruling the roost in No.10. If the government want to see a 1997 result, rather than a 1992 result, they’re going exactly the right way about it.

Easy. It's the same reason that Lexiteers haven't got the Socialist Republic of Britain that they voted Leave to secure.

EU regulations weren't the only thing stopping the UK deregulating massively, or swinging hard to the left. They were the visible roadblock, but they weren't the only factor. Massive deregulation hasn't got a mandate from the British public and probably wouldn't be all that popular. Consider the way that the government can't loosen up planning restrictions, even thoughs have never had anything to do with Europe.

The bulk of the Brexit vote, the bulk of the VL campaign was a mandate to divert EU subs to the NHS, mostly a vote by pensioners for pensioners. Oh, and less Eastern Europeans on the streets too.

So to those who voted leave to get more dramatic change, sorry. You have to dance with the one who brung ya.

For those who want more dramatic change, they now need to win a General Election.

Boris Johnson may be the one who led the Leave campaign and got us over the line for Brexit, but he won't be PM forever. *checks notes* Actually he's already not PM, so the 'one who brung ya' has already disappeared into the sunset.

That's the whole point of 'taking back control'. We decide, democratically, who we want in Parliament at the elections. And if our Parliamentarians do a bad job, we can change them at the next election, as is likely as it stands in many seats next time.

That's democracy, and that's why Brexit was a good idea. Sacrificing democracy is not worthwhile.

Some truth in that, but I was really responding to the "why hasn't the government radically deregulated" question. And as you say, there's no mandate so far for that. But it does leave two questions.

First one goes like this. A lot of the Brexit vote came from retired homeowners, who I think you and I would agree are doing a reasonable job of running the country into the ground because they're not interested in anything beyond their lifespan. From their point of view, Parliamentarians can be doing an excellent job, as long as they turn the national seedcorn into cake for tomorrow. When Brexit backers allied themselves with a bunch of selfish shortighted fools to get the vote over the line, what did they think was going to happen?

Second, suppose that what the UK actually wants is a somewhat different flavour of Butskellism to our near neighbours, and that our input into the democratic processes of Europe aren't enough to secure that. (After all, you can say that the democracy of the EU is incomplete or fuzzy, but it's a stretch to say that it's not democratic. And if the UK doesn't always get its way... well, that's democracy.) At what does separation become more hassle than it's worth?

Worth remembering that, in the latest YouGov opinion poll, that gave Labour a 50-22 lead among the population as a whole, the Tories still led by 40-30 in the 65+ age group.

If Labour do win the next election it will be the first time the oldies have lost a national UK vote for, well, almost a generation. That would in many respects be a greater political shift than the partisan one from Tories to Labour.

Bigger question- when was the last time that that cohort (born in the 50s Boomers) lost a vote?

Eurovision?

2001 and 2005, both 55+ voted Tory, and Labour won.

https://www.ipsos.com/en-uk/how-britain-voted-2001
https://www.ipsos.com/en-uk/how-britain-voted-2005

In 2001 only the oldest boomers were aged 55.

Sure - the data doesn't break down precisely where you'd want!

It seems reasonable to assume on those numbers that the majority of those in the 65+ cohort today certainly *didn't* vote with the election winners in 2005.

(2001 is definitely more marginal - but the question was "when was the last time" and that would be 2005.)

BartholomewRoberts said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

YBarddCwsc said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

YBarddCwsc said:

geoffw said:

It's odd that so many here on a political betting site describe the DUP and ERG as bonkers. They are far from that, being quite rational, calculating and disciplined in their political positioning. Where they differ from those calling them bonkers is in their values and aspirations for NI.

It helps to be bonkers. The ERG seems to have been pretty successful in terms of obtaining political goals over the last decades. (True, the DUP are both bonkers and been unsuccessful ).

Let's, e.g., compare it to politicians who are keen on reducing wealth inequality. This is a political goal that has gone backwards over the last decades (or at best stagnated). No matter who is in power, there has been pretty meagre progress.

As we are (probably) coming to an end of a period of Tory rule, it is instructive to consider how Tory Governments (first Thatcher and then the Brexiteers) have changed the UK very dramatically.

By comparison, the Labour Governments of my lifetime -- though sometimes competent and sometimes incompetent -- have not achieved any comparably lasting changes in the UK.

I'm no fan of the last Labour government, but the last Labour Government achieved some lasting changes in the UK. Notably more equality for homosexuality, although that was a global phenomenon and they fell short of legalising equality in marriage itself which fell to David Cameron to achieve.

Devolution and BoE independence too, and the Minimum Wage.

What's remarkable though is that almost everything that the last Labour Government achieved was done in 1997/98. I'd be curious if even the most ardent of Labour supporters can name any lasting changes that were introduced from 1999 onwards?

Minimum wage -- I grant you. The Tories would never introduced that. But, it has not had much effect in reducing wealth inequality. So, in my book, it falls into the category of tinkering at the edges.

Devolution has been a disaster for Wales. It is poorer now that it was before 1999. The standard of Government has been abysmally low.

I will leave our Scottish posters to describe whether devolution has been good for Scotland.

You didn't ask for changes for the better, just lasting changes. Devolution certainly is a lasting change, even if it hasn't improved things.

On the same basis, perhaps you could include our indebtedness now as a lasting change brought about by Labour, but I don't know anyone from Labour who admits that was intentional, unlike devolution.

Increase in debt under last Labour government: £681bn. Increase in debt under current Tory government: £1,543bn. And counting.

That's a legacy of the deficit that Labour bequeathed.

Unless you think the Tories could or should have implemented a form of austerity so severe they ran a neutral budget from year one?

Or the Tories could have grown the economy, building on the recovery inherited from Labour, instead of Osborne's austerity which failed even on its own terms.

They did. The economy grew faster in the UK in the 2010s than in the Eurozone despite either Tory austerity or Brexit.

So how much faster were you expecting?

That is because the EU had German-imposed austerity. Ironically, Osborne's austerity might have worked for us if the EU was booming. Compare us with the United States. Or compare us to where we might be had Osborne not choked off the recovery. All you need to know about economics is that George Osborne was wrong about everything so you should stop regurgitating his electioneering spin.

HYUFD said:

Sean_F said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

Driver said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

YBarddCwsc said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

YBarddCwsc said:

geoffw said:

It's odd that so many here on a political betting site describe the DUP and ERG as bonkers. They are far from that, being quite rational, calculating and disciplined in their political positioning. Where they differ from those calling them bonkers is in their values and aspirations for NI.

It helps to be bonkers. The ERG seems to have been pretty successful in terms of obtaining political goals over the last decades. (True, the DUP are both bonkers and been unsuccessful ).

Let's, e.g., compare it to politicians who are keen on reducing wealth inequality. This is a political goal that has gone backwards over the last decades (or at best stagnated). No matter who is in power, there has been pretty meagre progress.

As we are (probably) coming to an end of a period of Tory rule, it is instructive to consider how Tory Governments (first Thatcher and then the Brexiteers) have changed the UK very dramatically.

By comparison, the Labour Governments of my lifetime -- though sometimes competent and sometimes incompetent -- have not achieved any comparably lasting changes in the UK.

I'm no fan of the last Labour government, but the last Labour Government achieved some lasting changes in the UK. Notably more equality for homosexuality, although that was a global phenomenon and they fell short of legalising equality in marriage itself which fell to David Cameron to achieve.

Devolution and BoE independence too, and the Minimum Wage.

What's remarkable though is that almost everything that the last Labour Government achieved was done in 1997/98. I'd be curious if even the most ardent of Labour supporters can name any lasting changes that were introduced from 1999 onwards?

Minimum wage -- I grant you. The Tories would never introduced that. But, it has not had much effect in reducing wealth inequality. So, in my book, it falls into the category of tinkering at the edges.

Devolution has been a disaster for Wales. It is poorer now that it was before 1999. The standard of Government has been abysmally low.

I will leave our Scottish posters to describe whether devolution has been good for Scotland.

You didn't ask for changes for the better, just lasting changes. Devolution certainly is a lasting change, even if it hasn't improved things.

On the same basis, perhaps you could include our indebtedness now as a lasting change brought about by Labour, but I don't know anyone from Labour who admits that was intentional, unlike devolution.

Increase in debt under last Labour government: £681bn. Increase in debt under current Tory government: £1,543bn. And counting.

That's a legacy of the deficit that Labour bequeathed.

Unless you think the Tories could or should have implemented a form of austerity so severe they ran a neutral budget from year one?

It was a legacy of the worst global financial crisis since WW2.

Which thanks to Brown's decade of preparation we were uniquely well-placed to weather?

You think Gordon Brown should have shut down the City and dug a big hole in the Midlands to sell commodities to China? Well, it worked for Australia.

If he'd been running a budget surplus as he should have for that stage of the economic cycle, then the deficit spending would have been far less significant afterwards and purely cyclical.

I’d say that Labour’s biggest long-term failure was letting house prices rip from 1999 to 2007.

2007 was the year that levels of home ownership began falling.

Plus not imposing transition controls on free movement from the new accession nations in 2004 unlike Germany

That wasn't a failure, it was a deliberate policy decision and very successful in its own terms...

Sandpit said:

Driver said:

Razedabode said:

HYUFD said:

Fishing said:

CorrectHorseBattery3 said:

https://inews.co.uk/news/politics/labour-pledges-to-relax-planning-rules-to-help-young-people-buy-homes-2175055

YES, FINALLY.

Labour pledges to help young people buy homes by relaxing planning rules

All parties promise this in opposition and ditch it in government when NIMBYs wear them down.

Starmer is the last person to face down determined opposition, so I imagine this proposal will face the same fate as all the previous ones.

There are fewer NIMBYS in inner city Labour heartlands than rural areas and suburban areas and commuter towns.

So Labour don't need the votes of NIMBYS as much as the Tories and LDs

I think most have continually underestimated Starmers ability to “get on” and make a impact. It’ll be the same here.

The devil will be in the details. "Protections for renters" will surely constrain rental supply - will that really be outweighed by a massive housebuilding programme - and how do people who can't afford to save for a deposit because they have to rent get to buy the new houses?

The government appears to be doing a pretty good job already of constraining rental supply, with policies around mortgage interest allowance and capital depreciation.

The answer is build more houses. Build More Houses. BUILD. LOTS. MORE. HOUSES.

Nothing else will work, except perhaps banning immigration until more houses are built.

In a village nearby work has stopped on a small new estate; the first houses were built, put on the market (about a year ago) and are still unsold! They are priced at around £450,000, though.

And a belated good morning to one and all.

HYUFD said:

LostPassword said:

HYUFD said:

LostPassword said:

HYUFD said:

LostPassword said:

tlg86 said:

Stuartinromford said:

LostPassword said:

Stuartinromford said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Stuartinromford said:

Sandpit said:

darkage said:

Sunak should put it to a vote and let the headbangers lose. They need to face up to the reality that no one outside of their bubble cares about their concerns. On my estimation they have about 7 more years to make Brexit work and improve their levels of support amongst the working age population otherwise rejoin will come back on to the political agenda in a big way. As every year goes by, Leave/ERG lose a large tranche of their impassioned supporters because they are overwhelmingly old.

The issue is that the vast majority of the potential benefits are not being taken, and the constant prioritisation of the NI stuff doesn’t help. Where’s the serious deregulation, the free zones, the incentives for businesses and startups to locate in the UK? Every damn government department should have a massive Bill up for debate this year, and there should be a minister on the news every morning with a positive vision for the future. Yet nothing.

But Treasury authodoxy, and managed declinism, are still ruling the roost in No.10. If the government want to see a 1997 result, rather than a 1992 result, they’re going exactly the right way about it.

Easy. It's the same reason that Lexiteers haven't got the Socialist Republic of Britain that they voted Leave to secure.

EU regulations weren't the only thing stopping the UK deregulating massively, or swinging hard to the left. They were the visible roadblock, but they weren't the only factor. Massive deregulation hasn't got a mandate from the British public and probably wouldn't be all that popular. Consider the way that the government can't loosen up planning restrictions, even thoughs have never had anything to do with Europe.

The bulk of the Brexit vote, the bulk of the VL campaign was a mandate to divert EU subs to the NHS, mostly a vote by pensioners for pensioners. Oh, and less Eastern Europeans on the streets too.

So to those who voted leave to get more dramatic change, sorry. You have to dance with the one who brung ya.

For those who want more dramatic change, they now need to win a General Election.

Boris Johnson may be the one who led the Leave campaign and got us over the line for Brexit, but he won't be PM forever. *checks notes* Actually he's already not PM, so the 'one who brung ya' has already disappeared into the sunset.

That's the whole point of 'taking back control'. We decide, democratically, who we want in Parliament at the elections. And if our Parliamentarians do a bad job, we can change them at the next election, as is likely as it stands in many seats next time.

That's democracy, and that's why Brexit was a good idea. Sacrificing democracy is not worthwhile.

Some truth in that, but I was really responding to the "why hasn't the government radically deregulated" question. And as you say, there's no mandate so far for that. But it does leave two questions.

First one goes like this. A lot of the Brexit vote came from retired homeowners, who I think you and I would agree are doing a reasonable job of running the country into the ground because they're not interested in anything beyond their lifespan. From their point of view, Parliamentarians can be doing an excellent job, as long as they turn the national seedcorn into cake for tomorrow. When Brexit backers allied themselves with a bunch of selfish shortighted fools to get the vote over the line, what did they think was going to happen?

Second, suppose that what the UK actually wants is a somewhat different flavour of Butskellism to our near neighbours, and that our input into the democratic processes of Europe aren't enough to secure that. (After all, you can say that the democracy of the EU is incomplete or fuzzy, but it's a stretch to say that it's not democratic. And if the UK doesn't always get its way... well, that's democracy.) At what does separation become more hassle than it's worth?

Worth remembering that, in the latest YouGov opinion poll, that gave Labour a 50-22 lead among the population as a whole, the Tories still led by 40-30 in the 65+ age group.

If Labour do win the next election it will be the first time the oldies have lost a national UK vote for, well, almost a generation. That would in many respects be a greater political shift than the partisan one from Tories to Labour.

Bigger question- when was the last time that that cohort (born in the 50s Boomers) lost a vote?

Possibly 2005:

https://electionreview.labourtogether.uk/chapters/the-scale-of-the-defeat

Those born between 1946 and 1955 broke for the Tories in 2005.

Definitions of the boomer generation include those born up until 1964, so would be those aged 41-59 at the 2005GE. They would still have voted for Labour over the Tories in 2005.

It's closer if you end the boomer generation in 1959.

Yes but on that basis most of those aged 41 to 50 in 2005 are now voting Starmer Labour anyway.

Only the majority of those over 65 are still voting Tory

Those aged 41-59 in 2005 are now aged 59-77. I think that age group is pretty strongly Tory at the moment.

Labour leads with 59 to 65 year olds

Which is only one-third of the age range of the cohort overall. (Plus, I didn't think anyone broke the age range didn't to five year intervals. Where do you get those figures from?)

The fact Labour leads clearly with 50 to 65 year olds in polls now

O-kay... That doesn't really follow because you cannot assume that the distribution of support is uniform within that age group, but I only asked the question because I was interested if there was any data I hadn't seen.

How is that relevant to the question of which party has the greatest support among the baby boomer generation?

We’re debating if this is wise. I’ll keep you posted

Sean_F said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

Driver said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

YBarddCwsc said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

YBarddCwsc said:

geoffw said:

It's odd that so many here on a political betting site describe the DUP and ERG as bonkers. They are far from that, being quite rational, calculating and disciplined in their political positioning. Where they differ from those calling them bonkers is in their values and aspirations for NI.

It helps to be bonkers. The ERG seems to have been pretty successful in terms of obtaining political goals over the last decades. (True, the DUP are both bonkers and been unsuccessful ).

Let's, e.g., compare it to politicians who are keen on reducing wealth inequality. This is a political goal that has gone backwards over the last decades (or at best stagnated). No matter who is in power, there has been pretty meagre progress.

As we are (probably) coming to an end of a period of Tory rule, it is instructive to consider how Tory Governments (first Thatcher and then the Brexiteers) have changed the UK very dramatically.

By comparison, the Labour Governments of my lifetime -- though sometimes competent and sometimes incompetent -- have not achieved any comparably lasting changes in the UK.

I'm no fan of the last Labour government, but the last Labour Government achieved some lasting changes in the UK. Notably more equality for homosexuality, although that was a global phenomenon and they fell short of legalising equality in marriage itself which fell to David Cameron to achieve.

Devolution and BoE independence too, and the Minimum Wage.

What's remarkable though is that almost everything that the last Labour Government achieved was done in 1997/98. I'd be curious if even the most ardent of Labour supporters can name any lasting changes that were introduced from 1999 onwards?

Minimum wage -- I grant you. The Tories would never introduced that. But, it has not had much effect in reducing wealth inequality. So, in my book, it falls into the category of tinkering at the edges.

Devolution has been a disaster for Wales. It is poorer now that it was before 1999. The standard of Government has been abysmally low.

I will leave our Scottish posters to describe whether devolution has been good for Scotland.

You didn't ask for changes for the better, just lasting changes. Devolution certainly is a lasting change, even if it hasn't improved things.

On the same basis, perhaps you could include our indebtedness now as a lasting change brought about by Labour, but I don't know anyone from Labour who admits that was intentional, unlike devolution.

Increase in debt under last Labour government: £681bn. Increase in debt under current Tory government: £1,543bn. And counting.

That's a legacy of the deficit that Labour bequeathed.

Unless you think the Tories could or should have implemented a form of austerity so severe they ran a neutral budget from year one?

It was a legacy of the worst global financial crisis since WW2.

Which thanks to Brown's decade of preparation we were uniquely well-placed to weather?

You think Gordon Brown should have shut down the City and dug a big hole in the Midlands to sell commodities to China? Well, it worked for Australia.

If he'd been running a budget surplus as he should have for that stage of the economic cycle, then the deficit spending would have been far less significant afterwards and purely cyclical.

I’d say that Labour’s biggest long-term failure was letting house prices rip from 1999 to 2007.

2007 was the year that levels of home ownership began falling.

Not sure Labour could have donw much about it.

Banks shifted their lending criteria from 3x+1x earnings to 4x joint earnings and prices across the country increased to reflect the additional money people could borrow (for good and bad).I watched it happen down south in 2001/2 and then up north between 2003/4....

Driver said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

carnforth said:

Theuniondivvie said:

Tomato bulletin Berlin, shocking scenes.




Only joking. Couldn’t find a turnip for love or money mind..

This message explains in detail how it's all to do with brexit.

The great tomato shortage is not "all to do with Brexit", it is true. But as the government has conceded, it is partly to do with Brexit. Faced with high demand from both Britain and (say) Germany, farmers take the easier option of supplying places that do not demand a ton of paperwork to export. That's the ones still in the EU as opposed to the one that Brexited.

Exports from Morocco to the UK require more paperwork than from Morocco to Germany?

Think about it. Spending £n to get bumf systems organised for the UK is a lot less efficient than spending £n (which you probably have already done) for the EU.

LostPassword said:

HYUFD said:

LostPassword said:

HYUFD said:

LostPassword said:

HYUFD said:

LostPassword said:

tlg86 said:

Stuartinromford said:

LostPassword said:

Stuartinromford said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Stuartinromford said:

Sandpit said:

darkage said:

Sunak should put it to a vote and let the headbangers lose. They need to face up to the reality that no one outside of their bubble cares about their concerns. On my estimation they have about 7 more years to make Brexit work and improve their levels of support amongst the working age population otherwise rejoin will come back on to the political agenda in a big way. As every year goes by, Leave/ERG lose a large tranche of their impassioned supporters because they are overwhelmingly old.

The issue is that the vast majority of the potential benefits are not being taken, and the constant prioritisation of the NI stuff doesn’t help. Where’s the serious deregulation, the free zones, the incentives for businesses and startups to locate in the UK? Every damn government department should have a massive Bill up for debate this year, and there should be a minister on the news every morning with a positive vision for the future. Yet nothing.

But Treasury authodoxy, and managed declinism, are still ruling the roost in No.10. If the government want to see a 1997 result, rather than a 1992 result, they’re going exactly the right way about it.

Easy. It's the same reason that Lexiteers haven't got the Socialist Republic of Britain that they voted Leave to secure.

EU regulations weren't the only thing stopping the UK deregulating massively, or swinging hard to the left. They were the visible roadblock, but they weren't the only factor. Massive deregulation hasn't got a mandate from the British public and probably wouldn't be all that popular. Consider the way that the government can't loosen up planning restrictions, even thoughs have never had anything to do with Europe.

The bulk of the Brexit vote, the bulk of the VL campaign was a mandate to divert EU subs to the NHS, mostly a vote by pensioners for pensioners. Oh, and less Eastern Europeans on the streets too.

So to those who voted leave to get more dramatic change, sorry. You have to dance with the one who brung ya.

For those who want more dramatic change, they now need to win a General Election.

Boris Johnson may be the one who led the Leave campaign and got us over the line for Brexit, but he won't be PM forever. *checks notes* Actually he's already not PM, so the 'one who brung ya' has already disappeared into the sunset.

That's the whole point of 'taking back control'. We decide, democratically, who we want in Parliament at the elections. And if our Parliamentarians do a bad job, we can change them at the next election, as is likely as it stands in many seats next time.

That's democracy, and that's why Brexit was a good idea. Sacrificing democracy is not worthwhile.

Some truth in that, but I was really responding to the "why hasn't the government radically deregulated" question. And as you say, there's no mandate so far for that. But it does leave two questions.

First one goes like this. A lot of the Brexit vote came from retired homeowners, who I think you and I would agree are doing a reasonable job of running the country into the ground because they're not interested in anything beyond their lifespan. From their point of view, Parliamentarians can be doing an excellent job, as long as they turn the national seedcorn into cake for tomorrow. When Brexit backers allied themselves with a bunch of selfish shortighted fools to get the vote over the line, what did they think was going to happen?

Second, suppose that what the UK actually wants is a somewhat different flavour of Butskellism to our near neighbours, and that our input into the democratic processes of Europe aren't enough to secure that. (After all, you can say that the democracy of the EU is incomplete or fuzzy, but it's a stretch to say that it's not democratic. And if the UK doesn't always get its way... well, that's democracy.) At what does separation become more hassle than it's worth?

Worth remembering that, in the latest YouGov opinion poll, that gave Labour a 50-22 lead among the population as a whole, the Tories still led by 40-30 in the 65+ age group.

If Labour do win the next election it will be the first time the oldies have lost a national UK vote for, well, almost a generation. That would in many respects be a greater political shift than the partisan one from Tories to Labour.

Bigger question- when was the last time that that cohort (born in the 50s Boomers) lost a vote?

Possibly 2005:

https://electionreview.labourtogether.uk/chapters/the-scale-of-the-defeat

Those born between 1946 and 1955 broke for the Tories in 2005.

Definitions of the boomer generation include those born up until 1964, so would be those aged 41-59 at the 2005GE. They would still have voted for Labour over the Tories in 2005.

It's closer if you end the boomer generation in 1959.

Yes but on that basis most of those aged 41 to 50 in 2005 are now voting Starmer Labour anyway.

Only the majority of those over 65 are still voting Tory

Those aged 41-59 in 2005 are now aged 59-77. I think that age group is pretty strongly Tory at the moment.

Labour leads with 59 to 65 year olds

Which is only one-third of the age range of the cohort overall. (Plus, I didn't think anyone broke the age range didn't to five year intervals. Where do you get those figures from?)

The fact Labour leads clearly with 50 to 65 year olds in polls now

O-kay... That doesn't really follow because you cannot assume that the distribution of support is uniform within that age group, but I only asked the question because I was interested if there was any data I hadn't seen.

How is that relevant to the question of which party has the greatest support among the baby boomer generation?

Extremely as Starmer is the first Labour leader since Blair to win significant support amongst baby boomers. Even if he hasn't quite managed to win pensioners overall as Blair managed to in 1997

Driver said:

HYUFD said:

Sean_F said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

Driver said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

YBarddCwsc said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

YBarddCwsc said:

geoffw said:

It's odd that so many here on a political betting site describe the DUP and ERG as bonkers. They are far from that, being quite rational, calculating and disciplined in their political positioning. Where they differ from those calling them bonkers is in their values and aspirations for NI.

It helps to be bonkers. The ERG seems to have been pretty successful in terms of obtaining political goals over the last decades. (True, the DUP are both bonkers and been unsuccessful ).

Let's, e.g., compare it to politicians who are keen on reducing wealth inequality. This is a political goal that has gone backwards over the last decades (or at best stagnated). No matter who is in power, there has been pretty meagre progress.

As we are (probably) coming to an end of a period of Tory rule, it is instructive to consider how Tory Governments (first Thatcher and then the Brexiteers) have changed the UK very dramatically.

By comparison, the Labour Governments of my lifetime -- though sometimes competent and sometimes incompetent -- have not achieved any comparably lasting changes in the UK.

I'm no fan of the last Labour government, but the last Labour Government achieved some lasting changes in the UK. Notably more equality for homosexuality, although that was a global phenomenon and they fell short of legalising equality in marriage itself which fell to David Cameron to achieve.

Devolution and BoE independence too, and the Minimum Wage.

What's remarkable though is that almost everything that the last Labour Government achieved was done in 1997/98. I'd be curious if even the most ardent of Labour supporters can name any lasting changes that were introduced from 1999 onwards?

Minimum wage -- I grant you. The Tories would never introduced that. But, it has not had much effect in reducing wealth inequality. So, in my book, it falls into the category of tinkering at the edges.

Devolution has been a disaster for Wales. It is poorer now that it was before 1999. The standard of Government has been abysmally low.

I will leave our Scottish posters to describe whether devolution has been good for Scotland.

You didn't ask for changes for the better, just lasting changes. Devolution certainly is a lasting change, even if it hasn't improved things.

On the same basis, perhaps you could include our indebtedness now as a lasting change brought about by Labour, but I don't know anyone from Labour who admits that was intentional, unlike devolution.

Increase in debt under last Labour government: £681bn. Increase in debt under current Tory government: £1,543bn. And counting.

That's a legacy of the deficit that Labour bequeathed.

Unless you think the Tories could or should have implemented a form of austerity so severe they ran a neutral budget from year one?

It was a legacy of the worst global financial crisis since WW2.

Which thanks to Brown's decade of preparation we were uniquely well-placed to weather?

You think Gordon Brown should have shut down the City and dug a big hole in the Midlands to sell commodities to China? Well, it worked for Australia.

If he'd been running a budget surplus as he should have for that stage of the economic cycle, then the deficit spending would have been far less significant afterwards and purely cyclical.

I’d say that Labour’s biggest long-term failure was letting house prices rip from 1999 to 2007.

2007 was the year that levels of home ownership began falling.

Plus not imposing transition controls on free movement from the new accession nations in 2004 unlike Germany

That wasn't a failure, it was a deliberate policy decision and very successful in its own terms...

In that it led to Brexit certainly

LostPassword said:

Sean_F said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

Driver said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

YBarddCwsc said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

YBarddCwsc said:

geoffw said:

It's odd that so many here on a political betting site describe the DUP and ERG as bonkers. They are far from that, being quite rational, calculating and disciplined in their political positioning. Where they differ from those calling them bonkers is in their values and aspirations for NI.

It helps to be bonkers. The ERG seems to have been pretty successful in terms of obtaining political goals over the last decades. (True, the DUP are both bonkers and been unsuccessful ).

Let's, e.g., compare it to politicians who are keen on reducing wealth inequality. This is a political goal that has gone backwards over the last decades (or at best stagnated). No matter who is in power, there has been pretty meagre progress.

As we are (probably) coming to an end of a period of Tory rule, it is instructive to consider how Tory Governments (first Thatcher and then the Brexiteers) have changed the UK very dramatically.

By comparison, the Labour Governments of my lifetime -- though sometimes competent and sometimes incompetent -- have not achieved any comparably lasting changes in the UK.

I'm no fan of the last Labour government, but the last Labour Government achieved some lasting changes in the UK. Notably more equality for homosexuality, although that was a global phenomenon and they fell short of legalising equality in marriage itself which fell to David Cameron to achieve.

Devolution and BoE independence too, and the Minimum Wage.

What's remarkable though is that almost everything that the last Labour Government achieved was done in 1997/98. I'd be curious if even the most ardent of Labour supporters can name any lasting changes that were introduced from 1999 onwards?

Minimum wage -- I grant you. The Tories would never introduced that. But, it has not had much effect in reducing wealth inequality. So, in my book, it falls into the category of tinkering at the edges.

Devolution has been a disaster for Wales. It is poorer now that it was before 1999. The standard of Government has been abysmally low.

I will leave our Scottish posters to describe whether devolution has been good for Scotland.

You didn't ask for changes for the better, just lasting changes. Devolution certainly is a lasting change, even if it hasn't improved things.

On the same basis, perhaps you could include our indebtedness now as a lasting change brought about by Labour, but I don't know anyone from Labour who admits that was intentional, unlike devolution.

Increase in debt under last Labour government: £681bn. Increase in debt under current Tory government: £1,543bn. And counting.

That's a legacy of the deficit that Labour bequeathed.

Unless you think the Tories could or should have implemented a form of austerity so severe they ran a neutral budget from year one?

It was a legacy of the worst global financial crisis since WW2.

Which thanks to Brown's decade of preparation we were uniquely well-placed to weather?

You think Gordon Brown should have shut down the City and dug a big hole in the Midlands to sell commodities to China? Well, it worked for Australia.

If he'd been running a budget surplus as he should have for that stage of the economic cycle, then the deficit spending would have been far less significant afterwards and purely cyclical.

I’d say that Labour’s biggest long-term failure was letting house prices rip from 1999 to 2007.

If I had to choose just one thing to sum up the New Labour era it would be buy-to-let.

New Labour were so relaxed about a minority becoming filthy rich that they didn't care if they did so at the expense of a larger group of people.

No, it was about watching major population increase without organising major increases in properties.

Compare the Malmesbury Coefficient of properties/people in France, say. And then you will see why, outside Paris, housing isn’t a problem.

mwadams said:

LostPassword said:

mwadams said:

noneoftheabove said:

Stuartinromford said:

LostPassword said:

Stuartinromford said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Stuartinromford said:

Sandpit said:

darkage said:

Sunak should put it to a vote and let the headbangers lose. They need to face up to the reality that no one outside of their bubble cares about their concerns. On my estimation they have about 7 more years to make Brexit work and improve their levels of support amongst the working age population otherwise rejoin will come back on to the political agenda in a big way. As every year goes by, Leave/ERG lose a large tranche of their impassioned supporters because they are overwhelmingly old.

The issue is that the vast majority of the potential benefits are not being taken, and the constant prioritisation of the NI stuff doesn’t help. Where’s the serious deregulation, the free zones, the incentives for businesses and startups to locate in the UK? Every damn government department should have a massive Bill up for debate this year, and there should be a minister on the news every morning with a positive vision for the future. Yet nothing.

But Treasury authodoxy, and managed declinism, are still ruling the roost in No.10. If the government want to see a 1997 result, rather than a 1992 result, they’re going exactly the right way about it.

Easy. It's the same reason that Lexiteers haven't got the Socialist Republic of Britain that they voted Leave to secure.

EU regulations weren't the only thing stopping the UK deregulating massively, or swinging hard to the left. They were the visible roadblock, but they weren't the only factor. Massive deregulation hasn't got a mandate from the British public and probably wouldn't be all that popular. Consider the way that the government can't loosen up planning restrictions, even thoughs have never had anything to do with Europe.

The bulk of the Brexit vote, the bulk of the VL campaign was a mandate to divert EU subs to the NHS, mostly a vote by pensioners for pensioners. Oh, and less Eastern Europeans on the streets too.

So to those who voted leave to get more dramatic change, sorry. You have to dance with the one who brung ya.

For those who want more dramatic change, they now need to win a General Election.

Boris Johnson may be the one who led the Leave campaign and got us over the line for Brexit, but he won't be PM forever. *checks notes* Actually he's already not PM, so the 'one who brung ya' has already disappeared into the sunset.

That's the whole point of 'taking back control'. We decide, democratically, who we want in Parliament at the elections. And if our Parliamentarians do a bad job, we can change them at the next election, as is likely as it stands in many seats next time.

That's democracy, and that's why Brexit was a good idea. Sacrificing democracy is not worthwhile.

Some truth in that, but I was really responding to the "why hasn't the government radically deregulated" question. And as you say, there's no mandate so far for that. But it does leave two questions.

First one goes like this. A lot of the Brexit vote came from retired homeowners, who I think you and I would agree are doing a reasonable job of running the country into the ground because they're not interested in anything beyond their lifespan. From their point of view, Parliamentarians can be doing an excellent job, as long as they turn the national seedcorn into cake for tomorrow. When Brexit backers allied themselves with a bunch of selfish shortighted fools to get the vote over the line, what did they think was going to happen?

Second, suppose that what the UK actually wants is a somewhat different flavour of Butskellism to our near neighbours, and that our input into the democratic processes of Europe aren't enough to secure that. (After all, you can say that the democracy of the EU is incomplete or fuzzy, but it's a stretch to say that it's not democratic. And if the UK doesn't always get its way... well, that's democracy.) At what does separation become more hassle than it's worth?

Worth remembering that, in the latest YouGov opinion poll, that gave Labour a 50-22 lead among the population as a whole, the Tories still led by 40-30 in the 65+ age group.

If Labour do win the next election it will be the first time the oldies have lost a national UK vote for, well, almost a generation. That would in many respects be a greater political shift than the partisan one from Tories to Labour.

Bigger question- when was the last time that that cohort (born in the 50s Boomers) lost a vote?

Eurovision?

2001 and 2005, both 55+ voted Tory, and Labour won.

https://www.ipsos.com/en-uk/how-britain-voted-2001
https://www.ipsos.com/en-uk/how-britain-voted-2005

In 2001 only the oldest boomers were aged 55.

Sure - the data doesn't break down precisely where you'd want!

It seems reasonable to assume on those numbers that the majority of those in the 65+ cohort today certainly *didn't* vote with the election winners in 2005.

(2001 is definitely more marginal - but the question was "when was the last time" and that would be 2005.)

Right, but still, our friend from Romford changed the question slightly - to focus on the baby boomer generation specifically, rather than on the 65+ age cohort at any time.

The baby boomer cohort only includes those aged up to 77 at the moment. It's true to say that those aged 65+ now will have voted for the Tories in 2005, but I think if we consider the baby boomer cohort specifically, those born between 1946 and 1964, then they will still have voted Labour in 2005.

So if the baby boomers do lose in 2024, it looks like it will be the first time that the baby boomers have lost a UK election. That's quite something.

Sean_F said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

Driver said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

YBarddCwsc said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

YBarddCwsc said:

geoffw said:

It's odd that so many here on a political betting site describe the DUP and ERG as bonkers. They are far from that, being quite rational, calculating and disciplined in their political positioning. Where they differ from those calling them bonkers is in their values and aspirations for NI.

It helps to be bonkers. The ERG seems to have been pretty successful in terms of obtaining political goals over the last decades. (True, the DUP are both bonkers and been unsuccessful ).

Let's, e.g., compare it to politicians who are keen on reducing wealth inequality. This is a political goal that has gone backwards over the last decades (or at best stagnated). No matter who is in power, there has been pretty meagre progress.

As we are (probably) coming to an end of a period of Tory rule, it is instructive to consider how Tory Governments (first Thatcher and then the Brexiteers) have changed the UK very dramatically.

By comparison, the Labour Governments of my lifetime -- though sometimes competent and sometimes incompetent -- have not achieved any comparably lasting changes in the UK.

I'm no fan of the last Labour government, but the last Labour Government achieved some lasting changes in the UK. Notably more equality for homosexuality, although that was a global phenomenon and they fell short of legalising equality in marriage itself which fell to David Cameron to achieve.

Devolution and BoE independence too, and the Minimum Wage.

What's remarkable though is that almost everything that the last Labour Government achieved was done in 1997/98. I'd be curious if even the most ardent of Labour supporters can name any lasting changes that were introduced from 1999 onwards?

Minimum wage -- I grant you. The Tories would never introduced that. But, it has not had much effect in reducing wealth inequality. So, in my book, it falls into the category of tinkering at the edges.

Devolution has been a disaster for Wales. It is poorer now that it was before 1999. The standard of Government has been abysmally low.

I will leave our Scottish posters to describe whether devolution has been good for Scotland.

You didn't ask for changes for the better, just lasting changes. Devolution certainly is a lasting change, even if it hasn't improved things.

On the same basis, perhaps you could include our indebtedness now as a lasting change brought about by Labour, but I don't know anyone from Labour who admits that was intentional, unlike devolution.

Increase in debt under last Labour government: £681bn. Increase in debt under current Tory government: £1,543bn. And counting.

That's a legacy of the deficit that Labour bequeathed.

Unless you think the Tories could or should have implemented a form of austerity so severe they ran a neutral budget from year one?

It was a legacy of the worst global financial crisis since WW2.

Which thanks to Brown's decade of preparation we were uniquely well-placed to weather?

You think Gordon Brown should have shut down the City and dug a big hole in the Midlands to sell commodities to China? Well, it worked for Australia.

If he'd been running a budget surplus as he should have for that stage of the economic cycle, then the deficit spending would have been far less significant afterwards and purely cyclical.

I’d say that Labour’s biggest long-term failure was letting house prices rip from 1999 to 2007.

2007 was the year that levels of home ownership began falling.

It's a fair point.
Had they seriously prioritised housebuilding, it might also have pre-emptively defused the weaponisation of immigration.

LostPassword said:

mwadams said:

LostPassword said:

mwadams said:

noneoftheabove said:

Stuartinromford said:

LostPassword said:

Stuartinromford said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Stuartinromford said:

Sandpit said:

darkage said:

Sunak should put it to a vote and let the headbangers lose. They need to face up to the reality that no one outside of their bubble cares about their concerns. On my estimation they have about 7 more years to make Brexit work and improve their levels of support amongst the working age population otherwise rejoin will come back on to the political agenda in a big way. As every year goes by, Leave/ERG lose a large tranche of their impassioned supporters because they are overwhelmingly old.

The issue is that the vast majority of the potential benefits are not being taken, and the constant prioritisation of the NI stuff doesn’t help. Where’s the serious deregulation, the free zones, the incentives for businesses and startups to locate in the UK? Every damn government department should have a massive Bill up for debate this year, and there should be a minister on the news every morning with a positive vision for the future. Yet nothing.

But Treasury authodoxy, and managed declinism, are still ruling the roost in No.10. If the government want to see a 1997 result, rather than a 1992 result, they’re going exactly the right way about it.

Easy. It's the same reason that Lexiteers haven't got the Socialist Republic of Britain that they voted Leave to secure.

EU regulations weren't the only thing stopping the UK deregulating massively, or swinging hard to the left. They were the visible roadblock, but they weren't the only factor. Massive deregulation hasn't got a mandate from the British public and probably wouldn't be all that popular. Consider the way that the government can't loosen up planning restrictions, even thoughs have never had anything to do with Europe.

The bulk of the Brexit vote, the bulk of the VL campaign was a mandate to divert EU subs to the NHS, mostly a vote by pensioners for pensioners. Oh, and less Eastern Europeans on the streets too.

So to those who voted leave to get more dramatic change, sorry. You have to dance with the one who brung ya.

For those who want more dramatic change, they now need to win a General Election.

Boris Johnson may be the one who led the Leave campaign and got us over the line for Brexit, but he won't be PM forever. *checks notes* Actually he's already not PM, so the 'one who brung ya' has already disappeared into the sunset.

That's the whole point of 'taking back control'. We decide, democratically, who we want in Parliament at the elections. And if our Parliamentarians do a bad job, we can change them at the next election, as is likely as it stands in many seats next time.

That's democracy, and that's why Brexit was a good idea. Sacrificing democracy is not worthwhile.

Some truth in that, but I was really responding to the "why hasn't the government radically deregulated" question. And as you say, there's no mandate so far for that. But it does leave two questions.

First one goes like this. A lot of the Brexit vote came from retired homeowners, who I think you and I would agree are doing a reasonable job of running the country into the ground because they're not interested in anything beyond their lifespan. From their point of view, Parliamentarians can be doing an excellent job, as long as they turn the national seedcorn into cake for tomorrow. When Brexit backers allied themselves with a bunch of selfish shortighted fools to get the vote over the line, what did they think was going to happen?

Second, suppose that what the UK actually wants is a somewhat different flavour of Butskellism to our near neighbours, and that our input into the democratic processes of Europe aren't enough to secure that. (After all, you can say that the democracy of the EU is incomplete or fuzzy, but it's a stretch to say that it's not democratic. And if the UK doesn't always get its way... well, that's democracy.) At what does separation become more hassle than it's worth?

Worth remembering that, in the latest YouGov opinion poll, that gave Labour a 50-22 lead among the population as a whole, the Tories still led by 40-30 in the 65+ age group.

If Labour do win the next election it will be the first time the oldies have lost a national UK vote for, well, almost a generation. That would in many respects be a greater political shift than the partisan one from Tories to Labour.

Bigger question- when was the last time that that cohort (born in the 50s Boomers) lost a vote?

Eurovision?

2001 and 2005, both 55+ voted Tory, and Labour won.

https://www.ipsos.com/en-uk/how-britain-voted-2001
https://www.ipsos.com/en-uk/how-britain-voted-2005

In 2001 only the oldest boomers were aged 55.

Sure - the data doesn't break down precisely where you'd want!

It seems reasonable to assume on those numbers that the majority of those in the 65+ cohort today certainly *didn't* vote with the election winners in 2005.

(2001 is definitely more marginal - but the question was "when was the last time" and that would be 2005.)

Right, but still, our friend from Romford changed the question slightly - to focus on the baby boomer generation specifically, rather than on the 65+ age cohort at any time.

The baby boomer cohort only includes those aged up to 77 at the moment. It's true to say that those aged 65+ now will have voted for the Tories in 2005, but I think if we consider the baby boomer cohort specifically, those born between 1946 and 1964, then they will still have voted Labour in 2005.

So if the baby boomers do lose in 2024, it looks like it will be the first time that the baby boomers have lost a UK election. That's quite something.

Ah, yes - reconstituting it that way I entirely agree (as per my previous comment on why people forget who the Boomers are!) The Boomers were absolutely Blair's generation.

noneoftheabove said:

Sandpit said:

Driver said:

Razedabode said:

HYUFD said:

Fishing said:

CorrectHorseBattery3 said:

https://inews.co.uk/news/politics/labour-pledges-to-relax-planning-rules-to-help-young-people-buy-homes-2175055

YES, FINALLY.

Labour pledges to help young people buy homes by relaxing planning rules

All parties promise this in opposition and ditch it in government when NIMBYs wear them down.

Starmer is the last person to face down determined opposition, so I imagine this proposal will face the same fate as all the previous ones.

There are fewer NIMBYS in inner city Labour heartlands than rural areas and suburban areas and commuter towns.

So Labour don't need the votes of NIMBYS as much as the Tories and LDs

I think most have continually underestimated Starmers ability to “get on” and make a impact. It’ll be the same here.

The devil will be in the details. "Protections for renters" will surely constrain rental supply - will that really be outweighed by a massive housebuilding programme - and how do people who can't afford to save for a deposit because they have to rent get to buy the new houses?

The government appears to be doing a pretty good job already of constraining rental supply, with policies around mortgage interest allowance and capital depreciation.

The answer is build more houses. Build More Houses. BUILD. LOTS. MORE. HOUSES.

Nothing else will work, except perhaps banning immigration until more houses are built.

We need immigrants to build the new houses........

Loads of industries are already heavily short of workers so can't "just raise wages".

Raise wages and let unproductive jobs that can't, die.

MaxPB said:

rcs1000 said:

ydoethur said:

Anyway, on a slightly different topic:

Can anyone tell me why our nuclear generation is down by 50% on six weeks ago? It isn't exactly helping with our gas reserves.

Nuclear plants tend to have quite a lot of unscheduled maintenance downtime.

It's the inevitable consequence of having (and containing) radioactive material. All those alpha and beta particles and gamma rays are energy. As they bump into things, they are absorbed, and that (over time) makes said things brittle and prone to leak.

This is also why, after a certain age, nuclear plants end up being decommissioned - simply maintenance cost overwhelms any benefits from abundant fuel.

That's why SMRs make so much sense, it distributes that downtime into smaller units which makes it much more manageable.

It's quite a narrow time window to get a serious program going, though.
Ideally government would have some up with the funding at least a couple of years ago.

HYUFD said:

LostPassword said:

HYUFD said:

LostPassword said:

tlg86 said:

Stuartinromford said:

LostPassword said:

Stuartinromford said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Stuartinromford said:

Sandpit said:

darkage said:

Sunak should put it to a vote and let the headbangers lose. They need to face up to the reality that no one outside of their bubble cares about their concerns. On my estimation they have about 7 more years to make Brexit work and improve their levels of support amongst the working age population otherwise rejoin will come back on to the political agenda in a big way. As every year goes by, Leave/ERG lose a large tranche of their impassioned supporters because they are overwhelmingly old.

The issue is that the vast majority of the potential benefits are not being taken, and the constant prioritisation of the NI stuff doesn’t help. Where’s the serious deregulation, the free zones, the incentives for businesses and startups to locate in the UK? Every damn government department should have a massive Bill up for debate this year, and there should be a minister on the news every morning with a positive vision for the future. Yet nothing.

But Treasury authodoxy, and managed declinism, are still ruling the roost in No.10. If the government want to see a 1997 result, rather than a 1992 result, they’re going exactly the right way about it.

Easy. It's the same reason that Lexiteers haven't got the Socialist Republic of Britain that they voted Leave to secure.

EU regulations weren't the only thing stopping the UK deregulating massively, or swinging hard to the left. They were the visible roadblock, but they weren't the only factor. Massive deregulation hasn't got a mandate from the British public and probably wouldn't be all that popular. Consider the way that the government can't loosen up planning restrictions, even thoughs have never had anything to do with Europe.

The bulk of the Brexit vote, the bulk of the VL campaign was a mandate to divert EU subs to the NHS, mostly a vote by pensioners for pensioners. Oh, and less Eastern Europeans on the streets too.

So to those who voted leave to get more dramatic change, sorry. You have to dance with the one who brung ya.

For those who want more dramatic change, they now need to win a General Election.

Boris Johnson may be the one who led the Leave campaign and got us over the line for Brexit, but he won't be PM forever. *checks notes* Actually he's already not PM, so the 'one who brung ya' has already disappeared into the sunset.

That's the whole point of 'taking back control'. We decide, democratically, who we want in Parliament at the elections. And if our Parliamentarians do a bad job, we can change them at the next election, as is likely as it stands in many seats next time.

That's democracy, and that's why Brexit was a good idea. Sacrificing democracy is not worthwhile.

Some truth in that, but I was really responding to the "why hasn't the government radically deregulated" question. And as you say, there's no mandate so far for that. But it does leave two questions.

First one goes like this. A lot of the Brexit vote came from retired homeowners, who I think you and I would agree are doing a reasonable job of running the country into the ground because they're not interested in anything beyond their lifespan. From their point of view, Parliamentarians can be doing an excellent job, as long as they turn the national seedcorn into cake for tomorrow. When Brexit backers allied themselves with a bunch of selfish shortighted fools to get the vote over the line, what did they think was going to happen?

Second, suppose that what the UK actually wants is a somewhat different flavour of Butskellism to our near neighbours, and that our input into the democratic processes of Europe aren't enough to secure that. (After all, you can say that the democracy of the EU is incomplete or fuzzy, but it's a stretch to say that it's not democratic. And if the UK doesn't always get its way... well, that's democracy.) At what does separation become more hassle than it's worth?

Worth remembering that, in the latest YouGov opinion poll, that gave Labour a 50-22 lead among the population as a whole, the Tories still led by 40-30 in the 65+ age group.

If Labour do win the next election it will be the first time the oldies have lost a national UK vote for, well, almost a generation. That would in many respects be a greater political shift than the partisan one from Tories to Labour.

Bigger question- when was the last time that that cohort (born in the 50s Boomers) lost a vote?

Possibly 2005:

https://electionreview.labourtogether.uk/chapters/the-scale-of-the-defeat

Those born between 1946 and 1955 broke for the Tories in 2005.

Definitions of the boomer generation include those born up until 1964, so would be those aged 41-59 at the 2005GE. They would still have voted for Labour over the Tories in 2005.

It's closer if you end the boomer generation in 1959.

Yes but on that basis most of those aged 41 to 50 in 2005 are now voting Starmer Labour anyway.

Only the majority of those over 65 are still voting Tory

Those aged 41-59 in 2005 are now aged 59-77. I think that age group is pretty strongly Tory at the moment.

Labour leads with 59 to 65 year olds

Yay! - my people are with me. At last.

At the Cairngorm brewery in Aviemore as Kate Forbes makes a campaign speech on the economy.

Kate Forbes says the deposit return scheme - the Scottish Government’s flagship recycling scheme - could cause “economic carnage”.

Forbes confirms if she becomes First Minister the DRS would be paused while a review of the policy is carried out. She says businesses need “breathing space”.


https://twitter.com/Dennynews/status/1630161935554560001?s=20

Driver said:

HYUFD said:

Sean_F said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

Driver said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

YBarddCwsc said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

YBarddCwsc said:

geoffw said:

It's odd that so many here on a political betting site describe the DUP and ERG as bonkers. They are far from that, being quite rational, calculating and disciplined in their political positioning. Where they differ from those calling them bonkers is in their values and aspirations for NI.

It helps to be bonkers. The ERG seems to have been pretty successful in terms of obtaining political goals over the last decades. (True, the DUP are both bonkers and been unsuccessful ).

Let's, e.g., compare it to politicians who are keen on reducing wealth inequality. This is a political goal that has gone backwards over the last decades (or at best stagnated). No matter who is in power, there has been pretty meagre progress.

As we are (probably) coming to an end of a period of Tory rule, it is instructive to consider how Tory Governments (first Thatcher and then the Brexiteers) have changed the UK very dramatically.

By comparison, the Labour Governments of my lifetime -- though sometimes competent and sometimes incompetent -- have not achieved any comparably lasting changes in the UK.

I'm no fan of the last Labour government, but the last Labour Government achieved some lasting changes in the UK. Notably more equality for homosexuality, although that was a global phenomenon and they fell short of legalising equality in marriage itself which fell to David Cameron to achieve.

Devolution and BoE independence too, and the Minimum Wage.

What's remarkable though is that almost everything that the last Labour Government achieved was done in 1997/98. I'd be curious if even the most ardent of Labour supporters can name any lasting changes that were introduced from 1999 onwards?

Minimum wage -- I grant you. The Tories would never introduced that. But, it has not had much effect in reducing wealth inequality. So, in my book, it falls into the category of tinkering at the edges.

Devolution has been a disaster for Wales. It is poorer now that it was before 1999. The standard of Government has been abysmally low.

I will leave our Scottish posters to describe whether devolution has been good for Scotland.

You didn't ask for changes for the better, just lasting changes. Devolution certainly is a lasting change, even if it hasn't improved things.

On the same basis, perhaps you could include our indebtedness now as a lasting change brought about by Labour, but I don't know anyone from Labour who admits that was intentional, unlike devolution.

Increase in debt under last Labour government: £681bn. Increase in debt under current Tory government: £1,543bn. And counting.

That's a legacy of the deficit that Labour bequeathed.

Unless you think the Tories could or should have implemented a form of austerity so severe they ran a neutral budget from year one?

It was a legacy of the worst global financial crisis since WW2.

Which thanks to Brown's decade of preparation we were uniquely well-placed to weather?

You think Gordon Brown should have shut down the City and dug a big hole in the Midlands to sell commodities to China? Well, it worked for Australia.

If he'd been running a budget surplus as he should have for that stage of the economic cycle, then the deficit spending would have been far less significant afterwards and purely cyclical.

I’d say that Labour’s biggest long-term failure was letting house prices rip from 1999 to 2007.

2007 was the year that levels of home ownership began falling.

Plus not imposing transition controls on free movement from the new accession nations in 2004 unlike Germany

That wasn't a failure, it was a deliberate policy decision and very successful in its own terms...

The failure was in not winning public support for the policy. Although Blair understandably has a strong election-winning reputation, his record on persuading people is very weak. He lost public support for the war in Iraq. He failed to win public support for membership of the Euro. He failed to win support for a Blairite successor as PM.

This is why the lasting legacies of his government identified by Barty, were those policies that he inherited from John Smith. When he tried to change public opinion he failed, and most of the time he didn't even try. The people who manage to change a country do so by winning a political argument and changing public opinion. That's how Thatcher won support for curbing the power of the Unions and privatisation. That's how Osborne won support for austerity. It's how Johnson won support for Brexit.

Which politician will next win a political argument and consequently change the country?

LostPassword said:

Driver said:

HYUFD said:

Sean_F said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

Driver said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

YBarddCwsc said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

YBarddCwsc said:

geoffw said:

It's odd that so many here on a political betting site describe the DUP and ERG as bonkers. They are far from that, being quite rational, calculating and disciplined in their political positioning. Where they differ from those calling them bonkers is in their values and aspirations for NI.

It helps to be bonkers. The ERG seems to have been pretty successful in terms of obtaining political goals over the last decades. (True, the DUP are both bonkers and been unsuccessful ).

Let's, e.g., compare it to politicians who are keen on reducing wealth inequality. This is a political goal that has gone backwards over the last decades (or at best stagnated). No matter who is in power, there has been pretty meagre progress.

As we are (probably) coming to an end of a period of Tory rule, it is instructive to consider how Tory Governments (first Thatcher and then the Brexiteers) have changed the UK very dramatically.

By comparison, the Labour Governments of my lifetime -- though sometimes competent and sometimes incompetent -- have not achieved any comparably lasting changes in the UK.

I'm no fan of the last Labour government, but the last Labour Government achieved some lasting changes in the UK. Notably more equality for homosexuality, although that was a global phenomenon and they fell short of legalising equality in marriage itself which fell to David Cameron to achieve.

Devolution and BoE independence too, and the Minimum Wage.

What's remarkable though is that almost everything that the last Labour Government achieved was done in 1997/98. I'd be curious if even the most ardent of Labour supporters can name any lasting changes that were introduced from 1999 onwards?

Minimum wage -- I grant you. The Tories would never introduced that. But, it has not had much effect in reducing wealth inequality. So, in my book, it falls into the category of tinkering at the edges.

Devolution has been a disaster for Wales. It is poorer now that it was before 1999. The standard of Government has been abysmally low.

I will leave our Scottish posters to describe whether devolution has been good for Scotland.

You didn't ask for changes for the better, just lasting changes. Devolution certainly is a lasting change, even if it hasn't improved things.

On the same basis, perhaps you could include our indebtedness now as a lasting change brought about by Labour, but I don't know anyone from Labour who admits that was intentional, unlike devolution.

Increase in debt under last Labour government: £681bn. Increase in debt under current Tory government: £1,543bn. And counting.

That's a legacy of the deficit that Labour bequeathed.

Unless you think the Tories could or should have implemented a form of austerity so severe they ran a neutral budget from year one?

It was a legacy of the worst global financial crisis since WW2.

Which thanks to Brown's decade of preparation we were uniquely well-placed to weather?

You think Gordon Brown should have shut down the City and dug a big hole in the Midlands to sell commodities to China? Well, it worked for Australia.

If he'd been running a budget surplus as he should have for that stage of the economic cycle, then the deficit spending would have been far less significant afterwards and purely cyclical.

I’d say that Labour’s biggest long-term failure was letting house prices rip from 1999 to 2007.

2007 was the year that levels of home ownership began falling.

Plus not imposing transition controls on free movement from the new accession nations in 2004 unlike Germany

That wasn't a failure, it was a deliberate policy decision and very successful in its own terms...

The failure was in not winning public support for the policy. Although Blair understandably has a strong election-winning reputation, his record on persuading people is very weak. He lost public support for the war in Iraq. He failed to win public support for membership of the Euro. He failed to win support for a Blairite successor as PM.

This is why the lasting legacies of his government identified by Barty, were those policies that he inherited from John Smith. When he tried to change public opinion he failed, and most of the time he didn't even try. The people who manage to change a country do so by winning a political argument and changing public opinion. That's how Thatcher won support for curbing the power of the Unions and privatisation. That's how Osborne won support for austerity. It's how Johnson won support for Brexit.

Which politician will next win a political argument and consequently change the country?

Starmer to be fair to him looks more John Smith than Blair

LostPassword said:

Driver said:

HYUFD said:

Sean_F said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

Driver said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

YBarddCwsc said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

YBarddCwsc said:

geoffw said:

It's odd that so many here on a political betting site describe the DUP and ERG as bonkers. They are far from that, being quite rational, calculating and disciplined in their political positioning. Where they differ from those calling them bonkers is in their values and aspirations for NI.

It helps to be bonkers. The ERG seems to have been pretty successful in terms of obtaining political goals over the last decades. (True, the DUP are both bonkers and been unsuccessful ).

Let's, e.g., compare it to politicians who are keen on reducing wealth inequality. This is a political goal that has gone backwards over the last decades (or at best stagnated). No matter who is in power, there has been pretty meagre progress.

As we are (probably) coming to an end of a period of Tory rule, it is instructive to consider how Tory Governments (first Thatcher and then the Brexiteers) have changed the UK very dramatically.

By comparison, the Labour Governments of my lifetime -- though sometimes competent and sometimes incompetent -- have not achieved any comparably lasting changes in the UK.

I'm no fan of the last Labour government, but the last Labour Government achieved some lasting changes in the UK. Notably more equality for homosexuality, although that was a global phenomenon and they fell short of legalising equality in marriage itself which fell to David Cameron to achieve.

Devolution and BoE independence too, and the Minimum Wage.

What's remarkable though is that almost everything that the last Labour Government achieved was done in 1997/98. I'd be curious if even the most ardent of Labour supporters can name any lasting changes that were introduced from 1999 onwards?

Minimum wage -- I grant you. The Tories would never introduced that. But, it has not had much effect in reducing wealth inequality. So, in my book, it falls into the category of tinkering at the edges.

Devolution has been a disaster for Wales. It is poorer now that it was before 1999. The standard of Government has been abysmally low.

I will leave our Scottish posters to describe whether devolution has been good for Scotland.

You didn't ask for changes for the better, just lasting changes. Devolution certainly is a lasting change, even if it hasn't improved things.

On the same basis, perhaps you could include our indebtedness now as a lasting change brought about by Labour, but I don't know anyone from Labour who admits that was intentional, unlike devolution.

Increase in debt under last Labour government: £681bn. Increase in debt under current Tory government: £1,543bn. And counting.

That's a legacy of the deficit that Labour bequeathed.

Unless you think the Tories could or should have implemented a form of austerity so severe they ran a neutral budget from year one?

It was a legacy of the worst global financial crisis since WW2.

Which thanks to Brown's decade of preparation we were uniquely well-placed to weather?

You think Gordon Brown should have shut down the City and dug a big hole in the Midlands to sell commodities to China? Well, it worked for Australia.

If he'd been running a budget surplus as he should have for that stage of the economic cycle, then the deficit spending would have been far less significant afterwards and purely cyclical.

I’d say that Labour’s biggest long-term failure was letting house prices rip from 1999 to 2007.

2007 was the year that levels of home ownership began falling.

Plus not imposing transition controls on free movement from the new accession nations in 2004 unlike Germany

That wasn't a failure, it was a deliberate policy decision and very successful in its own terms...

The failure was in not winning public support for the policy. Although Blair understandably has a strong election-winning reputation, his record on persuading people is very weak. He lost public support for the war in Iraq. He failed to win public support for membership of the Euro. He failed to win support for a Blairite successor as PM.

This is why the lasting legacies of his government identified by Barty, were those policies that he inherited from John Smith. When he tried to change public opinion he failed, and most of the time he didn't even try. The people who manage to change a country do so by winning a political argument and changing public opinion. That's how Thatcher won support for curbing the power of the Unions and privatisation. That's how Osborne won support for austerity. It's how Johnson won support for Brexit.

Which politician will next win a political argument and consequently change the country?

Being pedantic, you could argue that there was support for a Blairite successor in David Cameron who went on to win the most seats in 2010 and outright in 2015.

HYUFD said:

LostPassword said:

Driver said:

HYUFD said:

Sean_F said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

Driver said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

YBarddCwsc said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

YBarddCwsc said:

geoffw said:

It's odd that so many here on a political betting site describe the DUP and ERG as bonkers. They are far from that, being quite rational, calculating and disciplined in their political positioning. Where they differ from those calling them bonkers is in their values and aspirations for NI.

It helps to be bonkers. The ERG seems to have been pretty successful in terms of obtaining political goals over the last decades. (True, the DUP are both bonkers and been unsuccessful ).

Let's, e.g., compare it to politicians who are keen on reducing wealth inequality. This is a political goal that has gone backwards over the last decades (or at best stagnated). No matter who is in power, there has been pretty meagre progress.

As we are (probably) coming to an end of a period of Tory rule, it is instructive to consider how Tory Governments (first Thatcher and then the Brexiteers) have changed the UK very dramatically.

By comparison, the Labour Governments of my lifetime -- though sometimes competent and sometimes incompetent -- have not achieved any comparably lasting changes in the UK.

I'm no fan of the last Labour government, but the last Labour Government achieved some lasting changes in the UK. Notably more equality for homosexuality, although that was a global phenomenon and they fell short of legalising equality in marriage itself which fell to David Cameron to achieve.

Devolution and BoE independence too, and the Minimum Wage.

What's remarkable though is that almost everything that the last Labour Government achieved was done in 1997/98. I'd be curious if even the most ardent of Labour supporters can name any lasting changes that were introduced from 1999 onwards?

Minimum wage -- I grant you. The Tories would never introduced that. But, it has not had much effect in reducing wealth inequality. So, in my book, it falls into the category of tinkering at the edges.

Devolution has been a disaster for Wales. It is poorer now that it was before 1999. The standard of Government has been abysmally low.

I will leave our Scottish posters to describe whether devolution has been good for Scotland.

You didn't ask for changes for the better, just lasting changes. Devolution certainly is a lasting change, even if it hasn't improved things.

On the same basis, perhaps you could include our indebtedness now as a lasting change brought about by Labour, but I don't know anyone from Labour who admits that was intentional, unlike devolution.

Increase in debt under last Labour government: £681bn. Increase in debt under current Tory government: £1,543bn. And counting.

That's a legacy of the deficit that Labour bequeathed.

Unless you think the Tories could or should have implemented a form of austerity so severe they ran a neutral budget from year one?

It was a legacy of the worst global financial crisis since WW2.

Which thanks to Brown's decade of preparation we were uniquely well-placed to weather?

You think Gordon Brown should have shut down the City and dug a big hole in the Midlands to sell commodities to China? Well, it worked for Australia.

If he'd been running a budget surplus as he should have for that stage of the economic cycle, then the deficit spending would have been far less significant afterwards and purely cyclical.

I’d say that Labour’s biggest long-term failure was letting house prices rip from 1999 to 2007.

2007 was the year that levels of home ownership began falling.

Plus not imposing transition controls on free movement from the new accession nations in 2004 unlike Germany

That wasn't a failure, it was a deliberate policy decision and very successful in its own terms...

The failure was in not winning public support for the policy. Although Blair understandably has a strong election-winning reputation, his record on persuading people is very weak. He lost public support for the war in Iraq. He failed to win public support for membership of the Euro. He failed to win support for a Blairite successor as PM.

This is why the lasting legacies of his government identified by Barty, were those policies that he inherited from John Smith. When he tried to change public opinion he failed, and most of the time he didn't even try. The people who manage to change a country do so by winning a political argument and changing public opinion. That's how Thatcher won support for curbing the power of the Unions and privatisation. That's how Osborne won support for austerity. It's how Johnson won support for Brexit.

Which politician will next win a political argument and consequently change the country?

Starmer to be fair to him looks more John Smith than Blair

In policies, maybe, but what political argument has he taken to the country?

He never even took a political argument to his own leadership election campaign, instead saying what people wanted to hear during that then doing the opposite afterwards.

Blair at least had his own Clause IV moment. Starmer isn't even doing that, yet.

BartholomewRoberts said:

noneoftheabove said:

Sandpit said:

Driver said:

Razedabode said:

HYUFD said:

Fishing said:

CorrectHorseBattery3 said:

https://inews.co.uk/news/politics/labour-pledges-to-relax-planning-rules-to-help-young-people-buy-homes-2175055

YES, FINALLY.

Labour pledges to help young people buy homes by relaxing planning rules

All parties promise this in opposition and ditch it in government when NIMBYs wear them down.

Starmer is the last person to face down determined opposition, so I imagine this proposal will face the same fate as all the previous ones.

There are fewer NIMBYS in inner city Labour heartlands than rural areas and suburban areas and commuter towns.

So Labour don't need the votes of NIMBYS as much as the Tories and LDs

I think most have continually underestimated Starmers ability to “get on” and make a impact. It’ll be the same here.

The devil will be in the details. "Protections for renters" will surely constrain rental supply - will that really be outweighed by a massive housebuilding programme - and how do people who can't afford to save for a deposit because they have to rent get to buy the new houses?

The government appears to be doing a pretty good job already of constraining rental supply, with policies around mortgage interest allowance and capital depreciation.

The answer is build more houses. Build More Houses. BUILD. LOTS. MORE. HOUSES.

Nothing else will work, except perhaps banning immigration until more houses are built.

We need immigrants to build the new houses........

Loads of industries are already heavily short of workers so can't "just raise wages".

Raise wages and let unproductive jobs that can't, die.

Or pay people enough that having a job makes them better off than being on benefits.

And mechanise - tax breaks for using machines, instead of people. Productivity and all that. 12 Polish blokes all trying to lift a 2m x 3m glass panel up a scaffold is a sign that somethings fucked. This isn’t ancient Egypt. Use a crane like the French do.

And stop the insanity of withdrawing benefits so fast that more hours of work only gets you 50p or something stupid.

BartholomewRoberts said:

noneoftheabove said:

Sandpit said:

Driver said:

Razedabode said:

HYUFD said:

Fishing said:

CorrectHorseBattery3 said:

https://inews.co.uk/news/politics/labour-pledges-to-relax-planning-rules-to-help-young-people-buy-homes-2175055

YES, FINALLY.

Labour pledges to help young people buy homes by relaxing planning rules

All parties promise this in opposition and ditch it in government when NIMBYs wear them down.

Starmer is the last person to face down determined opposition, so I imagine this proposal will face the same fate as all the previous ones.

There are fewer NIMBYS in inner city Labour heartlands than rural areas and suburban areas and commuter towns.

So Labour don't need the votes of NIMBYS as much as the Tories and LDs

I think most have continually underestimated Starmers ability to “get on” and make a impact. It’ll be the same here.

The devil will be in the details. "Protections for renters" will surely constrain rental supply - will that really be outweighed by a massive housebuilding programme - and how do people who can't afford to save for a deposit because they have to rent get to buy the new houses?

The government appears to be doing a pretty good job already of constraining rental supply, with policies around mortgage interest allowance and capital depreciation.

The answer is build more houses. Build More Houses. BUILD. LOTS. MORE. HOUSES.

Nothing else will work, except perhaps banning immigration until more houses are built.

We need immigrants to build the new houses........

Loads of industries are already heavily short of workers so can't "just raise wages".

Raise wages and let unproductive jobs that can't, die.

Given a large chunk of those jobs that we are short of are in the public sector (and possibly the new turbo charged house building too?) then that requires increasing taxes by several %. Whilst I may be in favour I know the electorate won't be and so do the politicians.

OldKingCole said:

Sandpit said:

Driver said:

Razedabode said:

HYUFD said:

Fishing said:

CorrectHorseBattery3 said:

https://inews.co.uk/news/politics/labour-pledges-to-relax-planning-rules-to-help-young-people-buy-homes-2175055

YES, FINALLY.

Labour pledges to help young people buy homes by relaxing planning rules

All parties promise this in opposition and ditch it in government when NIMBYs wear them down.

Starmer is the last person to face down determined opposition, so I imagine this proposal will face the same fate as all the previous ones.

There are fewer NIMBYS in inner city Labour heartlands than rural areas and suburban areas and commuter towns.

So Labour don't need the votes of NIMBYS as much as the Tories and LDs

I think most have continually underestimated Starmers ability to “get on” and make a impact. It’ll be the same here.

The devil will be in the details. "Protections for renters" will surely constrain rental supply - will that really be outweighed by a massive housebuilding programme - and how do people who can't afford to save for a deposit because they have to rent get to buy the new houses?

The government appears to be doing a pretty good job already of constraining rental supply, with policies around mortgage interest allowance and capital depreciation.

The answer is build more houses. Build More Houses. BUILD. LOTS. MORE. HOUSES.

Nothing else will work, except perhaps banning immigration until more houses are built.

In a village nearby work has stopped on a small new estate; the first houses were built, put on the market (about a year ago) and are still unsold! They are priced at around £450,000, though.

And a belated good morning to one and all.

The current planning environment also encourages building of the ‘wrong’ type of housing, concentrating on the top end of the market, and social housing, rather than the middle where most people want to buy.

My suggestion would be for government to take a good look at the various companies building modular housing units, which are much cheaper than regular construction and more energy-efficient. The role of government being to set standards of construction and warranty, that make these properties mortgageable. You can build a million houses really quite quickly, if they come off a production line.

Off topic. I don't mind The Toon losing yesterday. After all, we don't win anything.

However, I'd rather we had lost to somebody other than the Mancs.

At least they ended their "trophy drought".

If that was a drought, we must be the Atacama Desert.

Differing views:

It's not just the fact that the King is getting dragged into politics that is bizarre - it's the fact that he's being dragged into *Northern Ireland politics*.

https://twitter.com/KevinASchofield/status/1630168307155324929?s=20

Who would have thought that the king of (literally) a united kingdom would be used to keep that kingdom united.

https://mobile.twitter.com/davidallengreen

I’m sure neither the King or Ursula are going to get into the politics - she’s in the U.K. anyway to see her son in Oxford…

BartholomewRoberts said:

noneoftheabove said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

noneoftheabove said:

Sandpit said:

Driver said:

Razedabode said:

HYUFD said:

Fishing said:

CorrectHorseBattery3 said:

https://inews.co.uk/news/politics/labour-pledges-to-relax-planning-rules-to-help-young-people-buy-homes-2175055

YES, FINALLY.

Labour pledges to help young people buy homes by relaxing planning rules

All parties promise this in opposition and ditch it in government when NIMBYs wear them down.

Starmer is the last person to face down determined opposition, so I imagine this proposal will face the same fate as all the previous ones.

There are fewer NIMBYS in inner city Labour heartlands than rural areas and suburban areas and commuter towns.

So Labour don't need the votes of NIMBYS as much as the Tories and LDs

I think most have continually underestimated Starmers ability to “get on” and make a impact. It’ll be the same here.

The devil will be in the details. "Protections for renters" will surely constrain rental supply - will that really be outweighed by a massive housebuilding programme - and how do people who can't afford to save for a deposit because they have to rent get to buy the new houses?

The government appears to be doing a pretty good job already of constraining rental supply, with policies around mortgage interest allowance and capital depreciation.

The answer is build more houses. Build More Houses. BUILD. LOTS. MORE. HOUSES.

Nothing else will work, except perhaps banning immigration until more houses are built.

We need immigrants to build the new houses........

Loads of industries are already heavily short of workers so can't "just raise wages".

Raise wages and let unproductive jobs that can't, die.

Given a large chunk of those jobs that we are short of are in the public sector (and possibly the new turbo charged house building too?) then that requires increasing taxes by several %. Whilst I may be in favour I know the electorate won't be and so do the politicians.

No, it requires culling unproductive jobs and letting productive ones get a higher wage.

No need to increase taxes to do that.

Or do you think the UK's public sector is emblematic of the best of productivity in recent years?

Pay rates will have some gradual impact on getting workers into the most productive jobs, but its slow and gradual.

The construction industry is expecting 250k shortages by 2026 without a massive new housebuilding scheme.

If we also want turbo boosted housing, it means finding 500k or so workers from other industries.

I don't think that can be achieved without immigration, in the short term that turbo boosting implies.

noneoftheabove said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

noneoftheabove said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

noneoftheabove said:

Sandpit said:

Driver said:

Razedabode said:

HYUFD said:

Fishing said:

CorrectHorseBattery3 said:

https://inews.co.uk/news/politics/labour-pledges-to-relax-planning-rules-to-help-young-people-buy-homes-2175055

YES, FINALLY.

Labour pledges to help young people buy homes by relaxing planning rules

All parties promise this in opposition and ditch it in government when NIMBYs wear them down.

Starmer is the last person to face down determined opposition, so I imagine this proposal will face the same fate as all the previous ones.

There are fewer NIMBYS in inner city Labour heartlands than rural areas and suburban areas and commuter towns.

So Labour don't need the votes of NIMBYS as much as the Tories and LDs

I think most have continually underestimated Starmers ability to “get on” and make a impact. It’ll be the same here.

The devil will be in the details. "Protections for renters" will surely constrain rental supply - will that really be outweighed by a massive housebuilding programme - and how do people who can't afford to save for a deposit because they have to rent get to buy the new houses?

The government appears to be doing a pretty good job already of constraining rental supply, with policies around mortgage interest allowance and capital depreciation.

The answer is build more houses. Build More Houses. BUILD. LOTS. MORE. HOUSES.

Nothing else will work, except perhaps banning immigration until more houses are built.

We need immigrants to build the new houses........

Loads of industries are already heavily short of workers so can't "just raise wages".

Raise wages and let unproductive jobs that can't, die.

Given a large chunk of those jobs that we are short of are in the public sector (and possibly the new turbo charged house building too?) then that requires increasing taxes by several %. Whilst I may be in favour I know the electorate won't be and so do the politicians.

No, it requires culling unproductive jobs and letting productive ones get a higher wage.

No need to increase taxes to do that.

Or do you think the UK's public sector is emblematic of the best of productivity in recent years?

Pay rates will have some gradual impact on getting workers into the most productive jobs, but its slow and gradual.

The construction industry is expecting 250k shortages by 2026 without a massive new housebuilding scheme.

If we also want turbo boosted housing, it means finding 500k or so workers from other industries.

I don't think that can be achieved without immigration, in the short term that turbo boosting implies.

Its certainly slow and gradual if you don't actually boost the wages, and just mouth off to the media and politicians so you can import people to work for minimum wage instead.

If the construction industry raises its own productivity much of that 250k shortage would disappear (eg replace 12 folks lifting materials with 2 operating a machine), and attracting people out of minimum wage labour elsewhere by offering better wages can make up the rest of the difference.

NickPalmer said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

I'm no fan of the last Labour government, but the last Labour Government achieved some lasting changes in the UK. Notably more equality for homosexuality, although that was a global phenomenon and they fell short of legalising equality in marriage itself which fell to David Cameron to achieve.

Devolution and BoE independence too, and the Minimum Wage.

What's remarkable though is that almost everything that the last Labour Government achieved was done in 1997/98. I'd be curious if even the most ardent of Labour supporters can name any lasting changes that were introduced from 1999 onwards?

It depends a bit what one calls "lasting" (since literally nothing lasts forever). But in terms of impact of everyday life for most people, the huge drop in waiting times for the NHS was the most visible achievement - done partly by outsourcing to the private sector, so very Third Way.

Now reversed, of course, but for a while a lot of people in urgent need got swift treatment that they'd otherwise have had to wait years to get.

Tax credits, introduced in 2033, have been transformative for many.

Nigelb said:

Sean_F said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

Driver said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

YBarddCwsc said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

YBarddCwsc said:

geoffw said:

It's odd that so many here on a political betting site describe the DUP and ERG as bonkers. They are far from that, being quite rational, calculating and disciplined in their political positioning. Where they differ from those calling them bonkers is in their values and aspirations for NI.

It helps to be bonkers. The ERG seems to have been pretty successful in terms of obtaining political goals over the last decades. (True, the DUP are both bonkers and been unsuccessful ).

Let's, e.g., compare it to politicians who are keen on reducing wealth inequality. This is a political goal that has gone backwards over the last decades (or at best stagnated). No matter who is in power, there has been pretty meagre progress.

As we are (probably) coming to an end of a period of Tory rule, it is instructive to consider how Tory Governments (first Thatcher and then the Brexiteers) have changed the UK very dramatically.

By comparison, the Labour Governments of my lifetime -- though sometimes competent and sometimes incompetent -- have not achieved any comparably lasting changes in the UK.

I'm no fan of the last Labour government, but the last Labour Government achieved some lasting changes in the UK. Notably more equality for homosexuality, although that was a global phenomenon and they fell short of legalising equality in marriage itself which fell to David Cameron to achieve.

Devolution and BoE independence too, and the Minimum Wage.

What's remarkable though is that almost everything that the last Labour Government achieved was done in 1997/98. I'd be curious if even the most ardent of Labour supporters can name any lasting changes that were introduced from 1999 onwards?

Minimum wage -- I grant you. The Tories would never introduced that. But, it has not had much effect in reducing wealth inequality. So, in my book, it falls into the category of tinkering at the edges.

Devolution has been a disaster for Wales. It is poorer now that it was before 1999. The standard of Government has been abysmally low.

I will leave our Scottish posters to describe whether devolution has been good for Scotland.

You didn't ask for changes for the better, just lasting changes. Devolution certainly is a lasting change, even if it hasn't improved things.

On the same basis, perhaps you could include our indebtedness now as a lasting change brought about by Labour, but I don't know anyone from Labour who admits that was intentional, unlike devolution.

Increase in debt under last Labour government: £681bn. Increase in debt under current Tory government: £1,543bn. And counting.

That's a legacy of the deficit that Labour bequeathed.

Unless you think the Tories could or should have implemented a form of austerity so severe they ran a neutral budget from year one?

It was a legacy of the worst global financial crisis since WW2.

Which thanks to Brown's decade of preparation we were uniquely well-placed to weather?

You think Gordon Brown should have shut down the City and dug a big hole in the Midlands to sell commodities to China? Well, it worked for Australia.

If he'd been running a budget surplus as he should have for that stage of the economic cycle, then the deficit spending would have been far less significant afterwards and purely cyclical.

I’d say that Labour’s biggest long-term failure was letting house prices rip from 1999 to 2007.

2007 was the year that levels of home ownership began falling.

It's a fair point.
Had they seriously prioritised housebuilding, it might also have pre-emptively defused the weaponisation of immigration.

From June 1997 to June 2007, average house prices rose by 204%. Since 2007, they've risen by a further 58%, which is actually lower than the rise in inflation and nominal wages over that period. Relative to wages, houses are more affordable now than in 2007 (obviously, Greater London is the big exception to that).

https://landregistry.data.gov.uk/app/ukhpi/browse?from=1997-06-01&location=http://landregistry.data.gov.uk/id/region/united-kingdom&to=2023-01-01&lang=en

Such a rise in prices is not just bad in itself, it fuelled over-consumption, dodgy lending practices, and also kept a lot of businesses alive that ought to have died (any number of bad business decisions can be covered if the owners' house is rising rapidly in value).

CarlottaVance said:

Differing views:

It's not just the fact that the King is getting dragged into politics that is bizarre - it's the fact that he's being dragged into *Northern Ireland politics*.

https://twitter.com/KevinASchofield/status/1630168307155324929?s=20

Who would have thought that the king of (literally) a united kingdom would be used to keep that kingdom united.

https://mobile.twitter.com/davidallengreen

I’m sure neither the King or Ursula are going to get into the politics - she’s in the U.K. anyway to see her son in Oxford…

Bit of a coincidence she chose the same date as a NI protocol deal, mind.

HYUFD said:

CarlottaVance said:

Differing views:

It's not just the fact that the King is getting dragged into politics that is bizarre - it's the fact that he's being dragged into *Northern Ireland politics*.

https://twitter.com/KevinASchofield/status/1630168307155324929?s=20

Who would have thought that the king of (literally) a united kingdom would be used to keep that kingdom united.

https://mobile.twitter.com/davidallengreen

I’m sure neither the King or Ursula are going to get into the politics - she’s in the U.K. anyway to see her son in Oxford…

Perhaps he is at the same college Boris or JRM or Rishi or Sir Keir went to?

Whether British Leaver or EU
Remainer, Tory or Labour, Oxford still wins either way in terms of educating the elite! The King being an exception having gone to....Cambridge

Pity it has done such a poor job with some of the elite

Big_G_NorthWales said:

HYUFD said:

CarlottaVance said:

Differing views:

It's not just the fact that the King is getting dragged into politics that is bizarre - it's the fact that he's being dragged into *Northern Ireland politics*.

https://twitter.com/KevinASchofield/status/1630168307155324929?s=20

Who would have thought that the king of (literally) a united kingdom would be used to keep that kingdom united.

https://mobile.twitter.com/davidallengreen

I’m sure neither the King or Ursula are going to get into the politics - she’s in the U.K. anyway to see her son in Oxford…

Perhaps he is at the same college Boris or JRM or Rishi or Sir Keir went to?

Whether British Leaver or EU
Remainer, Tory or Labour, Oxford still wins either way in terms of educating the elite! The King being an exception having gone to....Cambridge

Pity it has done such a poor job with some of the elite

Hear hear.

Stuartpreviouslyincambridge

Malmesbury said:

Driver said:

eek said:

Sean_F said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

Driver said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

YBarddCwsc said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

YBarddCwsc said:

geoffw said:

It's odd that so many here on a political betting site describe the DUP and ERG as bonkers. They are far from that, being quite rational, calculating and disciplined in their political positioning. Where they differ from those calling them bonkers is in their values and aspirations for NI.

It helps to be bonkers. The ERG seems to have been pretty successful in terms of obtaining political goals over the last decades. (True, the DUP are both bonkers and been unsuccessful ).

Let's, e.g., compare it to politicians who are keen on reducing wealth inequality. This is a political goal that has gone backwards over the last decades (or at best stagnated). No matter who is in power, there has been pretty meagre progress.

As we are (probably) coming to an end of a period of Tory rule, it is instructive to consider how Tory Governments (first Thatcher and then the Brexiteers) have changed the UK very dramatically.

By comparison, the Labour Governments of my lifetime -- though sometimes competent and sometimes incompetent -- have not achieved any comparably lasting changes in the UK.

I'm no fan of the last Labour government, but the last Labour Government achieved some lasting changes in the UK. Notably more equality for homosexuality, although that was a global phenomenon and they fell short of legalising equality in marriage itself which fell to David Cameron to achieve.

Devolution and BoE independence too, and the Minimum Wage.

What's remarkable though is that almost everything that the last Labour Government achieved was done in 1997/98. I'd be curious if even the most ardent of Labour supporters can name any lasting changes that were introduced from 1999 onwards?

Minimum wage -- I grant you. The Tories would never introduced that. But, it has not had much effect in reducing wealth inequality. So, in my book, it falls into the category of tinkering at the edges.

Devolution has been a disaster for Wales. It is poorer now that it was before 1999. The standard of Government has been abysmally low.

I will leave our Scottish posters to describe whether devolution has been good for Scotland.

You didn't ask for changes for the better, just lasting changes. Devolution certainly is a lasting change, even if it hasn't improved things.

On the same basis, perhaps you could include our indebtedness now as a lasting change brought about by Labour, but I don't know anyone from Labour who admits that was intentional, unlike devolution.

Increase in debt under last Labour government: £681bn. Increase in debt under current Tory government: £1,543bn. And counting.

That's a legacy of the deficit that Labour bequeathed.

Unless you think the Tories could or should have implemented a form of austerity so severe they ran a neutral budget from year one?

It was a legacy of the worst global financial crisis since WW2.

Which thanks to Brown's decade of preparation we were uniquely well-placed to weather?

You think Gordon Brown should have shut down the City and dug a big hole in the Midlands to sell commodities to China? Well, it worked for Australia.

If he'd been running a budget surplus as he should have for that stage of the economic cycle, then the deficit spending would have been far less significant afterwards and purely cyclical.

I’d say that Labour’s biggest long-term failure was letting house prices rip from 1999 to 2007.

2007 was the year that levels of home ownership began falling.

Not sure Labour could have donw much about it.

Banks shifted their lending criteria from 3x+1x earnings to 4x joint earnings and prices across the country increased to reflect the additional money people could borrow (for good and bad).I watched it happen down south in 2001/2 and then up north between 2003/4....

Brown wasn't shy about regulating the banks.

The problem is, he regulated all the wrong things...

Every CDO trader had lodged a photocopy of their passport with HR.

They had all completed their multiple choice exams (or got the desk junior to do it for them) - in how not to commit fraud. “An Orc from Mordor emails you, claiming to have a large stash of Mithril, following the fall of the Barad- Dur. Do you (a) help him sell it on the metals exchange, bypassing all regulations…. (e) call compliance”

And that's who to primarily blame for crashing the financial system. Those who did it, not those who supposedly provoked it by being lax or complacent. Similar to Putin and Ukraine.

BartholomewRoberts said:

noneoftheabove said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

noneoftheabove said:

Sandpit said:

Driver said:

Razedabode said:

HYUFD said:

Fishing said:

CorrectHorseBattery3 said:

https://inews.co.uk/news/politics/labour-pledges-to-relax-planning-rules-to-help-young-people-buy-homes-2175055

YES, FINALLY.

Labour pledges to help young people buy homes by relaxing planning rules

All parties promise this in opposition and ditch it in government when NIMBYs wear them down.

Starmer is the last person to face down determined opposition, so I imagine this proposal will face the same fate as all the previous ones.

There are fewer NIMBYS in inner city Labour heartlands than rural areas and suburban areas and commuter towns.

So Labour don't need the votes of NIMBYS as much as the Tories and LDs

I think most have continually underestimated Starmers ability to “get on” and make a impact. It’ll be the same here.

The devil will be in the details. "Protections for renters" will surely constrain rental supply - will that really be outweighed by a massive housebuilding programme - and how do people who can't afford to save for a deposit because they have to rent get to buy the new houses?

The government appears to be doing a pretty good job already of constraining rental supply, with policies around mortgage interest allowance and capital depreciation.

The answer is build more houses. Build More Houses. BUILD. LOTS. MORE. HOUSES.

Nothing else will work, except perhaps banning immigration until more houses are built.

We need immigrants to build the new houses........

Loads of industries are already heavily short of workers so can't "just raise wages".

Raise wages and let unproductive jobs that can't, die.

Given a large chunk of those jobs that we are short of are in the public sector (and possibly the new turbo charged house building too?) then that requires increasing taxes by several %. Whilst I may be in favour I know the electorate won't be and so do the politicians.

No, it requires culling unproductive jobs and letting productive ones get a higher wage.

No need to increase taxes to do that.

Or do you think the UK's public sector is emblematic of the best of productivity in recent years?

I would also add that I'd do away with central pay scales for public sector pay and let negotiation happen at a much more localised level. That would reduce my the number of areas where the private sector is crowded our and also reduce the number of areas where there is a shortage in staff needed.

Ratters said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

noneoftheabove said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

noneoftheabove said:

Sandpit said:

Driver said:

Razedabode said:

HYUFD said:

Fishing said:

CorrectHorseBattery3 said:

https://inews.co.uk/news/politics/labour-pledges-to-relax-planning-rules-to-help-young-people-buy-homes-2175055

YES, FINALLY.

Labour pledges to help young people buy homes by relaxing planning rules

All parties promise this in opposition and ditch it in government when NIMBYs wear them down.

Starmer is the last person to face down determined opposition, so I imagine this proposal will face the same fate as all the previous ones.

There are fewer NIMBYS in inner city Labour heartlands than rural areas and suburban areas and commuter towns.

So Labour don't need the votes of NIMBYS as much as the Tories and LDs

I think most have continually underestimated Starmers ability to “get on” and make a impact. It’ll be the same here.

The devil will be in the details. "Protections for renters" will surely constrain rental supply - will that really be outweighed by a massive housebuilding programme - and how do people who can't afford to save for a deposit because they have to rent get to buy the new houses?

The government appears to be doing a pretty good job already of constraining rental supply, with policies around mortgage interest allowance and capital depreciation.

The answer is build more houses. Build More Houses. BUILD. LOTS. MORE. HOUSES.

Nothing else will work, except perhaps banning immigration until more houses are built.

We need immigrants to build the new houses........

Loads of industries are already heavily short of workers so can't "just raise wages".

Raise wages and let unproductive jobs that can't, die.

Given a large chunk of those jobs that we are short of are in the public sector (and possibly the new turbo charged house building too?) then that requires increasing taxes by several %. Whilst I may be in favour I know the electorate won't be and so do the politicians.

No, it requires culling unproductive jobs and letting productive ones get a higher wage.

No need to increase taxes to do that.

Or do you think the UK's public sector is emblematic of the best of productivity in recent years?

I would also add that I'd do away with central pay scales for public sector pay and let negotiation happen at a much more localised level. That would reduce my the number of areas where the private sector is crowded our and also reduce the number of areas where there is a shortage in staff needed.

In which case you'd need more staff to administer them ...

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Betty Boothroyd dies

A great lady

RiP

RIP indeed she was a better Speaker than the 3 that have followed her certainly.

She also won West Bromwich West for Labour unlike the last Labour MP there who lost it in 2019

Nigelb said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Good morning, everyone.

FPT: Mr. Rabbit, funny you should mention Alonso. I put a small bet on him to 'win' each way (podium bet may be better, but market wasn't up then and I think the odds might change) at 19 each way, third the odds top two.

Both Leclerc and Sainz made a few errors last year and both are still going to have to handle the Ferrari strategy team. Alonso in an Aston Martin could be Red Bull's biggest threat.

Is that for the season or the first race ?
If the latter, I suspect wasted money.

Mercedes will be solidly in third place behind Ferrari by the third or fourth race, I think.

“Mercedes will be solidly in third place behind Ferrari by the third or fourth race, I think.”

Mr Dancer and I are in agreement, so that’s “courageous” of you to think up wild contradictionary predictions like that, Nige. 😇

As a rule of thumb, those who were solid last year are still ahead of the curve whilst those who struggled last year are still behind the curve. Mercedes still struggling, so no title record for Lewis this year. They still got the same flipping vibration issue. Considering F1 is not about drivers but engineering, It’s a long way back for Mercedes, not three races and back up with Ferrari and Aston Martin. Mercedes likely only 4th in this years constructors come the end. McLaren are even worse so it’s torrid start to the season for Lando sadly, because I like him but also feel if you put him in same car as Hamilton and Verstappen he could better both. But he chose to tie himself into long McLaren contract, so will now get less points this year than last year.

The main pressure to Verstappen this year will come from Alonso in an Aston Martin. This is due to how long the Aston Martin can go before having to stop - and times competitive with Ferrari, red ball and Mercedes obviously - but the lack of tyre wear being their strong suit.

kinabalu said:

Malmesbury said:

Driver said:

eek said:

Sean_F said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

Driver said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

YBarddCwsc said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

YBarddCwsc said:

geoffw said:

It's odd that so many here on a political betting site describe the DUP and ERG as bonkers. They are far from that, being quite rational, calculating and disciplined in their political positioning. Where they differ from those calling them bonkers is in their values and aspirations for NI.

It helps to be bonkers. The ERG seems to have been pretty successful in terms of obtaining political goals over the last decades. (True, the DUP are both bonkers and been unsuccessful ).

Let's, e.g., compare it to politicians who are keen on reducing wealth inequality. This is a political goal that has gone backwards over the last decades (or at best stagnated). No matter who is in power, there has been pretty meagre progress.

As we are (probably) coming to an end of a period of Tory rule, it is instructive to consider how Tory Governments (first Thatcher and then the Brexiteers) have changed the UK very dramatically.

By comparison, the Labour Governments of my lifetime -- though sometimes competent and sometimes incompetent -- have not achieved any comparably lasting changes in the UK.

I'm no fan of the last Labour government, but the last Labour Government achieved some lasting changes in the UK. Notably more equality for homosexuality, although that was a global phenomenon and they fell short of legalising equality in marriage itself which fell to David Cameron to achieve.

Devolution and BoE independence too, and the Minimum Wage.

What's remarkable though is that almost everything that the last Labour Government achieved was done in 1997/98. I'd be curious if even the most ardent of Labour supporters can name any lasting changes that were introduced from 1999 onwards?

Minimum wage -- I grant you. The Tories would never introduced that. But, it has not had much effect in reducing wealth inequality. So, in my book, it falls into the category of tinkering at the edges.

Devolution has been a disaster for Wales. It is poorer now that it was before 1999. The standard of Government has been abysmally low.

I will leave our Scottish posters to describe whether devolution has been good for Scotland.

You didn't ask for changes for the better, just lasting changes. Devolution certainly is a lasting change, even if it hasn't improved things.

On the same basis, perhaps you could include our indebtedness now as a lasting change brought about by Labour, but I don't know anyone from Labour who admits that was intentional, unlike devolution.

Increase in debt under last Labour government: £681bn. Increase in debt under current Tory government: £1,543bn. And counting.

That's a legacy of the deficit that Labour bequeathed.

Unless you think the Tories could or should have implemented a form of austerity so severe they ran a neutral budget from year one?

It was a legacy of the worst global financial crisis since WW2.

Which thanks to Brown's decade of preparation we were uniquely well-placed to weather?

You think Gordon Brown should have shut down the City and dug a big hole in the Midlands to sell commodities to China? Well, it worked for Australia.

If he'd been running a budget surplus as he should have for that stage of the economic cycle, then the deficit spending would have been far less significant afterwards and purely cyclical.

I’d say that Labour’s biggest long-term failure was letting house prices rip from 1999 to 2007.

2007 was the year that levels of home ownership began falling.

Not sure Labour could have donw much about it.

Banks shifted their lending criteria from 3x+1x earnings to 4x joint earnings and prices across the country increased to reflect the additional money people could borrow (for good and bad).I watched it happen down south in 2001/2 and then up north between 2003/4....

Brown wasn't shy about regulating the banks.

The problem is, he regulated all the wrong things...

Every CDO trader had lodged a photocopy of their passport with HR.

They had all completed their multiple choice exams (or got the desk junior to do it for them) - in how not to commit fraud. “An Orc from Mordor emails you, claiming to have a large stash of Mithril, following the fall of the Barad- Dur. Do you (a) help him sell it on the metals exchange, bypassing all regulations…. (e) call compliance”

And that's who to primarily blame for crashing the financial system. Those who did it, not those who supposedly provoked it by being lax or complacent. Similar to Putin and Ukraine.

Not really, since there isn't anybody whose job it really was to stop Putin invading Ukraine in the way that it was J. Gordon Brown's job to regulate the City,

Stuartinromford said:

dixiedean said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

noneoftheabove said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

noneoftheabove said:

Sandpit said:

Driver said:

Razedabode said:

HYUFD said:

Fishing said:

CorrectHorseBattery3 said:

https://inews.co.uk/news/politics/labour-pledges-to-relax-planning-rules-to-help-young-people-buy-homes-2175055

YES, FINALLY.

Labour pledges to help young people buy homes by relaxing planning rules

All parties promise this in opposition and ditch it in government when NIMBYs wear them down.

Starmer is the last person to face down determined opposition, so I imagine this proposal will face the same fate as all the previous ones.

There are fewer NIMBYS in inner city Labour heartlands than rural areas and suburban areas and commuter towns.

So Labour don't need the votes of NIMBYS as much as the Tories and LDs

I think most have continually underestimated Starmers ability to “get on” and make a impact. It’ll be the same here.

The devil will be in the details. "Protections for renters" will surely constrain rental supply - will that really be outweighed by a massive housebuilding programme - and how do people who can't afford to save for a deposit because they have to rent get to buy the new houses?

The government appears to be doing a pretty good job already of constraining rental supply, with policies around mortgage interest allowance and capital depreciation.

The answer is build more houses. Build More Houses. BUILD. LOTS. MORE. HOUSES.

Nothing else will work, except perhaps banning immigration until more houses are built.

We need immigrants to build the new houses........

Loads of industries are already heavily short of workers so can't "just raise wages".

Raise wages and let unproductive jobs that can't, die.

Given a large chunk of those jobs that we are short of are in the public sector (and possibly the new turbo charged house building too?) then that requires increasing taxes by several %. Whilst I may be in favour I know the electorate won't be and so do the politicians.

No, it requires culling unproductive jobs and letting productive ones get a higher wage.

No need to increase taxes to do that.

Or do you think the UK's public sector is emblematic of the best of productivity in recent years?

And how do you determine productive and unproductive public sector jobs?
Goodness knows folk have tried.
Does raising a Social Workers case load from 30 to 100 make them more or less productive?

One of the fallouts of Thatcherism is that the roles where there was money to be made from automation and reducing headcount have been privatised. The state is largely left with the roles that nobody has worked out how to do that for. And then we end up with...

Baumol’s cost disease, a bit of economics jargon that means sectors that aren’t getting more productive, often one’s involving a lot of human contact, see costs going up because they have to compete for staff against sectors that are. Of course healthcare can be made more productive through technology, and because of capital underinvestment the NHS IT systems are dire, but ultimately caring professions are just going to keep sucking up an ever greater part of our collective income.

https://open.substack.com/pub/samf/p/is-the-nhs-in-a-death-spiral?utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=email

To make it concrete, if pay goes up for other physics graduate jobs, physics teachers are likely to become more expensive, because otherwise physics teachers become physics something-else-ers. And that's true even if there's nothing you can do to make physics teachers become more productive.

Abolish national pay scales and let the market decide pay rates instead.

If physics teachers are in high demand, then pay them more. If there's an overabundance of people available to teach say English* instead, then pay them proportionately less.

Why pay English and Physics teachers the same, if they're not in the same demand and supply?

* Replace English with any other subject as appropriate, if this answer is not appropriate.

BartholomewRoberts said:

Stuartinromford said:

dixiedean said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

noneoftheabove said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

noneoftheabove said:

Sandpit said:

Driver said:

Razedabode said:

HYUFD said:

Fishing said:

CorrectHorseBattery3 said:

https://inews.co.uk/news/politics/labour-pledges-to-relax-planning-rules-to-help-young-people-buy-homes-2175055

YES, FINALLY.

Labour pledges to help young people buy homes by relaxing planning rules

All parties promise this in opposition and ditch it in government when NIMBYs wear them down.

Starmer is the last person to face down determined opposition, so I imagine this proposal will face the same fate as all the previous ones.

There are fewer NIMBYS in inner city Labour heartlands than rural areas and suburban areas and commuter towns.

So Labour don't need the votes of NIMBYS as much as the Tories and LDs

I think most have continually underestimated Starmers ability to “get on” and make a impact. It’ll be the same here.

The devil will be in the details. "Protections for renters" will surely constrain rental supply - will that really be outweighed by a massive housebuilding programme - and how do people who can't afford to save for a deposit because they have to rent get to buy the new houses?

The government appears to be doing a pretty good job already of constraining rental supply, with policies around mortgage interest allowance and capital depreciation.

The answer is build more houses. Build More Houses. BUILD. LOTS. MORE. HOUSES.

Nothing else will work, except perhaps banning immigration until more houses are built.

We need immigrants to build the new houses........

Loads of industries are already heavily short of workers so can't "just raise wages".

Raise wages and let unproductive jobs that can't, die.

Given a large chunk of those jobs that we are short of are in the public sector (and possibly the new turbo charged house building too?) then that requires increasing taxes by several %. Whilst I may be in favour I know the electorate won't be and so do the politicians.

No, it requires culling unproductive jobs and letting productive ones get a higher wage.

No need to increase taxes to do that.

Or do you think the UK's public sector is emblematic of the best of productivity in recent years?

And how do you determine productive and unproductive public sector jobs?
Goodness knows folk have tried.
Does raising a Social Workers case load from 30 to 100 make them more or less productive?

One of the fallouts of Thatcherism is that the roles where there was money to be made from automation and reducing headcount have been privatised. The state is largely left with the roles that nobody has worked out how to do that for. And then we end up with...

Baumol’s cost disease, a bit of economics jargon that means sectors that aren’t getting more productive, often one’s involving a lot of human contact, see costs going up because they have to compete for staff against sectors that are. Of course healthcare can be made more productive through technology, and because of capital underinvestment the NHS IT systems are dire, but ultimately caring professions are just going to keep sucking up an ever greater part of our collective income.

https://open.substack.com/pub/samf/p/is-the-nhs-in-a-death-spiral?utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=email

To make it concrete, if pay goes up for other physics graduate jobs, physics teachers are likely to become more expensive, because otherwise physics teachers become physics something-else-ers. And that's true even if there's nothing you can do to make physics teachers become more productive.

Abolish national pay scales and let the market decide pay rates instead.

If physics teachers are in high demand, then pay them more. If there's an overabundance of people available to teach say English* instead, then pay them proportionately less.

Why pay English and Physics teachers the same, if they're not in the same demand and supply?

* Replace English with any other subject as appropriate, if this answer is not appropriate.

I'm not sure you'd get away with it. After all, working for a supermarket in a warehouse and working for a supermarket on the tills are officially the same job that need to be paid the same.

Mr. Dean, two points:
1) F1 does not go in circules
2) Monaco is not 'very fast'

Carnyx said:

Ratters said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

noneoftheabove said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

noneoftheabove said:

Sandpit said:

Driver said:

Razedabode said:

HYUFD said:

Fishing said:

CorrectHorseBattery3 said:

https://inews.co.uk/news/politics/labour-pledges-to-relax-planning-rules-to-help-young-people-buy-homes-2175055

YES, FINALLY.

Labour pledges to help young people buy homes by relaxing planning rules

All parties promise this in opposition and ditch it in government when NIMBYs wear them down.

Starmer is the last person to face down determined opposition, so I imagine this proposal will face the same fate as all the previous ones.

There are fewer NIMBYS in inner city Labour heartlands than rural areas and suburban areas and commuter towns.

So Labour don't need the votes of NIMBYS as much as the Tories and LDs

I think most have continually underestimated Starmers ability to “get on” and make a impact. It’ll be the same here.

The devil will be in the details. "Protections for renters" will surely constrain rental supply - will that really be outweighed by a massive housebuilding programme - and how do people who can't afford to save for a deposit because they have to rent get to buy the new houses?

The government appears to be doing a pretty good job already of constraining rental supply, with policies around mortgage interest allowance and capital depreciation.

The answer is build more houses. Build More Houses. BUILD. LOTS. MORE. HOUSES.

Nothing else will work, except perhaps banning immigration until more houses are built.

We need immigrants to build the new houses........

Loads of industries are already heavily short of workers so can't "just raise wages".

Raise wages and let unproductive jobs that can't, die.

Given a large chunk of those jobs that we are short of are in the public sector (and possibly the new turbo charged house building too?) then that requires increasing taxes by several %. Whilst I may be in favour I know the electorate won't be and so do the politicians.

No, it requires culling unproductive jobs and letting productive ones get a higher wage.

No need to increase taxes to do that.

Or do you think the UK's public sector is emblematic of the best of productivity in recent years?

I would also add that I'd do away with central pay scales for public sector pay and let negotiation happen at a much more localised level. That would reduce my the number of areas where the private sector is crowded our and also reduce the number of areas where there is a shortage in staff needed.

In which case you'd need more staff to administer them ...

You are Sir Humphrey Appleby and I claim my £5.

BartholomewRoberts said:

Stuartinromford said:

dixiedean said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

noneoftheabove said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

noneoftheabove said:

Sandpit said:

Driver said:

Razedabode said:

HYUFD said:

Fishing said:

CorrectHorseBattery3 said:

https://inews.co.uk/news/politics/labour-pledges-to-relax-planning-rules-to-help-young-people-buy-homes-2175055

YES, FINALLY.

Labour pledges to help young people buy homes by relaxing planning rules

All parties promise this in opposition and ditch it in government when NIMBYs wear them down.

Starmer is the last person to face down determined opposition, so I imagine this proposal will face the same fate as all the previous ones.

There are fewer NIMBYS in inner city Labour heartlands than rural areas and suburban areas and commuter towns.

So Labour don't need the votes of NIMBYS as much as the Tories and LDs

I think most have continually underestimated Starmers ability to “get on” and make a impact. It’ll be the same here.

The devil will be in the details. "Protections for renters" will surely constrain rental supply - will that really be outweighed by a massive housebuilding programme - and how do people who can't afford to save for a deposit because they have to rent get to buy the new houses?

The government appears to be doing a pretty good job already of constraining rental supply, with policies around mortgage interest allowance and capital depreciation.

The answer is build more houses. Build More Houses. BUILD. LOTS. MORE. HOUSES.

Nothing else will work, except perhaps banning immigration until more houses are built.

We need immigrants to build the new houses........

Loads of industries are already heavily short of workers so can't "just raise wages".

Raise wages and let unproductive jobs that can't, die.

Given a large chunk of those jobs that we are short of are in the public sector (and possibly the new turbo charged house building too?) then that requires increasing taxes by several %. Whilst I may be in favour I know the electorate won't be and so do the politicians.

No, it requires culling unproductive jobs and letting productive ones get a higher wage.

No need to increase taxes to do that.

Or do you think the UK's public sector is emblematic of the best of productivity in recent years?

And how do you determine productive and unproductive public sector jobs?
Goodness knows folk have tried.
Does raising a Social Workers case load from 30 to 100 make them more or less productive?

One of the fallouts of Thatcherism is that the roles where there was money to be made from automation and reducing headcount have been privatised. The state is largely left with the roles that nobody has worked out how to do that for. And then we end up with...

Baumol’s cost disease, a bit of economics jargon that means sectors that aren’t getting more productive, often one’s involving a lot of human contact, see costs going up because they have to compete for staff against sectors that are. Of course healthcare can be made more productive through technology, and because of capital underinvestment the NHS IT systems are dire, but ultimately caring professions are just going to keep sucking up an ever greater part of our collective income.

https://open.substack.com/pub/samf/p/is-the-nhs-in-a-death-spiral?utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=email

To make it concrete, if pay goes up for other physics graduate jobs, physics teachers are likely to become more expensive, because otherwise physics teachers become physics something-else-ers. And that's true even if there's nothing you can do to make physics teachers become more productive.

Abolish national pay scales and let the market decide pay rates instead.

If physics teachers are in high demand, then pay them more. If there's an overabundance of people available to teach say English* instead, then pay them proportionately less.

Why pay English and Physics teachers the same, if they're not in the same demand and supply?

* Replace English with any other subject as appropriate, if this answer is not appropriate.

We've had this debate before.
There simply isn't a surplus of teachers in any subject anywhere these days.
The pay of English teachers wouldn't fall.
If you let the market decide the rate of teachers' pay to fill every post with a permanent member of staff, you are proposing either a massive increase in the education budget, or hundreds, if not thousands of bankrupted schools.

Stuartinromford said:

dixiedean said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

noneoftheabove said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

noneoftheabove said:

Sandpit said:

Driver said:

Razedabode said:

HYUFD said:

Fishing said:

CorrectHorseBattery3 said:

https://inews.co.uk/news/politics/labour-pledges-to-relax-planning-rules-to-help-young-people-buy-homes-2175055

YES, FINALLY.

Labour pledges to help young people buy homes by relaxing planning rules

All parties promise this in opposition and ditch it in government when NIMBYs wear them down.

Starmer is the last person to face down determined opposition, so I imagine this proposal will face the same fate as all the previous ones.

There are fewer NIMBYS in inner city Labour heartlands than rural areas and suburban areas and commuter towns.

So Labour don't need the votes of NIMBYS as much as the Tories and LDs

I think most have continually underestimated Starmers ability to “get on” and make a impact. It’ll be the same here.

The devil will be in the details. "Protections for renters" will surely constrain rental supply - will that really be outweighed by a massive housebuilding programme - and how do people who can't afford to save for a deposit because they have to rent get to buy the new houses?

The government appears to be doing a pretty good job already of constraining rental supply, with policies around mortgage interest allowance and capital depreciation.

The answer is build more houses. Build More Houses. BUILD. LOTS. MORE. HOUSES.

Nothing else will work, except perhaps banning immigration until more houses are built.

We need immigrants to build the new houses........

Loads of industries are already heavily short of workers so can't "just raise wages".

Raise wages and let unproductive jobs that can't, die.

Given a large chunk of those jobs that we are short of are in the public sector (and possibly the new turbo charged house building too?) then that requires increasing taxes by several %. Whilst I may be in favour I know the electorate won't be and so do the politicians.

No, it requires culling unproductive jobs and letting productive ones get a higher wage.

No need to increase taxes to do that.

Or do you think the UK's public sector is emblematic of the best of productivity in recent years?

And how do you determine productive and unproductive public sector jobs?
Goodness knows folk have tried.
Does raising a Social Workers case load from 30 to 100 make them more or less productive?

One of the fallouts of Thatcherism is that the roles where there was money to be made from automation and reducing headcount have been privatised. The state is largely left with the roles that nobody has worked out how to do that for. And then we end up with...

Baumol’s cost disease, a bit of economics jargon that means sectors that aren’t getting more productive, often one’s involving a lot of human contact, see costs going up because they have to compete for staff against sectors that are. Of course healthcare can be made more productive through technology, and because of capital underinvestment the NHS IT systems are dire, but ultimately caring professions are just going to keep sucking up an ever greater part of our collective income.

https://open.substack.com/pub/samf/p/is-the-nhs-in-a-death-spiral?utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=email

To make it concrete, if pay goes up for other physics graduate jobs, physics teachers are likely to become more expensive, because otherwise physics teachers become physics something-else-ers. And that's true even if there's nothing you can do to make physics teachers become more productive.

In physics teachers produce more good quality physics students for universities isn't that an increase in productivity?